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

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 79
    irelandireland Posts: 16,530member
    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"
    Food industry is worse than the mafia.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 42 of 79
    irelandireland Posts: 16,530member
    Templeton said:
    Absolutely amazing and should get the Nobel prize for Medicine if can do.
    Already exists. They are trying to ministurise it, along with other companies.
    edited April 13
  • Reply 43 of 79
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 877member
    crowley said:
    Cool if it works.  Seems like a big if.

    I hope they also have a research team looking into subdermal sensors.
    Injectable sensors already exist (http://www.dexcom.com/en-IE) but have short lifespans and don't work out very cheap. The injection process can also put people off. That said, although relatively invasive, they do allow you to dramatically reduce pin prick checks and give you a continuous reading. 
  • Reply 44 of 79
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 877member
    sflocal said:
    Hurry up Apple!  The Samsungs of the world are eagerly waiting to rip off your work!
    Companies have been working to produce non invasive continuous glucose monitors for many, many years. As you can imagine, it's very hard to do accurately and consistently.

    No one knows who will get there first but it will be a welcome breakthrough in the quality of life for millions of people. 

    The big deal will be when we find a cure for diabetes itself.
  • Reply 45 of 79
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 877member

    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.
    Yes. It is absolutely incredible how a relatively small amount of regular cardio exercise can change your overall health. If you manage to keep your weight under control, your overall health will take another giant leap. Better quality sleep through weight loss alone, can have a dramatic impact on how tired/alert you feel during the day. Make a little effort with diet choices, and you can even save on your food bill.

    Instead people fill their bodies with palm oil, hydrogenated fats and sugar while sitting on the sofa. If you add stress into that soup you really are looking for trouble.
  • Reply 46 of 79
    irelandireland Posts: 16,530member
    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.
    Yes, meat and protein are two different things, I'll give you that. But above 5% protein in your diet is still unhealthy, according to the conclusions of the professors in this documentary—who independently came to the same thinking on the matter. It probably goes back to how we evolved. Only now do we have so much excess of everything. Moderation is key.
    edited April 13
  • Reply 47 of 79
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 1,518member
    Please add sleep tracking 
    Done:

    https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/11/best-sleep-tracking-apps-for-apple-watch-iphone/

    But the glucose monitoring sounds like a pretty sweet idea.
  • Reply 48 of 79

    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.
    A big part of the problem is that the Atkins/Paleo crowd blurred the distinction between say:   a bowl of oatmeal vs a CocaCola or an apple vs a bowl of fruit loops -- and they try to convince people that "a carb is a carb" -- when there is an immense difference between whole plant foods and refined carbs. 

    Additionally:  It is a little known fact that Atkins actually had it right:   He assumed that everybody either had diabetes or would soon have it.  So, he kept the cause of the diabetes (insulin resistance triggered by animal fat) and got rid of the symptom:  sugar...   A good example is the Chinese & Japanese:  eating their traditional high carb diets they had almost no diabetes or heart disease.  But, when McDonald's & KFC showed up, their rates of heart disease and diabetes sky rocketed because their bodies could no longer tolerate the high refined carb diets (white rice) they'd been eating for centuries.
  • Reply 49 of 79
    I would love to have this just for tracking!
  • Reply 50 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"
    Ah, the egg conspiracy. Eggs are fine. For most people dietary cholesterol is fine and doesn't affect blood cholesterol. 
    That's true!   (If you believe the egg industry!)  Actually eggs are not only high in saturated fats and cholesterol (both of which the USDA says to restrict or avoid) but they also promote TMAO which is closely associated with heart disease.   Other than that, they're perfect!  Well, perfect except for being associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer... 
  • Reply 51 of 79
    melgross 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?
    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.
    I'm thinking that that is a moot question -- because the physician will demand a blood test anyway for anybody at risk for diabetes (which these days is pretty much everybody old enough to vote).

    But, to be honest, I don't have a lot of confidence in a watch based monitor like Apple's heart rate monitor.  I think Google & others have a better chance testing tears (via contact lenses) or sweat via a patch of some sort -- because, like blood, that's where the substance being tested resides.   But, I know better than to bet against Apple.
  • Reply 52 of 79
    joe28753 said:
    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.
    Actually, diabetes is NOT the result of eating too many carbs -- it is caused by insulin resistance (your body's inability to process carbs).   So, the levels of glucose rise and fall and fall has more to do with the animal fat you eat or wear than the carbs you eat.
  • Reply 53 of 79
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 877member

    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. 
    That's true!   (If you believe the egg industry!)  Actually eggs are not only high in saturated fats and cholesterol (both of which the USDA says to restrict or avoid) but they also promote TMAO which is closely associated with heart disease.   Other than that, they're perfect!  Well, perfect except for being associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer... 
    Cholesterol isn't a problem and a lot of recent research appears to support that idea. Sugar is a huge problem and always has been. The difference is there was never a 'fat' lobby to protect it. The sugar lobby has done a great job of protecting the industry but is feeling the heat now.
  • Reply 54 of 79
    RoyfbRoyfb Posts: 7member
    Five years
  • Reply 55 of 79
    Super Secret?   Wow So secret Appleinsider knows about it.   Not very secret.

    Apple and about 12 other high tech companies are working on this because these is a huge pot of money at the end for whoever does it.   It is well known that Google is working on contact lenses that measure glucose continuously and mini transmit to a phone or watch.

    Kuddos to whoever come up with something practical first.  Doubtful it will be apple based on the record of original thoughts recently.
  • Reply 56 of 79
    avon b7 said:

    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. 
    That's true!   (If you believe the egg industry!)  Actually eggs are not only high in saturated fats and cholesterol (both of which the USDA says to restrict or avoid) but they also promote TMAO which is closely associated with heart disease.   Other than that, they're perfect!  Well, perfect except for being associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer... 
    Cholesterol isn't a problem and a lot of recent research appears to support that idea. Sugar is a huge problem and always has been. The difference is there was never a 'fat' lobby to protect it. The sugar lobby has done a great job of protecting the industry but is feeling the heat now.
    Yeh, that's the smoke screen put out by the meat and dairy industries:  blame sugar.    The truth is:  saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, TMAO and refined carbs like sugar are all bad for you.   It's not either/or...
  • Reply 57 of 79
    Please add sleep tracking 
    That means the Apple Watch has to have a longer life battery. 18 hours will not cut it.
    spheric
  • Reply 58 of 79
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 877member
    avon b7 said:

    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. 
    That's true!   (If you believe the egg industry!)  Actually eggs are not only high in saturated fats and cholesterol (both of which the USDA says to restrict or avoid) but they also promote TMAO which is closely associated with heart disease.   Other than that, they're perfect!  Well, perfect except for being associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer... 
    Cholesterol isn't a problem and a lot of recent research appears to support that idea. Sugar is a huge problem and always has been. The difference is there was never a 'fat' lobby to protect it. The sugar lobby has done a great job of protecting the industry but is feeling the heat now.
    Yeh, that's the smoke screen put out by the meat and dairy industries:  blame sugar.    The truth is:  saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, TMAO and refined carbs like sugar are all bad for you.   It's not either/or...
    What I meant was that cholesterol is absolutely necessary and people have been eating saturated fats for a long time. 

    Trans fats, excess sugar, overly refined products, unbalanced diets etc are relatively new things and we are seeing the consequences. I'm simplifying of course, as a sedentary lifestyle will also lead to problems but cholesterol very probably isn't one of them whereas added sugar definitely is.

    We know exactly what white refined sugar does to us and it isn't nice. We also know that trans fats only have commercial advantages and are very damaging to health. Ditto palm oil etc.

    Saying eggs are bad because of cholesterol doesn't ring to well with recent research from many studies that say cholesterol probably isn't a big factor in heart disease.

    Of course, if your cholesterol hits a certain number, your doctor will ask you to change your diet and take medication. Something that probably isn't very good for you. But that's another story.
  • Reply 59 of 79
    As a type 2 diabetic, through hereditary, I am extremely welcoming in the potential that the Apple Watch could aid in helping diabetics monitor blood sugar levels.

    It is quite easy to go about your daily life, without realising how potentially you can raise or lower your blood sugars by what you eat. Utilising the Apple Watch to check your blood sugars without using a blood sample would make life so much simpler and reduce the need for a dedicated monitor with test strips.

    I would happily upgrade my gen 1 Apple Watch for this feature.
  • Reply 60 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…

    Actually Apple developed custom chips much earlier than that:

    • the original Apple ][  in 1977 had custom ROMS that provided Integer BASIC and mini assembler
    • the Apple Disk ][ had custom driver chips
    • Apple Desktop Bus (ADB) in 1986 (Apple ][ GS, later Mac II and Mac SE)  had custom ASIC Chips

    These were all designed by WOZ.

    edited April 13 GeorgeBMacspheric
Sign In or Register to comment.