Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Future Apple Watch Rumored to Include Glucose Monitoring and Smart Bands
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your argument: "It hasn't been done, therefore they can't do it." despite your qualification.
Also -- blood sugar is very useful for non-diabetics, especially if they dont want to become diabetics. Ask an athlete.
Oh, please don't be so facetious. Those of us who are diabetic would almost certainly opt to spend the £350 on the technology (if it works) because it'll end up costing less than the £10 blood glucose monitor.
I'd gladly spend £350 if it even sort of worked. Even something that's only good enough to spot basic trendlines but still requires you to use a normal blood glucose monitor for specific readings would be of tremendous value.
Yes you are correct, your comment is dumb.... And your non existing retort is worthless. To say monitoring blood sugar is a necessity is just lunacy.
Not quite correct. There are a lot of lean and even athletic type II's out there. I'm one of them and there's at least one other person in my family of the same profile and one of my friends is a marathoner and a Type II. We all developed it before our 40th birthdays.
Being overweight and leading a sedentary lifestyle are not causes of Type II. They're risk factors. We're actually not sure what causes people to become Type II diabetics. It's easy to believe that Type II is a disease of gluttony and sloth because those are the only diabetics you'll ever notice. There are more of us athletic type II's than people realize because we walk around with flashing signs above us that say "we can't possibly be Type II's if we have beach bodies!"
Totally agree. I know that the HR monitor in my wrist worn Fitbit isn't giving me the numbers I would expect if I were wearing a chest strap monitor and there are times when it's wildy inaccurate, but for my needs, it doesn't need to be clinical to be useful. What I get from it is good enough to give me a profile of how my physical health is doing.
I'm a mild Type II and I would welcome a monitor that I could wear that could warn me that my numbers are starting to trend the wrong direction and it might be a good idea to do some stricter monitoring before I have a real problem on my hands. If I could reduce the number of finger pricks just 2 or 3 times a day, it would even pay for itself in a couple of years.
The thing is, there are already devices that do this using ports, and even they're not that accurate and require constant calibration. My father has one. While it gives a decent indicator if your glucose levels are dropping he still has to test his blood. Considering that model actually is connected to your blood I'm not sure how an outside sensor would be any more accurate.
Just under 90% of people with type II diabetes are overweight.
Just by losing weight and increasing exercising, MOST people can beat type II diabetes. Of course, there are always people like Mary Tyler Moore who are thin and have to battle diabetes their entire lives, but that is the exception.
My wife does not have diabetes, but the rest of her family does. This is mainly because they're all obese and she is a healthy weight, exercises and takes care of herself. Of course, she could get it, that's always a risk, but it's unlikely.
http://www.obesity.org/content/weight-diabetes
I do not own an Apple Watch, but if they introduced one that actually monitored my glucose levels accurately, then I would consider buying one.
I also had a series 0. Series 2 did not sway me one bit until recently.
- Annoyed by dim screen outside. It's beginning to be summer again, I'm outside a lot, I'd like to see my screen easier.
- Annoyed by screen going crazy in wet conditions. Water lock on the series 2 is very helpful.
- Can't see the time when I'm in the pool (in the summer, for hours), again, series 2 with water lock is very helpful.
- Siri actually works with the series 2. Love it.
- $85 off at Target
10% is a lot of us in the "other" category. People talk about it like it's 0.5%. It's an even higher than expected number when you consider that many of us in the non-obese group never were obese.
BTW, I'm not offering any excuses to people who poor lifestyle choices. I firmly believe in exercise and good lifestyle practices. I've been exercising regularly for most of my life and my first career was even related to exercise science. There are just a lot of people here making very crude and ignorant comments that they really shouldn't be making.
I also have my doubts about the accuracy of non-invasive monitoring, but I'll keep an open mind until I have something to try.
[doublepost=1494944124][/doublepost]
We don't know because we've never found reason to put average people through the rigors, cost, and pain of regular glucose monitoring. I don't know if you could say they'll *need* it, but it certainly could be useful and I'd be curious what we discovered if we had large sample size data of glucose control over a general population.
Totally agree. Really hope things like this start to take form:
http://www.popsci.com/this-wearable-patch-uses-sweet-to-monitor-blood-glucose-levels
Your ignorant comments show you know absolutely nothing in regards to Diabetes
Again, how is that an necessity for everyone? I weigh 110 and I'm 5'8" and eat almost no refined sugar. Diabetes is not any concern of mine. So again, it's not a necessity for me to watch my glucose levels. If I did, I'd use an approved device, it wouldn't be an Apple Watch.
I agree with the gist of your post.
Though if you really do weight 110lbs at 5'8" tall, you might need to be watching some other issues. That is far below "Underweight". But I guess you already know that.
I'm not under weight it's running season, I go back to around 120 soon
. My point is that people are trying to make the Apple Watch something it will never be and that is a medical device. I'd assume Apple would steer far away from such a classification.
I guess we'll see what they come up with then. Maybe there have been advances? I really don't know, but I'll wait and see.
I'm not under weight it's running season, I go back to around 120 soon
You're still underweight at 120.
At 5'8", you're considered underweight at anything below 125. Normal weight is 125-163. Being underweight is bad for your health.
If you're underweight, you may be at risk for the following health issues:
- Delayed growth and development. This is especially true in children and teens, whose bodies need plenty of nutrients to grow and stay healthy.
- Fragile bones. ...
- Weakened immune system. ...
- Anemia. ...
- Fertility issues. ...
- Hair loss.
Anyways, as far as the Apple Watch becoming a medical device - I definitely think it will be at some point. For example, in the future it will be able to detect heart conditions and initiate an alert to medical personnel and let them know where you are.
Their R&D from even before the watch was announced shows that the watch was meant to be a medical device all along. You aren't following the advances in medical devices and sensors (or....all of the obvious software initiatives Apple has been setting up in preparation) if you think the Watch (and the wearables field) won't ever be a medical device.I'm not under weight it's running season, I go back to around 120 soon
While I can't say it's a necessity, I sure would have welcomed even some vague tracking that might have warned me that I was heading toward becoming a Type II diabetic. I never thought diabetes was a concern of mine either. I'm pretty happy with my "beach body" but at a doctor's visit one day, my doc said I was getting to that age when they start seeing some skinny people come up with Type 2 and wanted me to get an A1C just in case. I humored him and was glad I did. I was borderline (pre-diabetic) at the time and years later, I've been able to keep it from progressing through dietary changes. I just had to give up or greatly cut back a lot of my favorite carby foods.
I already have it pretty good for a type II, but I wish I had an inkling of what was coming a year or two earlier because maybe it would have made managing it easier and maybe I wouldn't have had to give up as many foods.
Chances are, you'll be fine, but if you had the same luck as I did, I guarantee you that you'll wish that you had some foresight of what was coming earlier.
That said, an abundance of foresight is not for everyone. There's a thing as being too obsessed with possible outcomes that it messes up your life because you're so vigilant of every wrong turn that could happen.
Last edited:
Nothing is truly accurate, invasive or not. Same blood drop will give you two different readings. Two checks, a second apart and you get two different readings....
[But there are out there functional noninvasive glucose readers that are approved (but not approved in the US). Check cnoga that needs two weeks calibration and Integrity Applications that needs a calibration that can be completed in one day. Read on their website why for now they target type II only].
Here is how I see things: Abbott Libre (which is "invasive" and sold outside USA, but not approved in the USA) has one "flaw": you need to scan it to get the reading. (and it will then give you the reading of the previous 8 hours). So if you have a low, Libre will not alert you unless you happen to scan.
On the other hand, Libre's full price (without insurance) is cheaper than Dexcom's copay.
All we want from Apple is to alert the "lows." Nothing more. If they do it, then it beautifully complements Abbott Libre. To alert lows is way easier task than to get accurate readings.
I think we are all here on the same side, wanting anyone to succeed.