Opinion: That’s Not A Heart Rate Monitor

[shk718]

I doubt it's anything more than an advanced (meaning very accurate) heart rate monitor. I read somewhere that Apple's version was supposed to be the most accurate. Perhaps they're including oxygenation levels (I'm pretty sure you can do that optically). I bet the rest of the "protrusion" consists of the magnet and such for the wireless charging. Probably also includes the proximity sensor for Apple pay.

Everything I've read about glucose monitoring, for it to be accurate, requires samples - optical versions aren't ready for prime time - there is NO WAY ON EARTH Apple would put a semi-accurate glucose monitor in their phone - it's too important a measure for many people.

 

[P4ulypops]

As a diabetic, I would love to see it have a glucose monitor, but I can't see it happening.

On the other hand, glucose just got re-added on the list from HealthKit.

 

[leenak]

Well I'd say it'd be interesting if it was a glucose monitor but I'd also say a lot of people don't know how to test their glucose. Like a high glucose reading after a meal wouldn't be abnormal. Diabetics generally got that down though. As someone who has diabetes in the family, it is something I acutely aware of and I even have a glucose monitor at home that I use every once in a while, along with my yearly checkups. It'd be nice to get a reading in the morning or see how quickly my blood sugar drops after a meal though.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Jack-Of-All-Trades or Master of One?

There are lots of bands out now w/ optical HRMs. Some, like the one in MS's band take a periodic HR measure and then give the user an avg. Other's like Fitbit's Charge HR constantly measure for a "real time" HR.

But the problem with all of these optical units is they are not nearly as accurate as a chest strap so they really are more of a novelty than actual fitness tool. My HR measured by the Charge HR was 10% under from what my chest strap was reporting at the same time. That can easily be the difference of thinking you are in HR Zone 2 but actually are in Zone 3. So then you push a bit harder to get the band to report you are in Zone 3 and now you are actually in Zone 4.

So the question about the Apple Watch is Apple going to be "me too" when it comes to health and just give it lip service and lots of sensors that ultimate are toys or did they decide to master one sensor at a time to make it a serious health and fitness tool?

We'll see, but if they want the watch to get an official medical device label it has to be the latter. That's partly what makes the watch so exciting to me. It's not going to be just another whimsical activity band that ultimately provides the user with no useful information.

 

[richardjhurst]

It is interesting that Glucose has just been added to The health kit though so maybe there is something in that. But as always until they make an announcement on Monday it's all pure speculation and to be taken with a pinch of salt

 

[Tyler23]

It is interesting that Glucose has just been added to The health kit though so maybe there is something in that. But as always until they make an announcement on Monday it's all pure speculation and to be taken with a pinch of salt

Glucose was included at the beginning, but was removed due to some measuring unit issue or something..it's just been added back because the issue was fixed.

 

[8CoreWhore]

I have an app, 24/7 from MotionX that uses the camera and flash to measure your heart rate.

You place your index finger over both, it lights up so it can "see" your blood flowing using the camera and it measures your heart rate.

The Watch uses infrared light, which is not visible to the human eye - but is visible to the IR sensors, so you don't have this bright light spilling out from under it which would be annoying.

It could be that using 2 lights and 2 sensors is needed for it to be accurate on top of your wrist - to be used reliably as a medical device... The other watches in those photos - were they accurate? No, not reliably to be used as a medical device or useful to athletes who need accurate readings - while moving.

Were they ever as reliable as the Watch will be for people with lots of hair and very dark skin? I doubt it.

http://www.cnet.com/news/how-accurate-are-wristband-heart-rate-monitors/

<<For the casual user looking to get a resting heart rate, wrist-based devices are fine. No manufacturer claims that these bands work for extreme athletes, and most make it clear that this style of band is for casual use only -- never for medical use -- and that they work only when you're still.>>

In other words, they are junk.