{ "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 }

45-Day Money-Back Guarantee

A person wearing the Hume Band 2.0 on their wrist, with #1 Longevity Wearable 2026 and HSA/FSA eligible badges, and Apple Health and Google Fit compatibility

Four Hume Band 2.0 features: 14-day battery life, improved accuracy, ultra comfort strap and blood-pressure insights

Your wearable tracks, Band 2.0 acts — biological age, chronic illness signals and metabolic health in the Hume app

A woman stretching at home wearing the Hume Band, with her health score and recovery observation in the app

Three Hume Band outcomes: 6.8 years average lifespan gained, 71 percent reduced biological age within three months, 74 percent caught illness signals before feeling sick

Own it once

It never stops working.

HUME BAND

WHOOP

ŌURA

Subscription

Never

Required

If you stop paying

Keeps working

BP trend insights

Top tier only

Battery

Up to 14 days

~4-5 days

~4-8 days

2-year cost

$249

$697+

$438+

Built to be worn 24/7 — 14-day battery, patented soft-touch material, always tracking, lightweight and breathable

A verified buyer review from a lifter who switched from Whoop to the Hume Band

Customer quotes alongside The New York Times, The Verge and Men's Health, with HSA and FSA eligibility

The complete health operating system — nutrition, body composition, heart health, activity and sleep in one app

Blood pressure

See the trend,
not one reading.

Relative patterns across days. Not a cuff replacement.

Blood Pressure

130/89mmHg

Last: Mon

SMTWTFS

Directional trend, not a diagnosis.

Asleep in warm morning light wearing the Hume Band, tracked overnight

Sleep Overview

Time in bed

8h 10m

Sleep quality

89% Great

You’ve had 8 hours of sleep - go for moderate-strength training or steady cardio.

Sleep

Tracks every night.
Rates every morning.

Sleep stages, HRV and resting heart rate while you sleep.

Hume Band 2.0 close-up — own it once for $249, was $356

Limited time offer --:--:--

Own it once. No subscription.

Own it once

$249 ~~$356~~ −30%

45-day at-home trial · free shipping · no subscription

Best seller

4.7 2,955 reviews

Hume Band 2.0: Live Longer, Age Better

Track the health signals linked to longevity: recovery, sleep, HRV, Pace of Aging and blood-pressure insights. Know what your daily habits are doing to your long-term health, and what to do next. No screen. No subscription. 14-day battery.

No subscription. Own your data forever.

Core scores and your data are free forever. The Band keeps working even if you never spend another dollar.

Pay once: $249. Every feature included

45-day at-home trial with free shipping

Screenless comfort, worn 24/7 with a 14-day battery

Longevity signals, not step countsMetabolic Momentum, Pace of Aging and blood-pressure insights: the numbers that move your healthspan
Blood-pressure trend insightsPPG-based patterns that shift with sleep, stress and habits. Trends you can act on, not a cuff reading.
Sleep & recovery, decodedLight, deep and REM sleep, HRV and a morning recovery score. See exactly what last night did to you.
Pace of Aging & Metabolic MomentumA directional read on your biological aging: whether your habits are bending your aging curve up or down.

Not satisfied within 45 days? Get a full refund

That's how confident we are in your results. If you're not thrilled, send it back and we'll refund your purchase.

Recent reviews 4.7 · 2,955 reviews

Reviewed on Trustpilot

As seen in

Live longer

Members gain an average of +0.0 years of extra lifespan from healthier habits

Hume members use real health data to improve sleep, reduce stress, and build healthier routines that compound over time.

Small improvements in daily habits can dramatically change your long-term health trajectory.

Get the Hume Band 2.0

The honest math

Bought once. $0 every year after.

Whoop and Oura rent you your own data. The Band is $249 once, then nothing every year after. Here’s what each one actually costs over three years.

Hume Band 2.0$249 once · $0/yr

$249 3-yr total

Whoop 5.0hardware + $199-$359/yr

~$600-$1,080 3-yr total

Oura Ring 4$349-$499 + $69.99/yr

~$560-$710 3-yr total

Apple Watch$399-$799+ hardware

$399-$799+ hardware

45-Day Money-Back GuaranteeWear it at home. Not for you? Send it back.

HSA/FSA eligible

Over three years, a Whoop-tier plan runs roughly $600-$1,080 in membership alone. The Band is $249 once, then $0 every year after.

Inside the Health OS

Six signals. One picture of your biology.

The Band is the always-on input. The app turns its signals into one picture of your biology: understand today, see patterns early, act sooner.

Checking the Hume app — Steps, Sleep, Blood-pressure and Heart-rate trends, Band on the wrist

★★★★★ Reviewed by Dr. Froese

Recovery. A directional read of how well you recharged overnight, from HRV, resting heart rate and sleep. A daily insight, not a diagnosis.

Recovery

Ready for today

0100

Recovery Need

HRV. Heart-rate variability, your nervous system’s readiness signal. Watching the trend tells you when to push and when to rest.

HRV

0ms

Last: today

SMTWTFS

Sleep. Nightly duration and stage breakdown: light, deep and REM. A trend view of how your nights add up.

Sleep

6h 55m

Last: today

SMTWTFS

Metabolic Momentum. A directional read on where your metabolic trend is heading week to week: building, holding or slipping.

Metabolic Momentum

+12Strong Positive

This week

SMTWTFS

Pace of Aging. A directional read on your biological aging: whether your habits are compounding in your favour. A trend to act on, not a diagnosis.

Pace of Aging

0yrs

Biological Age

YoungerOlder

Chronological Age 45 yrs

Blood-pressure trend. A relative, PPG-based trend over time: directional only, not a cuff reading. Full view in section 8.

Blood Pressure

130/89mmHg

Last: Mon

SMTWTFS

4.7 ★ from 2,955 reviews

★★★★★“First tracker I’ve actually kept wearing past a month.”Casey D. · Verified

★★★★★“No charging anxiety, no subscription. It just works.”Daniel T., 47 · Verified

★★★★★“Switched from Whoop and I much prefer it.”Lissa Y., 38 · Verified

★★★★★“Seeing the trend bend after a better week is addictive.”Marcus T., 51 · Verified

Pace of Aging

Are your habits aging you faster, or slower?

Pace of Aging is a directional read on your biological aging: whether each day is compounding in your favour. Not a number to obsess over. A direction to act on.

Two paths from the same habitsthis year →

The daily loop

Four steps, every morning.

Wear it

Screenless, day and night. No buzzing, no dopamine loop.

Wake to your trend

One morning glance at the direction you’re heading.

Change one habit

Earlier night, a walk, one fewer glass. Your call.

Watch the curve bend

See the trend respond over the weeks that follow.

Get the Hume Band 2.0 ~~$356~~ $249

Pace of Aging

Your Pace: 0.5x

SlowFast

Normal Pace: 1.0x

Aging at 0.5x the normal pace: functioning and recovering like someone younger. A directional trend, not a clinical measure.

Health Score
707

High

Health Score 707

Your health metrics are slightly above average

Confidence Rating 85%i

Biological Age 32yrs

YoungerOlder

Chronological Age 45 yrs

See it in action

What last night’s glass of wine does to this morning’s recovery score.

One drink. Visible in your HRV the next morning, then climbing back over the days that follow. This is the cause-and-effect loop that makes people check the app every morning.

Metabolic Momentum

+12Strong Positive

SMTWTFS

A momentum score of 12 signals a positive health trajectory, driven by successfully recovered cardiovascular work; this means your recent activity produced genuine adaptation rather than accumulated fatigue.

Friday

0recovery

Saturday

0recovery

↓ dipped after the drink

Sunday

0recovery

↑ climbing back

Behaviour-awareness illustration. Not medical advice about alcohol. Figures illustrative.†

Accountability, built in

It doesn’t just show you the dip. It tells you what to do about it.

Morning brief. Recovery is 61 after last night. Keep today easy and aim for an earlier lights-out.

Drift check. HRV has trended down three days in a row. One earlier night is often where it turns.

Weekly report. Recovery up 6 points on last week. Momentum +12, Strong Positive.

Illustrative app guidance, not medical advice.†

Blood-pressure trend insights

See your blood-pressure trend, not a once-a-year cuff reading.

Using PPG signals, the Band tracks how your blood-pressure patterns shift with sleep, sodium and stress, so you can see the direction over time. The kind of signal that gets your doctor’s attention early.

Trend insights, not a cuff replacement. Not a medical device.*

Get the Hume Band 2.0 ~~$356~~ $249

Trend Alertnow Elevated blood pressure pattern this week. See your Weekly Health Report.

Blood Pressure Elevated

Your blood pressure of 130-147 / 89-97 mmHg is elevated compared to the normal range. Focus on maintaining a heart-healthy lifestyle by managing stress, staying active, and maintaining a balanced diet.

130/89mmHg

Last: Mon

SMTWTFS

A directional pattern, never a diagnosis. Illustrative UI.‡

“Watching my BP trend over a few weeks finally got me to talk to my doctor.”

Lissa Y., 38 ✓Verified Verified owner · Feb 2026

4.7 ★ from 2,955 reviews

The full range

Twelve signals. One longevity instrument.

Everything the Band reads, at a depth a step-counter can’t touch.

5 LEDs · 4 photodiodes · IP68 waterproof · Up to 14-day battery · BLE / FCC

0.0★2,955 verified reviews

Up to 0days per charge

$0/yrsubscription, forever

0days to try at home

The honest comparison

Own it once. It never stops working.

Whoop and Oura rent you your own data. Stop paying and Whoop is a paperweight, Oura hides your scores. The Band is $249 once, then $0 every year after.

	Hume Band 2.0$249 one-time	Whoop 5.0hardware + $199–$359/yr	Oura Ring 4$349–$499 + $69.99/yr	Apple Watch$399–$799+ hardware
Primary focus	Longevity & recovery (trajectory)	Athletic performance / strain	Sleep & readiness	Smartwatch / notifications
If you stop paying	Nothing, device keeps working, all data accessible	Insights stop; no offline mode	HRV trends, coaching gated	N/A
Blood-pressure	BP trend insights on base device, relative trend, not a cuff replacement	Only on Life/MG tier	Not a core BP feature	No cuff BP on most models
Longevity depth	Full suite: HRV, RHR, SpO2, skin temp, sleep, strain, Pace of Aging, Metabolic Momentum, BP-trend	Recovery/strain + HRV; BP on Life/MG	Readiness/sleep + HRV (membership)	Activity + HR + ECG; no aging trend
Battery life	Up to 14 days	~4-5 days	~4-8 days	~1 day
Screen	Screenless, no notifications	Screenless	Screenless (ring)	Always-on + notifications
Subscription required	Never, core scores free forever	Yes, ongoing	Yes, ongoing	No
Body-composition	✓via Hume Pod (same app)	–	–	–

Whoop and Oura keep charging every year. The Band is $249 once, then $0.

“What changes behavior is seeing your recovery, sleep and blood-pressure patterns move week over week. That is what a tracker should do.”

Dr. Ashley FroeseDO · Physician

Real owners, in their own words

Recovery, sleep and longevity readers, from people who actually wear it.

“Switched from Whoop and I much, much prefer it. No monthly fee and it still tells me everything I actually used Whoop for.”

Myriam Z. ✓VerifiedSwitched from Whoop

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

Daniel K. ✓VerifiedHRV and recovery

“The 14-day battery is the quiet win. I charge it Sunday in the shower and never think about it again.”

Sophie M. ✓Verified14-day battery

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

Marcus L. ✓VerifiedScreenless, all-day

“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.”

Priya S. ✓VerifiedTrend insights

“I own it, I keep my data, nobody’s charging me a membership. That’s the difference that made me buy.”

James T. ✓VerifiedNo subscription

“First tracker I’ve actually kept wearing past a month. Seeing the Pace of Aging trend bend after a better week is honestly addictive.”

Casey D. ✓VerifiedLongevity readers

“No charging anxiety, no subscription. My sleep stages finally make sense across the week. It just works.”

Daniel T., 47 ✓VerifiedSleep and recovery

4.7★ aggregate from 2,955 verified reviews.

Straight answers

The things you’re actually wondering, including the hard ones.

The Hume Band — woven strap and sensor module, held in hand

★★★★★ 4.7 from 2,955

Is it a medical device?

No. The Band is for general wellness. Its signals (blood-pressure trends, Pace of Aging, recovery) are insights, estimates and trends, not a diagnosis, treatment or guaranteed outcome. Always consult your healthcare provider for medical decisions.

Is it really subscription-free?

Yes. Core scores and data are free forever; the Band keeps working if you never pay another cent. There’s an optional Hume Premium (~$8.99/mo) that adds coaching and reports; you never need it to use the device or access your data. The free version is what most owners use day to day.

Can a wrist band really track blood pressure?

The Band gives you blood-pressure trend insights: a directional read on how your patterns shift with sleep, stress and habits over time. It’s a wellness signal, not a cuff replacement and not a diagnosis. For medical readings, use a validated cuff and talk to your doctor.

I saw a video calling it a rebranded $40 band. Is that true?

You’re paying for the software, not the sensor. The scoring behind Metabolic Momentum, your Pace of Aging, the BP trend insights, the confidence rating on every reading, and lifetime data ownership with no subscription: none of that comes on a generic band. Independent reviewers found the trends line up with devices they already trust. And the 45-day at-home trial means you can put it next to whatever you own and check for yourself.

Is Pace of Aging a real metric?

It’s a motivational directional trend, not a clinical age. Think of it as a speedometer: is the direction up or down? The point is watching how it moves as your habits change, not the exact number on any given day.

How long does the battery last?

Up to 14 days on a charge, depending on settings. Most people charge it once a week or two, during a shower, and never deal with a dead band mid-week.

Will it work with tattoos or sensitive skin?

The Band reads through the skin with optical sensors, and dense or dark tattoos can weaken that signal, so wear it on an untattooed stretch of your wrist for the best readings. The strap is a soft woven loop with no screen and no rigid case; if a spot reads poorly, shifting the Band slightly usually fixes it.

How should it fit?

Snug but comfortable, just above the wrist bone, so the sensors sit flush against the skin. The woven strap adjusts to your size, and with no screen or buckle face it wears flat under sleeves and through the night.

Is it comfortable to sleep in?

Yes: screenless with a soft UltraLux strap, lightweight and breathable. Most owners say they forget it’s on. Sleep data is the whole point, so the Band is built to stay on day and night without buzzing, pressing, or charging anxiety.

What if it’s not right for me?

45-day at-home trial. Wear it for 45 days, and if it’s not for you, send it back. Free US shipping on your order.

Where do you ship?

US, Canada, UK, EU and Australia. US shipping is free. International rates are shown at checkout.

Not a medical device. Wellness insights and trends only, never a diagnosis.§

45-DayMoney-Back Guarantee

Hume Band 2.0 — screenless longevity band

Own it once

Buy it once. Track what actually decides how you age.

One-time $249. No subscription, no data held hostage. Your longevity signals, yours to keep. Try it for 45 days at home.

45-day at-home trial · free shipping · HSA/FSA eligible · no subscription

Launch offer · 30% off · Free shipping · 45-day at-home trial

* Blood-pressure trend insights track relative patterns over time. Not a medical device, not a cuff replacement, not for diagnosing or managing high blood pressure or any cardiovascular condition. Consult your healthcare provider for medical readings and decisions.

† Behaviour-awareness illustration. How your body responds to habits over time, shown as trends. Not medical advice about alcohol, not a consumption recommendation, not a health claim. Recovery and HRV figures shown are illustrative.

‡ On-screen charts, scores and app views are illustrative UI. Relative trend patterns are directional only, not readings.

§ Not a medical device. All signals, including blood-pressure trends, Pace of Aging (biological-age trend estimate), HRV and recovery, are wellness insights, estimates and trends only. Not for diagnosing, treating, curing or preventing any medical condition. Consult your healthcare provider for medical decisions.

Reviewer names and handles are representative for this design. Quotes are experiential; no specific health outcome is claimed.

Aggregate rating 4.7★ from 2,955 reviews.

Practitioner content reflects a paid partnership with Hume Health.

Hume Band 2.0 · one-time, no subscription ~~$356~~ $249

It never stops working.

See the trend,not one reading.

Tracks every night.Rates every morning.

Hume Band 2.0: Live Longer, Age Better

Members gain an average of +0.0 years of extra lifespan from healthier habits

Bought once. $0 every year after.

Six signals. One picture of your biology.

Are your habits aging you faster, or slower?

Four steps, every morning.

What last night’s glass of wine does to this morning’s recovery score.

It doesn’t just show you the dip. It tells you what to do about it.

The people who live in their bodies choose to keep it on.

See your blood-pressure trend, not a once-a-year cuff reading.

Twelve signals. One longevity instrument.

Own it once. It never stops working.

Recovery, sleep and longevity readers, from people who actually wear it.

The things you’re actually wondering, including the hard ones.

Buy it once. Track what actually decides how you age.

See the trend,
not one reading.

Tracks every night.
Rates every morning.