Inre this Atlantic piece (and lululemon, which I wore yesterday bicycling to work, ha)-

     I think this is a little different than Maqubela makes it.  When I did beta testing for www.superbetter.com (health achievement app) the testing group (All-Stars) was pretty diverse- the exception being most (not all) folks were very tech-savvy.

     I'd expect tech-savvy early-adopters to be the kinds of people to do buggy beta testing, so it's no surprise that the demographics for using health tech would match the demographics for fluency with other mobile/lifestyle tech.

     Heck, Pirsig went over this in Zen and the Art of M'cycle Maint.- people are afraid of what they can't understand, particularly if they're relying on it for health.

     If anything, the variety of people who signed up for SuperBetter demonstrates, to me, the strong desire of less-tech-savvy people to use better tech for their health. It's becoming increasingly obvious there's some stuff not working so well with traditional healthcare, and people are starting to respond to that.

My question is- Does most data show that minorities are less tech-savvy than other groups?

     So for me, it's a question of how soon digital health tools will start being more effective than traditional ones, or augment traditional healthcare, without losing the benefits of the 'real world' in the process.  Figuring out how to do that is a good place for lots of healthy discussion.

For a whole lot more fascinating on the future of tracking for health, check out the comments here: http://e-patients.net/archives/2012/03/whats-the-future-for-self-tracking.html?replytocom=98057#respond