Wearables often seem like a way for people to buy their way to health, but the wearable itself doesn’t actually do anything. It’s the treadmill/coatrack that people wear on the wrist. Good intentions that quickly fade once the novelty wears off.
The people I know who actually use their wearables for fitness were already doing stuff or would do it with or without the wearable.
Telling the public that they need a wearable fitness tracker to get started is a bad message.
isaacfrond•7mo ago
The article is a bit misleading. The kind of wearable he means are glucose level measuring devices. This link is a bit better:
Granted with such a device you still have to do something with the data for it to make you better, but I think this makes a lot more sense. Many people are diabetes 2, or close to it, and they have no idea. A continuous glucose measuring device could very quickly be a real eye-opener, in a way a fitness tracker does not. --> I don't need no Fitbit to tell me, I skipped my 5k again, but I do need a sensor to tell me that my blood glucose is too high.
bediger4000•7mo ago
That isn't necessarily the wearable RFKJ means. The article also goes on to point out that nobody has measured health benefits from wearables, and that the surgeon general nominatee has a company that makes wearables, a giant conflict of interest. None of this is surprising, in that RFKJ testified under oath in his confirmation hearings that he would keep the vaccine advisory committee in place, but then fired them summarily. He's a known liar.
jfengel•7mo ago
A glucose monitor is not the best way to tell if you have type 2 diabetes. It varies throughout the day, by a lot.
You judge diabetes by your A1c, which is a cumulative effect over months. That's part of a standard bloodwork panel, which you should have every year -- which is plenty of notice.
damnesian•7mo ago
I'm sure they would only use the data with the utmost discretion. /s
al_borland•7mo ago
The people I know who actually use their wearables for fitness were already doing stuff or would do it with or without the wearable.
Telling the public that they need a wearable fitness tracker to get started is a bad message.
isaacfrond•7mo ago
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
Granted with such a device you still have to do something with the data for it to make you better, but I think this makes a lot more sense. Many people are diabetes 2, or close to it, and they have no idea. A continuous glucose measuring device could very quickly be a real eye-opener, in a way a fitness tracker does not. --> I don't need no Fitbit to tell me, I skipped my 5k again, but I do need a sensor to tell me that my blood glucose is too high.
bediger4000•7mo ago
jfengel•7mo ago
You judge diabetes by your A1c, which is a cumulative effect over months. That's part of a standard bloodwork panel, which you should have every year -- which is plenty of notice.