,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
(1/8) I often get lots of questions about wearables. Most of the questions are about a specific device and whether I use it or think it has any value. That obviously depends on what you want to get out of the information the wearable provides you with.
(2/8) In general, I find the vast majority of wearables of little use to me. Why is this the case? Because they don’t fit my framework for what I think a wearable needs to address. My framework for what must be true of a “good” wearable (Attia Postulates):
(3/8) 1. What you’re measuring matters (e.g., HRV—matters vs. # steps taken—not so much). 2. What you’re measuring differs from day to day in ways that are not intuitive or linear (see above).
(4/8) 3. What you’re proposing to measure you can actually measure accurately (e.g., HR—can be measured accurately vs. subtle changes in body position—probably can’t be measured well enough yet).
(5/8) 4. You can report the data in a timeframe that is relevant to learn or act on (i.e., real-time info versus delayed info). 5. You can provide corrective, actionable feedback, if necessary. (This is huge and largely missing in most applications.)
(6/8) The two wearables that best fit (NB: nothing fully fits...yet) the above framework happen to be the stickiest wearables for me: a continuous glucose monitor (the Dexcom G6) and the Oura ring (disclosure: I’m an investor in, and advisor to, Oura).
(7/8) Sleep quality and glucose metabolism matter, they certainly can vary, and you can act on the accurate data that these two wearables provide you with.
(8/8) In the future, what I would love to see are remarkably high fidelity positional tracking sensors that can determine a person’s exact position in space, which will allow for exquisite movement coaching.
