My view on wearables

I 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.

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):

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).
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).
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.)

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). 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. 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.

– Peter