Apple working on breakthrough glucose sensors for Apple Watch, report says

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 79
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8&index=2&list=PLFBF1D066DA5A1525
    edited April 13 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 22 of 79
    NY1822NY1822 Posts: 266member
    ill just keep adding cinnamon to my egg whites while I wait....
  • Reply 23 of 79
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 1,603member
    sflocal said:
    Hurry up Apple!  The Samsungs of the world are eagerly waiting to rip off your work!
    Er, yo do know thwt Samsung is already heavily invested in the medical devices business?

    http://www.samsung.com/global/business/healthcare/

    if this story is legit then is Apple going to make a low cost device for people to buy or license the technology or work with insurance companies to get them to include Apple Watch as part of people's insurance plans?
    edited April 13
  • Reply 24 of 79
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,179member
    Cool if it works.  Seems like a big if.

    I hope they also have a research team looking into subdermal sensors.
  • Reply 25 of 79
    irelandireland Posts: 16,555member
    Lets wait and see. This is something where there's a huge difference between doing research and shipping a fully regulated product with such important medical functionality. It's not news in the sense that it was already commonly understood Apple were interested in this. Let's wait until something ships before becoming aroused by the possibilities.
    edited April 13
  • Reply 26 of 79
    irelandireland Posts: 16,555member
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    edited April 13 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 27 of 79
    smaffeismaffei Posts: 118member
    I'm a Garmin Forerunner 235 user at the moment, but having this in the Apple Watch would get me to buy one. I'm a "well-controlled" Type II diabetic (yay, Metformin!), and anything that reduces the number of times I have to poke my fingers with something sharp each day is a HUGE selling point. As my endocrinologist points out, we don't know what happens during the time between readings, and my blood glucose could be all over the place or super steady. A non-invasive way to watch the BG response to different foods, different medications, etc. would be...pretty substantial to me.
    My dad would buy a Glucose Apple Watch in a heartbeat!
  • Reply 28 of 79
    irelandireland Posts: 16,555member
    smaffei said:
    I'm a Garmin Forerunner 235 user at the moment, but having this in the Apple Watch would get me to buy one. I'm a "well-controlled" Type II diabetic (yay, Metformin!), and anything that reduces the number of times I have to poke my fingers with something sharp each day is a HUGE selling point. As my endocrinologist points out, we don't know what happens during the time between readings, and my blood glucose could be all over the place or super steady. A non-invasive way to watch the BG response to different foods, different medications, etc. would be...pretty substantial to me.
    My dad would buy a Glucose Apple Watch in a heartbeat!
    I wonder if other companies get their first will it take the steam away from Apple's efforts.
  • Reply 29 of 79
    Rayz2016 said:
    ivanh said:
    It's all about a tiny sensor. When it's invented, Apple or Samsung uses it, integrate it and write codes for it.  If this kind of sensor has been there, at least one "real" Glucose Level monitor should be using it without a smartphone. Have you ever seen Apple makes even one electronic component in the past?
    Er … yes. 
    Let's start with the A processors, move on to the display controllers in the 5K iMac, the W1 chip in the headphones…
    I think the original question should be "one 'bio-electronic' component." The sensor is the key.  Chips are the last step.

    They usually buy this tech.  Authentec is that sort of purchase... everyone was stuck in 'classic' fingerprint readers until Apple spent 2 years investing in Authentec's technology, and building in the tech to make it 'insanely great'

    The question is, what companies have they bought that we don't know about yet (they usually have several smaller acquisitions that don't get found out for upwards of a year) that have compelling bench technology that requires Apple's skill to miniaturize into a chip. and build at scale.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 30 of 79
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 4,726member
    paxman said:

    Of of course if we could disrupt the food industry and banish most carbohydrates from our diets many of these costs would automatically vanish, but unfortunately that is unlikely to ever happen. I read somewhere that the sugar companies spend more than any other lobbying. :(


    Oh come one. You want to ban potatoes, corn, wheat, green beans, most fruit, all of which are major sources of carbohydrates? You want everybody on the Atkins diet?
    edited April 13 GeorgeBMacpscooter63radarthekat
  • Reply 31 of 79
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 4,726member
    sflocal said:
    Hurry up Apple!  The Samsungs of the world are eagerly waiting to rip off your work!
    Don’t assume Apple is the only one working on this. As we baby boomers (I was born in 1950) age and get sick the healthcare industry in the U.S. is poised to rake in billions upon billions of dollars. The diabetes ‘industry’ alone will probably be worth more than Apple is now.
  • Reply 32 of 79

    Citing sources familiar with the matter, CNET on Wednesday reported Apple's small biomedical engineering group is part of a "super secret" initiative,
    So secret CNET knows about it. 

    I'm curious and really have no idea, but would glucose sensors be handy for people who do not have diabetes?  For instance, would they be able to tell you when you need to be careful or track your levels over time and then be able to tell you that at this rate you're likely heading toward diabetes, time to change your diet?

    If so, that could be useful for more people than those who already have diabetes. 
    CNBC (not CNet) -- they report primarily on business & finance.
  • Reply 33 of 79
    ireland said:
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    We are with food where we were in the 60's & 70's with smoking:   The science is there pointing to the cause of some of our deadliest and most debilitating diseases, but the industry that profits from that cause is doing their best to suppress or muddy the waters around that science.  Just like the tobacco companies before them, Big-Food does not want the public to realize that they are selling them toxic substances.
    "sugar is just empty calories"
    "moderation"
    "You need calcium from milk for strong bones"
    "eggs are one of nature's perfect foods"
    "Meat supplies the protein you need to be strong"
  • Reply 34 of 79
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 1,413member
    ireland said:
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    Meat and protein are two different things. Most everyone benefits from additional protein, in numerous ways. The essential amino acids are used for building and repairing the body. High protein assists in muscle retention and burning fat, which nearly all of us could use.

    For sedentary people .5 grams per pound of body weight is advised in the US, for athletes it's 1g. Nowhere near any harmful kidney levels, and consumed every day by millions of lifters and other recreational athletes daily.
    edited April 13
  • Reply 35 of 79
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 1,413member

    lkrupp said:
    paxman said:

    Of of course if we could disrupt the food industry and banish most carbohydrates from our diets many of these costs would automatically vanish, but unfortunately that is unlikely to ever happen. I read somewhere that the sugar companies spend more than any other lobbying. :(


    Oh come one. You want to ban potatoes, corn, wheat, green beans, most fruit, all of which are major sources of carbohydrates? You want everybody on the Atkins diet?
    Yeah it's pretty silly. It's not the carbs that are killing people -- it's the excess calories and sedentary lifestyles. I'm a recreational athlete and I know for a fact I need carbs (from whole foods and preferably with a low glycemic index value) to maintain my glycogen store so I have energy to do the work. Most people could continue to eat carbs as long as they ate enough protein and come in at a caloric deficit to their total daily energy expenditure. But most people don't do this -- and then blame the carbs.
  • Reply 36 of 79
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 1,413member

    ireland said:
    for consideration (forks over knives): www.youtube.com/watch?v=g__LROraYY8
    Tl;dw

    Eat less meat or quit meat and you'll be healthier. More than 5% protein in your diet is bad news. It's a pretty convincing documentary and backs up other information we're learning these days.

    Repressed anger is also huge for disease—results in excessive stress for sometimes decades-long durations, which the body does not handle well.

    We'll get there. Give us 100 years. We're still in the dark ages with presidents with obvious daddy issues. 
    We are with food where we were in the 60's & 70's with smoking:   The science is there pointing to the cause of some of our deadliest and most debilitating diseases, but the industry that profits from that cause is doing their best to suppress or muddy the waters around that science.  Just like the tobacco companies before them, Big-Food does not want the public to realize that they are selling them toxic substances.
    "sugar is just empty calories"
    "moderation"
    "You need calcium from milk for strong bones"
    "eggs are one of nature's perfect foods"
    "Meat supplies the protein you need to be strong"
    Ah, the egg conspiracy. Eggs are fine. For most people dietary cholesterol is fine and doesn't affect blood cholesterol. 
    irelandmacgui
  • Reply 37 of 79
    Yes, with diabetes becoming a near epidemic worldwide (even in the Asian countries as McDonald's & KFC also become a near epidemic) a glucose sensor would be of incredible benefit:   Not just to detect high sugar levels but, more importantly LOW sugar levels -- which can kill you a lot faster than high levels.   And, with diabetics taking tons of medications to depress sugar levels, low sugar becomes much more prevalent.

    But, there may be an even bigger obstacle to its deployment than technical limitations:  The FDA, the medical community and medical device manufacturers -- because they want a closed system that uses their own devices that cost 10 times what they're worth to be the only ones used.  Because, in America, healthcare is first and foremost about profit.

    But there is another important market besides that for diabetes:  Endurance sports like running, cycling, triathlon, etc...  In those sports the three main contributors to poor performance are low levels of:  Oxygen, hydration and glucose.    VO2Max is why endurance athletes train so much and one of the main reasons for 'pacing' in an endurance race.  Likewise, maintaining adequate hydration and glucose levels is why endurance athletes pay so much careful attention to getting adequate amounts of both before and during a race.

    If an Apple Watch could monitor O2 saturation, hydration levels and glucose levels it would make only monitoring heart rate look like something out of the horse and buggy era and would revolutionize endurance sports. 
  • Reply 38 of 79
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 29,101member
    ivanh said:
    It's all about a tiny sensor. When it's invented, Apple or Samsung uses it, integrate it and write codes for it.  If this kind of sensor has been there, at least one "real" Glucose Level monitor should be using it without a smartphone. Have you ever seen Apple makes even one electronic component in the past?
    There's nothing wrong with the theory here. The medical industry has been working on it. There are sensors that do work, but they've got to be individually calibrated to the person. So it's certainly not impossible.

    apple designs entire machines to manufacture parts for their equipment. I'm sure they could tackle a sensor. And as you know, Apple designs rather sophisticated chips, some from scratch, and they've been doing that for decades.

    A friend of mine just retired. He was an expert in biological sensor design. In fact, as he used to say, he was the only expert in his particular field, as he was the only one designing those particular sensors. And yes, he has a doctorate in microbiology and bioelectronics. We've spoken about this over the years, and he believes it's possible. They need to solve the problem of different skin types, hair, tattoos, freckles, etc. One reason why Apple was supposedly reluctant to get into actual medical device manufacture, which is what this would now become, is that regulations are stiff, and Apple understands that if it isn't consistent, it isn't useful.

    a solution would be to have the readings confirmed by a blood test, the way those tests are normally performed. That is, you don't eat for a specified time to get a base level, and then adjust the Watch reading to match that tested level. But will people want to have a blood test to have it working properly? That's a major problem, and one that Apple is likely wrestling with.
    patchythepirateradarthekat
  • Reply 39 of 79
    As I understand it, by monitoring how glucose levels rise and fall, you can actually calculate how much food is being eaten, and possibly even calculate down to the macronutrient level. How much carbs, protein, fat.. If they get that worked out, a glucose sensor would be awesome to have for everybody. The watch knows how many calories you're burning based on activity, heart rate, age, weight etc, then based on glucose levels, figure out how many calories are going in and tell you what your net for the day is.
  • Reply 40 of 79
    Absolutely amazing and should get the Nobel prize for Medicine if can do.
Sign In or Register to comment.