This will do great harm in markets where there are no protection for health data.
Health insurers in my country(India) are already discriminatory, top health insurers here denied me health insurance because I disclosed my disabilities[1] despite Govt. guidelines against blanket denial of policies for the disabled. This is pretty much the case for anyone who discloses their disability truthfully here[2][3].
This is because they're not keeping in sync with the progress in medical science, why should my orthopedic troubles be a risk factor for providing insurance to cover COVID-19 treatment?
Now with say health data from devices, they'll likely find more statistical data to deny coverage (with some obscure reason) or increase premium to many even if the applicant isn't sick and thereby denying a chance of health insurance coverage if they really get sick. Especially when an unqualified underwriter decides whether I should get a health insurance or not.
I'm going to write something unpopular, but your data is probably safer from sale to insurers with Google than with a pre-acquisition Fitbit. Google already has a fantastic revenue stream, and only has downsides from doing something "evil" for piddling revenue gain. In an alternate timeline, Fitbit could go out of business next year and then be up for sale.
I begrudgingly have to agree. Google will try to monetize the data somehow but not outright sell it, while Fitbit might have sold it directly if they stayed independent, especially if they struggled financially.
But really, neither Google nor Fitbit are the biggest worry, the mere existence of such health tracking devices already is the problem. Health Insurers and even life Insurers will ask you to submit your data "voluntarily". Right now, there are plenty of insurers already who offer rebates on premiums if you wear a health tracker and submit data showing you meet some goals[1].
My guess is that in the future policies in many jurisdictions will become prohibitively expensive without the "rebate" you get for wearing health tracking devices, if this goes unregulated (or any such regulations are not enforced). Insurers might force you into "voluntarily" sharing your data this way, and may even force you into "voluntarily" sharing historical data when you apply for a policy.
My German insurer offers to pitch in I think 90 EUR to buy a fitness/health tracking device. They cannot ask me or anybody for the data (yet) in return for rebates or amenities, due to regulation, which is good. However, I already dread the day when our politicians decide that to "help people stay fit" and "encourage people to stay healthy" and "help reduce insurance costs for regular(!) people(!)" the regulations need to change to allow such schemes.
I'm not telling Google will sell 'X person is/may suffer from Y disease' to the health insurers, they needn't even do that.
The key term to note from my statements are -
> Already discriminatory
•I wouldn't be surprised if the health insurers are already getting email ids of those who land in medical sites by searching for an ailment, Aren't email ids are even visible to the website if they had just implemented 'Sign in' and the user had already signed in the browser?
•I have reasons to believe that they are collecting patient data from the hospitals directly from my lengthy conversations with the people from insurance company. There is no HIPAA here.
Any additional data from health-tech, even if indirectly to just target advertisements could be used as an ammunition for further discrimination by parallel construction bypassing anti-discriminatory guidelines/laws from the Govt.(like they're already doing).
Of course insurers can collect health-tech data without direct access to the device through their own app, Say 'We need permission to access health data from X app for 5% discount in premium' would not invoke resistance from those who don't know that they are falling into a greater pit.
To reassure you on the point #1, no that would not make sense given the huge number of people browsing random ailments either by hypocondria or by mere curiosity.
Honestly at this point I would have no more health cover whatsoever, as I am a big consumer of random bits of medical knowledge.
I'm not sure about that - if only because it gives a "large target" for insurers. Underwriting based on health conditions (something that is currently banned in the US for health insurance, but allowed for life/disability insurance) is all about the cost/benefit of searching for data. If a lot of people have data with Google, it might make sense to pay to look at it.
Under US law at least, your health data isn't inaccessible to companies. It just requires your consent for release. That consent is basically baked into the process under a checkbox for the terms of whatever you're trying to buy.
That said, this kind of data is probably uninteresting. Diagnoses & prescription drug fills are probably more indicative (and folks like https://www.rxhistories.com/ helpfully aggregate and standardize the data).
Aren’t Google and Fitbit one in the same now given the acquisition? Or are you implying that Fitbit will function independently and Google will sell it if Fitbit isn’t profitable?
Does it matter to my point? My point is that Google has multiple times exceeded their bounds to do something evil to make extra money, so much so that they are being explicitly sued for just some of those now. Your point seemed to be why would they take the risk to do something evil and shady for extra money, when my point was that they already have a history of doing that exact thing.
The lawsuit I had in mind was the one calling out their shady AMP practices.
Sure. The "don't be evil" motto seems like more of a guideline, really. But they're not selling data to 3rd parties here, and especially not something that is obviously personal like health data. Whereas in the AMP case the alleged shenanigans nobody really understands outside of the HN crowd, if even that. They're capable of it, any company is. I think they are much less likely to try and monetize that data source this way.
Why would your personal data be safer with an advertising company? Google is amassing personal data so they can charge higher rates for their so-called targeted/personalized ads. With all your personal data residing with a single ad company, it will be far easier to offer discounts to certain people, in-effect introducing tiered insurance pricing. The health insurance companies just want to figure out a way to charge sick people more, and healthy people less so they can maximize their customer base. It won't happen overnight, but then again Google started with the mission of organizing the worlds information. Hah, how often do you hear about that from them? You can barely go past page 10 on search results from the "millions" of supposed results.
Because Google doesn't sell the data, they only make targeting available from data (but not necessarily all data, specifically the health data being talked about here).
If you don't purchase insurance by clicking on ads, then you're fine?
Heh, it's just a matter of time till this scenario "fully" reaches us here in the EU, and in the US probably, too. E.g. my health insurance company (AOK) here in Germany called me last year, and tried to give me an Apple Watch for free. The main part of the contract was, to submit my movements for "a study". In return they offered me something like "bonus points", and cheaper additional insurance plans. I said no, and they asked if I'm interested to have this for my kids, and that they also have a smart toothbrush "to motivate" kids to brush their teeth 3 times a day, I just WTF'ed, and told them to not call anymore with such offers. https://apps.apple.com/de/app/aok-bonus-app/id1085724967 with this App you submit your activity, this was part of the contract. 100.000+ downloads on Google Play says it all, Apple does not display an App download counter.
Generali has a similar program called Vitality (which apparently is a subsidiary or a distinct entity). You gather points for healthy actions you take, e.g walk/run a certain number of times/distance per month (sync your tracker), you stop smoking (proof of buying nicotine substitutes/doctor’a order), you take a yearly checkup at the doc (doctor’s order/medical results)... and you get coupons at Amazon, sport gear shops, get reimbursed an Apple Watch. The rebate on Garmin devices comes with no strings attached though.
It’s an option to the health insurance contract, so in a way they already have much more data than whatever would be provided (since they process far more sensitive medical data for reimbursement), but as I said it’s also structurally a subsidiary.
But you know that insurers have only benefits to keep you healthy (because then you only pay your monthly fee and they don't need to refund you any medical expense), so there are lots of these health-preserving programs, as there always has been even before the wearables.
Here where I live there is an insurance company offering you points to walk miles and/or go to the gym, and then exchange your points for presents. To keep you healthy and thus profitable to them.
Insurance is a worthless model where enough information is known to differentiate pricing between different classes of buyers. Asking insurers to pretend to be stupid enough to price their products inaccurately even as more and more information becomes available and playing whack a mole with regulations is a losing battle. The only solution is to abandon insurance as a model for paying for health care.
I've honestly never understood why anyone would advocate for anything other than a socialized health system.
Consumers cannot exit the market for health services. So we will never get the benefits of a free-market economy.
A "free" market where consumers cannot exit will always trend towards becoming the most expensive the economy can bear.
I think the main reason this doesn't trend all the way towards this theoretical extreme is that people don't really get into healthcare just to make money.
>“Haryana-based gang identified terminal cancer patients from rural, low-income backgrounds, got them to insure themselves with multiple companies by hiding their condition, waited for them to die, and then put their dead bodies through “accidents”
This unbelievable con-trick story came out last year, and seems to have had real life effect that insurers have started denying insurance to the vulnerable.
I think another problem is the accuracy of the info and ability to dispute it. I noticed my FitBit (and I'm told with many other wrist-based heart rate monitors) don't do well with sports like boxing and rowing. My chest strap is more accurate, but doesn't get integrated with FitBit's data. I'm sure there are many other unaccounted for issues and often these kinds of data sets can't be disputed because the process is mostly automated and not transparent.
It's a little sus that CEPR titles this doc as a factual declaration when the first sentence is "The European Commission (alongside other regulators) is conducting an in-depth investigation of the Google/Fitbit deal." It calls into question the objectivity of the investigation when the announcement of the investigation is a statement of a conclusion they the EC is, one assumes, actively investigating.
Which is why the actual announcement of the investigation is titled "Commission opens in-depth investigation into the proposed acquisition of Fitbit by Google" [0] written a month before.
The title you are commenting about is written by the CEPR, an institution independent of the EU, which supports that opinion with their own arguments. This should not be confused with the Commission's investigation.
There needs to be some corollary of the "extrodinary claims require extraordinary evidence" phrase for ordinary claims.
I feel like I can safely assume things like "a for-profit corporation will monetize resources available to it" without any specific evidence about the particular corporation or asset.
No, that is an ordinary claim, and one that has plenty of ordinary evidence to back it up.
This company will monetize this data is also an ordinary claim (from history), but similarly needs evidence. "Companies have monetized similar in the past" is not evidence they'll do it in this case.
If you're a gambler, you should absolutely use that fact to inform your betting, but it's not evidence.
"Advertisers can’t use personal hardship categories to target ads to users or to promote advertisers’ products or services. See below for specific examples of what we don't allow."
"Examples: Treatments for chronic health conditions like diabetes or arthritis, treatments for sexually transmitted diseases, counseling services for mental health issues like depression or anxiety, medical devices for sleep apnea like CPAP machines, over-the-counter medications for yeast infections, information about how to support your autistic child"
No, I have plenty of ordinary evidence in the form of my observations of the behavior of every other for-profit corporation across all of history.
Like if you claimed "pine sap is sticky" I don't feel compelled to challenge you and demand to touch it myself before I believe you. I've encountered plenty of pine sap in my life, and it was all sticky. I _have_ evidence that pine sap is sticky generally, so I don't demand _extra_ evidence that a _specific_ portion of sap is sticky.
They're not homogenous. The companies that don't make money go broke and cease to be. No sign of that from Google. They're buying the data to monetize it. If they were doing something unexpected like destroying it for the greater good they'd announce it.
The extraordinary thing here is if they bought the data to /not/ monetize it. That requires the evidence. Not the overwhelmingly expected thing. They are mutually exclusive alternatives after all. Go with the overwhelmingly likely one until you've got a solid reason not to. We don't here.
> I don't know for sure if this is their business model.
That's the point, and you also don't know for sure what Google's business model with the health data will be either.
The GP post I was replying said that it was obvious Google was monetizing the data, and implying that it was therefore bad. My point is that if monetizing health data is inherently bad, then so is what Apple is doing.
Was that the implication? I got more of a "Of course they will monetize it, that's how corporations handle assets" vibe.
Because monetize is a meaningless word here. Unless Google suddenly decides to go against their fiduciary responsibility and purposefully lose money, any use of the data is going to be somehow monetizing it.
Last I looked, Apple Health data doesn't leave the phone - there's no "cloud" aspect.
They could of course change that, or sneakily exfil it. The first hasn't happened yet, and the second would destroy a vast amount of consumer trust well before all the lawsuits started.
Because it wasn't the case in the past and I don't use Apple Health or backup to other people's machines, so I don't care enough to stay up to date on the particulars.
Prior to IOS 9 it did not store health data in the "cloud", except as an encrypted blob in a backup.
> If you're using iOS 12 or later and have turned on two-factor authentication for your Apple ID, health records are encrypted using end-to-end encryption through iCloud. This means only you can access this information, and only on devices where you’re signed in to iCloud. No one else, not even Apple, can access end-to-end encrypted information.
"Monetize" is an harmfully vague choice of words. Research teams for medical or pharmaceutical ventures "monetize" health data (to develop e.g. drugs or tools) but they do it in an ethical way, through anonymized or aggregated data, following good practice guidelines, etc. And there is no wide polemics on these methods. Why would not Google/Fitbit use the data in the same ethical ways?
Sidebar: I love that this expression has entered the majority vernacular, thanks mostly to Among Us. I don't think we had such a terse form of this expression before.
"capable of harming consumers through personalisation of advertising and increasingly also by enabling
targeted product offerings" So this is going to be harmful because some health insurance company is only going to offer ads to people that walk > 10K steps a day?
They aren't showing any harm to consumers at present, just that sometime in the future, maybe, things could be harmful.
Selling ads is not axe-murderering. But yeah they're gonna sell ads. It's what they do. I'm just hard pressed to explain how serving ads by fitness condition is going to harm the consumer, or why you can't just write a law that says to not do that.
I'm serious though, what's the most nefarious thing you could do with that? My imagination is unimaginative.
We’ve seen Facebook employment ads already used to specifically target younger people.
It’s more about excluding people from advertising as opposed to including. If you think of it from that angle it won’t take too much imagination to see the issues that may arise.
Or deny housing to minorities, or radicalize people prone to extremism, etc. Yeah that's one of the downsides of hyper targeted advertising. Should the acquisition be blocked because it allows better targeting?
I don't think anyone cares that they are shown ads, thats a pretty disingenuous interpretation, I guess blame it on your imagination. Imagine the advanced fingerprinting currently done, coupled to your intimate vulnerabilities. Woops we didn't mean for that data to escape! Our bad!
Some do, but it's very obvious which ones they are. The sensor emits a fairly bright, reddish light from something that's ordinarily pressed up against your skin.
Insurance companies already give discounts for health lifestyles, don't they? Incentivizing preventative health seems not only fair but a net good for society.
Also, the heart rate monitor from MyZone (https://www.myzone.org/) because it connects to my Assault Fitness AirRunner and I get to see my real time heart rate data on the control unit.
Very few people care about privacy which is great for OSINT practitioners. This Internet golden-age has made fox/sheeple tracking SO much easier, almost too much data available. That said MY Fitbit went straight into the garbage when Google bought them and since I didn't particularly trust Fitbit either when I bought the device, all Fitbit had on me for ID was a throw-away email and equally throw-away name.
No /s needed. Let's not let our mad consumerism destroy the planet, especially if it costs us literally nothing to dispose of garbage in a way that allows it to be recycled.
I'm trying to centralize on Apple Health as one place for my info. Fitbit doesn't play well with Apple Health, presumably because they saw the Apple Watch as a competitor. I tried various apps that would "fix" syncing data but they would stop working. https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Fitbit-com-Dashboard/Syncing... from 2018 has a thread on this but there are lots out there.
I bought a Garmin Instinct based on favorable mentions here a couple of weeks ago and I'm pretty happy with it. Garmin seems to be realistic about not competing with Apple directly.
This is troubling. I've been a fitbit user for a few years. I've contemplated hard between an Apple Watch and Fitbit. I decided to stay with the Fitbit for a few reasons:
* Longer Battery Life
* Sleep Tracking
* Smaller device on wrist with the Charge 4 vs Apple Watch.
Can people suggest alternatives to Fitbit? My favorite feature is the sleep tracking (but who knows how accurate it is). Does Garmin or Apple have comparable features to Fitbit, especially with sleep and battery life?
Look into the Xiaomi MiBand 4 / 5, they're around $30. Battery life can last 2-3+ weeks with litte heart rate monitoring. Sleep tracking is there, but I can't comment on it's accuracy, although it should be pretty good.
It's better than Fitbit in every category, and significantly cheaper. There's plenty of 3rd party app support and it's easy to extract data into a privacy conscious health app, if you don't trust any of the apps too.
Apple has native sleep tracking now and I've been using it myself for years.
I would like to warn you that you shouldn't trust the waterproofing although, because they use glue to seal the watch screen against the gasket, and temperature variations can eventually loosen that glue, as I found out to a broken series 3 watch one day after swimming in a heated swimming pool and then going skiing the next day.
Apple health is one of the few things they actually end to end encrypt[0], so there is no data to sell currently.
I use a Misfit Shine with Beeminder to track an exercise habit. It can track steps walked and sleep schedules. Only compromise is that you have to manually sync by holding it up to your phone.
As a Fitbit fan that just deleted my account to keep the data from Google...
I'm not sure where you get this "They are literally putting a doctor on everyone's wrist" thing. I had a Fitbit Ionic, their most expensive smartwatch at the time, and it was a somewhat helpful heartrate monitor. It had an SpO2 sensor built in which was advertised, but it didn't work in the years I had the watch on my wrist, and only recently became an available feature, around when Apple added the same to theirs.
And Apple put an ECG machine on people's wrists. Even my SO's Watch SE, which lacks the fancier new sensors is lightyears beyond where Fitbit is.
And Google will destroy Fitbit. If you think Fitbit is as revolutionary as you say, than you should be supporting every possible way to prevent Google from adding it to their graveyard.
> And Google will destroy Fitbit. If you think Fitbit is as revolutionary as you say, than you should be supporting every possible way to prevent Google from adding it to their graveyard.
You could be right about this, but Apple absolutely was cleaning FitBit's clock and I think if they didn't make a big move they might have gone bankrupt. It's just so, so, so incredibly difficult to pack billions of pieces perfectly into a tiny device that people can wear all day on their wrists and make hundreds of millions of them. I hope it goes well with Goog. The world needs more of these.
> I had a Fitbit Ionic,
The Ionic was good, the Versa 2 a big step up (haven't gotten the new one yet but will soon).
I also have an Apple Watch SE. The Apple Watch is impressive, but for health I still prefer FitBit hands down. The sleep data is absolutely essential, and the ~1 day battery life in the Apple Watch pales next to the ~1 week in FitBit. I guess I could get 2 apple watches, and swap them before bedtime, but rather just wear the fitbit. I don't care about having the web on my wrist or videos, I just want health stuff.
> "They are literally putting a doctor on everyone's wrist"
It's all about the trends. At first remember, ~10 years ago, it was just step counting (and lousy at that). Now there are what, 15 - 20 sensors in that thing? Heart rate, blood oxygen, temperature, motion, etc.
Apple is doing amazing things here too. Garmin as well. And FitBit. They all are doing heroic work here. It's changing healthcare, and we're not even at the 1% level yet. I've spent a few years in medical research, this is the future of medical research.
I probably would've bought a Versa 2 had Google not acquired. Unfortunately, Google being anywhere in range of a product makes it radioactive.
I'd definitely agree the battery life on Fitbit is a huge deal, I used to get a week out of my Ionic, though as it has aged, it's good for less than a day (replaceable batteries needs to be a thing again in tech). The sleep data was pretty interesting, although I don't feel like it was ever actionable for me.
I absolutely think there are opportunities for health (in another comment, I talk about a personal experience with my Fitbit), but Google will not be the one leading the charge on that. Their focus is, and will always be, ad revenue.
You could be right. I am also worried about a FitBit under Google. But no one came up with a better alternative and the competition was too great. I would have loved if FitBit could have remained independent. It would have taken a true believer like an Elon to make it happen.
> I've spent a few years in medical research, this is the future of medical research.
Sadly, I think the real money will be in using health data for fine-grained insurance pricing. "Oh, you want our preferred rates? Then wear a FitBit/Apple Watch and let us see your data."
To play devil’s advocate, why should the active healthy subsidize the lifestyles of the sedentary? It makes a lot of sense for people to pay less for health insurance based on their fitness.
you have redirected to a false dichotomy: at no point was fitness ever discussed in this thread.
there are probably all sorts of involuntary health conditions that can be exposed via these devices that trying to make this a vice vs non-vice debate about "lifestyles" isn't useful, similar to how car insurance companies can infer that you go to the liquor store 2 times a week despite the sensor ostensibly being for things like acceleration and maximum speed.
because the endpoint of perfect price discrimination on health insurance is that the people who actually need it can't afford it or won't get approved, and the people who dont need it get it. It's already happening in some cases and makes the whole idea of insurance completely pointless.
I was a shareholder (sold when they got acquired for ~$7), as well as GARMIN and APPLE (I'm obviously long on the whole wearable space as it is the future of healthcare).
I took a bath on FitBit (I kept buying buying buying and so maybe ended up cost averaging in at $9 or $10), but I'd do it again in a heart beat. They are pioneering future medicine. In 50 years people are going to look at medicine pre wearables like we look at healthcare in the 1800's.
I was very happy FitBit sold to Google because I want them to survive, and unfortunately in this current tech regime the only way to do that is join one of the big players.
It just makes me sick when people who are partly responsible for the current anti-competitive marketplace make phony statements pointing the blame at companies like Goog, and heroes like FitBit are caught in the middle.
I enjoyed using Fitbit for years but came to the realization the calorie estimates were laughably off and that, for my body type and movement habits at least- the steps were inacurrate.
I wouldn't call them pioneering future medicine- it seemed to me the idea of the company was great but they had to have had a flippant attitude to the accuracy of the data provided.
The other day I tried like 10 times on mobile and web (and in incognito) to get Maps to show me a map of where all the Weinerschnitzel locations were in the US (you'd think Google MAPS could do that right), and no matter how far I zoomed out on any device, if I hit enter on the search or hit "Search this area" it zoomed me back in on my region and said 'oh right there'. NO GOOGLE that's not what I wanted at any point...thanks for assuming you know what information I want, again, even in incognito. "directions to work campus" always sends me over a toll bridge when I have no tolls selected as my default!
Maps, as far as I'm concerned, is a dead product already. It won't show me the closest local places at times, or refuses to show me other locations. It editorializes my searches, and gives me bad directions. I quite honestly cannot wait for a better alternative in an app. I wish HERE Maps had survived the Nokia acquisition.
Obligatory reminder: Gadgetbridge [1] is an Android mobile application without network permission, acting as a companion for your smart weareables. Your data about you stays yours. Your conversations forwarded as notifications aren't going anywhere else.
Maybe, but since we don't have currently good way to use our health data for health purposes, this might be good development. They will provide a way to sync which others will emulate and it will be one standard.
Fitbit, and the like generally don't provide much data that's useful in a healthcare setting. The sensors aren't great, and people don't necessarily wear them consistently.In broad strokes they can tell you/your doctor if you are generally active. However, you could probably determine that yourself. The heart rate monitoring is good enough for monitoring the intensity of your own exercise but not good enough for anything diagnostic.
Now you can but sensors and smart phone connectable heart rate and bp monitors that are medically useful, but they're not going to fit on your wrist.
Some of the sensors are reasonably useful for "perhaps you should see a doctor" or at least "explaining what the sensor saw when this happened to a doctor". The SpO2 sensor, which never worked on my Fitbit anyways, is particularly helpful to keep an eye on if you have COVID, as it so happens.
In my case, I found sometimes I'd start feeling really odd when I hadn't eaten much lately, and I discovered due to my Fitbit that my heart rate was spiking even while I was pretty much sedentary during those times. When my best description of the event prior was "feeling weird", having that info from my Fitbit is pretty nice if I want to explain to a doctor what's going on.
Is the sensor extremely precise on those figures? No. Is the general trend of being hooked up to them both during baseline living and during an unexpected medical event pretty useful? Absolutely.
I don't disagree broadly, but there's a big difference between something that give's you the user a heads up and something that is backed by evidence and is medically useful.
Chest strap heart rate monitors that cyclists use produce useful data, but obviously you aren't going to strap one on every day.
I mean, the margin of error is definitely larger, but I wouldn't say you can't call Fitbit data "evidence". And again, I would definitely say it's medically useful to have a general daily baseline to compare against.
If my Fitbit says I'm usually here and then all of a sudden, I am here, the sensor may not be super precise, but it's absolutely evidence that the measured value has changed.
I mean "evidence" as in evidence based medicine. Which is to say, there isn't research showing that these devices are useful in a clinical setting which is my only claim. Plenty of people find them highly useful for their own individual reasons, and I wouldn't claim otherwise.
It seems to be related to low blood sugar, here's some quick web search blurbs that probably explain it:
"Scientists were already aware that low blood sugar might speed up heart rate by sympathoadrenal stimulation. In other words, low blood sugar may spark an epinephrine or adrenaline response in the body as part of our biological emergency alert system, that which induces “fight or flight” or in the case of diabetes, a strong urge to signal the body to “consume sugar now!” Coupled with low blood potassium, this response may lead to an irregular heart rate."
"Blood sugar levels affect the heart when the levels are at extremes, either very high or very low. A higher level of blood sugar raises the blood pressure and heart rate. This leads to heart diseases. If you have low blood sugar levels you will experience a rapid heart rate and a drowsy, irritable weak feeling."
That latter description far better explains how I was feeling. Anyways, I neither understood why I was feeling that way, nor it having any relation to my heart rate. Having my Fitbit on both gave me information that could help me identify what was going on, but also a way to know if it's happening again, so I can eat something quickly.
> Fitbit, and the like generally don't provide much data that's useful in a healthcare setting.
They are not meant to.
> people don't necessarily wear them consistently
What are you basing this on ? Anecdotally, I and a few of my friends who are fully into Fitbit are wearing them dutifully. I was also somewhat skeptical but I figured it's not that much money to try. It completely changed my view on Fibit after trying it, and I've been very consistently wearing it.
> However, you could probably determine that yourself.
Not really. There's nothing like honest data and clear metrics to show how behind someone is. It also very successfully turned "fitness" into a game for me - clear, achievable goals and a way of tracking it easily did wonders to keep me motivated.
> The heart rate monitoring is good enough for monitoring the intensity of your own exercise but not good enough for anything diagnostic.
It's not meant to be a short-term diagnostics tool, and if you expect that, I think your expectation is completely misplaced. But it very clearly would be a useful data for the long-term baseline.
They say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure - Fitbit is doing enough "nudge" to improve that prevention department for me, for a dirt cheap price. It's been an extremely useful and valuable tool and a service for me. I've never consistently tracked my weight, nor exercised consistently - and I have no doubt majority of people fall into a similar bucket. Not everyone would benefit as much, but clearly there's sizable population that would, and Fitbit, for that price, is doing a lot more to keep me motivated and exercise than gym memberships or private trainer or group exercise classes or most such things I've tried in the past. I actually wish Fitbit would allow us to share the exercise records with my primary care doctor - that would keep me even more honest, and would provide better insights and long-term trend data for my doctor.
I know, that's my whole point. They aren't medical devices and aren't useful for medicine/healthcare beyond showing that you are or are not active.
> What are you basing this on ? Anecdotally, I and a few of my friends who are fully into Fitbit are wearing them dutifully
Optical blood flow sensors need to be held flat against your skin with minimal movement up and down the arm. That's just hard to do.
> It's not meant to be a short-term diagnostics tool
Again, that's exactly what I was saying. My only claim was that the "health" data they produce isn't useful for healthcare in a clinical setting. This is the reason health record systems don't import that data. I worked in the medical record space for quite a bit of time, and never met a doctor that wanted this kind of data in a medical record.
> since we don't have currently good way to use our health data for health purposes
It's difficult to share Fitbit data with my primary care doctor. I think this statement describes that situation well (and beyond). And Fitbit data is clearly health data. And nobody has claimed it's for "healthcare in a clinical setting". I think you're beating a straw man you've constructed.
That's not at all what I'm saying. My point is that fitbit and similar wrist mounted consumer devices aren't currently useful for real health purposes.
I was responding to:
> Maybe, but since we don't have currently good way to use our health data for health purposes
My criticism is that the is NO WAY you could use this data, because the data is junk. I even pointed out that there are larger devices that do work. But there are real physical limitations in trying to measure heart rate through the wrist by bouncing light off of the veins. Measuring blood flow through tissue downstream from the heart is an indirect measurement at best. Skin, sweat, tissue composition, and motion all add confounding variable that are hard to correct for in software.
The data you do get from the device is do you regularly exercise while wearing the device or not.
I won't disagree that the data could be better. It can always be better. But it gets better. With every. single. update.
You're just wrong about no ways to use this data. I've personally dramatically improved my health via wearables over the past 7 years. A close friend with a heart condition has perhaps had his life saved by these things. Check out the FitBit forums or subreddits. When you have a lot of data with high dimensionality and apply modern ML/DL methods you can discover connections that just aren't visible with fewer dimensions.
Color me skeptical, but I've read a mountain on research on this very topic, and know some people on the medical side of this space and it just doesn't seem like the quality of the data is there for medical use.
You could maybe do something with ML/DL on resting heart rate measurements for some kinds of people (thin but not too thin, and with lighter skin).
I'm totally willing to believe that cool things are happening in med-tech, but I don't believe optical blood flow sensors mounted in a watch band are one of those things. If someone produces some real research where they get meaningful diagnostic info out of these devices, then I'm open to changing my mind.
Only because optical heart rate sensors aren't very accurate under many real world conditions that have nothing to do with the quality of the sensors, other hardware, or the software. There's a good long history of medical research here, and not a lot of reason to believe that someone is going to develop a medically useful wrist strap based optical sensor.
Health insurers in my country(India) are already discriminatory, top health insurers here denied me health insurance because I disclosed my disabilities[1] despite Govt. guidelines against blanket denial of policies for the disabled. This is pretty much the case for anyone who discloses their disability truthfully here[2][3].
This is because they're not keeping in sync with the progress in medical science, why should my orthopedic troubles be a risk factor for providing insurance to cover COVID-19 treatment?
Now with say health data from devices, they'll likely find more statistical data to deny coverage (with some obscure reason) or increase premium to many even if the applicant isn't sick and thereby denying a chance of health insurance coverage if they really get sick. Especially when an unqualified underwriter decides whether I should get a health insurance or not.
[1]https://abishekmuthian.com/insurers-are-putting-the-lives-of...
[2]https://www.indiaspend.com/covid-19-insurers-are-denying-pol...
[3]https://twitter.com/pavinann/status/1339952358235631625