Apple Watch glucose & blood pressure sensors still years away

AppleInsider

Apple's next major sensor addition to the Apple Watch may not happen anytime soon, with rumored features such as glucose monitoring and blood pressure tracking potentially years away from launch.

The Apple Watch has steadily added new features and updated its design with each successive update. However, while there are rumors about some major inclusions on the way, a report claims the features may take a while to surface in a finished product.

Rumors over the years has put forward the idea of Apple introducing some form of glucose monitoring to the Apple Watch, with the company repeatedly said to be working on the idea. According to Sunday's "Power On" newsletter for Bloomberg, Mark Gurman expects glucose monitoring to be far away from becoming practical.

"I wouldn't be surprised if glucose monitoring doesn't land until later in the second half of the decade," writes Gurman.

Another feature that may have a long wait time is blood pressure monitoring. Though there has been research and patents on the concept, Gurman believes the feature "is at least two to three years away."

The most imminent feature of three discussed by Gurman is body temperature reading. Research on the feature has occurred since 2019 at the least, and it has been forecast by analysts to be included in the "Apple Watch Series 8."

According to Sunday's newsletter, Gurman pours water on hope that it will arrive in 2022. "Body temperature was on this year's roadmap, but chatter about it has slowed down recently," he writes.

The 2022 releases are thought to consist of three models, with the Series 8 accompanied by a ruggedized model, as well as an update to the Apple Watch SE.

Read on AppleInsider

ravnorodom

I read it somewhere that the error margin is too wide on glucose reading. Not ready for prime time yet.

paxman

Apple ought to buy, license or develop cgm sensor technology as used by Dexcom or Abbot, and then sell the sensor at cost to users. The sensor should work directly with an AW, but iPhone or Mac required for stats, analytics and reports. By bringing the point of entry down to cost it would be so cheap every T1 or T2 diabetic, or pre-diabetic, as well as any health conscious person could afford it, and all they would need is an AW and/or an iPhone. In fact thousands if not millions of people would probably get an AW and iPhone on their insurance. It would be  a ton cheaper than the current cost of sensors for the insurers. 

macmaxfan

Blood pressure monitoring has been available on Samsung Galaxy Watches for at least a year. BP readings are calibrated monthly against an upper arm BP monitor. It works well.

japhey

I would definitely be a big fan of a body temperature sensor. But, in my opinion, that feature would probably be better suited in the AirPods Pro. While Apple irons out the issues with Glucose and Blood Pressure monitoring, I’d like to see them add a sensor for bioelectrical impedance analysis. This would allow the Apple Watch to determine hydration levels and perform body composition analysis. The Aura Strap already does this via sensors in the bottom of the watch bands. If Apple couldn’t develop their own proprietary solution, perhaps they could license or acquire the tech from Aura. This would at least offer something to keep the upgraders happy until the big 2 are ready for prime time. 

edited January 2022

waveparticle

Japhey said:

I would definitely be a big fan of a body temperature sensor. But, in my opinion, that feature would probably be better suited in the AirPods Pro. While Apple irons out the issues with Glucose and Blood Pressure monitoring, I’d like to see them add a sensor for bioelectrical impedance analysis. This would allow the Apple Watch to determine hydration levels and perform body composition analysis. The Aura Strap already does this via sensors in the bottom of the watch bands. If Apple couldn’t develop their own proprietary solution, perhaps they could license or acquire the tech from Aura. This would at least offer something to keep the upgraders happy until the big 2 are ready for prime time. 

This is a very good idea. AirPods can be further developed as body sensors for body temperature and pulses easily. 

georgebmac

Like the EKG feature, Apple is not in (complete) control of this.   The FDA has as much say in when or if these monitors make it onto the watch as Apple does.

georgebmac

paxman said:

Apple ought to buy, license or develop cgm sensor technology as used by Dexcom or Abbot, and then sell the sensor at cost to users. The sensor should work directly with an AW, but iPhone or Mac required for stats, analytics and reports. By bringing the point of entry down to cost it would be so cheap every T1 or T2 diabetic, or pre-diabetic, as well as any health conscious person could afford it, and all they would need is an AW and/or an iPhone. In fact thousands if not millions of people would probably get an AW and iPhone on their insurance. It would be  a ton cheaper than the current cost of sensors for the insurers. 

Both hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes are primarily lifestyle diseases.  The cheapest course for all would be a healthy diet and some exercise.  But, the developed nations seem to prefer coaches, BigMacs, fries & CocaCola  to health.

But, the medical industry simply tells them:  "Here, just take this pill for the rest of your life".

jimdreamworx

paxman said:

Apple ought to buy, license or develop cgm sensor technology as used by Dexcom or Abbot, and then sell the sensor at cost to users. The sensor should work directly with an AW, but iPhone or Mac required for stats, analytics and reports. By bringing the point of entry down to cost it would be so cheap every T1 or T2 diabetic, or pre-diabetic, as well as any health conscious person could afford it, and all they would need is an AW and/or an iPhone. In fact thousands if not millions of people would probably get an AW and iPhone on their insurance. It would be  a ton cheaper than the current cost of sensors for the insurers. 

Not sure if Apple would want to promote medical devices that require a prescription from a doctor because they have needles in them to get blood samples.  Especially since you have to replace those sensors every few weeks, and they are prone to error, having prompts to use fingersticks when the sensor registers an issue.  Not elegant.  Apple is looking into non-invasive methods, which are now theory that require a bit more R&D to become a consumer product.

avon b7

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic but I think a breakthrough is near. Hopefully this year.

My money is on Huawei and possibly Samsung to be first out of the gate but I can't see Apple being as far behind as Gurman suggests. 

Richard Yu misspoke during a Watch presentation last year and said glucose monitoring before quickly correcting himself. 

And didn't Quantum recently announce a non-invasive glucose monitoring system in a smartwatch form factor? 

darkvader

Unfortunate if true.

I've avoided and will continue to avoid the Apple watch for myself, mostly because I don't really like wearing watches, they're not comfortable.  I did look at it again last week because a few features might be handy to have, but after realizing that there are apparently no good watch faces, I ditched the idea again.  Seriously, Apple?  No all-digital face with seconds?  I have no need or desire to have any analog anything on a watch, and it seems the only way you can get a seconds display is to also have an analog face.  Yuck.

But if they add blood sugar monitoring, I WILL be buying a few Apple watches as presents for diabetic friends.

georgebmac

darkvader said:

Unfortunate if true.

I've avoided and will continue to avoid the Apple watch for myself, mostly because I don't really like wearing watches, they're not comfortable.  I did look at it again last week because a few features might be handy to have, but after realizing that there are apparently no good watch faces, I ditched the idea again.  Seriously, Apple?  No all-digital face with seconds?  I have no need or desire to have any analog anything on a watch, and it seems the only way you can get a seconds display is to also have an analog face.  Yuck.

But if they add blood sugar monitoring, I WILL be buying a few Apple watches as presents for diabetic friends.

Wearing the Apple Watch is like wearing underwear -- at first it feels uncomfortable and useless.  But then you won't leave home without it (unless you're Jimmy Buffet).

It's really not something you can use logic and pluses & minuses to understand.  You just have to use it for awhile and then the whole debate becomes irrelevant.

edited January 2022

sflagel

A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

outdoorappdeveloper

A more savvy CEO would note that brand perception is more important than technological exclusivity. Apple could swap technology rights with Samsung to use their blood pressure sensor and display technology in exchange to access to the A and M series processors.

georgebmac

sflagel said:

A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.

atomic101

GeorgeBMac said:

sflagel said:

A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.

Is this Dr. GeorgeBMac?

sflagel

GeorgeBMac said:

sflagel said:

A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.

People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

gadgetfreak-apple

MacMaxFan said:

Blood pressure monitoring has been available on Samsung Galaxy Watches for at least a year. BP readings are calibrated monthly against an upper arm BP monitor. It works well.

Has that been approved by the FDA yet?  Read about it last fall and specialists still say not ready for prime time, but definitely a step in the right direction.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/16/22677381/smartwatch-blood-pressure-samsung-fitbit-apple

georgebmac

sflagel said:

GeorgeBMac said:

sflagel said:

A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.

People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 

Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
(But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

"Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

waveparticle

GeorgeBMac said:

sflagel said:

GeorgeBMac said:

sflagel said:

A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.

People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 

Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
(But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

"Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

I have found an effective way of reducing belly fat in a short time. Eating a zero carbohydrates dinner. One can still eat a full meal for lunch. In one week, I was able to lose seven pounds. 

patchythepirate

GeorgeBMac said:

sflagel said:

A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.

As an actual doctor, I can assure everyone that this is as delusional as it sounds.