♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with president obama's final press conference of 2016, held this afternoon before departing for his annual family vacation to hawaii. here are excerpts. president obama: once we had clarity and certainty around what in fact had happened, we publicly announced that, in fact, russia had hacked into the dnc. and at that time we did not attribute motives or any

interpretations of why they had done so. we did not discuss what the effects of it might be. we simply let people know, the public know, just as we let members of congress know that this had happened. and as a consequence, all of you wrote a lot of stories about both what had happened and you interpreted why it happened and the effect on the election. we did not. the reason we did not was because in this hyper partisan atmosphere, at a time when my primary concern was making sure the integrity of the election process was not in any way damaged, at a time when anything that was said by me or anybody

in the white house would immediately be seen through a partisan lens, i wanted to make sure everybody understood we were playing the straight. we were not trying to advantage one side or the other, but we were trying to let people know, and with respect to syria, what i have done is taken the best course that i can to try to end the civil war while having also to take into account the long-term national security interests of the united states. throughout this process, based on hours of meetings, if you tallied it up, days or weeks of meetings, where we went over every option in painful detail with maps and our military and

our aid agencies, and we had our diplomatic teams and sometimes we would bring in outsiders who were critics of ours. whenever we went through it, the challenge was that short of putting large numbers of u.s. troops on the ground uninvited, without any international law mandate, without sufficient support from congress at a time when we still have troops in afghanistan and we still have troops in iraq and we had just gone through over a decade of war and spent trillions of dollars, and when the opposition on the ground was not cohesive enough to necessarily govern a country.

and you had a military superpower in russia prepared to do whatever it took to keep its client state involved. and you have a regional military power in iran that saw their own vital strategic interests at stake and were willing to send as many of their people were proxies to support the regime. i think all of our foreign policy should be subject to fresh eyes. i have said this before, i'm very proud of the work i've done. i think i am a better president now than when i started, but if you're here for eight years in the bubble, you start seeing things a certain way and you benefit -- the democracy benefits, america benefits from some new perspectives. i think it should be not just the prerogative but the

obligation of a new president to examine everything that has been done and see what makes sense and what doesn't. that is what i did when i came in and i assume any new president will undertake the same exercises. given the importance of the relationship between the united states and china, given how much is at stake in terms of the world economy, national security, our presence in the asia-pacific, china's increasing role in international affairs, there is probably no bilateral relationship that carries more significance, and there is also the potential if that relationship breaks down or goes into a full conflict mode,

everybody is worse off. i think it is fine for him to take a look at. charlie: joining me, tom friedman. he is a columnist for "the new york times," and a pulitzer prize recipient. his new book is called "thank you for being late." i am pleased to have him back. let me begin with your reaction to what the president said, and then specifics on russia and china and other issues. tom: my overall reaction is one of profound sadness and depression, because speaking just for myself as one citizen, i am going to so miss this man's decency, his integrity, the way he is reflective about issues. i do not always agree with him but he has been in so many ways, he has been, his family and his administration, the decency and

integrity and the reflective way they have handled problems, i really going to miss and i am really bummed out. that is what i feel. charlie: from that, you hear him talking about the difference in campaigning and governing. he basically seems to be saying , we have differences, the president elect and me. my record stands there. you can see what i have done, and we have to wait and see what this president elect does in order to make the judgment. tom: the big take away that i would urge everyone watching your show to either listen to that press conference or better yet read it. read the sections about two thirds of the way through where the president really talks about what is it that distinguishes america? it is the quality of our institutions. becoming sunnis and

shiites, and we are well on her way to doing that, if our politics becomes so tribalized, it doesn't matter what kind of lies he tells, you just have to vote for him because he is part of your tribe, that will destroy the very core of what makes america unique, our institutions. i think his riff on that is worth everybody reading. especially the president elect and his team. charlie: let's talk about what he said about russia. you have written about hacking. the president seemed to have no doubt that russia did the hacking. the president-elect has not accepted that. the president said, nothing happens in russia without vladimir putin knowing about it and clearly, suggesting that he did, but we will wait until the

report comes out for the american people to know more. doubt onve no the basis of what the president has now said. the fbi has concurred with the cia that this was a vladimir putin directed hack of the democratic party. i think we have a real problem. i do not dispute that donald trump won the election on the basis of how the votes were counted in the electoral college, fair and square. he is the next president. many factors fed into his triumph. but it is absolutely indisputable that russia was involved in trying to tip the election his way by spilling out the emails of the democrats and wikileaks release them one day at a time and

sully the democratic party and its nominee, hillary clinton. i think it is an attack on the core of our democracy. we only thing i disagree with obama about is that i wish that when they determined that in september and october, they would have taken some action. but we would say in baseball terms, a high fastball right at vladimir putin's head to make him understand how serious that is. charlie: on aleppo. he said he thought about it every day and he looked for lots of ways, he asked every day was there a better approach, his military people and others. but he did not think he could change the situation without a massive input of american troops. we had other priorities, as well. tom: i totally sympathize with anyone who has to deal with the problem.

i don't pretend to be any smarter than anybody else. but i think there was a middle way that the president could have chosen and did not. i think in retrospect it was a mistake. i was a real dog on syria but i began to change my view over a year ago as i saw -- we talked a long time ago, five years ago, i made the point that libya implodes, but syria explodes. and it would explode around it, destabilizing jordan, iraq, turkey. most of all, from our point of view, it is destabilizing other great centers of democratic free centers in the world, the european union, because of the refugee outflow. i don't think the choices were either take over and invade syria or do nothing. i think there was a third option. i think there could have been a nato response. it would not have to fall

entirely on us, but if we created a saison and a no-fly zone in western turkey where refugees could gather and be safe, it would not have solved the problem, but it would have given us leverage on the ground to actually force the diplomatic power-sharing that obama wants and has been trying to do over the last year and a half, and john kerry has failed to do. basically, doing diplomacy in the middle east without leverage is like playing baseball without a bat. your hand really starts to hurt after a while. we were playing baseball without a bat in syria, and the russians knew it. i don't think we had to invade the country, but a nato operation, collective security, this was a threat to our nato partners, putting people on the ground, creating a no-fly zone in western syria could have given us the leverage to negotiate a wider power-sharing

agreement that we did not have. i think that was a mistake. charlie: on china and the idea of the reporter who asked question, said look at china with fresh eyes, and the president said that was a good question. because you want the president-elect to look at it with fresh eyes and you want him to explain the one china policy and why it was at the core of chinese beliefs. and you had to work out the process of what would happen. what did you think of that? tom: let me put that into a wider context. i think it is something that we should be concerned about with president-elect trump. it is totally legitimate, and president obama suggested that. look at the china policy with fresh eyes, maybe we should of been harder here or there. but what is illegitimate, what is irresponsible, is to launch

off on undermining the 40-year-old taiwan-china-america security agreement that has produced 40 years of peace and stability for the three partners and east asia that has produced enormous prosperity for all these countries. and to do that without getting a single briefing from the state department, to do that, we now understand on the basis of lobbying by bob dole with a $140,000 contract from the taiwanese government to try to different in a direction is responsible. it is perfectly excusable to question, do we really know whether putin hacked these elections? what is inexcusable is to simply dismiss that notion without coming to washington, sitting down with the director of national intelligence, one of

the finest public servants we have and saying, let me see all the evidence you have. if after that donald trump wants to dismiss it, that is fine. but to dismiss it without even looking at the evidence? finally, to a point to all the key environmental and energy position in your administration, people who are on record as basically denying the reality of climate change, to do that without even asking for a single briefing from the world's greatest climate scientist that worked for nasa and the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration, which will now be working for donald trump in the administration he will lead, to simply appoint those people without asking for a single briefing from the greatest experts in the world, that is inexcusable. and it is that kind of behavior that leaves me unnerved. charlie: i assume the

president-elect would say, i invited al gore in. he has been the most visible person, in terms of what he has said and done about climate change, and we had a long conversation. tom: charlie, i wrote a book on this subject eight years ago. it took me a long time to get my arms around and god bless for al gore. but the fact is, you need more than an hour long briefing with al gore to understand the parameters. i would just say, charlie, it is actually worth a day to understand what is happening with earth science. charlie: what do you think of the meeting donald trump had with people from the tech community? tom: i could not really tell what came out of it. trump is a very good salesman. he is very good at telling people what they want to hear. and why take on the tech community?

ut it gets to the question of, make america great again. if you want to make america great again, you have to know what has always made america great. and that is that we had a five-part formula for success. we educated are people up to and beyond whatever the technology was. when it was the cottage and we had universal primary education. when it was the factory we had universal secondary education. second, we had the most government-funded research. third, we had the best rules to incentivize risk-taking and prevent recklessness. fourth, we had the best infrastructure in the world. lastly, we had the most open immigration system to attract the world's great high i.q. risktakers and lower skilled, but energetic people. you can love the tech community, but if you are basically through

your immigration policies, shouting to enable more into the world, "stay away," you are not helping the tech community and you will not make america great again. charlie: here we are talking about hacking, talking about a foreign country and its leaders trying to either create chaos, or influence an election or election process. we are talking about a president who responds not via a press conference, but via twitter. what is going on here, and is this what 2017 will be, a political discussion that takes place primarily on the internet? tom: i think we are at a very important moment. i have a chapter in my book, and for me, it is one of the most important. it is called, "is god in cyberspace?" aching from a question i got ona book tour. i called a friend of mine in

amsterdam and asked him the right answer to this question. he said to me, in the jewish faith, we have a biblical and post biblical view of god. the biblical view is the almighty is almighty. il andhsmights eveil rewards good and if that is your sure is not in cyberspace. fortunately, we have a post biblical view of god. that is that god manifests himself based on how we behave. we have to bring god into cyberspace based on how we behave there. i really expanded this and this book for a simple reason. i first asked that question 20 years ago, but today, what has happened is cyberspace -- and obama alluded to this -- the digital world has become the center of our lives. everything happens in cyberspace.

it is where we find our spouse, meet our friends, do our business, educate, and do commerce. our lives have migrated to a realm where we are all connected, but nobody is in charge. pick up the paper this morning and what have we discovered? in 2013, 1 million yahoo! users they were completely hacked, all their data and passwords. putin was hacking our elections. last week a russian bank was hacked for $21 million. we have migrated our lives to a realm where there is no legal system. this is going to become more and more important. i think this question is the central political and philosophical issue of our time today. if god is not in cyberspace and we have to bring him there, how do we do that? andlie: tom, thank you

thank you to the people of the carnegie international endowment for connecting us to you. tom's book is called "thank you for being late." we will be right back. ♪

♪ charlie: joining us is john dickerson. he is the moderator of "face the nation." the president has given his last press conference of 2016.

he is off to do what all of us need, recharge his batteries. tell me, what is your take away from what the president said and how he sees this incredible year? john: so many things. three big things. of first is this question vladimir putin's role in the election. he did not say yes, but essentially, he said yes. nothing happens at that level in russia without his consent. he was careful about what he said, staying away from anything complicated, whether the hacking cost hillary clinton the election, whether he would have lifted the lid on any of the evidence he had. but there was a big moment where he basically said, he scolded republicans for on the one hand,

criticizing him for not being tough enough on vladimir putin but then throwing their lot in with a candidate who has been supportive and said nice things about vladimir putin. his point was, we have become so political that everything is about winning an election. but what will in. what will-- but in. -- but what will infuriate democrats about that is, well, witty minute. you're talking about republican behavior, don't say this is a fault of our politics at the moment. keep the blame where they believe it should be and what the president believes it should be, which is among republicans. they did say ronald reagan would be rolling over in his grave. and in a subtle way, he said that america would be weakened. he did talk about some of the things the donald trump has done in his campaign like targeting the press. it was subtle, but it was a shot and he complained about the nature of american politics. the other thing was when he reflected on going to bed every

night about what he had not done and could do more and aleppo, in south sudan, and america, that sense of regret. when george w. bush had his last press conference, he used the word disappointed so many times. it is the end, 34 days until it is over. but then, clinging to the hope from his speech in 2004, he said that he still believes in the hope. he said he believes that is the route to greatness, to get rid of the partisanship. coming out on a sense, in his presidency, the way he came in, talking about his helhope for bipartisanship. charlie: he was trying to summarize, he said that vladimir putin will be successful, and those who wish us no good will be successful only if we forget our values.

john: that is exactly right. and he said that right after he had said that republicans had forgotten their values by supporting donald trump for the purposes of an election, but forgetting who vladimir putin was, and somebody who did things against our values. democrats want a cry from the heart from him about the hacking and what it has done to the election. they did not get that and never do because he is too temperate. he did go further, much further. at some point, he said, oh, come on. he went as far as barack obama goes, i guess would be a way to put it. charlie: he also seemed to want to start with the idea of the economy. i think when he looks back at the eight years and looks at how bad the economy was and how good it is today, that seems to be something that is simply there.

you can only compare that to what might have been to make a criticism. john: it felt like he and his administration are doing everything they can to pack sandbags against the inevitable assault. the assault that is coming from the trump administration is quite considerable. they will dismantle as fast as possible his signature legislative achievement, the affordable care act. ndey are going to fib alternative to get people out of the restrictions of dodd-frank. they're going get rid of a number of other regulations. they will appoint people to cabinet agencies, the epa, to dismantle those agencies. what it seemed like he was trying to do at the beginning of that press conference was to say, we have built something here. there have been successes. he talked about handing off something donald trump can build on as if that was his intent.

donald trump's intent is not to build off of barack obama, but to dismantle. charlie: we talked about the one china policy as it applies to the chinese. it also -- that also saying -- but also saying, fresh eyes on foreign policy is an interesting process to take place. john: he said two things. he repeated remarks he said in 2008 when he was not yet the president. he said there is only one president at a time. he said the identical thing today. he said essentially whether it is russia or china and taiwan, donald trump has made decisions and offered opinions that are sending signals about u.s. policy. the taiwan phone call in particular, the president was clear about why the one china policy is the most important

thing, as if to reeducate the saying. say, stay in your lane until january 20. charlie: happy new year, happy holidays, merry christmas. our conversations have meant a lot to me and to this show, so thank you so much. >> back to you. i can't wait until 2017. charlie: we will be right back. ♪ charlie: mark shriver, president of save the children action network is here. he is a former maryland legislator. he is a former catholic. he was disillusioned with his faith until the election of the current pope. he reflects on his own faith. it is called pilgrimage: my search for the real pope francis. welcome.

tell me why you decided to do this. mark: i was born and raised a catholic. the work we do, there is always a nun or a priest in those communities. this issues around the vatican bank, sexual abuse scandals, comments about islam and women, all those things did not mesh with my understanding of the catholic church and the men and women i had admiration for. so when pope francis asked these folks to bless him before he blessed him, a couple of weeks later, he got on his knees and kissed the feet of those children. i would never have the guts to

do that, so i wanted to figure out who this guy was. the first jesuit pope ever. the jesuits take note that if another jesuit is aspiring to higher office, they are supposed to report him. charlie: because ambition is a bad thing? mark: the person who created that order believed in humility. he did not want his followers angling for promotion. a colleague down there in argentina told me that he had been offered the bishop's job twice and turned it down both times and accepted it on the third time. how did the first jesuit become pope? how did he have an incredible rise to power, then a huge crash into exile for two years? charlie: what happened? you traveled to argentina.

mark: yes, i went to his neighborhood where he grow up, saw where he went to confessional and had a moment where he decided to become a priest. a basilica nestled in a working-class neighborhood, beautiful, but nothing ornate like in america. very working-class focused. the short answer to your question about what happened, he got a position as a provincial of argentina and paraguay. he ran the jesuits in those two countries. he was very authoritarian. he did not collaborate or consult others in his decision-making and he drove a wedge between jesuits who loved him and those who thought he was to disciplinarian and focused on authority. this is 10 years after vatican ii, central and south america, a lot of folks thought that was

communism and they were going to overthrow the established government. nicaragua, guatemala, a lot of turmoil and the beginning of the civil war in argentina. charlie: isn't latin america and africa the fastest-growing areas for the catholic church? mark: it is, today. and he was in this position of authority and ends up splitting the order in half, and after a couple of years is sent into exile. you clean and feed old jesuits, and he listened to confessions. he went from being the most important jesuit in those two countries, to taking care of dying jesuits. it was his own personal exile, and he came back different. he was the dark night of the soul, he went through a transformation and came out of that differently, and he grew over the 1990's, and then there

was a depression in argentina similar to our great depression, 25% unemployment. that made him more sensitive to the needs of the poor and vulnerable, so the book is a collection of stories like rabbis who are friends with him, mothers who lost kids in fires, fathers who lost children, a dad who losses daughter in a jewish bombing. all of them have deep relationships with pope francis. charlie: he has this reputation for being a pastoral pope. mark: that is different from scholars. the cardinals must have been looking for a more pastoral approach. charlie: give me the politics of what happened? did benedict come in second? mark: they don't tell you. they tell you, but they don't tell you. i think he was getting ready to retire.

he was up for retirement age and had started the process of moving out of his small room in buenos aires, and it's growing in africa, and he had played a prominent role in the catholic church in central and south america, helping them understand how to deal with this preferential option for the poor, where the church was focused on poor people, which is very jesuit. saint ignatius said you have to accompany people on their life, and pope francis is a jesuit. that is his training. charlie: benedict says i am retiring? i'm not up to it anymore? does he win on the first ballot? mark: he does not win on the first ballot. he wins on the second day.

charlie: i was there for the conclave, i remember. we had vote. mark: the pope's grandmother was born and raised in italy, a peasant woman who moved the family to argentina, who stood up on a chair in the public square and denounced mussolini. so he speaks italian growing up. his grandmother is right around the corner. buenos aires, it is the paris of south america, a beautiful city, and he grows up in a very italian culture, and he becomes pope, but that journey, that is what the book is really about. i'm not interested in how he became pope as much as who he is. charlie: the idea of the politics of the vatican are interesting to me. it is interesting whether he will take on the existing power structure. it is not easy. there are entrenched powers in

the catholic church that like their power. mark: and it is a 2000-year-old worldwide institution, and not an american institution, and african cardinals are more conservative. you have to remember that it is a huge worldwide operation. when he actually asks that the church study whether women become deacons, that is a big deal. i think we will see women deacons, women preaching in catholic services in our lifetime. charlie: you think he wants to change the church? there is a limit to what he will change. he seems to be open to a conversation. mark: absolutely. charlie: john paul ii wasn't. mark: you see that not only in his commission to look at whether there should be women deacons.

charlie: there is a tolerance. mark: there is. and nonjudgmental. at the end of the jubilee, he tells a story about choosing mercy or misery, and tells the story of a woman caught in adultery and they bring her to jesus and say, should we stone her? and jesus says, he who is without sin cast the first stone. everybody leave. the woman says, are you going to condemn me? jesus says, i don't condemn you. go and sin no more. surely jesus knew the woman was going to sin again. pope francis knows that, but he believes by showing mercy and forgiveness, you will change people's heart and behavior more than through strict law and interpretation of it, and that is challenging to a lot of people. he is challenging me. i am not a prototypical conservative catholic, but he is challenging me.

charlie: how are you changing? what has this pilgrimage done for you and your own theology? mark: this prostitute who had three young kids, and he gave food to the family, and she came up and said ,i am glad you got the food. thank you for the food. what i really want to thank you for is you always called me señora. i thought, do i treat people who are homeless or not big shots like you with the same dignity as i do a homeless person? charlie: you have this greater sense of the dignity of other people in the sense of treating everybody with the same respect and dignity. what else did it do? mark: i meet this guy in buenos aires who is a garbage collector who picked up plastic and cardboard, and the pope invited him to sit in the front section when he becomes pope. he invited a garbage collector, a nun, and a teacher.

the garbage collector is there hugging the pope and i thought if i became governor of maryland or some other big shot job, would i have the garbage collector there in front? would i be learning and listening to him like pope francis does? as the head of an ngo, do i really listen to people that we are supposed to be serving, or do i want to go out and merge with other ngo's and become a big shot and get a bigger budget? he says in the book, don't merge, stay close, serve the poor, serve with them, not just for them, and really learn. that makes me think i want to amass more power get more political juice, right? he is saying don't do that. it is taking everything my mom and dad taught me and saying, wow. my father had a unique ability to do that.

i lost touch with that because i'd rather be here with you in this unbelievable setting talking about stuff like this, but he is saying, don't go to the big shots. go out to the fringes. charlie: what do you want to do now with your life? mark: that's a great question. did my wife ask you? charlie: i'm just getting started here. i have five more. mark: i don't know, the answer is i want to make a difference for poor kids. early childhood education in this country, taking care of child health internationally is huge for save the children, and i still want to be in the political arena running this 501(c)(3), so this guy pope francis -- he is challenging me. he's saying don't worry about someone because he does not fit in the conservative, progressive, democratic, or republican.

charlie: you used all your connections to get an interview with the pope? mark: i did. charlie: what happened? mark: he turned me down. charlie: why did he turn you down? mark: he doesn't care about his own public relations. i think he cares about his boss, and his boss is jesus, and i think he is focused on that. i think he looked at this and said the guy is writing about me, has gone to argentina and talked to my friends, why do i need to talk to him? charlie: his great friend is the cardinal of boston. mark: cardinal o'malley. they all put in a good word. i went to rome and met with his press secretary, so i had a bunch of folks working on it, and the bottom line is he turned me down, and he should have. charlie: you had already met him? mark: i met him at a mass and i

wrote on it, meet him, shook hands with him, and it was weird because you spend two and a half years studying the guy and he is 10 feet away from you and you know friends of his family, his too, but you can't talk to him. charlie: there were several places in the book when you say, who am i to judge? but a biographer is supposed to judge. mark: i am trying to learn from him. charlie: a quest biography, you mean you are trying to look at another person's life and learn for yourself? mark: yes. if you're interested in what happened economically in 2001 to cause the recession, this is not your book. if you want to hear about the people impacted by the 2001 recession, who had their children baptized outdoors, this

is the book for you, because that tells a different story. charlie: are you a different catholic now? mark:, a different catholic? charlie: in other words -- mark: i think he has made me more sensitive. i think about that homeless guy, and that makes me more aware of the guy who cleans out the garbage at the end of the day in the office. i talk to them. it helps me. it helps them. and it makes these ripples of hope that bobby kennedy used to talk about, but those little interactions, he goes home and maybe he treats his wife differently and kids differently because you were kind to him, and that is a little ripple, and then his kids have an impact. humility is not practiced a lot in this country.

mercy is not practiced from our political leaders or religious leaders. that is what makes this story so good. charlie: the book is called pilgrimage: my search for the real pope francis. thank you. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

charlie: will ahmed is founder and ceo of the wearable technology company whoop.

it helps athletes achieve peak performance. the wristband is equipped with sensors that collect data 100 times per second, measures and analyzes recovery, strain, and sleep. the company announced findings from the largest performance study ever conducted, 200 minor league baseball players participated over five months. among the conclusions was evidence that suggested a positive relationship between recovery levels and velocity and speed of the bat. welcome. will: thank you. charlie: tell me how you came to create this device. will: whoop, our mission is to unlock human performance. i got into the space because i was interested in performance, in sports, and exercise. i was playing squash while at harvard, and i was surrounded by athletes who did not know what they were doing to their bodies,

overtraining, under training, misinterpreting fitness peaks, not understanding the importance of recovery or sleep. for me, i wanted to better understand the human body. i did a lot of physiology study, met with cardiologists and physiologists, and reading medical papers. i came up with a thesis around how i thought you could better understand the body. charlie: what did you learn about what the body tells you about performance? will: i learned that there are secrets that your body is trying to tell you that can help you train, help you with optimizing performance, but the fact of the matter, and this was six years ago when i was first doing this research, is that they could not be monitored. there was nothing in the space able to do this kind of data collection, so i was able to partner with my cofounders, my cto. his father is a professor of

exercise physiology. we had this overlap with physiology and he had the technical chops to implement some things from an engineering standpoint. our third cofounder really understood mechanical engineering, so we were prototyping things at the harvard innovation lab and we were off to the races. charlie: let's talk about the sensors. they measure heart rate. what does that tell you? will: by looking at heart rate over the course of the day, and elevations relative to your baseline, you can understand cardiovascular strain throughout the day. our focus is understanding the relationship between strain and recovery. if your body is run down and you have a lower recovery, we think you should take on less strain. if your body has a higher

recovery, you should take on more strain. when there is an imbalance, your body is run down and there is strain -- strain is looking at the five different metrics we are measuring, heart rate, variability, ambient temperature, motion and movement, and touch. charlie: motion and movement and -- we have five, heart rate, variability, ambient temperature, motion and movement, and touch. will: what kind of cardiovascular strain have you put on your body? as a result, what does your body need to do to recover properly? charlie: i assume it is rest. mark: yes, and that is the missing ingredient. we designed whoop to be a step

ahead of an individual or team. you wake up with a recovery, that recovery telling you how capable your body is of taking on strain. over the day, you accumulate strain as exercise, stress, or activity, and we look at the strain accumulated on your body and we say this is how much sleep you need tonight in order to recover for tomorrow. charlie: who is the target audience? will: whoop has worked with professional athletes, collegiate athletes, and the military. we have recently released whoop to the public. there is a correlation between professional athletes and step counters of the world who want to understand performance. that want to better understand performance and perform at a higher level. you think about high school athletes aspiring to be

collegiate, professional athletes, people who work out every day, or even your endurance competitors, runners, cyclists, triathletes, these are people held together by some strong degree of competitiveness. i don't think there has been a technology or brand for that matter that has spoken to that audience. charlie: what was the major league baseball study? will: they were looking for the best technology to understand player health. a grueling season, a lot of games, it is important to be able to categorize what athletes are doing to their bodies, and so major league baseball approached us, deemed we had technology capable of monitoring performance, and we started with a couple of teams. it snowballed because there was so much interests, so nine different organizations, 28 teams within the minor leagues,

230 athletes, so it ended up being the largest performance study ever conducted in professional sports. charlie: you could measure the body and figure out how to reduce strain and therefore add something to a fastball or the release of a bat? will: we found a direct correlation between how recovered baseball players were and how fast they were pitching. we saw how recovered baseball players were with the exit velocity of the bat. we saw the athletes who were traveling for away games were on average spending an hour less time sleeping than the athletes at home, and as a result, the home teams were on average 10% more recovered, so conventional wisdom says the home team wins because they have the fans behind them or they are in the stadium. charlie: how do you add more sleep to travelers?

will: one of the powerful things we have seen is by monitoring their bodies. athletes are able to understand how much sleep they need. they think of themselves as athletes 24/7, and i think that is something that athletes like lebron james, tom brady, or other top performers, when you read about their sleep patterns, it is so special. it is easy to wear, lightweight. here is the sensor itself. here is the sensor itself. this is five sensors measuring 100 times a second, and you can see that it is largely material, so lightweight and easy to wear, and what we also did is invented a modular charger, so we wanted this to be something that you never need to take off. there is so much value in continuous data, so we invented this modular charger, and you

slide this on to the whoop strap, and by wearing it for 60 minutes, you charge it. ♪

moscow has a countdown in ingres. putin says it's a drive to -- it's a trying to drive the country apart. >> 12 shoppers killed in berlin when a truck plowed into crowds at a christmas market. markets fall on shocking news that chinese stocks retreat to a six-week low. the dollar rebounds against the yen. >> the bank of japan wound up its final reading of the year