Back in April, we wrote about a WHOOP patent covering a pressure-sensitive wearable that could sit on places such as the thigh, chest or arm. The patent talked specifically about muscle oxygen saturation, along with oxygenated and deoxygenated haemoglobin, which immediately made it more interesting than the usual wearable sensor filing. 

Since then, another WHOOP patent application has surfaced. Published on July 16 as US 2026/0198860 A1, it focuses on something much less exciting on paper, making sure a wearable is sitting against the body with the right amount of pressure.

But when you put the two patents next to each other, it starts to make more sense.

Getting the fit right

WHOOP’s idea is fairly clever. The wearable uses its own haptic motor to create a small vibration, then watches what happens using its optical and motion sensors.

From that response, the system can estimate how tightly the wearable is sitting against the body and how good the sensor contact is. It could then tell you to tighten or loosen the strap, or automatically run another check if the quality of the readings starts to drop.

WHOOP also talks about using the system in different places on the body. That includes the wrist, bicep, ankle, calf and torso, and the sensor could even be held in place by elastic clothing rather than a normal strap.

That detail is probably the most interesting part. It fits surprisingly well with the muscle oxygen patent we saw earlier this year, which also wasn’t really tied to the wrist.

Why this could be connected to muscle oxygen

Muscle oxygen sensors need good contact with the tissue underneath them. If the device is too loose, the optical signal can become noisy. If it is too tight, the pressure itself can start affecting local blood flow.

WHOOP talks about exactly those kinds of problems in the newer patent. It specifically discusses poor optical coupling when a sensor is too loose, and problems caused by excessive pressure when it is too tight.

That makes the April patent more interesting in hindsight. That filing combines optical sensing with pressure measurements and specifically mentions muscle oxygen saturation and haemoglobin-related data.

There is still nothing in the filings that directly says these technologies will be used together. So that connection remains speculation.

But it would make sense. One patent covers measuring what is happening inside the muscle, while another tackles the problem of making sure the sensor is pressed against the body correctly.

Strength Trainer gives WHOOP somewhere to use it

There is another reason this is worth watching.

WHOOP has been putting much more emphasis on muscular load through Strength Trainer. The current system estimates how much strain resistance training puts on the body using things such as exercises, weights, reps, sets, motion and cardiovascular data.

That works, but it is still an estimate. WHOOP isn’t directly measuring what is happening inside the muscle itself.

Muscle oxygen could change that. A sensor sitting on the thigh or bicep could potentially track how quickly oxygen is being used, how a muscle responds during repeated sets and how quickly it recovers between efforts.

That would give WHOOP a much more direct way of looking at muscular fatigue. It could also make Strength Trainer considerably more interesting, especially for workouts where cardiovascular strain doesn’t tell the whole story.

None of this means WHOOP is about to launch a muscle oxygen sensor. There is still no obvious regulatory filing, app reference or announced hardware that points to an imminent product.

But there are now enough pieces to make the idea worth following. WHOOP has patents covering muscle oxygen measurements, pressure-sensitive wearables, sensors worn on different parts of the body and systems that automatically check whether those sensors are sitting correctly.

That is a lot of work around one fairly specific problem.

The post Another WHOOP patent adds to the muscle oxygen picture appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

You no longer need the WHOOP band

Until now, Advanced Labs has very much been part of the wider WHOOP package. The feature launched in the US last year, combining blood test results with the health and fitness information collected by WHOOP 5.0 and WHOOP MG.

That restriction has now gone. WHOOP says Advanced Labs is available without a wearable membership, so someone using a Garmin, Apple Watch, Oura Ring, Pixel Watch or something completely different can pay for the testing without also maintaining a WHOOP subscription.

Now make no mistake, WHOOP isn’t suddenly pulling Garmin or Apple Watch data into its platform. Instead, it is separating the lab-testing side of WHOOP from the requirement to use its own wearable.

That makes Advanced Labs a much more standalone product than it was when it first rolled out in the US last year. At the time, the attraction was the combination of lab results with WHOOP’s sleep, strain and recovery data. Now WHOOP is effectively saying the laboratory side has value even if you get your everyday wearable data somewhere else.

Testing starts at around $150

Advanced Labs uses Quest Diagnostics in the US and offers blood panels covering areas such as cardiovascular, metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory health. Tests are ordered and reviewed by licensed healthcare providers, while the resulting reports include explanations and recommendations.

Pricing starts at approximately $150. WHOOP hasn’t turned Advanced Labs into a subscription-free replacement for the regular WHOOP experience, but it has removed the annual wearable membership as an entry ticket to the service.

It’s quite a shift from where WHOOP started. The company has spent years building around the idea that the hardware and membership belong together. Even when it introduced support for bringing blood test results into WHOOP, the idea was still centred around enriching the experience of existing members.

Advanced Labs can now bring someone into the WHOOP app before they ever consider wearing the device itself. Whether that eventually becomes another route for converting people into wearable subscribers is an interesting question.

WHOOP is also adding the Galleri cancer test

There is another addition worth mentioning. WHOOP is adding GRAIL’s Galleri multi-cancer early detection test to Advanced Labs, with results delivered through the WHOOP app

Galleri uses a single blood draw to look for signals associated with more than 50 types of cancer. WHOOP says it will be available through nearly 2,000 Quest Diagnostics locations in the US, with the actual analysis carried out by GRAIL at its North Carolina laboratory.

That’s a very different proposition from the recovery scores and training guidance WHOOP built its name around. The company has gradually pushed further into broader health with features such as Healthspan, ECG, Blood Pressure Insights and Advanced Labs, and this latest change pushes the platform another step away from being solely about the tracker on your wrist.

The post WHOOP opens Advanced Labs to people without the wearable appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Boop is the latest example. The free iPhone app connects directly to compatible WHOOP 5.0 and WHOOP MG bands, processes selected measurements locally and sends information to Apple Health without requiring a WHOOP account.

It is not the first project of its kind. NOOP and OpenStrap also work with WHOOP bands, Cracked Oura provides a local dashboard for exported Oura information, and Gadgetbridge supports watches from Garmin, Amazfit, Xiaomi, Huawei and other brands.

The pitch is simple. You bought the hardware, so why should it become useless when a subscription ends or you stop using the official app?

Garmin is a good example of the gap

Garmin users already have plenty of ways to take their data elsewhere. GarminDB downloads and organises information from Garmin Connect, GoldenCheetah analyses imported FIT files, and Gadgetbridge can replace Garmin Connect as the companion app for some watches.

These tools can store workouts, produce charts and help users explore their own data. What they cannot reproduce is the complete Firstbeat system behind Body Battery, Training Readiness, Training Effect, Recovery Time and Garmin’s other physiological metrics.

Garmin Connect Essentials shows how tightly these features connect. Sleep Score, Body Battery, Training Readiness and HRV Status all draw on different measurements, personal baselines and previous days of data.

Even something such as Garmin Acute Load goes beyond adding up workout minutes. Garmin estimates EPOC for each activity and then weights recent training to work out how much load the user is carrying.

The number on the screen comes last

Third party apps and developers cannot replicate the multi-million dollar research these brands have put in on developing the algorithms. Sure, reading heart rate over Bluetooth is easy. But optical data contains movement noise, missed beats and false peaks, so software must clean the signal before it can calculate anything useful.

HRV adds another problem because the app needs reliable intervals between individual heartbeats. Sleep is harder again, since a wrist wearable must guess whether someone is awake, in light sleep, in deep sleep or in REM without directly measuring brain activity.

This is where smaller projects hit their limits. NOOP openly says its WHOOP metrics are approximations, while OpenStrap warns users not to expect the same results as the official WHOOP app.

Cracked Oura works slightly differently because it imports information that Oura has already processed. It can provide a better dashboard or extra analysis, but it is not rebuilding Oura’s sleep and readiness algorithms from raw ring signals.

The established brands have years of data to work with. Oura developed its newer sleep algorithm using more than 1,200 nights recorded alongside sleep-lab equipment, while Google used more than 3,000 human-scored nights when developing its latest Fitbit and Pixel Watch sleep system.

Of course, that does not mean the big brands always get it right. It’s an ongoing process.

Open alternatives are still useful

Apps such as Athlytic and Bevel show that a smaller developer can create useful analysis from data stored in Apple Health. The Amazfit Helio Strap’s HRV export allows these apps to calculate their own recovery scores using measurements collected by Zepp Health hardware.

Open-source projects also offer privacy and transparency that the major platforms often lack. Users can inspect the formulas, keep their information locally and continue using hardware after official support disappears.

But access to the data is not the same as recreating the product. These apps may replace the dashboard and read basic sensor data. The harder job is replacing the research and algorithms behind it the analysis.

The post Why replacing the WHOOP or Garmin app is harder than it looks appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Garmin CIRQA is the better buy for existing Garmin users and anyone who wants detailed training metrics without another mandatory annual payment. Whoop remains the stronger recovery coach, but it now has to justify a subscription costing at least $199 every year.

Garmin’s entry into the screenless tracker category was always going to invite this comparison. CIRQA covers much of the same ground as Whoop, including continuous heart rate, sleep, recovery and workout tracking, but the two companies take very different routes once the data reaches the smartphone.

The biggest difference is not the hardware

CIRQA is essentially a Garmin sports watch without the screen, GPS chip and most of the controls. It records the familiar Garmin metrics, sends them to Garmin Connect and works alongside the company’s watches and cycling computers.

CIRQA also sits between cheaper screenless trackers and more coaching-focused platforms. Our Garmin CIRQA vs Fitbit Air comparison looks at how it stacks up against this simpler and more affordable alternative.

Whoop starts from a different place. The band collects the data, but the real product is the app and the way it connects Recovery, Strain, sleep and everyday behaviour.

That distinction became clear during my Whoop review. The hardware was comfortable and easy to forget, but the more useful part was how Whoop encouraged me to pay attention to recovery instead of constantly chasing faster times and a higher VO2 max.

That opinion still applies. Whoop presents its numbers as a daily plan, while Garmin gives you a larger collection of metrics and leaves more of the interpretation to you.

CIRQA is much cheaper over time

Garmin CIRQA costs $199.99. Its main health, sleep, recovery and training features work without a Garmin Connect+ subscription.

Connect+ remains optional at $6.99 per month or $69.99 per year. It adds features including Active Intelligence, expanded dashboards and access to some coaching tools, but CIRQA does not stop working when the subscription ends. Plus, you don’t really need the subscription.

Garmin CIRQA

Screenless tracking with no required subscription

View on Amazon View on Garmin

Whoop takes the opposite approach. The tracker comes with the membership, but an active plan is required to continue using the platform.

Whoop One starts at $199 per year, while Peak costs $239. The $359 Life plan includes Whoop MG and its additional heart features.

Whoop

Recovery, strain and sleep coaching with membership

View on Whoop

That makes the long-term calculation fairly brutal. Three years with CIRQA can cost $199.99, while three years of the cheapest Whoop plan costs at least $597.

The difference grows to $717 with Peak and $1,077 with Life. Whoop therefore needs to provide continuing value every year, rather than simply offer a slightly better app.

Whoop is easier to wear and charge

CIRQA is lighter, but it takes up more space along the wrist. Its body measures 47mm from end to end, compared with 34.7mm for Whoop 5.0.

Whoop is slightly narrower but thicker, so neither device wins the comfort comparison purely from the numbers. Wrist shape, band tension and where the sensor sits will probably have more influence than a few millimetres.

CIRQA’s length looks more intimidating in comparison images than its weight suggests. It comes in at a little over 20 grams with the band, while Whoop 5.0 weighs around 26.5 grams.

My experience with Whoop suggests its woven band should remain comfortable during continuous wear. The low-profile shape also works well during activities where a normal watch becomes awkward.

Whoop has the clearer advantage when charging. Its battery lasts more than 14 days, compared with up to 10 days for CIRQA.

The Wireless PowerPack available with the higher Whoop memberships slides over the tracker while it remains on the body. CIRQA uses Garmin’s familiar charging cable and needs to come off the wrist, creating a small gap in the data each time.

Garmin gives you more conventional training tools

CIRQA supports more than 80 activity profiles, automatic workout detection and connected GPS. Its physical button can also start and stop one favourite activity without opening Garmin Connect.

The band feeds into Training Readiness, Training Status, VO2 max, recovery time, workout benefit and Garmin’s wider training-load system. It can broadcast heart rate over ANT+ and Bluetooth, which gives it a useful role alongside other Garmin devices.

Whoop supports more individual activity types, but its approach is less conventional. The app concentrates on how much Strain the workout produced and what that exertion is likely to do to tomorrow’s Recovery.

That is useful, but runners and cyclists may find Garmin’s platform more complete. Garmin Connect gives you more recognisable workout records, routes, pace data and performance trends, while Whoop is better at explaining how hard the session was for your body.

Neither band has built-in GPS or a display. Anyone who needs navigation, live pacing or detailed data fields during a run will still need a phone, sports watch or cycling computer.

Accuracy also remains an open question. CIRQA uses a modified version of Garmin’s Elevate Gen 4 optical sensor, while Whoop collects heart-rate data 26 times per second with its newer PPG hardware.

The faster sampling rate does not guarantee better results. Whoop can still struggle with wrist movement and rapid heart-rate changes, while CIRQA needs broader independent testing across running, cycling and strength sessions before it earns an accuracy win.

Whoop still explains recovery better

Where Whoop has made a name for itself is in recovery tracking. Garmin offers these metrics as well, but Whoop connects the info more effectively. Recovery, Strain and Sleep operate as parts of the same system rather than separate numbers competing for space inside an app.

Whoop can show whether you are ready to train, suggest a daily Strain target and adjust your sleep requirement around previous exercise and accumulated sleep debt. It’s simple and it works. The Journal then connects behaviours such as alcohol, caffeine, supplements and late meals with changes in Recovery.

That remains Whoop’s most useful advantage. It turns the tracker into a structured self-experiment rather than simply another source of graphs.

Garmin provides Body Battery, Training Readiness, HRV Status, stress, sleep score, recovery time and Training Status. The information is useful, but there is overlap between some of the scores, and Garmin Connect does not always explain the relationship between them particularly well.

The new Essentials section improves the situation by bringing key recovery information closer to the front of the app. Even so, Whoop remains better at reducing a complicated physiological picture into a small number of decisions.

Health tracking is closer than it looks

Both trackers record continuous heart rate, resting heart rate, HRV, respiratory rate, blood oxygen, skin temperature and sleep. Each also provides a vibration alarm, although Garmin offers a Smart Wake feature that aims to wake the user at a lighter point in the sleep cycle.

CIRQA includes abnormal heart-rate alerts, stress tracking, nap detection, menstrual tracking and sleep-based temperature data. Most of those features work without Connect+.

Standard Whoop 5.0 does not have ECG. That feature belongs to Whoop MG, which comes with the $359 annual Life membership.

MG also adds irregular heart rhythm notifications and daily blood-pressure insights where available. Those features give Whoop a higher health ceiling, but they sit in a much more expensive version of the product.

For most buyers comparing CIRQA with standard Whoop 5.0, the health sensors are not the deciding factor. The larger differences remain software, training style and cost.

Existing Garmin users have an easy decision

CIRQA makes the most sense as a companion to another Garmin device. It can handle sleep, daily health and background activity, while a Forerunner, Fenix or Edge takes over during serious training.

That keeps the data inside Garmin Connect. Users do not have to compare two recovery scores, maintain separate histories or decide whether Garmin or Whoop should act as the main authority on their training.

It also gives Garmin owners a practical way to wear a mechanical watch during the day. CIRQA can continue collecting health data on the other wrist or upper arm without displaying notifications or adding another screen.

Whoop works with services including Strava, Apple Health and Health Connect, but it remains a separate recovery platform. That is useful for people who mix devices from several brands.

Someone already paying for Whoop and using its Journal regularly may not gain much from moving immediately. Someone wearing a Garmin watch for training while paying Whoop for recovery now has a much stronger reason to consolidate.

The post Garmin CIRQA vs Whoop: One payment or a yearly subscription appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

In this article we compare Garmin CIRQA, Google Fitbit Air, Amazfit Helio Strap, WHOOP 5.0 and Polar Loop to find the best screenless fitness tracker for different types of users.

These devices give screenless fitness tracker buyers five genuinely different options. Garmin offers the deepest training tools without a required subscription, Fitbit Air is the lightest and cheapest route into passive tracking, while WHOOP still has the strongest recovery platform but costs far more over time.

A few years ago, choosing a screenless fitness tracker mostly meant deciding whether you were willing to pay for WHOOP. That has changed quickly, with Google, Garmin, Polar and Zepp Health all offering alternatives that collect health and activity data without putting another display on your wrist.

None of these trackers has built-in GPS. They all move most settings, results and analysis into a smartphone app, but the similarities begin to fade once you look at subscriptions, training tools, comfort and compatibility with other devices.

Price, design and battery life

The purchase price only tells part of the story. Fitbit Air and Helio Strap both cost $99.99, while Garmin CIRQA and Polar Loop have $199.99 list prices.

WHOOP does not sell the tracker in the conventional sense. The hardware comes with the membership, but continued access to the platform requires an active plan starting at $199 per year, rising to $239 for WHOOP Peak and $359 for WHOOP Life with the MG hardware. 

Fitbit Air is the easiest device to forget you are wearing. Its pod weighs only 5.2 grams, with the complete tracker coming in at around 12 grams, and its 17mm width makes it noticeably slimmer than everything else here.

That comfort was the strongest part of my Fitbit Air review. It works well for sleep and continuous wear, although the seven-day battery claim trails CIRQA, Helio Strap and WHOOP.

Amazfit Helio Strap is also fairly discreet at 20 grams. Its nylon strap uses a hook-and-loop fastening, and Zepp Health sells an official upper-arm accessory for workouts where wrist movement might interfere with optical heart-rate readings.

Garmin CIRQA is wider than Fitbit Air but remains reasonably light. Its 24mm ComfortFit strap uses quick-release pins, and a physical button gives it a small advantage over the other trackers.

Polar Loop is the heaviest option at 29 grams. That is not excessive for a normal watch, but it is noticeable in a category where the whole point is often to wear something less intrusive.

Garmin CIRQA

Screenless tracking with no required subscription

$199.99

View on Amazon View on Garmin

WHOOP has the best charging arrangement, provided you choose Peak or Life. Its Wireless PowerPack slides over the tracker while it remains on your body, reducing gaps in sleep and recovery data, while the entry WHOOP One plan uses a conventional wired charger.

Health, sleep and recovery tracking

All five trackers cover the foundations. Each records continuous heart rate, resting heart rate, HRV, respiratory rate, sleep duration and sleep stages, but some of the apparent similarities disappear once you look more closely.

Polar Loop does not provide a normal blood-oxygen metric, while its temperature sensor remains available through the software development kit rather than as a consumer-facing skin-temperature feature. WHOOP reserves ECG and irregular rhythm notifications for WHOOP MG, which requires the top Life membership.

Garmin CIRQA has the broadest health package without a required fee. It includes Pulse Ox, skin temperature, HRV Status, Body Battery, Training Readiness, stress tracking, nap detection, abnormal heart-rate alerts and a Smart Wake alarm.

Google has given Fitbit Air a strong selection of passive health features for a budget-friendly tracker. It records SpO2 and skin-temperature variation, supports Smart Wake and can provide irregular rhythm notifications in supported regions.

That combination makes Fitbit Air more of a health tracker than a serious training device. It is particularly useful for someone who wants sleep, heart rate and background health data without wearing a large smartwatch overnight.

Helio Strap sits closer to the fitness side. BioCharge estimates available energy throughout the day, while Readiness focuses more directly on recovery, and the Zepp app also provides sleep, stress, HRV and blood-oxygen trends.

Polar’s Nightly Recharge remains a useful and well-established recovery feature. Loop also feeds into Sleep Plus Stages and SleepWise, but it lacks a vibration motor, so there is no smart alarm or silent wake-up option.

WHOOP still does the best job of turning recovery information into a daily narrative. Its Recovery, Strain and Sleep system connects behaviour, training and rest more clearly than most competing apps, although useful features such as the real-time Stress Monitor and WHOOP Age require Peak or Life.

Training features and ecosystem differences

None of these products should be mistaken for a full sports watch. There is no onboard GPS, map, display or live pace field on your wrist, so runners and cyclists who depend on real-time feedback will still need a phone, watch or bike computer.

That said, the training gap between the devices is substantial. Garmin CIRQA offers more than 80 activity profiles, connected GPS, Training Status, recovery time, VO2 max and Fitness Age, while its physical button can start one chosen activity without opening the app.

CIRQA is the obvious choice for someone already using a Garmin watch or Edge computer. Health and activity data sync through Garmin Connect, and the band can broadcast heart rate to compatible Garmin equipment.

It can also fill a practical gap for people who do not want to wear a Fenix or Forerunner continuously. You can wear CIRQA for sleep and general health tracking, then switch to the watch for a run without splitting your long-term data between two platforms.

The main caveat is that CIRQA is new. Its feature list is excellent, but comfort, workout heart-rate accuracy and automatic activity detection still need extensive real-world testing before it can be declared the most accurate tracker in the group. Garmin’s official specifications confirm the 80-plus activity profiles, connected GPS, training tools and 10-day battery claim. 

Helio Strap is the strongest low-cost option for people who care about training. It offers more than 50 sports modes, BioCharge, Training Load, VO2 max, heart-rate broadcasting and an official upper-arm band, all without a subscription.

It also shares data with Amazfit watches inside the Zepp app. My earlier Helio Ring and Helio Strap comparison looked at how Zepp Health uses separate screenless devices to maintain sleep, recovery and exercise tracking when a watch is charging or not being worn.

Fitbit Air can record a decent workout, but its software remains the weak point. In my Fitbit Air and Garmin 5K test, heart rate and distance were surprisingly close, but the overall experience lacked the workout controls and post-run detail Garmin users will expect.

The hardware often seems more capable than the app. Automatic recognition can also record the wrong start or finish time, and Google Health does not always provide enough editing control to repair the session afterwards.

WHOOP is more polished for interpreting training than recording conventional workout statistics. It excels at showing how a session contributes to Strain and affects subsequent Recovery, but it is less useful for someone who wants maps, splits or detailed running dynamics.

That difference came through when I let Fitbit Air and WHOOP automatically record the same 8km run. Both detected activity, but neither produced a complete record without checking, which is a reminder that passive detection still needs supervision.

Polar Loop works best as a doorway into Polar Flow. Manual sessions use the tracker as a heart-rate sensor inside the app, with the phone providing GPS, while automatic detection can record casual sessions without the phone.

Training Load Pro and Nightly Recharge give it more depth than a simple activity band. However, its lack of vibration, SpO2 and a user-facing temperature metric makes the $199.99 price difficult to justify unless you already value Polar’s training system. That said, phone GPS can provide route, speed and distance during manually recorded outdoor workouts. 

Frequently asked questions

What is a screenless fitness tracker?

A screenless fitness tracker records health, sleep and activity data without putting a display on your wrist. Most settings and results appear in a companion app, which allows the tracker itself to stay lighter, simpler and less distracting than a smartwatch.

Are screenless fitness trackers accurate?

The better models can track resting heart rate, sleep duration and general activity trends reasonably well, although accuracy varies by device and activity. Workout heart rate, automatic exercise detection and GPS distance can be less consistent, especially because the trackers in this comparison rely on a connected phone rather than built-in GPS.

Is Garmin CIRQA better than WHOOP?

Garmin CIRQA is the better choice for Garmin users who want training, recovery and health data without a mandatory subscription. WHOOP has the more mature coaching platform and does a better job of connecting sleep, behaviour, Strain and Recovery, but its membership makes it considerably more expensive over time.

Does Fitbit Air require a subscription?

Fitbit Air does not require a subscription for its main health, sleep and activity features. Google Health Premium adds extra analysis and guidance, but the tracker remains usable without it.

Which screenless tracker has the longest battery life?

WHOOP 5.0 has the longest quoted battery life at more than 14 days. Garmin CIRQA and Amazfit Helio Strap follow with up to 10 days, while Polar Loop offers up to eight days and Fitbit Air up to seven days.

Do screenless fitness trackers have GPS?

None of the trackers in this comparison has built-in GPS. They can use a connected phone to record routes, distance and pace during outdoor workouts, although the available features and reliability vary between platforms.

The post Best screenless fitness trackers compared for 2026 appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The patent application, titled Glucose Monitoring, was published on July 16 by the USPTO, under the number US 2026/0198807 A1. WHOOP filed it in January 2026, claiming priority from a provisional application submitted one year earlier.

How WHOOP’s glucose sensor would work

The proposed system shines selected wavelengths of light into the wearer’s tissue. Glucose absorbs some wavelengths differently from others, allowing the wearable to look for changes that may correspond to glucose concentration.

The filing describes WHOOP using two optical channels for this. One sensor measures wavelengths associated with glucose absorption, while a second records a reference spectrum. The software compares the two readings and calculates glucose concentration from the resulting ratio.

That reference measurement could help filter out some of the background noise that makes optical glucose sensing so difficult. Skin thickness, hydration, movement, temperature and other molecules can all change the amount of light reaching a sensor.

The application also describes using quantum dots or other tightly controlled light emitters. An optical layer containing glucose, or another material with similar absorption characteristics, could provide an additional reference signal inside the sensor itself.

The patent covers much more than a wristband

The main drawings show a screenless wrist-worn device that looks similar in looks with WHOOP’s existing approach. Sensors sit against the skin, while the wearable communicates with a phone and remote servers for further analysis. So no major changes there.

But the company has kept the broader claims flexible. The technology could appear in bicep bands, patches, fingertip devices, earbuds, eyewear, headbands and smart clothing with multiple removable sensor modules.

That breadth does not mean WHOOP plans to manufacture every one of those products. Patent applications commonly cover numerous configurations so that competitors cannot easily use the same sensing method in a slightly different form.

The patent does not show how this information would appear inside the WHOOP app. It also gives no indication that WHOOP 5.0 or WHOOP MG contains the necessary optical hardware, so this looks more like work for a future device than a dormant feature waiting to switch on.

Accuracy remains the real challenge

Wearable companies have pursued non-invasive glucose sensing for years, but turning a weak optical signal into reliable glucose readings remains difficult. Detecting a broad trend is one thing, while producing numbers that people can trust for medical decisions is something else entirely.

WHOOP’s reference channel and calibration methods appear designed to address part of that problem. However, the patent provides no clinical accuracy figures, error margins or testing results.

It is also unclear whether WHOOP wants to produce medical-grade glucose measurements or a broader wellness feature that tracks relative changes. The second option could arrive sooner, particularly if the company avoids presenting the readings as a replacement for a conventional glucose monitor.

For now, this remains a patent rather than a product announcement. Still, most of the WHOOP patents we have covered in the past have eventually translated into real-world products or features, so this one is worth taking seriously.

What is clear is that the company is looking beyond the measurements it offers today. Another recent patent describes a sensor that could be worn on different parts of the body, with muscle oxygen tracking among the more interesting ideas. Add glucose monitoring to the mix and it seems WHOOP is exploring a much wider set of health signals

This article originally appeared on Gadgets & Wearables, the first media outlet to report the story.

Source: USPTO patent application

The post WHOOP could be taking its next health step into glucose monitoring appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

I left both trackers alone

Fitbit Air and Whoop are designed to blend into the background. You wear them, get on with your day and check the results later.

That convenience formed a big part of my earlier Fitbit Air versus Whoop comparison. This time, I wanted to see what happens when neither tracker receives any help. Will they properly track my run?

I wore Fitbit Air on one ankle and Whoop on the other because I wanted to use both as secondary background trackers while keeping my Garmin Forerunner on my wrist. I did not start a workout from either phone app, so both devices had to recognise the run automatically.

Garmin measured 8.10km in 47 minutes and 17 seconds, with an average heart rate of 139 bpm and a maximum of 161 bpm. An easy run. The total elapsed time was 49 minutes and 15 seconds because I stopped briefly mid-session.

Whoop recorded far too much

Whoop recognised the activity as walking (which I then changed to running in the app). But it placed the start time at 3:06pm and the finish at 5:53pm. That gave me a running workout lasting 2 hours, 47 minutes and 59 seconds.

Now, I was actually walking before and after the run. So Whoop appears to have pulled much of that surrounding movement into a single activity. The result was 11,938 steps, 1,169 calories and an activity strain of 15.8.

Its average heart rate came in at only 114 bpm, well below Garmin’s 139 bpm. Whoop also recorded a maximum of 180 bpm, compared with 161 bpm on the Garmin.

The heart-rate graph makes the problem obvious. It includes long low-intensity sections, repeated drops and several sharp changes that do not resemble one continuous 8km run.

Whoop detected that something was happening, but it failed to understand when the run actually started and ended. That undermined almost every number attached to the activity.

Whoop lets you edit the start and end times of an activity. When I trimmed it to match the Garmin recording, its average heart rate increased from 114 bpm to 141 bpm, close to Garmin’s 139 bpm. The step count fell from 11,938 to 6,874.

However, the maximum heart rate remained at 180 bpm, which was clearly too high for this run. Whoop also provided no distance estimate, so I could not compare it with Garmin’s 8.10km.

Fitbit Air missed the opening section

Fitbit Air produced a much cleaner activity, but Google Health initially placed its start at 4:26pm, around ten minutes after I began the Garmin activity. That gave me a distance of 6.11km and a duration of 39 minutes and 34 seconds.

Its average heart rate came in at 142 bpm, only 3 bpm above Garmin. The maximum was 159 bpm, compared with 161 bpm on the Garmin. Fitbit also counted 6,580 steps and estimated 513 calories during the initially detected section.

Google Health also lets you edit the start and end times of an automatically detected activity from the Fitness tab. When I moved the start time back by ten minutes, the recorded distance increased from 6.11km to 7.77km. That left it 330 metres short of Garmin’s 8.10km result.

This changes the interpretation considerably. Fitbit Air had not completely lost the opening section. Google Health had retained enough underlying data to recalculate most of the missing distance once I corrected the start time.

However, it also means automatic detection needs checking after the activity. A hands-off tracker should ideally identify the correct boundaries without requiring the user to adjust them manually.

There was no route map in the app, so I cannot confirm whether the distance came from the phone’s GPS, movement estimates or a combination of the two. But the final 7.77km result was much closer to Garmin than the initially detected activity suggested.

Background tracking still needs checking

So what’s the takeaway?

After editing both activities to match the Garmin start and finish times, Fitbit Air delivered the more complete result. Its 7.77km distance came reasonably close to Garmin’s 8.10km, while its average and maximum heart-rate readings were also close.

Editing Whoop improved its average heart rate considerably, bringing it from 114 bpm to 141 bpm. But its maximum remained at an implausible 180 bpm, and it provided no distance estimate. The edits made both records more useful, but they did not change the original automatic detection result. Fitbit started too late, while Whoop captured far too much surrounding activity.

This was an ankle test, so it should not be treated as a verdict on normal wrist performance. But for devices built around passive tracking, the basic lesson is hard to ignore. Wearing them and forgetting about them still means checking their work afterwards.

For a deeper look at each device, read my full Fitbit Air review and Whoop review.

The post I let Fitbit Air and Whoop automatically track the same 8km run appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

The patent, titled “Monitoring fit of wearable devices,” was granted on May 26, 2026. It shows that the company has been thinking about one of the more annoying problems in wearables: bad fit quietly ruining good data.

The problem is not very glamorous

Wearable fit is not the kind of thing that gets much attention in product launches. Companies talk about sensors, algorithms, coaching, battery life and app features, while strap tightness usually gets reduced to a line in the setup guide.

But the fit can make or break the readings. A wearable that shifts around during exercise can produce noisy heart-rate data. A device worn too loosely can lose optical contact. A strap that is too tight can become uncomfortable, especially overnight or during longer sessions.

I for one can remember more than one occasion where my Whoop was not sitting properly on my wrist. As a consequence, I would lose a night of sleep data – ruining my usually excellent sleep score.

WHOOP is not just talking about asking the user to adjust the strap manually and guess what feels right. The filing describes a way for the wearable to measure fit more directly, using vibration and sensor response to work out how well the device is coupled to the body.

In plain English, the wearable would send a small vibration through the device, the strap or the body. Sensors would then measure the response, and the system would decide whether the current fit looks loose, tight or in a more useful range.

This is about cleaner data

The patent spends quite a bit of time on the idea of “mechanical coupling” and “optical coupling.” That sounds dry, but it is exactly the kind of thing that affects real-world performance.

Mechanical coupling refers to how securely the wearable sits against the body. Optical coupling refers to the contact needed for optical sensors, such as the LEDs and photodiodes used in wrist-based heart-rate tracking. When that contact goes wrong, the wearable has to work harder to separate useful signals from noise.

WHOOP’s filing describes a system that can evaluate the fit of the device and then provide adjustment information to the user. That could mean telling someone to tighten the band, loosen it or try the fit test again.

One drawing in the patent makes the idea feel more product-like. It shows an interface with “Tightness detected” at the top, along with results such as “Loose” and “Normal.” The same screen gives the user options to use the current tightness, try the test again, cancel or save.

It could fit WHOOP’s wider design

WHOOP has always had a different relationship with hardware than most smartwatch brands. The device has no display and leans heavily on continuous data, recovery, strain and sleep analysis. If the system can detect poor contact before it affects a workout or overnight reading, that could remove some of the guesswork.

The patent also looks beyond the wrist. Its drawings and examples refer to different body locations, including the wrist, bicep, torso, calf and ankle. That lines up with WHOOP’s broader wear-location strategy, where the sensor can sit in bands, apparel or other accessories rather than only on the wrist.

As always with patents, there is a big caveat. A granted patent does not mean WHOOP is about to launch this feature. Companies patent ideas all the time, and many never appear in a shipping product.

This article originally appeared on Gadgets & Wearables, the first media outlet to report the story.

Source: USPTO

The post WHOOP explores automatic fit checks for future wearables appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

An example spotted in Australia shows WHOOP 5.0 listed with a separate AUD$139 device price, alongside an annual membership of AUD$300 for new members. That is different from the familiar WHOOP model, where users pay for membership and the hardware is presented as part of the package.

Another example is Spain. Now you have to pay 69 euro in that country plus 199 euros per year for the cheapest plan.

This does not appear to be a global rollout. WHOOP support has reportedly described it as a limited-time trial in select markets.

“…prices shown on our website are offers specifically for new members. This pricing is part of an ongoing, limited-time trial in select markets. As we learn from this test, availability may change. Please note that any membership purchase remains subject to the specific terms presented during checkout and setup. With this test, the device is purchased first, and the membership is selected separately, which is why the annual membership price is lower than the standard price.” (source)

Why WHOOP might be testing this

There is a reasonable business logic behind the move. Separating the device and membership could give WHOOP more flexibility with regional pricing, promotions and hardware upgrades. It also lets the company show a lower annual membership price in markets where the full subscription cost may feel steep.

That does not necessarily mean users will pay less overall. Or more. It simply changes how the cost is presented. The device becomes a visible upfront purchase, while the membership sits beside it as the ongoing service.

The US looks unchanged for now

The US caveat is important. From what we can see, WHOOP is not testing this separate device pricing in that country at the moment. The device still appears to be included with membership in the usual way. The same applies to most of Europe.

That makes this more of a regional experiment than a firm signal of what WHOOP plans to do everywhere. It may remain limited. It may also give the company useful data on whether people respond better to a lower-looking membership price when the hardware cost is shown separately.

The challenge is keeping the message clear. WHOOP’s value sits in the full platform, not just the strap. If the device and membership are separated too strongly, users may start asking what they own and what remains locked behind the subscription.

For now, this looks like a pricing test. Still, it is worth watching because it shows WHOOP exploring ways to make its membership model more flexible as the screenless recovery tracker space becomes more competitive.

The post WHOOP tests making the device a separate purchase appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.

Why this is useful

Most wearables still lean heavily on cardiovascular effort. That works well for running, cycling and endurance training, but it misses a big part of the picture in the gym. Lifting places stress on muscles, joints, bones and connective tissue, even when heart rate looks fairly controlled.

WHOOP’s approach is to combine cardiovascular load with muscular load. The user enters exercises, weights, reps and sets, while the device uses wrist-based motion data from the accelerometer and gyroscope. The system then applies different movement profiles, because a back squat clearly places a different demand on the body than a calf raise.

That is the bit that makes this more interesting than a glorified workout diary. WHOOP is not only asking what you lifted. It is trying to understand how much of the body a movement involves and how much stress that session added overall.

It still needs proper logging

There is a catch, of course. Strength Trainer works best when users log workouts properly. You can build a workout in advance, select a pre-built option or add Strength Trainer data to an activity after the session.

That makes sense for serious gym users, but it also adds a complication. Runners can usually press start and go. Strength training still needs structure, because the device cannot magically know the weight on the bar or the difference between a warm-up set and a working set.

WHOOP also says the feature currently needs wrist-based wear. That is important, because WHOOP Body apparel placements will not give the same movement data for this feature. So if you normally wear the sensor in clothing during workouts, Strength Trainer may require a habit change. The same applies to upper arm bands.

WHOOP AI joins the gym side too

The feature also plugs into WHOOP AI. Users can ask it to build strength workouts around goals, equipment, muscle groups or limitations. That could be useful for travel, minimal equipment sessions or training around injury, although the quality will depend on how sensible the generated workout actually is.

WHOOP is also adding Exercise Trends, which shows volume, history and personal records for individual exercises. That gives the feature a more practical angle. Instead of only seeing a single Strain number, users can track whether they are progressing on specific lifts over time.

For WHOOP, this feels like a necessary move. Recovery wearables have spent years explaining endurance load in great detail, while treating strength work as a secondary category. Strength Trainer gives lifting a clearer place inside the WHOOP system, and that should make the platform more useful for people who split their training between cardio and the gym.

The bigger question is whether users will stick with the logging. If they do, this could make WHOOP’s recovery guidance feel more realistic after heavy lifting blocks. If they do not, it risks becoming another clever feature that only the most disciplined users bother to feed with enough data.

The post WHOOP wants to make gym strain less of a guessing game appeared first on Gadgets & Wearables.