TED Talks Daily - Why I’m obsessed with health wearables (and you should be too) | Michael Snyder | Your Body on Tech

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

Genome researcher Michael Snyder believes health wearables, such as smart watches and glucose monitors, can transform medicine, shifting from reactive to predictive. (In fact, he's such a big fan of these devices that he wears eight of them every single day.) From spotting an illness days before symptoms appear to helping prevent the onset of diabetes, learn why the future of health care may be on your wrist. And stick around after his talk for a deep dive conversation with our guest host for the week, author and podcaster Manoush Zomorodi, into the ideas he shared on stage and beyond.This is episode four of a seven-part series airing this week on TED Talks Daily, where Manoush — and the seven speakers she curated for TED2026 — explore how you can live a healthier life in our high-tech era.To hear more from Manoush, listen to TED Radio Hour wherever you get your podcasts. Check out her new book, Body Electric, to learn more about the hidden health costs of the digital age. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You're listening to TED Talks Daily, where we bring you new ideas and conversations to spark your curiosity every day. I'm Anish Zamoroti. I am sitting in for Elise Hugh. I host the TED Radio Hour podcast, usually over on NPR. I'm also an author, a two-time TED speaker. And this week, I'm here with a special series of episodes all about how you can live a healthier life in our high-tech era. So why am I here? Okay. So I had the honor of guest guest. curating a session at the recent TED-2020s conference all about my obsession. Tech, the human body, and what is keeping us human in this digital age? Every day this week, we are bringing you one of these talks from my session, followed by a conversation with that speaker to go deeper.

These are people who are at the top of their field, and today we are talking about wearables. All those smart watches and smart rings and glucose. monitors that more and more of us are putting on our bodies to monitor our health. But what can we actually do with all that information that we're collecting? Well, today's speaker has some answers. Michael Snyder is a professor of genetics at Stanford University and director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine. Over the last 20 years, he says he's collected more personal health data than almost any other known human. It's all part of his pursuit to show how we can treat each body as an individual, not as a population average.

And even when we practice healthcare, if you think about it, it's a pretty archaic process. You'll travel to a physician's office. When you're there, they'll take lots of blood. And from all that blood in the time you're there, they actually don't make very many measurements. And from those measurements, they'll treat you based on population averages rather than the individual. We're trying to change all those steps, and one area in particular is remote health monitoring. When it comes to wearables, there's an analogy that Michael likes to use. What if you can measure your health with sensors and a dashboard, much like your car dashboard? So think about your car and think about the dashboard right behind the steering wheel.

You can see, like, do you have enough air in your tires? How much gas is in the tank? Now, what if you had the same sort of thing, but for your body? That's where wearables come in. And he believes this tech is one way health care systems. especially here in the U.S., can start serving people in better, smarter ways. I personally have been tracking the findings from his lab because he has made some fascinating discoveries about how we age

and what kinds of diabetes there are and how the human body changes depending on genes and the environment. He does this by collecting and analyzing just terabytes of data. So I'm nerd and out here. I think you will too. Michael's talk and my conversation with him that's coming up right after a short break. And now our TED Talk

and conversation of the day. Our healthcare system is broken. Our laboratory in the last 17 years has been trying to improve it. And along the way, I've even learned a lot of new things about my own health. It's broken because we practice sick care

rather than health care. And even when we practice health care, if you think about it, it's a pretty archaic process. You'll travel to a physician's office that really hasn't changed much in the last 40 years. When you're there, they'll take lots of blood, and from all of that blood in the time you're there,

they actually don't make very many measurements. And from those measurements, will treat you based on population averages rather than the individual. We're trying to change all those steps, and one area in particular is remote health monitoring. What if you can measure your health with sensors and a dashboard,

much like your car dashboard. That's what we've been trying to do, and you can now do that, thanks to a revolution and wearable devices, smartwatches, rings, and hosts of other devices. These devices will measure things like resting heart rate, heart rate variability, skin temperature and conductance, blood oxygen, even sleep.

All of these things we know are very important for our health, and we can now measure them continuously 24-7, as long as you keep them charged. I'm such a big fan of these devices. I wear eight of them every single day. I'm wearing four smart watches, two rings. Even my hearing aids are sensors. They measure physiology like these other devices,

but they also measure my socialization, which is important for your health as well. So you can track all of these things in real time, and we've been doing just that. When they first came out as fitness trackers, we put them on a cohort of people we were studying for health tracking. And what we discovered is that you could tell when people get ill in advance of symptoms from a simple smartwatch. In this case, smartwatch and pulse ox. The first case was when I discovered my Lyme disease of all things, with, in fact, a pulse ox and a smart watch,

where my blood oxygen dropped, my heart rate went up. It was all pre-symptomatically. and then I did visit a physician who actually diagnosed it as Lyme disease, and in the end we got it treated early, and I wound up not getting anything serious. I was cured right away simply because of early detection. And so that turned out to be the first case, and then we went on to show that you can detect respiratory viral infections

with a simple smartwatch because your heart rate jumped up in advance of symptoms. When the COVID pandemic came along in spring of 2020, we built a real-time detection system that follows your baseline. It looks for a jump-up and resting heart rate and other measures, and then sends a red alert. And it turns out this alerting system works very, very well for COVID, because COVID has a long pre-symptomatic period. It will detect COVID 80% of the time

with a median of three days in advance of symptoms. It's not specific for it. COVID, though, I should warn you, it does pick up other viral infections, which we think is a good thing. But it also picks up other stressors, and the number one trigger of red alerts is workplace stress. So it actually is both a physical stress detector with viral infections, but also mental health detector. And we're actually exploiting this further to try and tell when people get anxious and have depression from a simple smartwatch. infections are not the only thing you detect with these devices.

My colleagues at Stanford have actually shown you can pick up a fibrelation, which is a heart condition that if you catch it early, you can treat it. With machine learning and AI, we actually were able to show that smartwatches are pretty sophisticated. They can actually tell your red blood cell count and other measures, things associated with anemia and hydration,

but also even your blood glucose and hemoglobin A1C as it's called, which is important for diabetes, you can also pick up with a smart watch thanks to the skin conductance measure on these things. So these are many, they're very sophisticated devices that can make many measurements as early signs of disease. They're not the only devices that are out there.

Continuous glucose monitors are very, very powerful too. They'll measure your glucose every five minutes, and we have a diabetes endemic going on that's worse than the COVID pandemic. 11.6% of people in this country are diabetic in the U.S., and 20% of them don't know it. 38% of people are pre-diabetic, and 80% of those don't know it.

And those numbers are going up, by the way. And the pre-diabetics, most of them will become diabetic. So we think it's very important to catch glucose dysregulation early so that you can prevent diabetes, And it also turns out glucose spikes are associated with cardiovascular disease, which is a number one killer in the U.S. So we actually put these on so-called normal people in pre-diabatics. And we did discover that some people are normal.

They have good glucose control. Some people are moderate glucose spikers, so they spike somewhat. And some people are severe spikers just as bad as diabetics, but they didn't know it. And we can pick this up with the glucose monies. We then went on to discover that different people spiked their different foods. Some will spike the bread, some of the pasta, some of the bananas. Here's an experiment we did recently where we had 55 people eat seven different carbohydrates, identical amounts,

but the carbohydrates are in different forms, beans, berries, grapes, bread, pasta, and white rice. It turns out most people are rice spikers. In fact, rice is worse than ice cream from a lot. and ice cream for most people. Some people, though, are pasta spikers, some are potato spikers, bread, grape spikers.

We're all different. What's going on? We think this has to do with the heterogeneative type 2 diabetes. It's not just type 1 and type 2, but type 2 is many subtypes. And that's because our glucose regulation is very complicated.

We have our pancreas, we have our liver, our muscle, even our brain is a major glucose consumer, and we have many biochemical pathways. Insulin, the GLPs you may have heard of these days, are also important regulators, and there are other hormonal systems as well. And together, these control your glucose. Turns out some types of diabetes exist that are actually very evident when you actually start looking at this. And so we took pre-diabetics and normal folks and typed them for their glucose dysregulation.

We discovered, we typed them for muslin's resistant, the hepaticons resistant, as well as beta cell defects and incritin defects, the GLPs. And it turns out, once again, everyone is different. I myself am a type 2 diabetic.

You might not have guessed that I'm a beta cell defect. We're all different. You can actually tell the subtype of glucose dysregulation you have by drinking a shot of glucose and looking at the shape of the curve and using machine learning, we can now tell your subtype, just from the shape of that glucose curve, whether your muslin's resistant or have a beta

cell defect. And so what used to be a thousand or several thousand dollars set of tests, you can now do for 50 bucks from a local drugstore. Not only that, you might say, well, why do I care about my subtype? Well, it turns out your subtype determines the food you'll spike to. So if you're mussel into resistant, you'll spike to potatoes and pasta, but not if you're insin sensitive. Likewise, if you're a beta cell defect, you'll spike to potatoes. You may know that if you actually eat your french fry or eat your salad before your french fries, you can generally reduce your spikes, but that's not always the case. We tested this further with regards to subtypes. So we had people eat protein, fiber, or fat

prior to eating white rice, which spikes them. And it turns out that if your muscle and to resist or have a beta cell defect, nothing happens. You'll still spike when you eat your white rice. But if you're insulin sensitive or normal for beta cells, you actually can suppress those spikes with fat and fiber. So once again, your subtype actually determines not only what food you'll spike to, but how to mitigate those spikes. We took this to extreme by actually

looking at a group of people who were subtyped, and then we actually looked at their glucose by these continuous glucose monitors, as well as had smart watches on them. And the idea was to track what they do and when they do it with their effect on glucose and according to their subtypes. So just to get into this in a little more detail, we learned something. things that you might already know. If you eat your first meal, your biggest meal, first thing in the morning, you'll have lower glucose. If you have it late at night, you'll have higher glucose. Starchy vegetables, higher glucose. Fruity fruits and less starchy things will give you lower glucose. It turns out most people don't sleep enough, so if you sleep longer,

you'll actually lower your glucose. The same logic. can be applied to these subtypes. It's important to know your subtypes, so you know what lifestyle, things will mitigate that problem. And you can actually turn it, turns out you take this one step further. The medications I use are also very dependent on my subtypes. So I respond to certain medications

that promote insulin release from my pancreas, but not other kinds of medicines. Actually, I don't respond to metformin, which is the most common medicine. So these glucose monitors are very, very powerful, we think. What about other biochemical measures? Well, it turns out that we've been working very hard to see if we could detect molecules

from a single drop of blood. And after spending seven years on this, we discovered we set up a method for taking drops of blood from your fingertip and your shoulder and being able to measure 7,000 different molecules from that drop of blood. Now, I know what that sounds like, But ours actually does work.

Then we could do, once again, fun experiments with this. We were able to have 32 people drink this shake, very common shake, and looked at their response. And once again, everyone was different. We had some people, their carbohydrates went down, others went way up, others stayed flat. One of the interesting results was inflammation. It turns out when some people drank this shake,

Their inflammation went down, others went up. Same shake, pro-inflammatory on some, anti-inflammatory on others. And we think this is important to know if you have digestive issues from the food you eat, which turns out to be about 10% of the U.S. population. We've taken this to the extreme, where we basically had one individual, take a microsample every hour for seven straight days during waking hours. And the idea was to try and correlate, once again, what they do with its effect on their physiology and biochemistry.

And what we discovered is lots of associations, thousands, actually. But one of the interesting was we discovered that alpha-synuclein, which is involved in dementia and Parkinson's, shows a very interesting pattern. It correlates with certain stresses. So the idea is that if you could actually mitigate alpha-synuclidean spikes, what you might do is actually be able to push off. people getting dementia or Parkinson's.

Where is all this going? Well, I envision a world where all of you, many of you are already, will actually be doing remote monitoring in the form of sensors and microsampling to get yourself measured more frequently and to stay healthy. The nice thing is these technologies are very inexpensive. They could go anywhere around the world. The whole world is capable of wearing these things and using microsampling. And with this, we can actually better manage their health.

and be able to even hit underserved populations. And then together with other technologies like genome sequencing and yet other sophisticated advances in science, we can better predict disease risks, manage people's health better in terms of early diagnosis, monitoring and treating disease. And the ultimate goal, of course, is that everyone live long, healthy lives.

Thank you. That was Stanford Genetics Professor Michael Snyder. In a minute, my conversation with my conversation with Michael and what he thinks you need to know about how you'll use technology to stay healthy in the future. His thoughts also on data privacy. Not so sure how I feel about that one. That's coming up. Okay.

So Michael, I want you to tell me something. How long have you been collecting all of this information? Well, I've been collecting deep data on me for about 16 and a half years now. It started out as an omic study, if you will, where we sequenced my DNA, that's your genome. but then we also collected blood and did lots of molecular measurements from that. And there we studied things like the proteome, your proteins, your RNA, that's your transcriptome, your metabolites, and so on. And then the wearables came out as fitness trackers about 12 years ago.

And we started putting them on me and other people we were studying to be able to better see what was going on with their physiology. We thought they might be powerful health modelers, and they are. And the reason for that is they track things like your resting heart rate, your heart rate variability, your blood oxygen, something you don't get in a doctor's office called galvanic stress response. This is conductance on your skin. And it turns out that when you're stressed, you're sweating more, so your skin gets more moist. And when you're diabetic, your skin gets more dry. Some of the watches will, at least one of them will detect blood pressure and measure that.

So quite a few different things. I mean, I think people have been wearing like smart watches or collecting how many steps they're walking every day and on all kinds of data sort of ad hoc. This has been going on for a while now, as you said, like over a decade. But are we at some sort of tipping point when people actually know what to do with this information? Like, for example, I've been tracking my steps for six years and I rarely even look at the data. But is something changing when it comes to collecting information about our bodies? We believe so, because when these first came out, it's as you say, they were fitness trackers. And realistically, people put them on their wrist and they would, you know, wear them for three months.

Say, yep, I know my pattern. I'm done. Then they throw it in a drawer and be done with that. But I think what the tipping point is that you're referring to is that they're actually health monitors. They can track a lot more than just your steps. for example, resting heart rate, heart rate variability are really good indicators of your health. We've used them to be able to pick up when you're getting a viral infection in advance of symptoms because your heart rate goes up.

It's very easy to pick up because, again, you're collecting a lot of data in real time. More recently, we've shown it's indicative of mental health stress as well. You actually told me a story about a Stanford researcher who had a heart attack, and there was data behind that that could have predicted that he was going to? Yeah, it was a very interesting study, you know, a little bit tragic, to say the least. There was a person working in my lab for two years, very wonderful person. High energy, you meet the sky, you assume he's in great health and in great shape. And it turns out he was very much a believer in all of the wearable things that we were doing.

He had an Apple watch and an aura ring, which, by the way, is great for tracking sleep. and he was wearing these he would exercise pretty regularly on a peloton which also was tracking data and one day as he was running on his peloton actually quite intensely and it turns out he died right

after that he had yeah it was really quite tragic and his wife knew how much he liked the lab and being there and shared the data with us and asked us to take a look at it and because he had the latest Apple Watch and also the aura ring we could track what was going on It was very clear four months before he passed away.

He had a significant, what I like to call step function, meaning his resting heart rate went up, his heart rate variability dropped, his gait, which you can also get from a smartwatch, shifted, and a sleep also shifted. And it's very clear all at once four months earlier. And so there was a sign something was off, yet there was no system to relay that information back to say, hey, something's off, you should go get checked out. And I think that's what we need to do next. We have this for viral infection alerting, but we don't have it for all these other things,

which is what we need to. And so we're now trying to study this further, track people, if you will, cardiovascular state, and then build a real-time alerting system. We need to run proper studies first, but that is the goal. When you see something's off, you may not always know what it is, but it does tell you something's off. And I think that should give you pause to look at this further. I mean, it's interesting.

My dad has a pacemaker that sends data constantly back to his cardiologist. But, of course, it took him having a cardiac issue for him to need a pacemaker, which then sends back all of this data. So describe to me, like, how you see this working in the future, especially if it's not data that's specific to one particular organ function, right? you're talking about data that collected altogether forms a picture of someone's health. The way I see it working is you wear these devices. Right now they're on your wrist or your ring or even in your ear if they're a hearing aid. I think in the future they may also be implantables. And the point out of all of this is that we can track this stuff passively.

You can get quite a bit of data. For example, we can get a signal for red blood cell count because of the way the devices work. They measure your oxygenated hemoglobin. So hemoglobin with oxygen, that's in your red blood cells. And then there are other parameters like the conductance on your skin. That's important for dryness. I mentioned earlier. That actually is a sign of diabetes. So they not only just tell you things are up, but they can give you some clues as to which direction they're off. Now, the early devices, we can't tell the difference between a respiratory viral infection and anxiety attack, a prolonged one, but we will very soon because we now have better measurements for some of these

things. So I think they will pull invaluable data, and the way I see it working in real time, is that just like your car, you probably look at your speed and your gas tank, but otherwise you don't really look at much in your car. And so the way I see it working is that there'll be all these sensors running in the background. And then when something goes off, you'll get a red alert on your phone. You know, if it's something obvious, like if you run a marathon, your heart rate will be up, that gives red alert. So you'll probably ignore it. But if you're just sitting around, you know, not doing much and suddenly you're getting red alerts, something is off. And you should probably go get it checked out. When you talk about your hearing aids, you said that they're also

monitoring your social interaction. Tell me more about that. Yeah. So basically, it's well known that people wear hearing aids have better cognitions than those who don't because those who don't basically self-isolate, they socially isolate because they can't hear. I did see that my father. As he lost his hearing, he basically walked into a restaurant. He really couldn't hear us. So he stayed kind of quiet. Not that he was an overly social guy to begin with, but he really shut down in these environments.

And so the idea is if you have a good hearing aid, you will stay engaged and say, communicating. And so the study we're running is actually having people at these hearing aids. We're measuring how much they're interacting in the kinds of interaction. So how much are in conversations, for example, with others and how much they participate in this. We're not violating privacy. We're not collecting information about what they're saying, but more whether they're in these conversations or not. We also measure, you know, TV time, how much they're on the internet by the voices announced how much background noise is in their environment. And I think what we're going to learn from this hearing aid study is exactly what kinds of

interactions are important for keeping your cognition up. It's the number one thing people worry about most as they get older is their cognition. They're afraid of dementia and Alzheimer's and I don't blame them. No one wants to live like a vegetable as they hit their later years. And so everybody wants to be sharp and maybe some of the kind of data we collect. will help us. Maybe being in conversation four hours a day, I'm just making this up, is very useful for keeping cognition up, those kind of thing. So that's what we're trying to learn and maybe watching too much, you know, Gilligan's Island reduces your cognition. These are sorts of things

that we could get into. I'm probably going to say yes to that for sure. I did love Ginger. You start your talk by saying that the health care system is broken. I mean, in the United States, I don't think there are many people who would argue with you. But how do we get to a place where we think more of health care as preventive of using, how you refer to it, like a personal dashboard to monitor our health in a sort of more holistic way? Yeah, well, we have to change in financial incentives. That's number one. What happens is people really only go to the doctor when they're ill. and so therefore they only go every few years typically.

Because the health care system is extremely expensive. People spend a lot of money on this last few years of life when people are very unhealthy. There are studies now that show that people live the last 11 to 15 years of their life, on average, with chronic conditions, meaning they're living their last decade of life unhealthy. And that's not a good situation to be in. What we want to do is keep everybody healthy all the way to the end. It would save money to the entire system where are we to do that. Some of the big companies have wellness programs, and they know they do that because if they keep their employees healthy and happy, they actually are more productive.

There's plenty of studies around that. And so we need to really be engaging employers, engaging health plans to be able to do this. And so we've got to make it easy for people to be measured. And I think wearables are very powerful for that. And I think we need to rearrange our financial system so that you do it. You should actually be given a smart watch when you join a new health plan and get points for actually walking your 10,000 steps. And so I think as these technologies get cheaper and cheaper as they get more facile, if we automatically have people's information from their devices going to their doctor's office

that would actually be much more accurate because your resting heart rate first thing in the morning is way more accurate than what's in a doctor's office. So I think we can pull in information a lot better. And then the physician, instead of spending 15 minutes with you in the office, they'll spend, you know, maybe 25 minutes, get it at you a few minutes because the data's already there and they can make better assessments and spend less time on the routine things and spend more time on more complex things. Okay, my spidey sense, my worrying radar is going off beep, beep, beep right now.

I want to push back on a few of these things. So first of all, digital privacy, who's in charge of all of this data that's being collected? And if an insurance company is using it to incentivize me, couldn't they possibly also punish me or hold a preexisting condition against me? Well, I have two answers to that. One is you do lose privacy when you're collecting it at some level, meaning if you are pulling these data and they'll go somewhere, In principle, you should be the one who owns it and be the one to decide where it goes. In practice, you could get hacked, right? It has to go on the database somewhere.

So that is always a risk. But I would argue the good should outweigh the evil for this sort of thing. The other argument I have that might be a little more flip, I'd say privacy, get over it. Nothing's private. You have a credit card, for example, as to most people, there's a lot of personal information on that credit card, but we all use them. Why do we use them? Because nobody's going to walk around bags of cash, right? It's not practical. It's not safe. So I would argue that this health information, which is a lot more important, in my opinion, than credit card information, more important to you, is worth collecting and at a possible risk of privacy breach. As it exists right now, I think most, you know, insurance companies and health plans, they aren't using it to discriminate people. Now, whether that's a case in the future, Like nobody now discriminates somebody from a genome sequence because they don't really know how to interpret a genome. But as it moves and becomes more facile, you know, maybe they would.

And we do need, I think, I would argue laws to protect people then in those circumstances. So I have two petabytes of data online. That's a lot of data. And anyone can download it, look at it. And I've certainly never been abused by it. Now you may say I'm in a more privileged situation than the average person, which is true. Nonetheless, I haven't heard of people being abused by this kind of information. Yeah, I mean, I'm thinking of, for example, 23 and me, which I, God, I've been reporting on digital privacy for a decade and then I decided to bite the bullet and did it.

And wouldn't you know, a year later, they had that privacy breach where everybody's information was out on the dark web. Did anybody ever get abused by that? I'm not so sure. Well, maybe they don't know how to yet, but maybe they were in the future, right? Right. It's possible. It is possible. And that is always the case.

You can always prepare for the worst case scenario. Now, I would argue that, again, if you got your genome sequence, you're more likely to learn something useful. Like imagine, you know, I hope you don't, but imagine you have a cancer predisposition gene. To learn that can be very valuable because then you will get tested for that, whereas you otherwise might not know. So I think there is good to come out of it.

Now, yeah, would an insurance company, if they learn that, would they charge them or drop them? Right now, no, in the future, I would hope not. Again, we should set up laws and protected, but I would argue it's so useful to know that. The other concern I would have is that right now this sounds like a rich person's health care system. I mean, you know, having someone to actually give your data to a physician or a clinician, that means that you are seeing a doctor to begin with. How do we begin to make this more accessible. Right now, this is an expensive proposition. Yes and no. So you're right the way we do deep data profiling. Only rich people can afford it. And it's rolling in the concierge services and

things, like getting your genome sequence and some of these other things. Only people who pay out a pocket can do it. So there, I would say, yes, some people won't have access to that. But the one area where they will have access is the wearables. That's a neutralizer because there are $50 smart is it can do everything we've been talking about. They can detect infectious disease, atrial fibrillation, which is a precursor to heart failure. So even a cheap-o smartwatch should be able to do this, and you could get that for $50.

You can do it remotely too, right? You can live in the boonies and have this data transfer it to your phone. Most people do have a phone even when they live in remote parts of the world. 60% of the world has a phone, believe it or not. All I have to do is link it to a smart watch, and you've got a health tracking system that can track a fair number of things. Again, resting heart rate, heart rate variability.

Heart rate variability is kind of a new metric that's popped up that turns out to be a really great gauge of people's health. I mean, that is just fascinating to me that things that we used to take for granted, we start to see that tiny little, almost imperceptible differences can tell us so much. And yet, medical treatment right now mostly relies on averages. I think many people think, well, as long as I'm in the average zone, I'm fine. And if I'm not, then I'm in big trouble. And that's really a false assumption. Because population measurements, they are important.

Don't get me wrong. If you're out of, you know, an individual range and you're very high on certain things, it is worth looking into. But equally important is knowing your baseline, because we all have very different baselines for heart rate, for skin temperature, for all these different things. different things. And when you go off from your health, you'll get a jump up in that. And you may still be in the normal range. But by today's world, if you're still in a normal range, nobody says anything to you. And a good example is, say, your heart rate is normally 60. And suddenly your resting

heart rate goes to, let's say, goes to 75. Something's off with you. Whereas 75 could be very normal for other people and probably wouldn't be flagged on a population average. So it's that trajectory. It's at Delta. And I think we need to get this into medicine. There's two things that count. One is your shift from your normal baseline and the other is are you population average out of range. Both of those are important. And I would argue the first one's even more important, shift from your baseline. And we can pick this up with wearables. It's very important to know your trajectories. We're going to go to a quick break, but we'll be right back. Is there ever a point, though, where all this information is too much information,

that people become hypervigilant about every little thing that their body is doing? Keith Diaz, the researcher at Columbia, with whom my partner, and he says, I can't wear a smart watch because tracking my steps makes me crazy. I'll find myself, you know, looping around my backyard to make sure I get enough steps. Where's the line? Well, obviously we want everyone to be a healthy life. You don't want your device is making you unhealthy. You don't want people freaking out. People get their genome sequence and they're anxious about the sort of thing. You don't want them waking up every morning, oh, am I going to get breast cancer.

But I'm also a big believer that these numbers can be used. If you see things are going off, you can adjust accordingly. I would argue that that's how you use these measurements, if you will, to basically try to keep yourself in a good fit, both mentally and physically fit state. So that's how we should be approaching it. Obviously, you don't want these devices and things stressing you out. Or your boss saying, like, get up and walk, walk around the conference room, nine times, go. Yeah, but I, my own view is there's no such thing as too much information. That this stuff is very, very valuable.

having the information relay back to your physician, if you're willing to share it, your physician can definitely see when things are going off. And you can see it too. Imagine, you know, when you go into the doctor's office and say you're not feeling well, first thing you ask is, so when did this start? And you can almost always tell from your watch when it started. There's a shift. And suddenly you could correlate that with maybe something that happened.

And in my case, when I got Lyme disease, it was picked up with a smart watch and a pulse ox. And I saw these shifts, and I knew two weeks earlier, I was in rural Massachusetts helping my brother put up fences where, you know, most ticks are Lyme infested in rural Massachusetts. And it's pretty clear because I was there one day. And then two weeks later, I saw the shift up. It raised a strong possibility it was Lyme disease. And that turned out to be correct. I've been learning about this concept of interoception over the last year, this idea of the body sort of indicating to the brain what it needs. Some of that is subconscious, you know, take another breath. Or it's giving you signs that something is off or wrong and that we have to be able to hear what our body is saying. I mean, I hear people who are like, I don't even know if I sleep well anymore. I look at my device and it tells me. And sometimes I'm like, really? That's all I slept. I thought I slept well. do we start to lose touch with our embodied sense of self when we start outsourcing all of our functions

to being collected and tabulated by wearables? Well, there's a great question. I would argue wearables for certain kinds of things like infectious disease, things like this, AFib, those are really, really valuable, right? It's hard to argue with that. And they, to be honest, they are more sensitive than your internal systems. So I think there are situations where it's good. Now, you pick the example of sleep, which I think is one of the more interesting ones. One of my colleagues here at Stanford

has run a study that shows that depending what you tell people determines how they feel. So regardless of what the value is on their sleep device, you know, from their sleep scores, say, or whoop or what have you, if you tell them they had a good night sleep from their score, even if they didn't, they actually wind up functioning very well that day. They do well. If you tell them they had a

bad night sleep, they actually don't function so well. So I think there people are very influenced psychologically by the score. So maybe that is a trick here one. I think you have to look at it objectively. Like, I know I don't sleep very well. And I don't mind backing up some of that with numbers and things I get from my devices. You mentioned implants or implantables earlier in our conversation. I mean, I think we're already starting to get to that, right, with like, I see people, lots of people wearing glucose monitors. Does that count as an implantable sort of, right? It's a sticking into your body. Yeah. Well, they are measuring interstitial and they are poking you, but they're not generally referred to as an implant. I was seeing you something like where, like for the dog,

where you slip it in under the skin completely. But yeah, the glucose monitors are super powerful. People always ask me, what's the most important wearable to wear? And I always tell them a continuous glucose monitor because it's in part because we have so many people who are out of control with their glucose. These continuous glucose monitors are so visual that once you wear them, you'll never eat the same again. And I mean that in a good way, meaning you'll see exactly what spikes you. And this is very personal, different foods spike different people. So you see what food spike you, which ones don't, and you just gravitate towards the ones that don't. and avoid the ones that do.

And if you are going to eat the ones that do spike your glucose, well, go do that brisk 15-minute walk and that will suppress the spike. So there are things you can do to mitigate these. And in general, spiking is bad for your health. It correlates not only with diabetes, but cardiovascular disease. So I think we've got to get this under control. Yeah, diabetes is such an interesting example. And like when you say that it's an epidemic and we've got to get it under control,

give me like the beautiful scenario. that you see that if you could wave your wearable wand would make happen. Like people would wear it, people would get under control. What would it look like? Yeah. Well, for one thing, I would say everybody wears one at least once a year, more if they're heading in the wrong direction, meaning their glucose out control, it's getting worse. And they do it before they're diabetic, so prevent diabetes, keep people healthy.

And a lot of so-called normal people are starting to do glucose spiking. And some of them are just the bad as diabetes. that don't know it. So we need to get them on these folks earlier. And because it's so visual, you will change your behavior in a good way. And like, I'll tell you when you wear one of these things and you drink a McDonald's shake, your glucose just goes through the roof and you'll think twice about drinking that shake again. And I think the wearables and things we've been talking about are good ways to give feedback to keep people motivated to stay healthy. I think if we get them out there, we can have a big transformation in preventing diabetes, in my opinion.

One thing I really wanted to ask you that was not in your talk, which I find fascinating, which is that you have looked at so many people's data at such a granular level for so long that you had some research that went viral a couple years ago and indicated the two sort of real turns or chapters where people age dramatically. One is around age 44 and then another around age 60. Did I characterize that right? Yeah, that's right. We're revisiting a lot of that now.

I think the most important concept around aging is that we're all aging differently, meaning some people, they're what we call cardio-ageer, their heart is aging more rapidly, or cardiovascular system, I should say. Other people are kidney ages, some are metabolic. We're all different. And what I like about that is because we're all different, you can zoom in on the things that you think are going off first and better manage them. So, for example, just like your car, if certain parts of your car wearing out first, where you can drill in and zoom in on those. For people, like say, your kidney functions going off, there are very specific things you can do to actually try to correct that.

And same with your liver. or maybe you would drink less if your liver enzymes are going off, this sort of thing. And we can pick all that up in simple blood tests now. When I read about that stuff, it was really revelatory to me because I felt like I woke up on the day of my 45th birthday and everything had changed. And I thought, did something happen to me? But I think what just happened was I was starting to get older. It just helped me understand it. Yeah.

Well, I do think people's lifestyle shifts as they're moving right. because, you know, a lot of people, they get very career-oriented. They have kids as they're in their 30s, and I don't think they keep up on their health as much as they should. I think it does hit people as they hit their 40s, no question. And certainly for me, I had many personal changes. I hit my 40s in terms of caffeine sensitivity, things like that. I stopped drinking caffeine afternoon as a consequence. So I think there are these shifts that do happen.

The nice thing is we're in a world where we can now track all that. and see what's going on and then make adjustments accordingly. So, Michael, you end your TED Talk saying that wearables have the potential to change health care globally. I mean, that's tantalizing. Can you expand on that vision a little bit? What do we have to do to get there? I think if you put a device on 20% of people, you could actually track the next pandemic as it's emerging because you'll start seeing areas where heart rate shifts globally.

And we've simulated that. So imagine, though, that we put it on 80% of people, which is very doable. These devices, they're not expensive now and they're only going to get cheaper in the future. So I really think then you could have people really not only tracking pandemics like you just described, but you could keep the individual people themselves healthy by catching when they first get ill, treat them, catch heart conditions. I think there's going to be a ton of stuff, catch mental health problems, like that. depression, anxiety. We're doing a lot of research there, cardiovascular disease we talked about.

All these things are, you know, it's not going to be a perfect system, but even if we could catch 50% of these, it would be amazing. Thank you again, Michael. Great to see you. I am of two minds about Michael's work. I love tech, and I love the idea that he's uncovering the subtle variations in diseases like diabetes, that could mean there are really simple fixes, like changing when you eat certain foods, for example. His vision and enthusiasm are contagious. But also, here's the worrying part, all this data collection that will likely get into the hands of private companies, who we have little reason to trust, we need regulation to make sure they comply and keep our most personal information safe, secure.

not exploited. I recently spoke to a bunch of academics who are looking at how people relate to health technology like this. And their concern was that people get so obsessed with optimizing their health, tracking every little thing, that they forget that the simplest things don't need tracking, like making sure you have close friends, that you get outside enough, that you give yourself time to think and relax. How do we make all that available to everyone too? Wearables are about so much more than tech, data, and health. They can remind us that we are on a lifelong quest to find the right balance between the knowledge that all this information can bring us and the deeply human wisdom that cannot be quantified. That was Michael Snyder at TED 2026 in conversation with me, Manushe Zamoroti.

If you like this episode and others from the week, you can hear more on the TED Radio Hour podcast throughout the summer. You can also see Michael's full talk at ted.com. Thank you so much for being here on the next episode, Dr. Drew Kular. This physician writes for the New Yorker, and he shares his thoughts about GLP-1s and the new discoveries about how these drugs do more than just help people lose weight. They're changing the way we think about addiction and how we treat it. That's it for today, though. If you're curious about Ted's curation, visit ted.com slash curation guidelines. TED Talks Daily is a podcast from TED. This episode was produced by Phoebe Lett, Lucy Little, and Rachel Faulkner White.

It was edited by Alejandra Salazar with editing support from Maggie Bishop, Martha Estefanos, Sanaz Mashkinpur, and me. This episode was mixed by Steve Bone. Michael's talk was fact-checked by the TED Research team, and our conversation was fact-checked by Avery Keatley. The TED Talks daily team includes Martha Estefanoz, Oliver Friedman, Lucy Little, Emma Tobner, and Tanzika, Sungmar Nivong, with support from Daniela Ballaroz,

Valentina, Bohanini, Ban Manchang, and Lainey Lott. Special thanks to Sanaz Meshkentpur and my team at NPR's TED Radio Hour for all their help on this special takeover, and to my co-curator at TED-2020s, a very special thank you to David Beello. You can hear more from these speakers

on the TED Radio Hour with episodes coming out throughout the summer. I'm Manusia Zamerodi. I'll be back tomorrow with a first. fresh idea and conversation for your feed. Thank you so much for listening.