The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
If you weren't scientifically illiterate you would see that I have answered your questions. In reality RMR is the largest component of TDEE (except some elite athletes) , especially for the more sedentary person. I believe that's the target user? Are you trying to argue the opposite? Instead of hiding behind your 'tuned model' assertions perhaps you need to look at the underlying formulae.. You seem very defensive about going into any detail. Hilarious how you try to smooth out the fact that you implied 24hour heart rate would contribute to a better measurement of RMR. I specifically stated the Onitor Track in chest mode is different as the exercises are known (with METS ratings)... That makes the Onitor special as it doesn't allow HR to skew activity monitoring and the design allows for an adaptive RMR model to be used. Explicitly explain how another device on the market can 'handle' metabolic adaptation? Back it with science.. You can't refute my claims with anything but 'hot air' and hilarious assumptions.
Amazing response, this isn't some ego stroking game Hex. Come back to reality. Maybe first get some sleep as Doug advised.. And you call my posts hot air.. Lol
I'll try to keep it simple for you Hex because you still haven't grasped some basic concepts with regards to EE. I consider my job here done because you are finally asking the right questions and not ignoring metabolic adaptation. 24hour heart rate monitoring does not contribute positively to an objective view of resting calorie expenditure (for simplicity everything minus the prescribed exercise falls under resting). I am not in anyway saying that 24 hour heart rate monitoring isn't useful for other applications. For weightloss (and insights into Diabetes I.e. Links between weight change and insulin sensitivity) and getting the ball rolling for mass real time research projects on free living individuals, it is not important. Core reasons being: -far too many other variables relating to heart rate that have little or nothing to do with energy expenditure, these will continuously skew data and not allow for easy comparisons of individuals (don't forget the insurance companies), therefore useless energy expenditure phenotypes would result. - It won't give you an adapting view on RMR. Pretty important considering that's the majority of daily calories burned - especially more so for less active individuals, the ones that are being targeted. Your example/illustration implies that it WOULD somehow as you are involving TDEE in your calculations (hence the spouted nonsense comment) . In comes the assumptive all size fits one Mifflin St Jeor equation as well or similar. - It requires estimating oxygen consumption before kcal conversion which requires bodyweight (or lean mass/fat mass - not viable, nor reliably accurate with current widely available tech). Unless you'd like to explain how HR can estimate exercise intensity in another way? The important difference for the Onitor in chest mode is the exercises are known and have METS ratings. I stand by the Onitor Track's design being optimal.. Get reading Hex, I don't have the time to teach you fairly basic science. Seeing that the Onitor Track claims to adapt to the users fitness level (clearly through use of the specifically prescribed exercises), and theoretically it can do that with the chest ECG accuracy, RMR models can be updated on the fly. Likely with some estimate of VO2max or a relative coefficient deduced from the exercise sessions. All in one device... Note the DASH guidelines ( that coincidentally IMEC helped prepare) for the UK government with regards to IoT devices has data minimisation as a design principal. In this case more is not more.. The thermometer addition would be useful for extra RELEVANT data points is all I will say on that matter..
As a side note I do appreciate how your backpack example makes logical sense to you. It does however prove that you don't understand what you're talking about. That exact use of HR will lead to increasingly less accurate kcal estimate for the same activity as the user loses weight. It will lead to overestimation.
Wow, hilarious response! I can't respond to the longer post as it truly is nonsense. Such a shallow knowledge of Human Biology, you again carry on refuting science.. Regarding the shorter posts again we are back to ignoring metabolic adaptation. Show me explicitly, even just theoretically, in any possible way another fitness tracker (a single device) is accounting for metabolic adaptation in a scientifically rigorous manner. I can do it for the Onitor Track based on its design and can back it up scientifically. If you can do that then we have a competitor to the Onitor Track. If not well.... It really doesn't matter anyway. Regarding your Apple comment - we'll just have to wait and see. Nothing in the current boundaries of science to validate that assertion whatsoever unless you'd like to point me in the right direction? Can't believe I bit again.. Your science bending is giving me a headache
Continued... LSE chopped my post. Comparing on the same terms, a 24 hour heart rate monitor will use bodyweight as a denominator to derive kcal expenditure throughout the day and will not be able to adjust to metabolic adaptation - something that will occur more so with weight change, this sector. It'll get less accurate over time, instead of more. That drop in accuracy wouldn't be suffered by solely an accelerometer based activity tracker. I wonder just from this which would provide more insightful data in the long term regarding weight loss and diabetes type 2..
Quotes below from just the one Hex314 post on 23rd May 2018 1. "This illustration isn't talking about the software or the exact model, it was raised in the context of how the onitors wrist based mode was dumb as we lose out on HR monitoring on the wrist." - why is it dumb to lose out on HR monitoring on the wrist when calculating energy expenditure? Ignoring metabolic adaptation to make an assertion. 2. "What ever model you care to think of that takes HR and calculates energy, for my example it doesn't really matter." - your example is unrealistic and can provide no useful conclusions and therefore 'doesn't really matter'. 3. "Now as I keep repeating "Say we have perfectly calibrated calculations for HR to kcal" - yes let's say we ignore metabolic adaptation, the primary thorn in the side of quantifying energy expenditure, and provide an unrealistic example. 4. " But that doesn't have much relevance for this example as we are looking at both devices under the same terms." - benefit of this being what? Further below is a similar example (begins and ends with ***). 5. "Do you understand now? It is an illustration of how cloudtags hyped ECG accuracy is almost irrelevant for weight loss." - you made an assertion based on ignoring metabolic adaptation and then mentioned weight loss, laughable coming from someone who implies they have a PhD in a core science. Your illustration/example is at best an oversimplified, unrealistic and GCSE PE level at best, or spouted nonsense at worst. I've made that clear already. Either way it demonstrates scientific illiteracy. I thought my recent post made it quite clear that you cannot ignore metabolic adaptation. You seem to be arguing about something but have confirmed that you did in fact ignore metabolic adaptation. It does seem like case closed.. What are you even rambling about Hex? Your illustration is akin to comparing a football shaped solid object and a shoebox shaped solid object in GCSE physics: ***Which of the two will reach the bottom of a 30� slope first when starting in the same spot at the top? The shoebox weighs 10% more than the football. Assume zero friction/other resistance. The shoebox of course! Under the same terms the design of the football (if wanting to get down the hill as quick as possible) is dumb because it's lighter.*** ^ I take it by your 'logic' (or scientific illiteracy) you want to defend that too Hex? If it wasn't clear, I am likening friction to metabolic adaptation above. What is the point of making such unrealistic illustrations? What are you trying to say? It's stupid not have 24hour heart rate monitoring on the wrist to calculate energy expenditure? I've shown otherwise. Comparing on the same terms, a 24 hour heart rate monitor will use bodyweight as a denominator to derive kcal expenditure throughout the day and will not be able to adjust to metabolic adaptation
I don't know how to respond Doug, it's an entirely different conversation already.
Continued.. Just don't go ignoring metabolic adaptation please. We are humans, not perfectly efficient equal machines. Otherwise weight management would never have become such an important topic in health.
I wish to draw a line in this Hex. We should stick to reality and what is relevant. You have said many times now that more data points of HR lead to a more accurate device (I won't entertain the GPS mentions). For calculating energy expenditure and monitoring energy balance this is not the case with current tech - please don't respond with a link to a fitbit Aria 2 or similar. Adaptive thermogenesis has been ignored. The link addresses this specifically. It is a fair assumption you made, that more feature variables - >better model, but not suitable in this case. More variables is not always better and this is a great example. Careful phenotyping is required (see the recommendations and final remark of the link). We could explore the endless list of problems that will occur when trying to add lean mass as a variable. That would be much more productive than ignoring metabolic adaptation - the primary issue regarding sustainable weight management. It's worth noting the mentions of bio marker monitoring around the CloudTag/IMEC collaboration and Amit's focus on Diabetes type 2. Your point relating this back to Cloudtag I'm afraid is irrelevant because you are implying that the Onitor Track uses the same basis for calculating kcal as the other non medical wearable devices. There is plenty to suggest otherwise: - The track doesn't measure heart rate at the wrist. The ECG sensor is on the skin facing side of the clip (sensor package) when attaching to chest. The 'pebble' (comms package) contains a 3axis accelerometer - (interesting thermometer addition in the patent application as a side note for anyone curious). "As your fitness improves, the program intelligently interprets your data and adapts your exercises so that you can achieve your goal." - theoretically only possible as the exercises are known (METS ratings) and the 3axis accelerometer is used for smoothing out the signal when on the chest - unlikely for activity monitoring at the chest. "In the ECG mode Onitor Track helps you optimize your training by utilizing heart rate zones." - Metabolic efficiency training included in this single device (aimed at the masses), great. Within Amit's demo of the Onitor Track device, it's worth listening closely to how he said it works. Regarding the ECG heart rate monitor he uses the same rhetoric as the quote above from the Onitor website. Amit even addresses your point in the latest video on the CloudTag site - "relevant data points". A few things to consider: The Onitor Track states it aims to fit "seamlessly into your everyday life." The Onitor Track would only be worn on the chest during the prescribed exercise sessions. All other activity just picked up from the wrist via the accelerometer. Clearly it is not targeting those who have extra exercise sessions. Perhaps the ring mention on the patent application would open up that sector. Plenty more could be said... J
One more. : https://www.petrashub.org/portfolio-item/data-analysis-and-iot-solutions-for-healthcare/
Potentially relevant links related to recent posts: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00003191777 https://iotuk.org.uk/iot-in-health-and-social-care-report/ ^ PDF download https://www.petrashub.org/portfolio-item/security-and-new-threats-in-healthcare/ https://www.petrashub.org/portfolio-item/iot-observatory/ https://www.petrashub.org/portfolio-item/blockchain-empowered-infrastructure-for-iot-blockit/ And my favourite (good timing Hex with your many data points!) : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2809965/#!po=19.3878
You come back with that link?! Trolling or genuine? Still going round in circles here, Mr PhD. You've been given useful links to digest the science, I'm sorry that you don't understand it thoroughly. Link (2) particularly should set you on the right path, if you were scientifically literate. Refer to post 14:38 for the rest of your rambling.
The only thing I have lost here Hex is time. Its not a competition anyway.. I came on here to try and help you specifically with your incorrect assumptions - with science. My points still stand and are still valid. You're making almost identical assumptions re: digital phenotyping as you were regarding HR->kcal. It again highlights that you don't really know this area well - I said skim reading won't cut it. You don't even realise you're going in circles. Hint: still no measurement of lean/fat mass. I wonder how much it'd cost to have a medically accurate and secure device for body composition in everyone's home. Dress it up how you wish (by wording it like I've argued Cloudtag's approach is invalid) but you've confirmed your scientific illiteracy here. I'm sorry for making your illiteracy my problem Hex. On a final note, thank you. This rebuttal, despite its repetitive nature has made future prospects for myself a little more rewarding.
You're still showcasing a lack of scientific understanding even here.. You may want to go through the links I provided and do further reading. This is becoming far too repetitive. I would oppose it. Just like you can turn off the webcam and mic on a laptop?
You ignoring my point re GPS and medical data from one device too?
You can't find a wearable claiming to help you lose weight can you? I wonder why...
If the datapoints provided by the wearables you've linked were viable for digital phenotyping then the related companies would be making weight loss claims in regard to their calories burned calculations..
Show me a weightloss wearable then Hex, wow. "The Polar V800 is an advanced multisports GPS watch for serious sports enthusiasts and professional athletes who want to reach peak performance." Anyway.. GPS and medical data on one device? Have you considered that statement regarding security? You've been very shy when it comes to IoT security.
I'm sorry Hex your shallow understanding of this area is still shining through when you post irrelevant links. I asked for a competitor. Find me another wearable that targets positive energy balance (weightloss) and is using a better approach than IMEC with regards to phenotyping to create a new foundation for studying energy balance in humans. This is becoming arduous...