I like Google Health's biggest features of 2026, but I don't trust them

There’s no denying it’s important to stay informed about your health, and suites like Google’s Health Guardian can play a key role in staying ahead of any issues. However, over the past few weeks I’ve found these features can sometimes do more harm than good, and can even prove useless when talking to a professional.

As AI-driven wellness features become more common and are used as a subtle scare tactic to push us into a new purchase or an upgrade, it’s crucial we understand what we’re getting into when going all-in with modern wearable health tracking.

More in-depth tracking than ever

Gone are the days of simply seeing a move goal, step count, or your heart rate on a smartwatch or in a health app. Today, we can see how we’re breathing while we’re asleep, our skin temperature, signs of hypertension or sleep apnea, and other metrics, including blood oxygen levels and heart rate variability (HRV).

We’re more informed than ever, but are we better equipped to understand our bodies, recognize problematic signs of something more serious, or better armed with data a healthcare professional will find helpful during a diagnosis? Unfortunately, I think the answer is no.

A study carried out in the UK polled 2,000 adults and found more than half wore a device that tracked health and fitness metrics, but 60% of the respondents had looked at the data at some point and not understood what it told them. More than 60% of people searched online for answers, and only 28% consulted a medical professional. Only 26% then believed the data led to a faster diagnosis.

These numbers do not inspire confidence. However, with the advent of Google’s Health Coach and Oura’s AI Advisor, AI is being called in to help put all the data collected into context and make it easier to interpret. Unfortunately, this isn’t the breakthrough tech brands want you to think it is, as what the AI tells you will be carefully curated, and it will always tell you to consult a medical professional. Almost everything we get from the data and the AI assistant can be summed up this way, and there’s a very good reason for it.

The wellness curse

Health Guardian and many other health features are categorized as wellness rather than healthcare, and it’s a very important distinction. A great example is Google’s Blood Pressure Trends feature, which gives a monthly report that may warn you of high blood pressure, something most would have previously understood from readings taken using a blood pressure cuff.

While backed by ‘clinical research’ according to Google, it’s imperative we read the small print, as it is reveals the real extent of the feature’s ability. It states the feature is ‘intended for general wellness and informational purposes only and not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any medical condition, or substitute for professional medical advice.’

The intention is clear. The data is for information, and alerts of any description should prompt an appointment with your doctor. Leaving aside the implications of a vaguely informed population all suddenly making an appointment with a doctor, and the stress on the system this would cause, what actually happens when you try to use the data during an appointment?

Not always very positive

I have considerable experience wearing, using, and researching wearable technology and the included health features. Over the past months I’ve worn (often concurrently) the Fitbit Air, Apple Watch Series 12, and the Oura Ring 5. I’ve also swapped the Apple Watch for the Google Pixel Watch 5.

Over the last month, I’ve had several doctor and emergency room appointments, and had the opportunity to share data and sleep metrics with different professionals, including breathing rate, heart rate variability, and blood oxygen levels. At each stage, regardless of whether I was speaking to a doctor, nurse, or paramedic, the response to the data was the same: ‘Those [insert wearable type of choice here] aren’t very reliable.’

The data was therefore quickly dismissed. I wasn’t ignored, and real medical tests were carried out, but none were based on or informed by the data collected by a wearable. I realize this is anecdotal, and I also understand the data did push me to make an appointment to get checked. This is a good thing, but no issues were found at all, and it was easy to see why doctors may decide data from a wearable could be ignored.

This left me conflicted. I have been collecting health data for years in some cases, and the one time I thought it may be helpful to share it with a professional, it turned out to be pointless. It also made me wonder if continuous access to ever-more complex health data had made me too aware of small, possibly inconsequential changes. As the poll above showed, a lot of people simply don’t understand the data presented, and I think this is because there’s not enough transparent insight, education, or clarification to go with the features. It’s only going to become a more important issue too.

It’s wellness, not healthcare

To understand more, we have to go back to Google’s Health Guardian disclaimer. Hidden in the text it’s confirmed these are wellness features, not approved or cleared medical features. In a research paper published by the UK government, it says consumer devices that are not medically regulated ‘may face less scrutiny regarding safety, security, and health inequity issues than medical products.’

In January 2026, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued new guidance for wearables. It opened the door for devices to be equipped with non-invasive features measuring blood pressure and blood oxygen levels, but only ‘if they are strictly wellness-focused and don’t intend to diagnose specific diseases or clinical conditions like hypertension.’ They must also be ‘marketed for wellness purposes’; they may not be subject to the same regulatory requirements as traditional medical technologies.’

This is great for regulatory bodies wanting to avoid costly testing, and for tech brands wanting to use healthcare as a sales tool, but not so much for consumers. It’s an issue further clouded by wearables with features that have been cleared by regulators, which then prevents brands from making claims they can’t back up in the real world.

Approval is good, but adds its own problems

The Apple Watch has received FDA clearance for its single-lead ECG, atrial fibrillation, sleep apnea, and blood pressure notifications. The Withings ScanWatch 2 has FDA clearance for similar features, along with blood oxygen measurement too. The Google Pixel Watch 5, Fitbit Air, and Fitbit Edge do not have FDA clearance for their blood pressure or insulin trends, or the breathing emergency detection feature. There’s also a difference between FDA-cleared and FDA-approved products to understand. FDA approval doesn’t really apply to consumer products, and is more relevant to medical products like pacemakers.

The Oura Ring 5 does not have FDA clearance for any of its features. In an enlightening blog post on the subject, Oura CEO Tom Hale discusses the updated FDA guidelines around ‘low-risk’ medical devices, which ‘encourage a general state of health or a healthy activity.’ Good on Oura for making this clear, but you do have to go looking for it. Probably because when you read it, you may come to the conclusion the data from blood pressure trend reports and similar in-depth features isn’t necessarily going to be very helpful.

Clearance from the FDA — along with other regulatory bodies across the world — adds legitimacy and trust to a product. But how many people know the difference between wellness, FDA-cleared, or FDA-approved features? There’s even a chance that Apple’s effective marketing and diligence in getting key health features cleared makes people think all similar features are made alike, regardless of manufacturer. Why wouldn’t they, when the facts are often obfuscated by manufacturers, rules change, and it needs deep research to grasp what everything means?

More education and clarity are required

As Apple, Google, Samsung, and others turn to in-depth health tracking as a way to sell more wearables, we have more access to more data on a daily, even hourly basis. The inclusion of AI assistants is marketed as a way to make sense of all this data, yet it always comes with a disclaimer. In the Oura app, hidden under settings in a section called Legal Summary, it says the ‘AI Advisor does not replace your healthcare professional, and you should listen to medical advice and trust your judgment when making health decisions.’

Except as I found out recently, the medical community doesn’t have much faith in data collected by consumer wearables. My experience has certainly diminished trust in the data from my Oura Ring 5 and Fitbit Air. I’m also aware I may have paid too much attention to it in the first place, whether through my own interest or after being influenced by highly publicized health feature launches which conveniently gloss over or minimize their limitations.

As rules around wellness features change, the use of AI in these apps becomes more prevalent, and people are presented with features that previously weren’t available outside of regulated medical devices; brands must take more responsibility to educate and inform. The limitations can’t be left in the small print, or as an addendum no one reads. Passing the buck to already overworked doctors and healthcare providers isn’t the answer either.

Brands need to be far more transparent about what to truly expect from this new wave of wellness features, in the same way they take responsibility for data privacy. Responsibility for education should fall on the brand, and not the FDA, governments, or doctors. Recouping AI investment by creating wellness ‘trend’ features should not come at the expense of the end user’s wellbeing either. There’s just as much danger in showing context-light, worrying, trend-based warnings to people as there is in someone missing a potential health issue like sleep apnea.

What’s upsetting is that there are many examples of health-related wearable tech features that recognize medical problems and even save people’s lives. There is genuine value in some of these features, and in paying attention to data collected. This makes them worth wearing, provided we all understand what we’re being told may not be medically significant, or even all that accurate.