{ "type": "slideout", "content": { "title": "45-Metric List", "content": "\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCore totals (20)\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003eWeight\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eBMI\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eBody Fat Rate (aka body fat %)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eBody Fat Percentage\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eFat Mass\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eMuscle Mass\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eSkeletal Muscle Mass\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eMuscle vs Fat Ratio\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eVisceral Fat\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eMetabolic Age\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eBasal Metabolic Rate (BMR)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eHydration (status\/level)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eWater Weight\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eTotal Body Water (TBW)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eIntracellular Water (ICW)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eExtracellular Water (ECW)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eProtein Levels\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eBone mineral content \/ “bone” metric (often marketed as bone density)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eHeart health \u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eFull-body segmental scan coverage (arms\/torso\/legs)\u003cbr\/\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\u003c\/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSegmental fat % (5)\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003eRight Arm Fat %\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eLeft Arm Fat %\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eTrunk Fat %\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eRight Leg Fat %\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eLeft Leg Fat %\u003cbr\/\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\u003c\/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSegmental muscle\/lean outputs (5)\u003cbr\/\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003eRight Arm Muscle\/Lean (segmental)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eLeft Arm Muscle\/Lean (segmental)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eTrunk Muscle\/Lean (segmental)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eRight Leg Muscle\/Lean (segmental)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eLeft Leg Muscle\/Lean (segmental)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003c\/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSegmental muscle\/water balance ratings (5)\u003cbr\/\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003eRight Arm Muscle\/Water Balance %\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eLeft Arm Muscle\/Water Balance %\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eTorso Muscle\/Water Balance %\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eRight Leg Muscle\/Water Balance %\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eLeft Leg Muscle\/Water Balance %\u003c\/li\u003e\u003c\/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSegmental intracellular-water health (5)\u003cbr\/\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003eRight Arm ICW health (segmental)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eLeft Arm ICW health (segmental)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eTorso ICW health (segmental)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eRight Leg ICW health (segmental)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eLeft Leg ICW health (segmental)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003c\/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScoring + insights shown in creative (5)\u003cbr\/\u003e\u003c\/strong\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003eOverall Health Score\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eBody Composition Grade\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eActivity Grade\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eSleep Grade\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eRight-vs-left limb difference flag (lean\/muscle asymmetry callout)\u003cbr\/\u003e\u003c\/li\u003e\u003c\/ol\u003e" }, "width": 750, "transitionDuration": 150 }

{ "type": "slideout", "content": { "title": "11-modal", "content": "\u003ch4\u003eLean Mass Preservation During GLP‑1-Assisted Weight Loss in Engaged Digital Health Program Participants\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ci\u003eAn Outcomes Analysis of 6,990 Hume Health Premium Members\n \u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHume Health Corp • Internal Outcomes Analysis • 2024\n Correspondence: research@humehealth.com • Methodology available on request\n\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003eABSTRACT\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBackground.\u003c\/b\u003e GLP‑1 receptor agonists produce substantial weight loss but are associated with lean mass loss of\n 25–39%\n of total weight lost in published clinical trials. Lean mass is a primary determinant of resting metabolic rate, and\n its loss during weight reduction is associated with impaired weight maintenance following treatment cessation. This\n analysis examined lean mass outcomes in a real-world cohort of Hume Health premium platform members who met defined\n engagement criteria.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMethods.\u003c\/b\u003e Retrospective analysis of 6,990 Hume Health premium members on GLP‑1 therapy who completed a minimum\n of\n three body composition measurements per week via the Hume Body (8-sensor bioelectrical impedance analysis) and made\n weekly attestations of adherence to Pro.f AI protocol guidance. Body composition was measured at each weigh-in. The\n primary outcome was lean mass loss as a percentage of total weight lost, assessed from highest recorded weight (peak)\n to lowest recorded weight (nadir). Weighted mean lean mass loss was computed as the ratio of aggregate lean mass\n change to aggregate total weight lost across the full cohort.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResults.\u003c\/b\u003e Mean baseline weight was 105.3 kg (SD 21.8). Mean total weight lost was 21.9 kg (SD 6.8),\n representing 21.3%\n of baseline body weight. The weighted mean lean mass loss as a percentage of total weight lost was 16.9%. The median\n lean mass loss as a percentage of total weight lost was 19.4%. A total of 12.7% of members preserved or increased lean\n mass over the measurement period. Among the 87.3% of members who lost lean mass, mean lean mass loss as a percentage\n of total weight lost was 22.0%.\n\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\n Conclusions. \u003c\/b\u003e Hume Health premium members on GLP‑1 therapy demonstrated lean mass loss substantially below the\n 25–39%\n range documented in published clinical trials. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that\n high-frequency\n body composition monitoring combined with AI-guided protocol adherence supports favorable body composition\n outcomes\n during medically assisted weight loss.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eKeywords:\u003c\/b\u003e \u003ci\u003eGLP‑1 receptor agonists; lean mass preservation; body composition; semaglutide; weight loss;\n bioelectrical impedance analysis; digital health\u003c\/i\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n \n\u003ch4\u003e1. INTRODUCTION\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP‑1) receptor agonists represent a substantial advance in pharmacological obesity\n management. In the STEP 1 clinical trial, once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg produced mean total body weight\n loss of 14.9% over 68 weeks, compared to 2.4% in the placebo group receiving lifestyle intervention alone —\n approximately 6.2 times greater weight loss than lifestyle intervention alone.¹\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, a consistent finding across GLP‑1 clinical trials is that a meaningful proportion of weight lost derives\n from lean tissue rather than adipose tissue. Neeland et al. documented lean mass reductions of 40–60% of total weight\n lost in some GLP‑1 trial cohorts, with substantial heterogeneity across studies.² Prado et al., in a commentary in The\n Lancet Diabetes \u0026 Endocrinology, reported lean mass loss of 25–39% of total weight lost across medically induced\n weight loss programs.³\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is clinically significant because skeletal muscle mass is a primary determinant of resting metabolic rate (RMR)\n — the baseline energy expenditure that determines whether a patient can sustain their new body weight after treatment\n ends.⁶ In the STEP 1 extension trial, participants who discontinued semaglutide without a structured metabolic exit\n protocol regained two-thirds of their prior weight loss within one year of stopping treatment.⁴\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Hume Health platform combines GLP‑1 therapy with high-frequency body composition measurement via bioelectrical\n impedance analysis (BIA), physician oversight informed by longitudinal tissue-level data, and an AI guidance system\n (Pro.f) that surfaces body composition patterns for clinical review and member adherence. This analysis examines\n whether this protocol-supported approach is associated with lean mass outcomes below published benchmarks.\n\u003c\/p\u003e\n \n\u003ch4\u003e2. METHODS\n\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2.1 Study Design\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis was a retrospective cohort analysis of real-world member data from the Hume Health platform. The analysis period\n spanned active program enrollment through March 2026. The study was conducted under Hume Health Corp internal data\n governance protocols. Member data were de-identified prior to analysis. The study did not constitute human subjects\n research requiring institutional review board oversight under 45 CFR 46 as it involved retrospective analysis of\n de-identified operational data.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2.2 Participants\n \u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEligible participants were Hume Health premium members who: (1) were actively enrolled in a GLP‑1 therapy program\n during the analysis period; (2) completed a minimum of three Hume Body body composition measurements per week\n throughout the measurement window; and (3) completed weekly attestations confirming engagement with and adherence to\n Pro.f AI protocol guidance. Members who did not meet all three criteria were excluded from analysis.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2.3 Measurements\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBody weight and body composition were measured at each weigh-in using the Hume Pod, a bioelectrical impedance analysis\n device measuring whole-body and segmental lean mass, fat mass, and total body water. BIA measurements were recorded at\n consistent times relative to weigh-in. Lean mass at peak weight (highest recorded body weight during the measurement\n window) and lean mass at nadir weight (lowest recorded body weight) were identified for each member. Lean mass delta\n was computed as lean mass at nadir minus lean mass at peak. Weight loss was computed as peak weight minus nadir\n weight.\n\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLean mass loss as a percentage of total weight lost was computed for each member as: (|lean mass delta| \/ weight\n loss) × 100, where lean mass delta was negative for members who lost lean mass and positive for members who preserved\n or gained lean mass. The primary aggregate outcome — weighted mean lean mass loss as a percentage of total weight lost\n — was computed as: (sum of lean mass deltas across all members \/ sum of total weight lost across all members) × 100,\n reflecting the population-level ratio of lean mass change to total weight change.\n\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2.4 Statistical Analysis\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics were computed for all primary and secondary outcomes. Continuous variables are reported as\n mean (standard deviation) and median. The weighted mean was used as the primary outcome measure for lean mass loss as\n a percentage of total weight lost, as it accounts for variation in total weight lost across members and reflects the\n aggregate population-level body composition response. Members who preserved or gained lean mass during the measurement\n period (lean mass delta ≥ 0) are included in all analyses; their inclusion in the weighted mean computation reduces\n the aggregate lean mass loss percentage relative to analyses restricted to members with lean mass loss.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e3. RESULTS\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.1 Participant Characteristics\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 6,990 members met all eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics are\n presented in Table 1.\u003c\/p\u003e\n \n\u003cdiv class=\"table_drawer\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 1. Baseline Participant Characteristics (n = 6,990)\u003c\/p\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth\u003eCharacteristic\u003c\/th\u003e\n \u003cth\u003eValue\u003c\/th\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eSample size (n)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e6,990\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMean baseline weight, kg (SD)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e105.3 (21.8)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMedian baseline weight, kg\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e102.3\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMeasurement frequency (minimum)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e3 weigh-ins per week\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eProof engagement attestation\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eWeekly (required for inclusion)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003c\/table\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n \n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.2 Weight Loss Outcomes\n \u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMean total weight lost was 21.9 kg (SD 6.8), representing a mean reduction of 21.3% (SD 6.7%) of baseline body\n weight. Median weight lost was 19.6 kg, representing 20.0% of baseline body weight. Weight loss outcomes are presented\n in Table 2.\u003c\/p\u003e\n \n\u003cp\u003eTable 2. Weight Loss Outcomes\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"table_drawer2\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth\u003eOutcome\u003c\/th\u003e\n \u003cth\u003eResult\u003c\/th\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMean weight loss, kg (SD)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e21.9 (6.8)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMedian weight loss, kg\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e19.6\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMean weight loss, % of baseline (SD)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e21.3% (6.7%)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMedian weight loss, % of baseline\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e20.0%\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMinimum weight loss, kg\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e15.7\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMaximum weight loss, kg\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e75.4\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003c\/table\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.3 Lean Mass Outcomes\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe weighted mean lean mass loss as a percentage of total weight lost was 16.9% across all 6,990 members. The median\n lean mass loss as a percentage of total weight lost was 19.4%. A total of 890 members (12.7%) preserved or increased\n lean mass over the measurement period (lean mass delta ≥ 0). Among the 6,100 members (87.3%) who lost lean mass, the\n mean lean mass loss as a percentage of total weight lost was 22.0%. Lean mass outcomes are presented in Table 3.\u003c\/p\u003e\n \n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Lean Mass Outcomes\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"table_drawer3\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth\u003eOutcome\u003c\/th\u003e\n \u003cth\u003eResult\u003c\/th\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eWeighted mean lean mass loss, % of total weight lost (all members)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e16.9%\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMedian lean mass loss, % of total weight lost (all members)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e19.4%\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMembers preserving or gaining lean mass, n (%)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e890 (12.7%)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMembers losing lean mass, n (%)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e6,100 (87.3%)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003eMean lean mass loss, % of total weight lost (among those with lean mass loss)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e22.0%\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003ePublished benchmark (Prado et al., 2024; Neeland et al., 2024)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e25–39% (range across GLP-1 trials)\u003c\/td\u003e\n \u003c\/tr\u003e\n \u003c\/table\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n \n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3.4 Interpretation of the Weighted Mean Outcome\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe weighted mean of 16.9% reflects the aggregate population-level ratio of total lean mass change to total weight\n lost across all members. Because members who preserved or gained lean mass (12.7% of the cohort) contribute negative\n lean mass loss values to the numerator, the weighted mean is lower than the mean computed among members who lost lean\n mass exclusively (22.0%). Both measures are reported to provide transparency regarding cohort composition. The\n weighted mean is the primary outcome because it most accurately represents the population-level body composition\n impact of the program.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e4. DISCUSSION\n\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis analysis demonstrates that Hume Health premium members on GLP‑1 therapy, who met defined body composition\n monitoring and AI protocol engagement criteria, experienced lean mass loss substantially below the benchmarks\n documented in published GLP‑1 clinical trials. The weighted mean lean mass loss of 16.9% of total weight lost compares\n favorably to the 25–39% range reported by Prado et al.³ and the 40–60% upper range reported in some cohorts by Neeland\n et al.²\n\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mechanism by which frequent body composition measurement and protocol-guided engagement may attenuate lean mass\n loss is consistent with established physiology. Skeletal muscle mass is the primary determinant of resting metabolic\n rate.⁶ Interventions that preserve lean mass during caloric restriction — including higher protein intake, resistance\n exercise, and dose calibration timed to body composition response — are documented to reduce lean mass loss during\n weight reduction. The Hume platform protocol facilitates tissue-level visibility that enables these calibrations in\n near real-time; the present analysis cannot isolate which components of the program contributed to the observed\n outcomes.\n\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe finding that 12.7% of members preserved or gained lean mass during GLP‑1-assisted weight loss is notable. This\n subgroup is likely influenced by favorable baseline characteristics, behavioral factors, and variability in BIA\n measurement across conditions, and should not be interpreted as a program-level guarantee of lean mass preservation.\n Its inclusion in the weighted mean reduces the reported aggregate lean mass loss figure relative to analyses\n restricted to members who lost lean mass.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.1 Limitations\n \u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis analysis has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting results. First, the study is\n retrospective and observational, without a concurrent control group. Comparison to published clinical trial benchmarks\n involves differences in population, measurement methodology, and GLP‑1 agent. Second, body composition was measured\n via bioelectrical impedance analysis rather than dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) or magnetic resonance imaging\n (MRI), which are considered the reference standards for lean mass quantification. BIA measurements are sensitive to\n hydration status, time of measurement, and device calibration, and may produce systematic differences relative to\n DXA-derived lean mass values. Third, the cohort consists of premium-tier members who met a minimum engagement\n threshold; results may not generalize to members with lower engagement frequency or to non-engaged GLP‑1 users.\n Fourth, no information on dietary protein intake, resistance exercise participation, or specific GLP‑1 agent and\n dosing schedule was incorporated into this analysis, and these variables are likely to influence lean mass outcomes.\n Fifth, the duration of the measurement window varied across members and was determined by the interval between peak\n and nadir weight rather than a fixed protocol period.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4.2 Future Directions\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProspective controlled study designs with standardized measurement protocols, dietary and exercise co-variate\n capture, and DXA-validated BIA calibration would provide stronger evidence for the role of high-frequency monitoring\n and AI-guided adherence in lean mass preservation during GLP‑1 therapy. Subgroup analyses examining the impact of\n engagement frequency, protein intake, resistance training participation, and GLP‑1 agent on lean mass outcomes would\n further characterize the mechanisms underlying these findings.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e5. CONCLUSIONS\u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong 6,990 Hume Health premium members on GLP‑1 therapy who met defined body composition monitoring and AI protocol\n engagement criteria, the weighted mean lean mass loss as a percentage of total weight lost was 16.9%. This is\n substantially below the 25–39% range reported in published GLP‑1 clinical trial literature. The median lean mass loss\n was 19.4%. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that high-frequency tissue-level monitoring, combined\n with AI-guided protocol adherence and physician oversight informed by body composition data, supports favorable lean\n mass outcomes during medically assisted weight loss. Prospective controlled research is needed to confirm these\n findings and to isolate the active components of the platform protocol.\n\u003c\/p\u003e\n \n\u003ch4\u003eREFERENCES\u003c\/h4\u003e\n \n\u003cp\u003e1. Wilding JPH, Batterham RL, Calanna S, et al. Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity. N Engl\n J Med. 2021;384(11):989–1002. doi:10.1056\/NEJMoa2032183.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. Neeland IJ, Linge J, Birkenfeld AL. Changes in lean body mass with glucagon-like peptide-1-based therapies and\n mitigation strategies. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2024;26(Suppl 4):16–27. doi:10.1111\/dom.15728.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. Prado CM, Phillips SM, Gonzalez MC, Heymsfield SB. Muscle matters: the effects of medically induced weight loss on\n skeletal muscle. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2024;12(11):785–787. doi:10.1016\/S2213-8587(24)00272-9.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. Wilding JPH, Batterham RL, Davies M, et al. Weight regain and cardiometabolic effects after withdrawal of\n semaglutide: The STEP 1 trial extension. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022;24(8):1553–1564. doi:10.1111\/dom.14725.\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5. Hume Health Corp. Lean Mass Preservation in GLP‑1 Members: An Internal Outcomes Analysis. 2024. Analysis of 6,990\n premium members. Methodology available on request: research@humehealth.com.\n\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6. Ravussin E, Bogardus C. Skeletal muscle metabolism is a major determinant of resting energy expenditure. J Appl\n Physiol. 1989;66(3). PMID:2243122.\n\u003c\/p\u003e\n \n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDisclosure Statement\n \u003c\/b\u003e\u003c\/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis analysis was conducted by Hume Health Corp using data from the Hume Health platform. Hume Health Corp is the\n developer of the body composition monitoring hardware (Hume Body Pod) and AI guidance system (Pro.f) evaluated in this\n analysis. No external funding was received. The analysis has not undergone independent peer review. Investigators have\n an inherent commercial interest in the outcomes described.\u003c\/p\u003e" }, "width": 750, "transitionDuration": 150 }

As seen in

It Reads Your Biomarkers, Not Your Steps: 9 Plain Answers on How the Hume Band Actually Works

You clicked to find out how a screenless band can know all that. Here is the honest answer, sensor by sensor.

“AI wearable” usually means a black box and a bigger promise. This page opens the box: the optical sensor reading blood flow at your wrist, the noise filtering that cleans the signal, the models that turn weeks of readings into recovery, sleep, blood-pressure trend insights and your Pace of Aging, and the Health Coach powered by Claude AI that turns it all into guidance. Nine answers, no buzzwords.

See what the sensor actually reads
Every reading shows its confidence
Ask the Health Coach powered by Claude AI

4.7★: 2,955 verified reviews
24/7: Optical biomarker tracking
14 days: One charge, no gaps

See the 9 Reasons ↓ Get Yours & Save 30%

1/10

Reason 1

It reads your blood, not your steps

Optical PPG signal

Most wearables count movement and guess the rest, because steps are easy to count. The Band starts somewhere else. An optical sensor sits against your wrist, shines light into the skin, and reads how your blood flow shifts with every heartbeat. The method is called photoplethysmography, PPG for short, and it is why a band with no screen can know so much.

That one signal carries more than a step count ever could. The rhythm between beats, where your heart settles at rest, how your body behaves through the night: it is all written in blood flow. The next eight answers walk through how the Band turns that raw signal into scores you can act on, and where its limits honestly are.

Optical PPG signal

Reason 2

The sensor block: 5 LEDs, 4 photodiodes, one job

The sensor block

5 LEDs. 4 photodiodes.
One job.

5 LEDs 4 photodiodes

The optical engine behind every signal.

Flip the Band over and you find its whole nervous system: five LEDs and four photodiodes, arranged around one job. The LEDs fire light into your wrist, and the photodiodes measure what comes back. More light absorbed means more blood in the vessels at that instant. Repeat that continuously, day and night, and you have a live record of your pulse.

Here is the part most brands would bury: the 2.0 uses the same 5-LED, 4-photodiode sensor block as the original. The upgrades live in what happens after the light comes back, in the processing that cleans and interprets the signal. Hume says that plainly, which should tell you something about how the rest of this page handles claims.

The sensor block

5 LEDs. 4 photodiodes.
One job.

5 LEDs 4 photodiodes

The optical engine behind every signal.

Hume Band 2.0

$319~~$456~~Save 30%

No subscription · 45-day home trial

Get the Hume Band

Reason 3

The AI part, without the buzzword: filtering noise out of a moving wrist

Reviewed by Dr. Ashley Froese Physician, DO

A wrist is a terrible place to take a measurement. It swings, sweats, flexes, and grips barbells, and every one of those movements distorts the light signal the sensor reads. So the first real job of the Band's AI is unglamorous: noise filtering. The 2.0's improved signal processing works to separate your actual pulse from the motion wrapped around it.

That is where the 2.0's gains come from: not new hardware, better listening. Independent reviewers who wore it alongside an Oura or a Whoop reported that its trends lined up with the devices they already trusted. Not identical readings, aligned direction. And for a tool built around trends, direction is the part that has to be right.

Reviewed by Dr. Ashley Froese Physician, DO

Reason 4

From raw signal to the four numbers that matter

From noise to signal

Raw light in.
Four numbers out.

Noise filtering

Recovery Sleep HRV Pace of Aging

Weeks of clean signal become trends you can act on.

What you get out of all this is simple: each morning, one score that tells you whether to push or protect today. Here is how it is built. Once the signal is clean, the app distills it into a handful of numbers. Heart-rate variability, the spacing between beats, reflects how recovered your nervous system is. Resting heart rate anchors your baseline. Overnight, blood-flow patterns map your sleep stages. Together they become that recovery score.

Zoom out from mornings to months and the models get more interesting. Weeks of those signals feed your Pace of Aging, a directional read on your biological aging, and Metabolic Momentum, a running estimate of which way your habits are pushing you. Those numbers are a direction, not a verdict, and they move with your sleep, stress and training, which is exactly what makes them useful.

From noise to signal

Raw light in.
Four numbers out.

Noise filtering

Recovery Sleep HRV Pace of Aging

Weeks of clean signal become trends you can act on.

Hume Band 2.0

$319~~$456~~Save 30%

No subscription · 45-day home trial

Get the Hume Band

Reason 5

Blood-pressure patterns, decoded between doctor visits

Blood Pressure

130/89mmHg

Last: Mon

SMTWTFS

Directional trend, not a diagnosis.

Trusted by Dr. Yaz Dominguez Board-certified Family Medicine, DO@doctor_yaz

Blood pressure may be the strangest measurement in your life: it shapes your long-term health, yet most people meet it once a year, in a doctor's office, as a single number. The Band's PPG-based feature takes a different job. It watches how your pattern drifts across days and weeks, and how the salty stretch, the deadline month, or the bad-sleep run shows up in it.

Be clear about what this is and is not. These are trend insights, not a cuff replacement, and never a diagnosis. Cuffless readings track relative change, not clinical numbers, so for medical readings and decisions, use a validated cuff and talk to your doctor. What the Band adds is the part a yearly snapshot cannot: the pattern between visits.

Blood Pressure

130/89mmHg

Last: Mon

SMTWTFS

Directional trend, not a diagnosis.

Trusted by Dr. Yaz Dominguez Board-certified Family Medicine, DO@doctor_yaz

Reason 6

Every reading ships with a confidence rating

Confidence 92%

Every reading rates its own certainty. Illustrative.

Recommended by Dr. Seth Capehart Emergency Medicine, MD

Halfway through a heavy set, your wrist is flexed, the strap has shifted, and the light signal underneath is a mess. Most wearables will hand you a number anyway and let you believe it. The Band attaches a confidence rating to its readings instead, so when a signal was shaky, the app says so on the tile rather than dressing noise up as data.

It is a strange feature to brag about, a device admitting uncertainty. But it tells you how the whole system thinks. A tracker that flags its own weak readings is a tracker whose strong readings mean something. If you have ever quietly distrusted a wearable's perfect-looking numbers, this feature exists for you.

Confidence 92%

Every reading rates its own certainty. Illustrative.

Recommended by Dr. Seth Capehart Emergency Medicine, MD

What Hume Owners Say

Daniel K. Verified

"Metabolic Momentum became something I check each morning. HRV drops predictably after poor sleep or a glass of wine, and it lines up with how I feel."

Priya S. Verified

"Watching the blood-pressure trend over a few weeks finally pushed me to talk to my doctor. Loved having the pattern in front of me."

Marcus L. Verified

"Screenless is the whole point for me. All-day data, zero buzzing, comfortable enough that I forget it's on at night."

4.7 · 2,955 verified reviews

Reason 7

Ask it anything: the Health Coach powered by Claude AI

Scores tell you what happened. The Health Coach powered by Claude AI is where they turn into what to do next. Built into the Hume app, it reads the same signals this page just explained, your sleep, recovery, strain and trends, and turns them into proactive, personal guidance for your health and wellness journey.

You ask in plain language. Why is my recovery low today? It answers from your own data, the short night, the hard session, the drifting trend, and suggests what to try next. And it is honest about its lane: this is everyday wellness guidance, not medical advice, and it will tell you so.

Reason 8

Why trends beat snapshots

A snapshot 6 weeks

Any single reading, from any device, carries noise: a warm room, a late meal, a strap worn one notch loose. That is not a flaw in one brand, it is physics. The honest way to use wearable data is the way the Band's models use it: stack weeks of readings, let the noise cancel out, and read what remains, which is your direction.

Trends only work if the data never stops. That is why the 14-day battery matters more than it sounds: a device that dies on a charger every night keeps missing the night, and the night is where recovery, sleep and most of the signal live. The Band charges twice a month and spends every night on your wrist.

A snapshot 6 weeks

Reason 9

45 days at home to feel the difference, at 30% off

Hume Band 2.0 in its box, own it once for $319, was $456

Limited time offer --:--:-- Own it once. No subscription.

Own it once $319 ~~$456~~−30% 45-day at-home trial · free shipping · no subscription

You have now seen the whole machine: light in, noise out, signals into scores, weeks into trends. The one thing this page cannot show you is your own data, and with a trend tool, that takes weeks to build. So Hume gives you 45 days at home, long enough to watch your first real month of direction take shape.

Launch pricing puts the Band at $249, down from $356. No subscription, free shipping, and if your own trends are not worth keeping, send it back for a full refund. 2,955 owners have already run this experiment and rated it 4.7 stars.

Limited time offer --:--:-- Own it once. No subscription.

Own it once $319 ~~$456~~−30% 45-day at-home trial · free shipping · no subscription

Get the Hume Band 2.0

Put the science on your own wrist

The same sensors and scores you just read about, reading you. One-time $249, was $356, with a 45-day at-home trial and free shipping.

{ "type": "slideout", "contentType": "with_image", "content": { "title": "","image": "//humehealth.com/cdn/shop/files/hume_pod.webp?v=1764101038&width=932", "imageWidth": "200","imageContent": "\u003ch2\u003eAbout Hume Pod\u003c\/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eHume Pod tracks your complete body composition with clinical-grade precision - measuring muscle mass, body fat, visceral fat, bone density, metabolic age, and 45 other metrics - then shows you exactly how your habits are changing your body over time.\u003c\/p\u003e", "secondaryContent": "\u003ch4\u003eThe only body analyzer for real progress tracking\u003c\/h4\u003e\u003cp\u003eHume Pod measures what actually determines your health and longevity, such as muscle gain, fat loss, visceral fat levels, and metabolic age.\u003c\/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur 8-Frequency BIA system reveals information like whether you're losing fat or just water weight, if you're building muscle even when the scale doesn't budge, dangerous visceral fat around your organs, and much more.\u003c\/p\u003e\u003ch4\u003eHow does it work?\u003c\/h4\u003e\u003cp\u003eHume Pod uses 8 electrodes and multi-frequency sensors to scan your entire body more accurately than standard scales - delivering 98% DEXA-level accuracy validated in lab studies and third-party testing. The metrics these sensors measure are:\u003c\/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003eBody Fat Percentage\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eSkeletal Muscle Mass\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eVisceral Fat Level\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eBone Density\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eMetabolic Age\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eBody Water Percentage\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eProtein Mass\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eBMI \u0026 Body Mass Index\u003c\/li\u003e\u003cli\u003eSegmental Analysis (arms, legs, torso measured separately)\u003c\/li\u003e\u003c\/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdvanced algorithms analyze these measurements to detect patterns you can't see: muscle building in specific body parts, fat loss masked by water retention, declining metabolic health, visceral fat accumulation, and more.\u003c\/p\u003e" }, "width": 750, "transitionDuration": 700 }

48,252+ Reviews

The Hume Band

Shop Now

The Hume Band isn’t another tracker

Hume shows you what’s happening inside your body — not just how hard you worked.

Comparison

Hume Band

Others

Focus

Longevity, disease detection,
healthspan

Strain, recovery, athletic
performance, lifespan limited to
premium*

Data Ownership

You own your health
data (exportable)

You don’t own your
data (locked behind membership)

Subscription
Required?

No, One time purchase
with option to upgrade to premium

Yes - $30/month (or more)

Body Composition
Tracking

Yes, via Hume Pod

Digital Twin / AI
insights

Yes, future-ready
predictive insights

No (basic insights only)

Holistic Health
Coaching

Yes, Science-backed, longevity-
focused

Limited to performance/recovery tips

Longevity Metrics
(HRV, Resilience)

Yes, with longevity index,
metabolic momentum
and capacity

HRV only

Price

One-time purchase: $199-$249 (no
subscription)

$300-480/year (ongoing)

Your True Age

Coaching That Targets Aging — Not Just Strain

Other trackers focus on workouts and recovery.

Hume is a full longevity system — with tools for disease detection, aging, and health optimization.

Biological Age is a label.

Metabolic Capacity is a system.

Hume says:

Hume says:
“Your momentum is 82. You gained 3.2 days of life last week — here’s how to gain more.”

Others say:

Others say:
“You’re biologically 37.”

We don’t just tell you how old you are.
We help you get younger — and prove it

Lifetime Access

No Monthly Fees to Access Your Own Health

Hume:

Hume: One-time purchase. Premium
optional*

Others:

Others: $30/month just to see
your data.

We believe your health data shouldn’t be locked behind a subscription.
With Hume Band, you own the device — and your insights. Forever.

Longevity

Real Longevity Metrics — Not Just HRV

Hume:

Hume: Metabolic Momentum, Capacity,
Resilience, and a full Longevity Index.

Others:

Others: Just lifespan. HRV is one
piece of the puzzle.

Hume gives you the whole picture — and shows how your body is actually changing over time.

Know Your Body

Direct Measurement — Not Just Inference

Others guess aging from HRV, sleep, and heart rate.

Hume measures it — directly.

The Hume Band + Hume Pod track real biomarkers in fat, muscle, and tissue — where aging actually
happens.

Inference is helpful.

But direct data is powerful.

Excellent | 5.0 reviews

How has Hume Band 2.0 helped people reach their goals?

“As a doctor, I’m impressed Most of my patients come in wanting a "magic pill" for longevity, but the truth is, daily habits matter more than anything. That’s why I was thrilled to discover the Hume Band. Unlike other wearables that focus on generic metrics, it tracks metabolic capacity—a key indicator of cellular health and aging. The data is presented in a way that’s accessible (no medical degree required!), and I’ve started recommending it to patients who want to take control of their health. One diabetic patient even reduced his insulin resistance by 20% after using the band’s insights to tweak his exercise and meal timing. For anyone serious about preventive health, this is a game-changer.

Brooklyn

Verified Member

“I can’t say enough good things about the Hume Band. One of the most impressive features for me has been the Metabolic Capacity. It flagged signs of strain on my body before I even realized something was wrong—turns out I had a chest infection! Thanks to the early warning, I was able to get checked out and start treatment before things got worse. The Band itself is super comfortable to wear all day and night. It gives me detailed insights on how my habit is impacting my energy levels and how to increase my metabolic capacity, and now I truly listen to what my body needs. The app is really intuitive, and the health data feels incredibly personalized and accurate. If you’re looking for a smart health tracker that goes beyond tracking fitness and sleep, the Hume Band is the one. I genuinely feel more in tune with my health, and in this case, it may have even helped me catch a serious issue early. Highly recommended!

Savannah

Verified Member

“I bought this on a whim—now I can’t imagine life without it. I wasn’t sure what to expect, but the Hume Band has become my daily health coach. It tracks things I didn’t even know mattered (like metabolic momentum) and shows me exactly how my choices affect my body. The app is sleek and user-friendly, and I love the weekly reports. My partner saw my results and ordered one for himself—now we’re both hooked!

Jenny

Verified Member

“I’ve tried every health tracker out there, and the Hume Band is in a league of its own. Most wearables just count steps or monitor heart rate, but the Hume Band goes deeper—tracking metabolic momentum and capacity to show how my daily habits impact my long-term health. The app breaks everything down in a way that’s easy to understand, and I’ve already made small tweaks (like adjusting my meal timing and sleep routine) that have had a huge impact on my energy. If you’re serious about longevity, this is a must.

Emily

Verified Member

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between Band 1.0 and Band 2.0?

Improved accuracy
Better signal processing means more reliable health insights and clearer trends over time.
Blood pressure trends tracking
Instead of isolated readings, 2.0 shows how your blood pressure changes across days and habits.
14-day battery life
Wear it longer, charge it less. Built for uninterrupted health tracking.
UltraLux strap
A more premium, comfortable, all-day wearable design.
Nutrition tracking (coming June)
Soon you'll be able to connect food intake with your body's response for deeper health insights.

What raw data does the Hume Band track and measure?

Continuous heart rate monitoring
Heart Rate Variability (HRV)
Blood oxygen levels (SpO2)
Sleep stages (light, deep, REM, awake)
Sleep quality and efficiency
Activity levels and movement patterns
Strain and recovery
Skin temperature
Blood Pressure Insights (NEW)

What is “longevity,” and how does the Hume Band support it?

Longevity means living a longer, healthier life—free from preventable diseases. The Hume Band helps by continuously tracking and interpreting signals from your body to:

Spot early signs of imbalance or chronic risk
Monitor how daily habits impact your aging process
Provide insights to improve healthspan—not just lifespan

On average, Hume Band users gained an extra 39 days of life in their first year with Hume

Our tools are designed to help you make small changes that compound into big results over time.

Do I need a subscription to use the Band?

No subscription is required to use the Band or access your raw data.

However, if you'd like AI-driven insights, personalized longevity coaching, and deep health analysis, you can subscribe to Hume Premium starting at $8.99/month. This supports the computing power needed to deliver real-time, intelligent health feedback.

Is the Band waterproof or sweatproof?

Yes. The Hume Band is IP68-rated—meaning it's:

Dustproof
Water-resistant up to 1 meter (3.2 feet) for up to 2 hours

Perfect for showers, swimming, and workouts—no interruptions.

What is the battery life of the Hume Band?

Up to 14 days of battery life with typical use
Fast charging: Full charge in approximately 30 minutes

Note: Frequent syncing and continuous tracking may slightly reduce battery life.

Is the Band compatible with my phone?

Yes. The Hume Band works with:

iOS Devices

iPhone 8 and newer
iOS 14.0 and above

Android Devices

Android 8.0 (Oreo) and above

Can I buy the Band without the Hume Pod?

Yes. The Hume Band works perfectly on its own for daily tracking.

The Hume Pod is an optional companion device that scans your body composition (body fat, muscle mass, etc.) for a more complete health picture—but it's not required.

What’s your return or exchange policy?

We offer a 45-day, no-questions-asked return or exchange policy. Return shipping costs apply.

Is my health data secure?

Yes. Your health data is:

Encrypted end-to-end
Stored on HIPAA-compliant servers
Only accessible to you (or your authorized providers if you choose)

We prioritize your privacy and never sell your data. You’re in control at every step.

It reads your blood, not your steps

The sensor block: 5 LEDs, 4 photodiodes, one job

5 LEDs. 4 photodiodes.One job.

5 LEDs. 4 photodiodes.One job.

The AI part, without the buzzword: filtering noise out of a moving wrist

From raw signal to the four numbers that matter

Raw light in.Four numbers out.

Raw light in.Four numbers out.

Blood-pressure patterns, decoded between doctor visits

Every reading ships with a confidence rating

Ask it anything: the Health Coach powered by Claude AI

Why trends beat snapshots

45 days at home to feel the difference, at 30% off

Put the science on your own wrist

The Hume Band

The Hume Band 2.0

Your body's early warning system

Choose your optional add-ons:

10-Year Warranty

Not satisfied within 45 days? Get a full refund

Looking for more information?

About the app

Difference between Band 1.0 and 2.0?

Technical specifications

FAQs

1. What raw data does the Hume Band track and measure?

2. What is “longevity,” and how does the Hume Band support it?

3. Do I need a subscription to use the Band?

4. Is the Band waterproof or sweatproof?

5. What is the battery life of the Hume Band?

6. What wrist sizes does the Band fit?

7. Is the Band compatible with my phone?

Can I buy the Band without the Hume Pod?

Shipping & returns

🏆 The Award-Winning Longevity Band

How has Hume Band 2.0 helped people reach their goals?

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between Band 1.0 and Band 2.0?

What raw data does the Hume Band track and measure?

What is “longevity,” and how does the Hume Band support it?

Do I need a subscription to use the Band?

Is the Band waterproof or sweatproof?

What is the battery life of the Hume Band?

Is the Band compatible with my phone?

Can I buy the Band without the Hume Pod?

What’s your return or exchange policy?

Is my health data secure?

5 LEDs. 4 photodiodes.
One job.

5 LEDs. 4 photodiodes.
One job.

Raw light in.
Four numbers out.

Raw light in.
Four numbers out.