Over at Wired Playbook, I wrote a piece about a group of researchers using ECG sensors, GPS, accelerometers, and a mobile phone to accurately monitor a patient with heart trouble, in real-time, during their prescribed exercise routine.

…[E]ven in this small pilot study, the device proved some worth: On two separate occasions, the researchers noted distinct abnormalities in a patient’s ECG and consulted with a cardiologist. While the cardiac events turned out to be benign, the fact that such subtleties could be picked up with remote monitoring holds much promise for the tech. Had a more serious medical emergency transpired, the researchers could have summoned an ambulance to the scene using the transmitted GPS data.

Though this was a small pilot study, the proof-of-concept research was a cool step forward for remote monitoring of health.

Read the entire article here.

Photo via Flickr / rwk

Worringham, C., Rojek, A., & Stewart, I. (2011). Development and Feasibility of a Smartphone, ECG and GPS Based System for Remotely Monitoring Exercise in Cardiac Rehabilitation PLoS ONE, 6 (2) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014669

And so, I began running again for the first time in a very long while.  I knew that as I ran more and more, I would start to just feel “better”, but that notion just wouldn’t satisfy the science geek inside me, and I needed to put numbers to my improvements.  So I started tracking my heart rate (via a standard chest-strap heart rate monitor ). I figured, at the very least, tracking my heart rate (HR) during my run would allow me to understand how it correlated to my exertion level.  It would also be interesting to see how my HR changed as I got back into shape. I bought the basic version — the one that shows your current heart rate, but doesn’t store any of the data or calculate statistics like max/min/average HR.  I was surprised how consistent my HR was during exercise, and soon began to use this information to gauge the intensity of my runs.  For example, some days I would be feeling fine and I would be running at my normal pace, but my HR was running about 3-4% higher than usual.  While I’m not sure if that is abnormal, it happens very infrequently, and I used it as a signal that I should slow down and take it easy.  While my current understanding of my HR during exercise is far from the interpretation of body metrics talked about here at The Decision Tree, I believe my analysis has me headed in the right direction.

After a year of using the HR monitor, I feel I am ready for an upgrade.  I want the data collection to be automated.  There is a new class of personal health monitors that is intended to not only be used during exercise, but rather, can be worn throughout the day.  These devices passively collect data, and require no input from the user.  So as you carry on your daily life — walking to meetings, running to catch the bus or train, moving your friend’s sofa up 3 flights of stairs — these monitors are automatically calculating metrics such as the total calories burned, steps taken, and miles traveled.  Combined with online calorie trackers, these devices create a one-stop diet and exercise analysis system.  I just wanted to briefly outline 3 devices that are either on the market, or will be this year.  I have chosen these products for their flexibility (you can wear them with any clothing, and can even collect information while you sleep).

GoWearFit is an armband which has sensors to measure skin temperature and moisture, as well as body acceleration. The company’s software uses the data collected from all of the sensors to determine metrics such as calories burned, physical activity duration, steps taken, sleep duration, and sleep efficiency. Periodically, the user must take off the armband and plug it into their computer to upload their data to the GoWearFit website. There is an online subscription required to view your data on your personal activity manager site.  So the consumer must pay an upfront cost for the armband (~$150+), and then pay the monthly cost for viewing their data (~$7-13, depending on the service contract).

In pre-release sale now,  FitBit is a small device that clips on an waist band, shirt, or a wrist strap (provided by the company).  It tracks calories burned, steps taken, miles covered, and sleep quality.  When the user walks within 20-50ft of the provided basestation, the data is wirelessly transferred, so there is no need to take the device off and connect it to a computer.  The basestation then transfers the data to a personal online database.  Unlike the GoWearFit system, with FitBit the user pays $99 for the device and that’s it — no monthly subscription fee to view the data.  Screen-shots of the online health manager are available on the company’s website, and include some nice features, such as a “see what your friends are up to” social networking tool, which could provide some motivation to go to the gym after those long days, when you are struggling to find the reason you started exercising in the first place.

SportBrain has similar features to the FitBit, such as tracking calories, miles, steps, and even has an online personal community where the user can track the activity of family and friends.  One nice addition is that it also integrates with certain heart rate monitors.  It appears the device is not wireless, so it must be taken off and connected to your computer to upload the data.

Franklin Roosevelt's blood pressure chart for 1944

One of the key components of making the right health decisions is – and ever will be – having the right information from which to decide. In today’s world of blood tests and screening exams and Gleason scores, this seems pedestrian. But the fact is that medicine only began quantifying health in the early 1900s, with the notion of high blood pressure, and it was well into the 1950s before individuals became aware of their numbers. I read recently that FDR’s blood pressure was high for nearly a decade, hovering as high as 200/150- astronomical, by today’s standards -for years, and was locked at 260/150 near his death from, yup, heart disease. But with no treatment available, the number was simply a warning that, maybe, he should cut back on smoking a bit.

In the 60 years since, the number of commonly tracked health metrics has soared, so much so that, these days, you can track them on your iPhone

The ability to track (and utility of tracking) these metrics seems to me increasingly important. While my colleagues over the Quantified Self have been sniffing around the greater landscape of personal metrics (UPDATE: and Alexandra Carmichael recently posted the 40 things about herself that she tracks daily), from productivity apps to those photo-a-day guys, I’ve been especially interested in those metrics that we can use to provide feedback and can perhaps manipulate in the hopes of improving our health (whether it’s running faster or weighing less). Feedback, to me, is key. Where FDR could only watch his numbers climb, now to have our numbers is to have the opportunity to adjust our numbers.

Which brings me to the point of this post: Aan effort to begin cataloging all the health metrics ordinary citizens might have available to track. The list – which needs your help – begins after the jump:

I’ve divided these into three categories (for now). Basic stats, Biometrics (in the sense of physiological statistics), and Relative Stats (variable inputs & subjective data). There may be better categories, and there are certainly stats I’m missing, so please help me add more

Basic stats:

• Height
• Weight
• Sex
• Age

Biometrics:

• Blood pressure
• Cholesterol count (LDL and HDL)
• Menstrual cycle (time)
• Blood glucose level
• liver enzyme level
• Gleason score (prostate test)
• (lots more blood tests out there)

Relative Stats:

• calorie intake
• fat intake
• transfat intake
• protein intake
• carb intake
• exercise (time, weight, reps)
• mood