We'll see about them becoming a medical device, but it will take a lot of effort to get it to that level.
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
We'll see about them becoming a medical device, but it will take a lot of effort to get it to that level.
So, I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it seems like an odd direction to take this discussion.
This feature is not for you. Does that make sense? Over 400 million people with diabetes in the world.
[doublepost=1494949780][/doublepost]
Exactly. My iPhone does the technical calculations for my Dexcom sensor to tell me what my bloodsugar is at all time. No reason why not to cut out the middle man and put the functionality directly into the watch, if possible.
But since you're the kind of person who believes if there's a source or backed by scientists. But here's our conversation last year. I just leave it here and it's up to you to believe it or not.
Me: Hey Tim, I like those watch bands that you just released.
Tim: I LOVE it!...(conversation continues) "I tell you what, I like them better than the Apple Watch itself."
Me: Yeah why not! You customize and personalize your watch, make it pretty.
Tim: Yeah, but there's more than that. I make more money than the watch itself. The board is really happy with the result.
No. I just prefer a validated source when somebody indicates something about what the CEO of a company stated, more so your fabricated post about Watch bands. But since you're all about generalizations and deflecting, I appreciate the noted sarcasm, in which your post is frivolous in terms of what you're stating being accurate. But Thank you for your reply confirming the inaccuracies behind your original post and for that matter, your most recent post, clearly indicates how far fetched it is.
Last edited:
[doublepost=1494951200][/doublepost]I would think that it should be covered by insurance. They pay for my meter and strips so this should be something that would be covered.
Many types of tests today that are non-invasive were previously only available with invasive technology.
The article clearly mentions that they are working on it, not that they are using existing off-the-shelf technology that's available today. I don't think anyone has claimed they are using existing technology.
There is an approved glucose test in Europe that is far less invasive. It doesn't require lances, test strips, or even contact with blood; and it can be used repeatedly/continuously.
For me, it wouldn't have to be terribly precise. Merely giving me a ballpark figure would be very helpful. But you are correct that so far we have not seen an accurate non-invasive measurement of blood sugar. I also don't know what the legal implications would be of having an "inaccurate" reading.
Quite a few years ago there was a glass ampule type of thing that could be injected/inserted under the skin that could do the job of estimating blood glucose. I have a friend who has injected a similar shape/size RFID tag under the skin of his hand. He uses his hand for many RFID key-door things in his life. (In fact your pet cat probably has the same type of RFID tag injected - mine does).
For a patient diagnosed with diabetes, maybe it is not such a big invasive deal to have to inject some sort of glass capsule under the skin, if it could really help measure blood sugar.
Anyway - technology advances, and I would bet that less invasive methods will be developed. There is a need for it.
It might seem difficult or "close to impossible" as you say to non-invasively measure blood glucose. But once you see how the magic trick of doing that is done, you might say, "well yeah, I guess you could do it that way".
Just look at helicopters! Did you know that for 20+ years it was thought that many helicopter designs were inherently unstable and not worthwhile? I know some of the guys that had to work to find the solutions despite the aerodynamics textbooks telling him it was "damn close to impossible". The advances came from the TOY industry - NOT from Darpa grants or Lockheed Skunkworks.
These days we have many very cool helicopter designs! People look at them and say "yeah, I guess you could do it that way", but they didn't do anything at all - it took someone trying to accomplish "the damn near impossible".
All it takes is a fragment of a "success" to spark the imagination of the next inventor. If he can see the light because of some seemingly small advancement, he will take it to the next level and eventually we get a breakthrough!
I'm positive that the problem (of non-invasively measuring blood glucose) will be solved one way or another.
Not quite correct. Insulin resistance can be caused by a variety of factors. But 90-95% of those with Type II Diabetes are overweight. It's not merely a coincidence. The most likely type of obesity to cause insulin resistance is visceral obesity, or fat within the stomach region. You can read more about it here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038351/
The other small percentage of Type II Diabetics have other factors to blame. Sometimes there's nothing we can do to prevent it. It's either caused by a pancreas producing very little or no insulin or mechanisms of the body being resistant to insulin. You don't need to be obese to get it, but being obese is reported for, like I said, 90-95% of all cases of Type II Diabetes. I also know very fit Type II Diabetics. Exercise helps them with insulin resistance as certain forms of exercise can increase insulin sensitivity in spite of insulin resistance.
I'm probably overestimating the % of diabetics who are just like me because you tend to disproportionately notice the outliers who fall into your own small bucket, but the other part of what I said is valid. We're not sure what causes diabetes. We know the risk factors. Obesity is the overwhelming risk factor, but just how that ends up giving people insulin resistance is fuzzy. The vast majority of people who are diabetic are obese, but not all obese people are diabetic and there are people like me who've never had a BMI anywhere near obese in our lifetimes and somehow we're unlucky enough to have Type 2.
This is a good summary of the dilemma
Of course you can.
Unless you are ultra fit, in which case you have a point. I'm coming from the angle where people are overweight with little lean muscle .
I've actually lost weight and got stronger.....
Fair enough. And yeah, the US alone is around 70% overweight and obesity is increasing every year. It's mind-boggling. I fear I may be one of those fit Type II Diabetics within the next 10 years as my pancreas is starting to cause issues. Like I need anymore body issues, lol. But uh yeah ... Apple Watch and such.
Yep.
Are you in the prediabetic category right now? If you're fit and on the path to T2D as I am, get yourself a blood glucose monitor and start testing after meals to learn which foods and how much of that food is elevating your blood glucose the most. I'm technically not a Type 2 diabetic as my numbers range between normal and borderline, but if I wasn't doing dietary interventions, I'd easily be Type 2.
The things you discover when you take your blood glucose readings 30 minutes and an hour after meals is mind boggling. It's overwhelming at first, but once you get the hang of it, it's tremendously valuable in helping you control your numbers. The earlier you gain control of your numbers, the better off you'll be in the long run. I was borderline as of 8 years ago and I stopped progressing toward T2D 5 years ago when I started testing after meals and used that guide my dietary choices.
The level of knowledge I've developed through this method is really really specific, but it's specific to me. I know I have a max tolerance of about 60g for cooked white rice, but 110g if it's Mexican Rice cooked in a fatty broth. It's not as straight forward as the generic diabetic advice tells you. The usual advice of eating whole grains and cutting back on sugar is a good place to start, but hardly effective because my tolerance for brown rice is barely higher. I could do a lot of damage to myself thinking that I was making much better choices just because I replaced white rice with whole grain rice.
Last edited:
The doctor thought I may be pre-diabetic based on my last blood test, but I haven't gone back yet. Getting some good insurance soon so that shouldn't be an issue anymore. It's also possible that I'm hypoglycemic (the fluctuations are ridiculous). I'll need to get more testing done this year and monitor my glucose levels better. I'll definitely take your advice. I'm only 32 so all this stuff bothers me, lol. I'm already pretty OCD with my diet, so any changes i need to make won't be a big deal, but it will just add another layer of nonsense on top of everything else I'm dealing with.
Eesh. Well thanks for the advice. And good luck maintaining your health.
That puts you right around the same age I was when I first started noticing that I was trending in the T2D direction, but wasn't yet worried. Yes, definitely do something about this. I'll send you a link to a helpful place to start that's not too overwhelming.
BTW, I was editing when you replied, and I wanted to make sure you saw this because it illustrates how powerful specific testing after meals is.
Thanks. I appreciate the help.
The glucose testing for the Apple Watch is sounding more enticing all the time.
Yes. However, that doesn't fulfill the "non-invasive" criterion at all. That needle is quite invasive.
[doublepost=1494969741][/doublepost]
Those are… invasive.
I'm with you. The amount of people who would really benefit from constant monitoring are very minimal. Like all of these things that rely on proxies and algorithms it probably won't be particularly accurate either.
You think Apple will sell a glucose monitor in a band that does not require a watch to work?
Way to intentionally misunderstand what I'm saying. I never said that or implied that.
Apple will make a glucose monitor in a band that DOES require the watch to work. However, until they start selling the bands, Apple does not need to get FDA approval for the watch/band combo.
It would be a huge turnaround for normally risky-application-averse Apple to get into something that requires FDA approval, with all the possible later lawsuits.
I think it's much more likely that they would either buy or spin off a company to make such sensors, which would either attach to or communicate with the Apple Watch.
But no way would Apple sell it under its own name. IMHO, of course.
OTOH, if they're crazy enough to take on autonomous car software, who knows? Apple liability lawyers must be spinning in their chairs
I think it's much more likely that they would either buy or spin off a company to make such sensors, which would either attach to or communicate with the Apple Watch.
But no way would Apple sell it under its own name. IMHO, of course.
OTOH, if they're crazy enough to take on autonomous car software, who knows? Apple liability lawyers must be spinning in their chairs
Mary Tyler Moore had Type 1 Diabetes, not Type 2. I believe she was diagnosed as an adult though, which many are.