Turns Out the Wrist Might Not Be the Best Place to Track Your Health
Wearable health trackers have traditionally been worn on the wrist, but new options like the Whoop band allow placement on other body parts such as the bicep, chest, or even underwear. Research suggests sensor accuracy depends not just on placement but also on fit, movement, and the specific health metric being measured. While optical sensors in wearables are improving, they still lag behind clinical tools like ECGs and can be less accurate for people with darker skin tones.
- ▪Most wearables use photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors that measure blood flow through light absorption.
- ▪Sensor placement, fit, and movement affect data accuracy, with some locations offering better readings than the wrist.
- ▪PPG sensors can be less accurate for individuals with higher melanin levels or tattoos, particularly for blood oxygen measurements.
- ▪Devices like the Oura Ring and smart earbuds are moving health tracking beyond the wrist.
- ▪ECG measurements are more precise than PPG because they detect the heart's electrical signals directly.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
For as long as I've been covering health and fitness trackers, which is basically since the dawn of the category, they've been synonymous with the wrist: Apple Watch, Fitbit, Garmin, Samsung Galaxy Watch. Sure, exceptions exist, but most wearables are designed for the wrist, likely for the same reason the pocket watch moved there a century ago: convenience. Nobody really questioned it, least of all me.That is, until I reviewed the Whoop band.The Whoop appeared like any other wrist tracker, except it had no screen, and its sensor could be placed in different locations to passively measure health data. After realizing the arm band was more comfortable for sleep, I started exploring other ways to wear it.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at CNET.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from CNET
