I can see how some third party Apps, specifically reminders to take medications, can have a meaningful impact on health, but aren't the built-in functions for health not just gimmicks? I mean, apps to remind you to breathe, stand, walk, measure your heart rate: they don't really have any impact on health, do they? They don't reduce instances of heart failure, diabetes, bacterial or viral infections, strokes, cancer, and so on. To really monitor your health, you need a scale, regular blood tests, MRI and CT scans, X-rays all of which cost thousands of $ to perform? To try to maintain your health, you need to abstain from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, burnt toast and meats, carbs, processed foods; you need to vigorously exercise 15-30 minutes per day; none of which a Watch helps you with. Am I missing something?
And this is how you know Apple Watch will have a real impact on peoples health. If there's one group of people who run the numbers on everything to determine risks and benefits it would be insurance companies. They're betting that even the small things that could be done on an Apple Watch (medication reminders or tracking movement) can add up to make a meaningful impact both one peoples health and on their bottom lines.
yup
tens of thousands of people get seriously ill or die from forgetting to take their medication.
That feature plus the SOS emergency feature is enough that any elderly person should have an Apple watch
That elderly person is still going to have to remember to charge the AppleWatch every night which might be a problem for some if they can't remember to take their medication.
Don't think this subsidy program is going to dispel any doubts by Wall Street how the AppleWatch is a failure. This program isn't going to mean anything for a product they've already determined in their minds as being useless.
One thing that would be good (but also scary), would be to provide the Watch free or discounted, and nice discounts to people who keep up with daily exercising, standing, and steps through the activity app of the Apple Watch. That way people can stay healthy, save money, and in theory, save the insurer money since someone who exercises regularly probably has statistically less claims in their lifetime. But I also foresee the privacy issues with sending your personal data to your health insurer and the downsides to the unfairness of people who can't exercise having to pay "higher" rates.
That's the healthcare equivalent of those OBD devices the car insurance companies were trying to get you to use and would ostensibly get you a discount. In reality, it is a way to track your driving habits and adjust your rates or drop you all together. No thanks.
If they were really concerned about the health and wellbeing of their customers, then they'd offer them $130 not to use a Samsung phone.
And this is how you know Apple Watch will have a real impact on peoples health. If there's one group of people who run the numbers on everything to determine risks and benefits it would be insurance companies. They're betting that even the small things that could be done on an Apple Watch (medication reminders or tracking movement) can add up to make a meaningful impact both one peoples health and on their bottom lines.
yup
tens of thousands of people get seriously ill or die from forgetting to take their medication.
That feature plus the SOS emergency feature is enough that any elderly person should have an Apple watch
That elderly person is still going to have to remember to charge the AppleWatch every night which might be a problem for some if they can't remember to take their medication.
Don't think this subsidy program is going to dispel any doubts by Wall Street how the AppleWatch is a failure. This program isn't going to mean anything for a product they've already determined in their minds as being useless.
Just another way to steal and use your personal data against you. It's no different than a monitoring device designed to have the insurance companies make more money off of you. Since they couldn't knowingly get you to agree to have sensors implanted and cameras up your butt, this was the best alternative. Go ahead and sell your soul to Aetna for $130 subsidy.
Now we see you and mike1 are obviously the same person. Trolls are really desperate (and not very bright) these days.
Aetna is a for-profit business, not a charity. What was that saying about "you are the product"? What business incentive would they have to give away smartwatches?
It might be worthwhile to switch to Aetna for health insurance.
OT sorry mods: I switched to Aetna from my BCBS Gold plan last year. Then I discovered two issues, 1) They terminated my plan for 2017 forcing me to start over with a more expensive one if I want the same coverage. 2) They try to trick you into buying all prescription drugs through them directly.
They sent me a very misleading warning letter after a few weeks of enrollment in late January with large red type warning me as I had not chosen their direct drug supply system I would not be able to refill my prescriptions again! Reading this was pretty scary since I have to take certain pills daily and only had a few left at the time. Only with a magnifying glass did I read the very small print at the bottom where they completely contradicted this statement making the entire letter into total nonsense. I had to phone them to ask WTF? I asked what this letter meant and a very frosty woman said it was my choice, as per the 2 point text at the bottom of the letter. So, with great relief I was able to continue as always with my excellent Walgreens online, auto refill system I had used for well over a decade. I like my pharmacy for several reasons, not least of which they are local and of course there is someone to ask questions of.
Then I discovered Aetna had ways of getting their revenge for not taking their, no doubt profitable drug supply scheme. Walgreens provided my next set of 90 pills (three months supply) as normal. However, the bill was hundreds of dollars per scrip instead of the usual small amount. I did a double take and asked Walgreens to hold them while I investigated. It turned out talking to Aetna there were 'no more 90 days supplies unless I paid full retail as I had not used their direct pharmacy!' I now was limited to 30 days maximum, so I had to start over and have Walgreens redo my order with only 30 pills. Secondly, months later I found they refused to allow my pharmacy to let me take 'advance vacation' quantities, (I was going to be seven days short on my pills thanks to the 30 day limit), as I have for decades with BCBS if vacationing.
This turned out to be a nightmare to get around. I was eventually told by Aetna I required new prescriptions from my doctor and setting up a new account with a new pharmacy in the area I was going. Really? This in of itself requires the new pharmacy closing out your usual account and transferring it to themselves, then on returning home reversing the entire process. All this for a weeks worth of non dangerous pills Aetna refused to allow me to collect early from Walgreens. IMHO this was simply a petty and unnecessary act as punishment for not wanting to buy via their own pharmacy system. I will not use Aetna again. That warning letter they send out must scare most folks into switching to their pharmacy system and should be investigated since it is a down right misleading lie. As to their practices if using your own pharmacy, well I guess that's their right as is mine to change Insurers which i will be this next year. Sorry for the rant.
I can see how some third party Apps, specifically reminders to take medications, can have a meaningful impact on health, but aren't the built-in functions for health not just gimmicks? I mean, apps to remind you to breathe, stand, walk, measure your heart rate: they don't really have any impact on health, do they? They don't reduce instances of heart failure, diabetes, bacterial or viral infections, strokes, cancer, and so on. To really monitor your health, you need a scale, regular blood tests, MRI and CT scans, X-rays all of which cost thousands of $ to perform? To try to maintain your health, you need to abstain from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, burnt toast and meats, carbs, processed foods; you need to vigorously exercise 15-30 minutes per day; none of which a Watch helps you with. Am I missing something?
While the health impact may not be significant, I would not call them "gimmicks" at all: - Reminders to stand, if they lead someone to getup, stand and walk around for a bit, can certainly have a positive impact on health. Numerous studies show that prolonged sitting lead to earlier mortality than otherwise (though exact causes are not known) - The fitness apps, if they help a % of users to exercise more than they would have, will have a positive impact on health. See 2nd last sentence - Heart monitoring is useful for those that wish to be aware of their heart rates. It is easily aggregated in the Health app to observe. Many people would not otherwise know their heart rate, and perhaps it is higher (or lower) than expected. They can then discuss with their doctor.
I think you are way over the top in regards to what you think is necessary to help with health (mountain of tests ongoing, abstaining from most foods, ...).
And this is how you know Apple Watch will have a real impact on peoples health. If there's one group of people who run the numbers on everything to determine risks and benefits it would be insurance companies. They're betting that even the small things that could be done on an Apple Watch (medication reminders or tracking movement) can add up to make a meaningful impact both one peoples health and on their bottom lines.
yup
tens of thousands of people get seriously ill or die from forgetting to take their medication.
That feature plus the SOS emergency feature is enough that any elderly person should have an Apple watch
That elderly person is still going to have to remember to charge the AppleWatch every night which might be a problem for some if they can't remember to take their medication.
Don't think this subsidy program is going to dispel any doubts by Wall Street how the AppleWatch is a failure. This program isn't going to mean anything for a product they've already determined in their minds as being useless.
While certain media and bloggers (those who rely on click-bait for a living), and AI trolls, have declared the Apple Watch a failure (despite multiple pieces of information which would indicate a very strong initial release & now follow-up 2nd gen), Wall Street couldn't care less. Wall Street is interested in which equities they can make money on, and how. Wall Street certainly does not provide AAPL with a share price that indicates a belief in future growth vs. say Alphabet or Facebook, but that is really about the growth stock narrative. Wall Street stays in that mode as long as possible, but then jump ship when the growth slows. Wall Street makes money off of Apple by playing the ups and downs.
The old saying is (paraphrased): in the short run, the stock market is a voting machine, but in the long run it is a weighing machine. Wall Street is only interested in the short run (and the view gets even shorter), so it is all about the voting, not the weighing (hence why Amazon has a huge valuation compared to its profits, vs. Apple).
I can see how some third party Apps, specifically reminders to take medications, can have a meaningful impact on health, but aren't the built-in functions for health not just gimmicks? I mean, apps to remind you to breathe, stand, walk, measure your heart rate: they don't really have any impact on health, do they? They don't reduce instances of heart failure, diabetes, bacterial or viral infections, strokes, cancer, and so on. To really monitor your health, you need a scale, regular blood tests, MRI and CT scans, X-rays all of which cost thousands of $ to perform? To try to maintain your health, you need to abstain from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, burnt toast and meats, carbs, processed foods; you need to vigorously exercise 15-30 minutes per day; none of which a Watch helps you with. Am I missing something?
While the health impact may not be significant, I would not call them "gimmicks" at all: - Reminders to stand, if they lead someone to getup, stand and walk around for a bit, can certainly have a positive impact on health. Numerous studies show that prolonged sitting lead to earlier mortality than otherwise (though exact causes are not known) - The fitness apps, if they help a % of users to exercise more than they would have, will have a positive impact on health. See 2nd last sentence - Heart monitoring is useful for those that wish to be aware of their heart rates. It is easily aggregated in the Health app to observe. Many people would not otherwise know their heart rate, and perhaps it is higher (or lower) than expected. They can then discuss with their doctor.
I think you are way over the top in regards to what you think is necessary to help with health (mountain of tests ongoing, abstaining from most foods, ...).
What I tried to convey is that the impact of these are minimal, statistically completely insignificant. I can't believe that Apple, which otherwise seems a pretty decent company, is trying to sell snake oil, they may as well claim that the taptic engine's vibration stimulates the nervous system, or that the light form the watch improves the immune system. And even more surprised by Aetna. I assume they will pre-load it with medical warnings, that is a very good, albeit the only, possible health benefit.
You seem to agree: you use a number of "if's": truth is that these reminders do not incentivise anyone to get up; nor to exercise. If you don't get incentivised to exercise by not getting a good looking girlfriend, not wanting to take your shirt off at the beach, not being able to play ball, your family pointing out that you are getting fat, etc, then a beep from a machine(!) certainly wont do it.
Prolonged sitting does not have any impact on mortality. Smoking does, wingsuit gliding does. Sitting does not, and even if it did (maybe shortening your life by 2 days) it is definitely not off-set by standing for 60 seconds. Doing burpees for 20 minutes does, but standing around does not. Take a bus if you wish to stand.
Lastly, heart rate means nothing. Blood pressure means something, cholesterol levels, insulin levels, infection indicators, etc, but not heart rate. Unless it goes over 100 resting in which case you would certainly know without a watch; and even that is so uncommon and so not dangerous that buying a watch for that is silly.
I like the Watch, but this harping on about health benefits makes it lose credibility.
As to what is required: these are some of the things that the literature states to have a statistically significant impact, you have to do ANY of these; ie each one will have an impact unless you increase another (abstaining from processed foods wont do anything if you smoke twice as much), not all of them (although I do presume they are almost perfectly additive). There also seems to be health benefits to Turmeric (one spoon cooked in food per day), Glucosamine Sulphate (1500 mg for the rest of your life), statins (after a heart attack), etc. But standing does not have such an impact, and neither does walking 10,000 steps a day.
Seriously, it is ridiculous to think that a watch that all can do is ask you to stand 60 sec per hour, count that you walk 10 km per day or burn 400 kcal, and measures your heartbeat has ANY real health benefits. Real medical diagnostics machines cost thousands or even millions of dollars (blood analysis, CT, MRI, X-Rays, etc).
I can see how some third party Apps, specifically reminders to take medications, can have a meaningful impact on health, but aren't the built-in functions for health not just gimmicks? I mean, apps to remind you to breathe, stand, walk, measure your heart rate: they don't really have any impact on health, do they? They don't reduce instances of heart failure, diabetes, bacterial or viral infections, strokes, cancer, and so on. To really monitor your health, you need a scale, regular blood tests, MRI and CT scans, X-rays all of which cost thousands of $ to perform? To try to maintain your health, you need to abstain from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, burnt toast and meats, carbs, processed foods; you need to vigorously exercise 15-30 minutes per day; none of which a Watch helps you with. Am I missing something?
While the health impact may not be significant, I would not call them "gimmicks" at all: - Reminders to stand, if they lead someone to getup, stand and walk around for a bit, can certainly have a positive impact on health. Numerous studies show that prolonged sitting lead to earlier mortality than otherwise (though exact causes are not known) - The fitness apps, if they help a % of users to exercise more than they would have, will have a positive impact on health. See 2nd last sentence - Heart monitoring is useful for those that wish to be aware of their heart rates. It is easily aggregated in the Health app to observe. Many people would not otherwise know their heart rate, and perhaps it is higher (or lower) than expected. They can then discuss with their doctor.
I think you are way over the top in regards to what you think is necessary to help with health (mountain of tests ongoing, abstaining from most foods, ...).
What I tried to convey is that the impact of these are minimal, statistically completely insignificant. I can't believe that Apple, which otherwise seems a pretty decent company, is trying to sell snake oil, they may as well claim that the taptic engine's vibration stimulates the nervous system, or that the light form the watch improves the immune system. And even more surprised by Aetna. I assume they will pre-load it with medical warnings, that is a very good, albeit the only, possible health benefit.
You seem to agree: you use a number of "if's": truth is that these reminders do not incentivise anyone to get up; nor to exercise. If you don't get incentivised to exercise by not getting a good looking girlfriend, not wanting to take your shirt off at the beach, not being able to play ball, your family pointing out that you are getting fat, etc, then a beep from a machine(!) certainly wont do it.
Prolonged sitting does not have any impact on mortality. Smoking does, wingsuit gliding does. Sitting does not, and even if it did (maybe shortening your life by 2 days) it is definitely not off-set by standing for 60 seconds. Doing burpees for 20 minutes does, but standing around does not. Take a bus if you wish to stand.
Lastly, heart rate means nothing. Blood pressure means something, cholesterol levels, insulin levels, infection indicators, etc, but not heart rate. Unless it goes over 100 resting in which case you would certainly know without a watch; and even that is so uncommon and so not dangerous that buying a watch for that is silly.
I like the Watch, but this harping on about health benefits makes it lose credibility.
As to what is required: these are some of the things that the literature states to have a statistically significant impact, you have to do ANY of these; ie each one will have an impact unless you increase another (abstaining from processed foods wont do anything if you smoke twice as much), not all of them (although I do presume they are almost perfectly additive). There also seems to be health benefits to Turmeric (one spoon cooked in food per day), Glucosamine Sulphate (1500 mg for the rest of your life), statins (after a heart attack), etc. But standing does not have such an impact, and neither does walking 10,000 steps a day.
Seriously, it is ridiculous to think that a watch that all can do is ask you to stand 60 sec per hour, count that you walk 10 km per day or burn 400 kcal, and measures your heartbeat has ANY real health benefits. Real medical diagnostics machines cost thousands or even millions of dollars (blood analysis, CT, MRI, X-Rays, etc).
Can you post medically sound links to the "Prolonged sitting does not have any impact on mortality." part, I need them ASAP! My wife is 70 and works out every day, always has, and gets a 100% clean bill of health at every check up and she wants me to start joining her at the gym instead of sitting in front of my Macs all day. I need some proof I don't need to and that sitting here is just as good for me. Thanks.
It might be worthwhile to switch to Aetna for health insurance.
OT sorry mods: I switched to Aetna from my BCBS Gold plan last year. Then I discovered two issues, 1) They terminated my plan for 2017 forcing me to start over with a more expensive one if I want the same coverage. 2) They try to trick you into buying all prescription drugs through them directly.
They sent me a very misleading warning letter after a few weeks of enrollment in late January with large red type warning me as I had not chosen their direct drug supply system I would not be able to refill my prescriptions again! Reading this was pretty scary since I have to take certain pills daily and only had a few left at the time. Only with a magnifying glass did I read the very small print at the bottom where they completely contradicted this statement making the entire letter into total nonsense. I had to phone them to ask WTF? I asked what this letter meant and a very frosty woman said it was my choice, as per the 2 point text at the bottom of the letter. So, with great relief I was able to continue as always with my excellent Walgreens online, auto refill system I had used for well over a decade. I like my pharmacy for several reasons, not least of which they are local and of course there is someone to ask questions of.
Then I discovered Aetna had ways of getting their revenge for not taking their, no doubt profitable drug supply scheme. Walgreens provided my next set of 90 pills (three months supply) as normal. However, the bill was hundreds of dollars per scrip instead of the usual small amount. I did a double take and asked Walgreens to hold them while I investigated. It turned out talking to Aetna there were 'no more 90 days supplies unless I paid full retail as I had not used their direct pharmacy!' I now was limited to 30 days maximum, so I had to start over and have Walgreens redo my order with only 30 pills. Secondly, months later I found they refused to allow my pharmacy to let me take 'advance vacation' quantities, (I was going to be seven days short on my pills thanks to the 30 day limit), as I have for decades with BCBS if vacationing.
This turned out to be a nightmare to get around. I was eventually told by Aetna I required new prescriptions from my doctor and setting up a new account with a new pharmacy in the area I was going. Really? This in of itself requires the new pharmacy closing out your usual account and transferring it to themselves, then on returning home reversing the entire process. All this for a weeks worth of non dangerous pills Aetna refused to allow me to collect early from Walgreens. IMHO this was simply a petty and unnecessary act as punishment for not wanting to buy via their own pharmacy system. I will not use Aetna again. That warning letter they send out must scare most folks into switching to their pharmacy system and should be investigated since it is a down right misleading lie. As to their practices if using your own pharmacy, well I guess that's their right as is mine to change Insurers which i will be this next year. Sorry for the rant.
In my state BCBS does the same damn program! I got a similar letter. Can no longer get the 90 scripts either.
I can see how some third party Apps, specifically reminders to take medications, can have a meaningful impact on health, but aren't the built-in functions for health not just gimmicks? I mean, apps to remind you to breathe, stand, walk, measure your heart rate: they don't really have any impact on health, do they? They don't reduce instances of heart failure, diabetes, bacterial or viral infections, strokes, cancer, and so on. To really monitor your health, you need a scale, regular blood tests, MRI and CT scans, X-rays all of which cost thousands of $ to perform? To try to maintain your health, you need to abstain from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, burnt toast and meats, carbs, processed foods; you need to vigorously exercise 15-30 minutes per day; none of which a Watch helps you with. Am I missing something?
While the health impact may not be significant, I would not call them "gimmicks" at all: - Reminders to stand, if they lead someone to getup, stand and walk around for a bit, can certainly have a positive impact on health. Numerous studies show that prolonged sitting lead to earlier mortality than otherwise (though exact causes are not known) - The fitness apps, if they help a % of users to exercise more than they would have, will have a positive impact on health. See 2nd last sentence - Heart monitoring is useful for those that wish to be aware of their heart rates. It is easily aggregated in the Health app to observe. Many people would not otherwise know their heart rate, and perhaps it is higher (or lower) than expected. They can then discuss with their doctor.
I think you are way over the top in regards to what you think is necessary to help with health (mountain of tests ongoing, abstaining from most foods, ...).
What I tried to convey is that the impact of these are minimal, statistically completely insignificant. I can't believe that Apple, which otherwise seems a pretty decent company, is trying to sell snake oil, they may as well claim that the taptic engine's vibration stimulates the nervous system, or that the light form the watch improves the immune system. And even more surprised by Aetna. I assume they will pre-load it with medical warnings, that is a very good, albeit the only, possible health benefit.
You seem to agree: you use a number of "if's": truth is that these reminders do not incentivise anyone to get up; nor to exercise. If you don't get incentivised to exercise by not getting a good looking girlfriend, not wanting to take your shirt off at the beach, not being able to play ball, your family pointing out that you are getting fat, etc, then a beep from a machine(!) certainly wont do it.
Prolonged sitting does not have any impact on mortality. Smoking does, wingsuit gliding does. Sitting does not, and even if it did (maybe shortening your life by 2 days) it is definitely not off-set by standing for 60 seconds. Doing burpees for 20 minutes does, but standing around does not. Take a bus if you wish to stand.
Lastly, heart rate means nothing. Blood pressure means something, cholesterol levels, insulin levels, infection indicators, etc, but not heart rate. Unless it goes over 100 resting in which case you would certainly know without a watch; and even that is so uncommon and so not dangerous that buying a watch for that is silly.
I like the Watch, but this harping on about health benefits makes it lose credibility.
As to what is required: these are some of the things that the literature states to have a statistically significant impact, you have to do ANY of these; ie each one will have an impact unless you increase another (abstaining from processed foods wont do anything if you smoke twice as much), not all of them (although I do presume they are almost perfectly additive). There also seems to be health benefits to Turmeric (one spoon cooked in food per day), Glucosamine Sulphate (1500 mg for the rest of your life), statins (after a heart attack), etc. But standing does not have such an impact, and neither does walking 10,000 steps a day.
Seriously, it is ridiculous to think that a watch that all can do is ask you to stand 60 sec per hour, count that you walk 10 km per day or burn 400 kcal, and measures your heartbeat has ANY real health benefits. Real medical diagnostics machines cost thousands or even millions of dollars (blood analysis, CT, MRI, X-Rays, etc).
Can you post medically sound links to the "Prolonged sitting does not have any impact on mortality." part, I need them ASAP! My wife is 70 and works out every day, always has, and gets a 100% clean bill of health at every check up and she wants me to start joining her at the gym instead of sitting in front of my Macs all day. I need some proof I don't need to and that sitting here is just as good for me. Thanks.
That is not what I meant, and if taken out of context, the sentence can be interpreted like you do. I meant that standing up for 60 seconds every hour does not have a positive health impact; you will have to do strenuous exercise for 30 minutes a day. Your wife is right. Your Watch is not.
I can see how some third party Apps, specifically reminders to take medications, can have a meaningful impact on health, but aren't the built-in functions for health not just gimmicks? I mean, apps to remind you to breathe, stand, walk, measure your heart rate: they don't really have any impact on health, do they? They don't reduce instances of heart failure, diabetes, bacterial or viral infections, strokes, cancer, and so on. To really monitor your health, you need a scale, regular blood tests, MRI and CT scans, X-rays all of which cost thousands of $ to perform? To try to maintain your health, you need to abstain from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, burnt toast and meats, carbs, processed foods; you need to vigorously exercise 15-30 minutes per day; none of which a Watch helps you with. Am I missing something?
While the health impact may not be significant, I would not call them "gimmicks" at all: - Reminders to stand, if they lead someone to getup, stand and walk around for a bit, can certainly have a positive impact on health. Numerous studies show that prolonged sitting lead to earlier mortality than otherwise (though exact causes are not known) - The fitness apps, if they help a % of users to exercise more than they would have, will have a positive impact on health. See 2nd last sentence - Heart monitoring is useful for those that wish to be aware of their heart rates. It is easily aggregated in the Health app to observe. Many people would not otherwise know their heart rate, and perhaps it is higher (or lower) than expected. They can then discuss with their doctor.
I think you are way over the top in regards to what you think is necessary to help with health (mountain of tests ongoing, abstaining from most foods, ...).
What I tried to convey is that the impact of these are minimal, statistically completely insignificant. I can't believe that Apple, which otherwise seems a pretty decent company, is trying to sell snake oil, they may as well claim that the taptic engine's vibration stimulates the nervous system, or that the light form the watch improves the immune system. And even more surprised by Aetna. I assume they will pre-load it with medical warnings, that is a very good, albeit the only, possible health benefit.
You seem to agree: you use a number of "if's": truth is that these reminders do not incentivise anyone to get up; nor to exercise. If you don't get incentivised to exercise by not getting a good looking girlfriend, not wanting to take your shirt off at the beach, not being able to play ball, your family pointing out that you are getting fat, etc, then a beep from a machine(!) certainly wont do it.
Prolonged sitting does not have any impact on mortality. Smoking does, wingsuit gliding does. Sitting does not, and even if it did (maybe shortening your life by 2 days) it is definitely not off-set by standing for 60 seconds. Doing burpees for 20 minutes does, but standing around does not. Take a bus if you wish to stand.
Lastly, heart rate means nothing. Blood pressure means something, cholesterol levels, insulin levels, infection indicators, etc, but not heart rate. Unless it goes over 100 resting in which case you would certainly know without a watch; and even that is so uncommon and so not dangerous that buying a watch for that is silly.
I like the Watch, but this harping on about health benefits makes it lose credibility.
As to what is required: these are some of the things that the literature states to have a statistically significant impact, you have to do ANY of these; ie each one will have an impact unless you increase another (abstaining from processed foods wont do anything if you smoke twice as much), not all of them (although I do presume they are almost perfectly additive). There also seems to be health benefits to Turmeric (one spoon cooked in food per day), Glucosamine Sulphate (1500 mg for the rest of your life), statins (after a heart attack), etc. But standing does not have such an impact, and neither does walking 10,000 steps a day.
Seriously, it is ridiculous to think that a watch that all can do is ask you to stand 60 sec per hour, count that you walk 10 km per day or burn 400 kcal, and measures your heartbeat has ANY real health benefits. Real medical diagnostics machines cost thousands or even millions of dollars (blood analysis, CT, MRI, X-Rays, etc).
Can you post medically sound links to the "Prolonged sitting does not have any impact on mortality." part, I need them ASAP! My wife is 70 and works out every day, always has, and gets a 100% clean bill of health at every check up and she wants me to start joining her at the gym instead of sitting in front of my Macs all day. I need some proof I don't need to and that sitting here is just as good for me. Thanks.
That is not what I meant, and if taken out of context, the sentence can be interpreted like you do. I meant that standing up for 60 seconds every hour does not have a positive health impact; you will have to do strenuous exercise for 30 minutes a day. Your wife is right. Your Watch is not.
I know what you meant, no problem I was just joking at my own expense. Hence the smiley face.
It's not really free, is it? I'm under the impression it's a $130 credit toward an Apple Watch, plus a $200 "wellness reimbursement," for a total of $330. The $200 can be used toward many other devices, and they've had that for at least a couple years now.
This is more in line with later clarifications of the program. And the $200 can also be used for other fitness products, like gym memberships, not just "devices". It would be interesting to know how much of the $130 credit Aetna is subsiding, or if it sort of represents a "watch at cost" contribution by Apple. It would also be interesting to know which company made the first suggestion in initiating the program...it certainly makes sense for a health insurance company to seek to reduce its expenditures by encouraging employee and member health. It also makes sense for Apple to want to get thousands of watches out there, visible to a public which, if Bloomberg is correct, is still lukewarm on the product. If I were a contributor here, who felt comfortable unreservedly raving about everything Apple (not referring to you, Soli), I might not mention that, despite living in a small city area of about 250,000 people, fairly close to greater LA, the only Watches I've seen in the wild, even now, are the two on my daughters' wrists. So, marvelous, but not ubiquitous.
On the seeing Watches in the wild, up until the beginning of this semester (my wife is a professor) I only knew one person with one. Now I see students with them everywhere. Also I work at UPS and I can say most of our drivers are wearing them too. Once you spot them you start seeing them all over the place.
It might be worthwhile to switch to Aetna for health insurance.
OT sorry mods: I switched to Aetna from my BCBS Gold plan last year. Then I discovered two issues, 1) They terminated my plan for 2017 forcing me to start over with a more expensive one if I want the same coverage. 2) They try to trick you into buying all prescription drugs through them directly.
They sent me a very misleading warning letter after a few weeks of enrollment in late January with large red type warning me as I had not chosen their direct drug supply system I would not be able to refill my prescriptions again! Reading this was pretty scary since I have to take certain pills daily and only had a few left at the time. Only with a magnifying glass did I read the very small print at the bottom where they completely contradicted this statement making the entire letter into total nonsense. I had to phone them to ask WTF? I asked what this letter meant and a very frosty woman said it was my choice, as per the 2 point text at the bottom of the letter. So, with great relief I was able to continue as always with my excellent Walgreens online, auto refill system I had used for well over a decade. I like my pharmacy for several reasons, not least of which they are local and of course there is someone to ask questions of.
Then I discovered Aetna had ways of getting their revenge for not taking their, no doubt profitable drug supply scheme. Walgreens provided my next set of 90 pills (three months supply) as normal. However, the bill was hundreds of dollars per scrip instead of the usual small amount. I did a double take and asked Walgreens to hold them while I investigated. It turned out talking to Aetna there were 'no more 90 days supplies unless I paid full retail as I had not used their direct pharmacy!' I now was limited to 30 days maximum, so I had to start over and have Walgreens redo my order with only 30 pills. Secondly, months later I found they refused to allow my pharmacy to let me take 'advance vacation' quantities, (I was going to be seven days short on my pills thanks to the 30 day limit), as I have for decades with BCBS if vacationing.
This turned out to be a nightmare to get around. I was eventually told by Aetna I required new prescriptions from my doctor and setting up a new account with a new pharmacy in the area I was going. Really? This in of itself requires the new pharmacy closing out your usual account and transferring it to themselves, then on returning home reversing the entire process. All this for a weeks worth of non dangerous pills Aetna refused to allow me to collect early from Walgreens. IMHO this was simply a petty and unnecessary act as punishment for not wanting to buy via their own pharmacy system. I will not use Aetna again. That warning letter they send out must scare most folks into switching to their pharmacy system and should be investigated since it is a down right misleading lie. As to their practices if using your own pharmacy, well I guess that's their right as is mine to change Insurers which i will be this next year. Sorry for the rant.
In my state BCBS does the same damn program! I got a similar letter. Can no longer get the 90 scripts either.
Oh great! So the insurance companies are acting in unison? Isn't that called a Cartel?
Comments
If they were really concerned about the health and wellbeing of their customers, then they'd offer them $130 not to use a Samsung phone.
They sent me a very misleading warning letter after a few weeks of enrollment in late January with large red type warning me as I had not chosen their direct drug supply system I would not be able to refill my prescriptions again! Reading this was pretty scary since I have to take certain pills daily and only had a few left at the time. Only with a magnifying glass did I read the very small print at the bottom where they completely contradicted this statement making the entire letter into total nonsense. I had to phone them to ask WTF? I asked what this letter meant and a very frosty woman said it was my choice, as per the 2 point text at the bottom of the letter. So, with great relief I was able to continue as always with my excellent Walgreens online, auto refill system I had used for well over a decade. I like my pharmacy for several reasons, not least of which they are local and of course there is someone to ask questions of.
Then I discovered Aetna had ways of getting their revenge for not taking their, no doubt profitable drug supply scheme. Walgreens provided my next set of 90 pills (three months supply) as normal. However, the bill was hundreds of dollars per scrip instead of the usual small amount. I did a double take and asked Walgreens to hold them while I investigated. It turned out talking to Aetna there were 'no more 90 days supplies unless I paid full retail as I had not used their direct pharmacy!' I now was limited to 30 days maximum, so I had to start over and have Walgreens redo my order with only 30 pills. Secondly, months later I found they refused to allow my pharmacy to let me take 'advance vacation' quantities, (I was going to be seven days short on my pills thanks to the 30 day limit), as I have for decades with BCBS if vacationing.
This turned out to be a nightmare to get around. I was eventually told by Aetna I required new prescriptions from my doctor and setting up a new account with a new pharmacy in the area I was going. Really? This in of itself requires the new pharmacy closing out your usual account and transferring it to themselves, then on returning home reversing the entire process. All this for a weeks worth of non dangerous pills Aetna refused to allow me to collect early from Walgreens. IMHO this was simply a petty and unnecessary act as punishment for not wanting to buy via their own pharmacy system. I will not use Aetna again. That warning letter they send out must scare most folks into switching to their pharmacy system and should be investigated since it is a down right misleading lie. As to their practices if using your own pharmacy, well I guess that's their right as is mine to change Insurers which i will be this next year. Sorry for the rant.
- Reminders to stand, if they lead someone to getup, stand and walk around for a bit, can certainly have a positive impact on health. Numerous studies show that prolonged sitting lead to earlier mortality than otherwise (though exact causes are not known)
- The fitness apps, if they help a % of users to exercise more than they would have, will have a positive impact on health. See 2nd last sentence
- Heart monitoring is useful for those that wish to be aware of their heart rates. It is easily aggregated in the Health app to observe. Many people would not otherwise know their heart rate, and perhaps it is higher (or lower) than expected. They can then discuss with their doctor.
I think you are way over the top in regards to what you think is necessary to help with health (mountain of tests ongoing, abstaining from most foods, ...).
The old saying is (paraphrased): in the short run, the stock market is a voting machine, but in the long run it is a weighing machine. Wall Street is only interested in the short run (and the view gets even shorter), so it is all about the voting, not the weighing (hence why Amazon has a huge valuation compared to its profits, vs. Apple).
You seem to agree: you use a number of "if's": truth is that these reminders do not incentivise anyone to get up; nor to exercise. If you don't get incentivised to exercise by not getting a good looking girlfriend, not wanting to take your shirt off at the beach, not being able to play ball, your family pointing out that you are getting fat, etc, then a beep from a machine(!) certainly wont do it.
Prolonged sitting does not have any impact on mortality. Smoking does, wingsuit gliding does. Sitting does not, and even if it did (maybe shortening your life by 2 days) it is definitely not off-set by standing for 60 seconds. Doing burpees for 20 minutes does, but standing around does not. Take a bus if you wish to stand.
Lastly, heart rate means nothing. Blood pressure means something, cholesterol levels, insulin levels, infection indicators, etc, but not heart rate. Unless it goes over 100 resting in which case you would certainly know without a watch; and even that is so uncommon and so not dangerous that buying a watch for that is silly.
I like the Watch, but this harping on about health benefits makes it lose credibility.
As to what is required: these are some of the things that the literature states to have a statistically significant impact, you have to do ANY of these; ie each one will have an impact unless you increase another (abstaining from processed foods wont do anything if you smoke twice as much), not all of them (although I do presume they are almost perfectly additive). There also seems to be health benefits to Turmeric (one spoon cooked in food per day), Glucosamine Sulphate (1500 mg for the rest of your life), statins (after a heart attack), etc. But standing does not have such an impact, and neither does walking 10,000 steps a day.
Seriously, it is ridiculous to think that a watch that all can do is ask you to stand 60 sec per hour, count that you walk 10 km per day or burn 400 kcal, and measures your heartbeat has ANY real health benefits. Real medical diagnostics machines cost thousands or even millions of dollars (blood analysis, CT, MRI, X-Rays, etc).