Your argument: "It hasn't been done, therefore they can't do it." despite your qualification.There is no current non-invasive way to measure blood glucose in the medical industry - if there was, every diabetic would already be using it and we'd be using it in hospitals. We just aren't. Most of the devices floating about now are hit & miss, not very accurate and require calibrating with an actual blood sample.
I'm not saying it's impossible that Apple might come up with it, but it's pretty damn close to impossible. Plus, I doubt Apple is going to attempt to go down the road of making the Apple Watch a 'medical grade' device - slightly more hoops to jump over there (FDA in the US for a start)... for good reason. If it's not accurate, it will cost lives.
People who think blood glucose can be detected the same way the pulse is detected on the watch (using differential absorption of light), clearly have no understanding of physiology, physics or biochemistry... current monitors make a lot of assumptions.
And for non-diabetics, what the hell are you going to do with the data - the signal to noise ratio shrinks even further, yet we think we're all 'well informed'. The Dunning-Kruger effect on display.
What a dumb commentPeople have survived for 1000s of years without such technologies. "near-necessity" is a bit of a stretch.
It's a tough choice then. Do I spend £350 on a Apple Watch or £10 on a dedicated Blood Monitor kit? Ah stuff it. Let laziness win the day.
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.What a dumb comment
With Type II Diabetics ... losing weight and getting healthy can greatly help or completely get rid of Type II Diabetes.
For blood sugar levels, it can't be wrong, but it may not need to be very accurate to be useful.
I have no knowledge on the subject, but I would think $200B in the bank allows for some heavy research and development. Maybe they figured out a new method? Who knows. Health seems to be a major focus for the company moving forward.
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!"
I have a Series 0. The Series 1 and 2 did not sway me to upgrade one bit. But Series 3 with Glucose monitoring? That could sway me.
I have a Series 0. The Series 1 and 2 did not sway me to upgrade one bit. But Series 3 with Glucose monitoring? That could sway me.
Just under 90% of people with type II diabetes are overweight.
does the average person need glucose monitoring?
There is no current non-invasive way to measure blood glucose in the medical industry - if there was, every diabetic would already be using it and we'd be using it in hospitals. We just aren't. Most of the devices floating about now are hit & miss, not very accurate and require calibrating with an actual blood sample.
Your ignorant comments show you know absolutely nothing in regards to DiabetesYes 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.
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.Your ignorant comments show you know absolutely nothing in regards to Diabetes
I need to know if im consuming enough chocolate to get Type 2As a Type-1 diabetic i just can't wrap my head around what a healthy person would use glucose monitoring for. You don't really need to know about your blood glucose level, your pancreas will take care of that.
Don't get me wrong: I personally would love to have that functionality. Adding a working (!) glucose monitoring system to the apple watch would make it an instant buy for my. But please don't make "oh my god! my blood glucose level spiked after breakfest!" the new "I have celiac disease".
I agree with the gist of your post.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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
There is no current non-invasive way to measure blood glucose in the medical industry - if there was, every diabetic would already be using it and we'd be using it in hospitals. We just aren't. Most of the devices floating about now are hit & miss, not very accurate and require calibrating with an actual blood sample.