Q&A with Stanford geneticist Michael Snyder on his "rapid aging" study

What happens when Stanford and the media overstate research findings? Also, Tony Robbins's connection to (and marketing of) Dr. Snyder's lab raises further questions.

Dr. Michael Snyder. (source: Stanford University School of Medicine)

A few days ago, I spoke with Dr. Michael Snyder, a prominent Stanford geneticist and the senior author of a blockbuster-esque study that the Stanford press team and several major media organizations said, incorrectly, showed that all people age more rapidly around ages 44 and 60. I reviewed that research critically in an Oct. 12 post. Below is my exchange with Dr. Snyder, who graciously offered me 30 minutes on a busy Friday while he was in transit. But first….

Mea culpa

I screwed up one thing in my Oct. 12 post: 10 days before publishing it, I had emailed Dr. Snyder’s office to request an interview, to allow him to respond to my pointed questions whether the study’s findings had been significantly overstated by Stanford, the media and, subtly, by Dr. Snyder himself.

Dr. Synder’s office had replied to my request — agreeing to an interview — within hours. He also personally emailed me several times over the following days seeking to confirm a time to talk. Because of my own screw up (I had emailed him from a new email address that I had failed to ensure forwarded to my regular email address, where I would see any reply) I didn’t see his responses and published my article. In that article, I stated — incorrectly, as I now know — that Dr. Snyder and Stanford had not responded to my several requests for interviews. Only a week ago, on Dec. 3, did I discover Dr. Synder’s litany of unrequited replies to my original request. I apologize to him and to Aging with Strength readers.

My Q&A with Dr. Snyder on how his study’s findings were portrayed

The interview, below, shows that there is merit to both the criticism I’ve made of how Stanford and, to a degree, how Dr. Snyder himself portrayed his and his team’s research, about consistent and rapid changes at the molecular level around the ages of 44 and 60. Our exchange also shows a scientist willing to openly discuss his research and, as you will see between the lines, also acknowledge missteps about how it has been portrayed to the public.

Takeaways from the conversation:

• Dr. Snyder’s research paper itself is scrupulous, noteworthy and worthy of discussion; the way Stanford, and therefore the media and, to a limited degree, Dr. Snyder described how broadly it applies to how all people age, was at best less than precise and at worst intentionally inflated, or allowed to be inflated by the media.

• He deserves credit for making himself available for open-ended interviews like the one I conducted with him. He is both accomplished and, from the evidence, quite ambitious, having co-founded seven or more biotech-industry startups that may or may not have an interest in his aging research.

• Only late Tuesday, during my final research for this post, did I learn that Dr. Snyder and his Stanford lab had collaborated with self-help charlatan Tony Robbins to produce questionable research that Robbins now uses to aggressively plug a $4,500 self-help program called Date With Destiny (featuring Dr. Snyder). Robbins even built a new website — scienceofTonyRobbins.com — portraying his program as Stanford-proven to be 100% effective.

Without further kerfuffle, here is Dr. Daniel Snyder, in conversation with me last Friday, about exaggerated claims that all humans age more rapidly at 44 and 60.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and brevity.

PVZ: Dr. Snyder, it seems to me that the media headlines about your study, and the stories under them, go beyond what the study and the science indicated. Did the media take this ball a little bit too far down the field?

DR. MICHAEL SNYDER: Yes and no. They (journalists) would interpret these bursts of changes as accelerated aging, and I don't think that's what we said. Or least not trying to say.

Most people think of aging as this gradual process where you get older, things gradually change and you die, in a fairly linear process. What we did was look at all the biochemistry. And there's some times when there are more things happening than at other times, in terms of biological processes.

PVZ: I’m looking at the headlines:

• The Guardian: “Scientists find humans age dramatically in two bursts, 44, and 60.”

• Fox News: “Aging speeds up massively at two points in one's lifetime.”

• The Washington Post: “Feeling old? Your molecules change rapidly around ages 44, and 60.”

• CNN: “Humans age dramatically at two key points in their life, study finds.”

These headlines don’t match up with the language that you used in the study.

SNYDER: We're saying that we do see more changes occurring in these 40s and in the 60s relative to the other timeframes. So there are more changes occurring, and we could say exactly what those changes are, at least as measured by blood components.

Whether that's accelerated aging, I don't think we tried to claim that.

I think most news organizations said, “Oh, that means you're accelerating your aging during that time.” And I don't think that was quite our intent.

PVZ: Your study was of only 108 people in and around Stanford — 77% white, 22% Asian, only a few Hispanics and Blacks, studied for 20 months or so and sampled only six to eight times total. Is that enough people, with enough racial and ethnic diversity, studied for long enough to say that all humans age more rapidly around these two ages?

SNYDER: It's true for the population we studied. It remains to be seen how generalizable it is. We tried to be explicit about that, but they don't always print that. So, it remains to be seen if it can be more generalized.

“We all have different aging profiles. I don't think when you turn 43 you suddenly have all these things happening.”

PVZ: You were quoted in USA Today (editor’s note: USA Today actually lifted Dr. Synder’s quote from Stanford’s own press material on this study) saying, “We're not just changing gradually over time. There are some really dramatic changes.” That sounds like you're saying that all humans kind of do this around these two times.

SNYDER: I guess I was trying to generalize, so either I was imprecise — you'd have to read it back to me — but that was our finding. We do see more changes at these two times.

I think it's safe to say from an earlier study that everybody is aging differently. We all have different aging profiles. (The data) are cross sectional, which is the point you're picking up on, meaning we're not seeing one person over many decades to see if those shifts actually occur. We're in the process of collecting another shot of data (across) 11 years. So we will be able to see a better longitudinal side of it. That will take another year to analyze.

But you're right. It's a small number of people. And I think we've always tried to say that is a limitation.

PVZ: I think you say that explicitly in the paper: you can't infer that all humans go through these rapid changes.

SYNDER: Oh, no. And in fact, from our earlier work, we would say that everybody ages differently. Some are metabolic agers, some are cardio, some are immune and some are combinations of those things.

PVZ: It sounds like from the study, and from what you're saying, that people age for different reasons, and maybe they age around 44 and 60, or maybe they don't. But what if people change their lives, or spend a lot of money to change things based on what these headlines trumpet about the inevitability of “rapid” aging at 44 and 60, and it really doesn't help them?

SNYDER: My reaction to that is, I do think (this research) is a heads up, especially as you get towards your 60s. Because what we would say is that that is an average, not on the individual. I would agree with you 100%, so maybe it is misquoted, and I'd have to go back and look at (the article).

So that is an average, that's in our study, and you're right — it is not representative.

But I do think the 60s changes were quite large. That is observed in other studies as well. I do think it is a good heads up. But I think you might say, Well, what's going on in the 40s?

I don't think when you turn 43 you suddenly have all these things happening. My own view — this is hypothesis — is that people get a little more sedentary, other things are happening in their lives, as they go through their 30s. They're generally less active, is my hypothesis. And as they hit their 40s, some of this stuff builds up. But it is a generalization, so you're absolutely right.

It's not every individual — potentially not if they exercise more, they care for themselves, I would hope that those changes in people are minimized.

PVZ: Last question is, and again, I know that you are not the Stanford marketing team, so I'm only asking you because you're the study’s lead author.

SNYDER: Yeah, sure, this is all fair game.

PVZ: Going back to the headlines your study generated, among those that I found curious was the Stanford headline publicizing your research. It said, “Massive biomolecular shifts occur in our 40s and 60s, Stanford Medicine researchers find.” That's a great headline that might inspire donors — and I know you didn't write the headline — but isn't characterizing this as applicable to all people a little misleading?

SNYDER: Yeah. It's a little strong. There's no question there are significant changes during those times, but whether "massive" is an overstatement — I don't know. I will say that the results are statistically significant. We're not cherry picking there.

PVZ: When I read the study, it issued caveats and qualified your findings accurately.

SNYDER: We try to be honest, too. We're scientists, after all.

PVZ: It seems like everybody from USA Today to Fox News to The Guardian and the Stanford marketing team took the ball a little bit further down the field than the science warranted.

SNYDER: They probably did, a little bit. On the other hand. I do think these are significant changes, and I do think it is worth people having a heads up.