Blood Test #5 in 2023: My Worst Data Of The Year
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лип 2024
- Join us on Patreon! / michaellustgartenphd
Discount Links:
At-Home Metabolomics: www.iollo.com?ref=michael-lustgarten
Use Code: CONQUERAGING At Checkout
NAD+ Quantification: www.jinfiniti.com/intracellul...
Use Code: ConquerAging At Checkout
Epigenetic Testing: trudiagnostic.com/?irclickid=...
Use Code: CONQUERAGING
Oral Microbiome: www.bristlehealth.com/?ref=mi...
Enter Code: ConquerAging
At-Home Blood Testing (SiPhox Health): getquantify.io/mlustgarten
Green Tea: www.ochaandco.com/?ref=conque...
Diet Tracking: shareasale.com/r.cfm?b=139013...
If you'd like to support the channel, you can do that with the website, Buy Me A Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/mlhnrca
Conquer Aging Or Die Trying Merch! my-store-d4e7df.creator-sprin...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Excel file to calculate Levine's Biological Age is embedded in this link from my website:
michaellustgarten.com/2019/09...
Papers referenced in the video:
Predicting Age by Mining Electronic Medical Records with Deep Learning Characterizes Differences between Chronological and Physiological Age
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Blood counts in adult and elderly individuals: defining the norms over eight decades of life
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...
U-shaped mortality curve associated with platelet count among older people: a community-based cohort study
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26265... - Наука та технологія
When things go a bit wrong that is when you learn the most. Let's hope you track down the true cause.
Definitely!
this episode has closed with so many cliff hangers! Can't wait for the answers!
The volume is so much better now. Thank you.
Trying to sort that out, I promise!
Fantastic content as always 🔥
Excellent video, I learn a lot!!!
Thanks as always Doc.
Great work again. Some new things to be learned. We have to assume that blood results are always the truth. One test out of sequence since 3 yrs ago is certainly an anomaly but remains a short term signal. if the results are the same for next time, it will a stronger signal for further analysis. Keep the good work
Definitely @claudecamire5913, and thanks!
Thanks for the video, Michael! You will be back on track next time!! Research shows that both high niacin and tryptophan intake reduce platelets. So it seems obvious what happened this time. Of course, too much niacin also elevates liver enzymes.
Thanks @jpintero6330. Can you please post papers showing that niacin and tryptophan reduce platelets?
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 Niacin --
Correction of refractory thrombocytopenia and anemia following withdrawal of extended release niacin,
Nicotinic acid/laropiprant reduces platelet count but increases mean platelet volume in patients with primary dyslipidemia and other papers, but mostly all in dyslipidemia subjects. tryptophan -- nothing compelling in my opinion
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 Morgan JM, Adams SJ. Scleroderma and autoimmune thrombocytopenia associated with ingestion of L-tryptophan. Br J Dermatol. 1993 May;128(5):581-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.1993.tb00241.x. PMID: 8504054. -- Reimund E, Ramos A. Niacin-induced hepatitis and thrombocytopenia after 10 years of niacin use. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1994 Apr;18(3):270-1. doi: 10.1097/00004836-199404000-00037. PMID: 8034946. -- Guyton JR, Bays HE. Safety considerations with niacin therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2007 Mar 19;99(6A):22C-31C. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.11.018. Epub 2006 Nov 28. PMID: 17368274.
Probably just an outlier.
variability among testing protocals.
Let see what happens in three months.
Testing again in October, so we'll know sooner than that. Even if is an outlier, I think tryptopan and/or high dose serine (6g/d) messed something up.
This is my main problem with all these biological age tests ... if one can get a swing of -/+5 years in a matter of months how accurate can these tests really be?
PhenoAge is associated with mortality risk in a bunch of studies, for example:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30596641/
Even without a cumulative biological age prediction, few would argue that higher glucose, creatinine, BUN, and a lower % of lymphocytes are a part of the youthful state, which is what changed for this test.
it is well possible to f+++ up the metabolism completely in less than a few months. Want to know the recipe? hehehehe Well, this did not happen, but Michael is in the highly advantageous position that he can apply scientific reasoning, since he has consistent historical data
The biological age numbers are just summary numbers of a very complex system. In this case the age increase is consistent with worsening biomarkers in a number of categories. If a reasonable person only saw the headline deterioration in biological age, would they stop what was different that month? I would say yes.
The tricky situation is when you have biomarkers going in positive and negative directions, in that case, overall biological age hides the full story and you need to dig deeper into the individual biomarkers. This is one of the major limitations the epigenetic age clocks. They only give an overall number. Over time, they will be improved and should point us to specific areas to focus on.
I did have problems with my sleep recently because heatwaves. I know those factors you looked into can be influenced by sleeping quality. Maybe you had some problems too sleeping? Just a thought it's probably nothing of that
Edit. Oh I've seen you already answered to that in the comments
Definitely, as I now track the nighttime room temp, which can affect sleep, but also RHR and HRV. That wasn't an issue for this test.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 just another thought... You are a professional I'm only a guy that read a lot of things from sources like you that I find believable. I know that there is proof science that helps those elements like white cells and platelets regarding cold showers. Maybe you can test that but I don't want that you'll become a free test for every stranger's theory in your channel 😂
@@squarz the "effect" cold plunges and shower are a myth. If any, it causes local inflammation become chronic.
With glucose continuing to rise maybe you could consider daily tracking by finger stick (say at set times through the day - morning and night) or CGM if available.
I wouldn't say continuing to rise-it was 89 on the last test. I've used a CGM in the past, nothing of significance in terms of glucose spikes (none > 130 mg/dL after eating.
May want to check if whoop data showed an anomaly for hrh or hrv during the test. Might rule out any minor infections. My scores will sometimes fluctuate if I’m fighting an infection.
Nope, no anomaly there, except when I had a gut issue that I think is linked with niacin and/or tryptophan supplementation, or sporadic (had nothing to do with those 2). The hIgher HRV, lower RHR trend has continued into 2023.
great stuff as usual. Maybe at some point you could discuss the expected % accuracy of blood tests
Thanks @johnhancock5542, and I can definitely explain that more in future videos!
blood tests are SO variable! You should focus more on sarcopenia and measuring your body fat and muscle volumes. Also instead of trying to fix individual things via whack-a-mole approach, you should increase your intake of GlyNAC, taurine, creatine, α-lipoic acid and lutein. Measure those physical characterstics after 2 months of training and taking the above-mentioned supplements.
In the video I show that my blood test data is not variable, and we can see that this test looks like an outlier, comparatively.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 I understand, I was reacting to the pattern seen in your recent videos. I see you're trying to test some things but I suggest a "carpet bombing" approach for a while and then look at your results. Also, you could focus more on the physical look/strength side of things as it is also very important aspect of aging.
And then I would focus also on neurogenesis.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797I forgot melatonin as well.
What is contributing to your success in keeping your HDL high these last couple of years?
Hey @KoiRun50, it's been > 50 for 2 consecutive tests-Vitamin K is positively correlated, so it could be an increased intake of collard greens over the past few tests.
Also, btw (if you have the time to answer this question), I am sure you are familiar with Dr.Bruce Ames work and the Triage Theory; do you agree with this theory and if so do you think the triage theory takes place for all nutrients in a human organism (excluding the two that it was proven to happen with - selenium and vitamin K)?
Michael. Besides CR, do you do any kind of fasting? Thank you
Hey @berdi4berdi4, yep, every day. On in-person work days, the eating window is short (530-730 AM, fasting from 730AM to 3PM, eating again from 3-330PM), and on at-home work days, I fast from about 3PM to ~5AM the next day.
Is it possible that the outliers are often in hot Summertime? Also Measurementproblem, Probe contamination etc. 🤔🤷🏻♂️
That could've been true in early June, when seasonal allergies hit. This was something else...
Blaming the test casts doubt on all tests. That's a variable that can't be controlled, either way.
When you look at data over the mulitple tests ler year, do you notice any "sub trends" likely impacted by changes of the season/light/temperature/exposure to viruses etc. E.g. do you always see a slight dip in progress in autumn/winter etc?
Definitely-my worst data of the year is allergy season, from late may to ~mid-July
Do you think vegetables should be a part of our diets just wondering your opinion?
Hey @Tockin, I follow blood (and other objective) biomarkers. Based on that, a high-volume approach, including vegetables, works for me.
Dr. Lust, for your purposes what additional data does chrono gold give you that the free base version does. I've checked the website and based on their description, I am not seeing any additional information. Are there hidden micronutrients?
Hey @auricauric8150, I'm not sure-I use the Pro version. I'd reach out to cronometer...
this season's final is apparently no happy end 😔
We’ll see about that, too more tests to go!
Michael, have you ever considered trying plasma donation as a way to improve bio markers?
Hey @rufisdodd4318, I haven't-I'm not convinced that would do anything long-term. If so, we'd expect better biomarkers test-over-test, as I blood test 7x/yr-how would my system know if that's a blood draw vs donation?
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 I see. I was thinking you can donate up to 1L of plasma which would be quite a bit more than you take with a blood draw. Also the Conboy results seemed pretty compelling.
Something to also consider is the possible Listeria monocytogenes due to frozen fruit recall all over USA, as impact to this blood result. I think next one will be better if supplements are dropped and this other factor.
That's possible, but the weird gut issue (dull pain, sweating on the morning of the test while pooping) started once I started the niacin and tryptophan experiments...
Michael, love your channel. I have been using the spreadsheet for quite some time, and I have discovered that the Creatinine number really seems to have an outsized effect on the final number. At age 71, my current set of numbers say I am 66 with a Creatinine of 1.5 (note: my Creatinine has been out of the reference range for years, since I am largely on a low carb diet and do a lot of strength training) But if I enter 1.0 am down to 63. All the other markers seem to have a more marginal effect. FYI, Peter Attia has said his group doesn't track Creatinine with his patients any more but rather Cystatin-C as a much more sensitive marker, along with the estimated Glomular Filtration Rate (my eGFR is on the low side). Would love to hear your thoughts.
Hi @karlpk3907, and thanks. I covered why creatinine may not be a good marker of kidney function in this recent video:
ua-cam.com/video/ZEG9idULZc0/v-deo.html
In that video, I also show Cystatin C data, and propose that we can measure uremic metabolites as an additional measure of kidney function.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 Michael, thanks!!! Missed that video. It is depressing that eGFR simply drops with age and that there appears to be nothing a person can do about that. I have been taking Rapamycin, though went off it for the last 10 weeks, and I saw that one of the commenters said Rapa helped his eGFR. But like you, I am skeptical that Rapa can have such a dramatic effect. At some point in the future, maybe in your lifetime but not mine, someone will develop a true implantable artificial kidney and this inevitable problem will be solved, and the person or group who creates that device will be rich beyond their wildest dreams.
@karlpk3907 is there nothing GFR can be improved by?
If you're taking B6 it would be awesome to see your Zinc and Copper balance because B6 demands more Zinc to produce Pyridoxine Kinase to convert to P5P (and eventually GABA)
Interesting, thanks for that. Can you please post some papers showing that B6 affects Cu and Zn levels?
It would be interesting to correlate your blood results with the novel data science approach used in Zoe Health. It is a test that combines CGM, fat and glucose response trials, genetics and gut microbiome to give a personalised food score designed to enhance health through personalised nutritional recommendations based on your unique data.
Have you seen it?
Prof Tim Spector led the research arm during its creation.
Hey @littlevoice_11, while I'm a fan of Tim and the Zoe study, they're not looking at post-prandial impacts on biomarkers of kidney, liver, immune function-it's focused on TGs.
The Zoe study is a good start towards my approach, though...
I will be 75 years old in February and I have never had a blood test. I had a colonoscopy at age 65 (perfect) but my last doctors visit was in 1969. One $4 prescription an antibiotic for a root canal.
What brought you here to this video?
I am happy for you, that you do not need science.... At least you think you don't.
From the performance f your body in the past you can not conclude to its performance in the future, if you do not have ANY data... And this is what that channel here is about. It is not so much about the thing called ego
Wow that's some impressive genetic material right here. I am very happy for you. Should have been an easier life (health issues-wise) than most. I would bet money if you were trying actively to be healthy and live longer you would be a favorite to reach 100+ years old.
@@jpintero6330 longevity
You are fine, it's all in your mind (random doctor in my area) 😂
At a glance I believe glucose is also very heavily weighted in these models. Jumping up from 89 to 94 mg/dl might have been big part of the change. I think you can lookup the weighting/coefficients on all of those biomarkers.
Yeah, also glucose is pretty random too. My levels vary a lot every morning. Usually between 85-95. Just depends on a lot of things.
@@N330AA fasting is weird for me too. I’ve managed to keep my a1c quite low. I think some meds like statins really boost fasting.
@@neilquinn I think the most important thing is to stay in range (sub 140). Above that you're doing damage to yourself, supposedly. I tend to eat lowish carb (~100g/day) so mine rarely goes above 110.
Hi! What diet are You on, and which supplements do You use? Also are You taking statins?
I'm not on a statin, I've detailed diet composition on the channel-see the Tracking Biological Age Playlist...
Thanks for the video Mike. I agree with another commenter that we learn the most when something goes wrong. It does look like your supplements messed up the data.
By the way, I think you can take a smaller dose of nicotinic acid and still get a nice increase in NAD because nicotinic acid can go down 2 pathways: one to make NAD and the other produces flushing. So if you feel flushing, then you're taking more than you can use to make NAD.
If you lower your nicotinic acid dose and split your dose into several during the day, you may also reduce side effects such as gastrointestinal issues and higher glucose.
Thanks @justsaying7065, and I agree about the smaller dose of NA. I'm thinking about 50 mg, to start, which ~doubles my current niacin intake. That assumes I don't get a NAD bump from FO supplementation...
Note that there was no NA for 28d prior to this test. Instead, tryptophan was 2g/d during that period.
Do you have a special software or a nice excel spreadsheet to log all your blood data?
Yep, nothing fancy, just Excel
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 could you share it so I can reuse it?
I'm sorry :( On the good side your audio is so improved!
I wish every test could be great news, but that's not realistic! It's strange about the microphone, I didn't change anything...
My lymphocytes were 35% before tryptophan and 17.7% (too low) after tryptophan.
Interesting...hopefully you took it out of your stack? I did
I didn’t connect it to tryptophan until I saw this video. I am getting tested again in September to see if the trend continues (I’ve actually doubled the dose since last time). If it does I’ll eliminate tryptophan, begrudgingly because tryptophan+morning sunlight+B6 feels so good. It’s definitely been very helpful for my mood and overall feeling.
Could you measure your fasting insulin next time additionally to your fasting glucose? With the HOMA-ir index we could evaluate your insulin sensitivity.
Igf-1 would also be interesting because it is usually raised in insulin resistant individual.
I measured insulin 5x in 2022, and it averaged 3 mIU/mL...
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 that sounds great!
Lots of changes going on there... It seems like more calorie restriction combined with some kind of inflammatory signalling not measured by CRP.
CR has been a constant for ~3y, and very minor (20-30 calories/d below maintenance intake). Yep on the inflammatory signaling, I'm thinking about including TNF-a and IL-6.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 As I remember IL-6 is well correlated with CRP, so any IL-6 increase would have to be small to keep CRP
Gotcha, thanks @@jamesgilmore8192
@@conqueragingordietrying1797you def need include both of those I would love to see that as well!
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 and tommy. The cytokines are generally known to show large fluctuations test to test. I don't think they are worth measuring myself in this approach. Maybe if your looking for something acute or pathological OK, but there are many other modifiable biomarkers that are higher priority in my opinion. Plus they are usually expensive.
If the measured age can shift so fast between test the whole method seems flaud or the margin for error is probably close to 20 %.
For the PhenoAge data since 2018, note that it's not that variable, with the exception of this test (and another in 2020), which argues against the method being flawed.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 I just reference to results from certifying labs in another industry. Measurements are claimed to be within 0.1% error per instrument however there is a lab +-5% marging of error but sometimes we are +-7.5% and fail but when later retest same unit we are +-1% from listed data. I mean if you retest same sample maybe you had another number using other instruments for measurements or just re-calibrated.
Based on my strategene report on IDO1 and IDO2 genes (the breakdown of tryptophan and affects immune and autoimmune) the increased tryptophan could have thrown off that data point.
I'm willing to share my strategene report with you to further your research 11:37
Yes, that's possible, thanks @justinmireau9150-I'm very familiar with IDO:
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26975982/
HI, thank you fir the video.
ALT = 31 U/L, isn't it a bit high?
Yep, it is…
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 And could well be associated with the higher LDL also.
With your hs crp being always low make a ferritin level a more of an accurate measure of your iron status. Lower ferritin could explain your lowering platelets. Especially in a plant dominant diet. Re your higher levels of glu wbc hgb neut etc - maybe you’re a bit less hemodiluted coming into this test.
@@KoiRun50 I was just about to comment that the iron levels have dropped vs tests 1,2,3, this year. Correlating total iron with RBC and platelets would be useful. Along with in depth iron studies if they do those at quest. These levels may be too low for Mike. Easy to fix of course. I'd shelve CRP and allocate the funds to something else more useful.
@@KoiRun50 I can see how that could be true, but these data were triggered by something-i.e. a "bad test" after about 15 tests with very good data. The only thing that was different was tryptophan, niacin, and or too much serine. All those are out for the next test.
I wouldn't get too caught up in your platelet number. I actually think, and my research has shown, that levels of 170-200 are optimal. It's levels below 150 that can be worrisome. That's why it would've been helpful with that study you cited if they broke the range down to 100-150, and 150 to 200, instead of just the one large range that they looked at 100 to 200.
The study I posted in the video included 130,000+ people. If there's a larger study on platelets and all-cause mortality risk, please post it...
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 Right, but the ranges are too wide to be conclusive. My take is that the increase in all cause mortality in the study would be much more heavily weighted to those in the 100 - 150 range than those in the 150 - 200 range. It's too broad. Big difference between platelets of 120 vs 180, for instance.
My daughter just had blood work done and she is 20. Her platelets are 173 (lowest healthy range being 140 on this test) and the doc said it was perfect! Her lymphocyte was 31%. So who knows.
@@jpintero6330 never trust docs.... They aren't properly educated and trained, and there are many historical proofs for that... eg the fairy tale of saturated fats, of eggs, of total cholesterul etc etc
Did you sleep well the night before this test?
Yep, but while pooping that morning, I was profusely sweating, which is uncharacteristic.
Weird and random gut pains since I started the niacin and/or tryptophan experiment...
@@conqueragingordietrying1797funny you say this… I also do not do too well on supplements in general. I’m wondering if those threw off this test.
maybe it's time for some plasma donation? (mimic the Conboy lab results)
Ha, Bryan ditched it, so it probably didn't work as advertised...
he was doing young blood (his son!) right? I'm talking about the newer Conboy (last year?) where they found that removing plasma and replacing with albumin. thing is with albumin is that i guess it comes from donors and you have no idea which donor you'll get it from. so if it's the albumin, then we're hosed. If it was the dilution of "bad" plasma, then we are golden.@@conqueragingordietrying1797
40 yrs old male, gym 5 days a week, healthy all biomarkers except my Lymphocytes % recently tested 63% rather than the 40% max.
Not getting over a cold or disease or anything like that.
In general, they have always been slightly above 40% over 15 years, but not this high.
Would be very helpful if someone watching this channel has any ideas bcz doctors don’t seem too concerned about it, just tell me to retest & see next time.
Thanks in Advance.
Hi @iotanb1772, mine are almost always above 40% Higher is generally better, but also, avoiding the age-related decrease. This video may be of value:
ua-cam.com/video/Fc9dvWVhDho/v-deo.html
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 thank you for the response 🙏
63.7% lymphocytes %
4.937/uL lymphocytes total number
This the highest ive tested.
1st time also my neutrophils % was 29%
neutrophils total 2.271uL - usually they are within standard range.
Anything you think i should to improve this or this is good direction?
Looks to me that you are fighting an auto-immune issue of some type. Summer? I think tryptophan has not made any difference - its benign stuff. OR your body is fed-up with sardines or something else and wants a change. I would switch my diet round a bit somehow.
I don't think its autoimmune, that would show up in other ways. But the comment on increasing variety within the same dietary framework is well worth considering.
Nope, I had seasonal allergies in June, this was something else, likely a gut issue. Ha, it's not the sardines, and I don't think there's a need to blow up the diet-things went haywire for this test once I started messing with supplements...
okayyy.... will be very intersting if you can identify the culprits.
What I see from your lipid panel is not so good. tri/HDL rose to 1.3, with HDL pretty low, and also total chol by far too low.
Is probably indeed related to the high doses of B6 and B12. I guess that your daily fat intake did not change so much. The low cholesterol with high tri together with low body fat also raises the question whether you went too low, based on your diet. The triglycerides still tell the story that there are too many carbs, probably too much fructose... relative to the body fat.
But you have the data!
Optimal/youthful HDL is in the 50-60 range, and my TGs are almost always < 90, which is associated with maximally reduced ACM risk. A TG/HDL ratio of 1.3 is not high...
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 oh sorry, i fell prey on the units, and remembered only partially, against the background of my own values... I looked it up, yours are measured in mg, both, and such it is not high, yes. the 1.3 value for the ratio applies if measured in mmol
Why do you think, it's Tryptophan?
I increased that test-over test to 2g/d, which is 200% higher than my basal intake. Once I started the niacin and/or tryptophan-NAD journey, I had some weird gut issues/pain that I've never experienced before. I'm finally coming out of that now, but I removed both niacin and tryptophan from the approach.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 I wonder if damage to the smooth muscle in the intestinal track could raise creatinine?
@@jamesgilmore8192 I'm not sure-instead, I'm thinking that tryptophan enabled growth of bacteria that can produce metabolites that negatively affect kidney function. P-cresol sulfate is one example, which more than doubled on my last metabolomic test.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 That's definitely possible and time will tell. Keep us updated!
@@conqueragingordietrying1797 Why also Niacin? I thought, that worked.
You need to drink more Guinness.
if I do, I'll be immortal, for sure!
"The definition of relative lymphocytosis is an increase in WBC of more than 40% in the presence of a normal absolute white cell count. In this review, we present the most common causes in adult patients, in addition to a general approach to diagnosis and management of frequently encountered etiologies." So is 41.6% better than 25.7%?
Hamad H, Mangla A. Lymphocytosis. 2023 Jul 17. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023
That's why we should go on cell type counts first and foremost, and then look at ratios and percentages as secondary measures. If we had measures of function, the order would be counts, function, ratios, percentages.
@@jamesgilmore8192 It is interesting to note that the lowest all cause mortality range for WBC is in the 3.5 -4.4 range in the study that Dr. Lustgarten relies on for defining the optimal range. I suspect that people in the lowest all cause mortality range for total WBC will likely have total lymphocytes well under the total 2000 count cited by Michael as optimal. Perhaps in these cases, the percentages are more relevant than the absolute?
To add to the above:
"Ruggiero's team also calculated that for every additional 1,000 cells above the lowest end of the normal range (3,500), a patient's risk of death rose by just over 10 percent. "
So at 4,400 -5499, you will likely have more absolute lymphocytes compared to 3500 -4499 and you will likely be closer to 2000 absolute lymphocytes, but according to Ruggerio numbers and finding,s your risk of death went up by 10%.
Without some analysis as to which is more influential in relation to mortality, it is difficult to know whether to prioritize total WBC or total lymphocytes.
oy.
I think you are way over thinking this.
Plus some of the 'normal ranges' and level of things like platelet count ranges are based on who? The vast majority of people do not eat a healthy diet or exercise enough so even if some biomarkers are making them look healthy, it could simply be that there is enough health reducers in their lifestyle that things like platelet counts are distorted then, on mass you end up with a distorted "healthy" range or ranges that supposedly indicate higher risk of death. Higher risk of death if all your other health markers and lifestyle matches those of the people used to come up with those ranges.
SImply eating a very high whole plant based diet and exercise can reduce your WBC to below the low-end of the reference range. Why? Well if you are eating a highly anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant diet you almost certainly have a reduced need for WBC as your odds of having some low-grade issues going on is reduced. I have had a "too low" WBC for years and yet when I get sick my immune system ramps right up and I am over almost everything days before those around me, if I even get whatever virus they are spreading.
Its kind of like comparing two people with cholesterol levels of 220 (assume HDL, LDL, Tris are the same). One person could easily be at much higher risk for problems down the road. They might be eating like everyone else (garbage) while the second person is very high whole food plant based. The first person is going to have much higher levels of free radicals floating around their system, inflammation, including lots more oxidized LDL causing damage. The clean eater is greatly reducing their oxidative status at every meal as well as their inflammatory status. Some people even get a low-grade immune response to the proteins in meat. The clean eater will also not be under constant assault of an overactive immune system.
Then you have the person eating like everyone else also taking in external sources of hormones they don't need, antibiotic that they animals were given, and even some disease now and then.
There are not enough healthy eaters to come up with real reference ranges that actually matter. I mean just look at cholesterol. 200 is the cut-off that you see all the time yet the actual target is 150 or less with LDL under 100 and closer to 70 if possible. When "Heart Healthy" cholesterol level is still cholesterol levels that are too high, yet that 200 cut-off is so engrained that even most doctors would think your cholesterol is fine if you were at 200, when that is still too high and not a "heart-healthy" level.
Even someone eating a lot of whole plant foods and little to no animal products (highly vegetarian to whole plant food diet) can have blood protein levels that are out of the top of reference range. Not due to some disease condition but because reference ranges were not based on people that are living very healthy lifestyles. Not saying that this applies to all, but it is just interesting none the less: nutritionfacts.org/video/vegan-protein-status/
Another interesting paper: sci-hub.st/10.1089/ars.2009.3024
Reference ranges are also only that and are really based on bell curves so say 80% of the people, on average, can be captured but being an outlier here or there is likely no issue assuming your lifestyle is healthy and your other markers are fine. I mean you are literally 5 to 22 years older than where some of your charts start and your "Chronological" age is still more than a decade less than your physical age. What is the problem exactly?
The reference range is not what's optimal for health and potentially longevity-there are plenty of videos on the channel that demonstrate that.
I expected your egfr to be higher than 80 especially you are not eating red meats or high fat diets !
Expected eGFR based on my chronological age is ~70 (see ua-cam.com/video/ZEG9idULZc0/v-deo.html),
and aside from this test, is usually > 90.
You're really wasting your time looking at the CBC parameters as indicators of age. I've worked in a hematology lab for decades. Those tests fluctuate up and down daily for a whole host of reasons. Infection, dehydration, inflammation, fatigue, trauma and just daily normal fluctuations to name a few. You could do a platelet count or a wbc differential and see significant changes in just a few hours. CBC results are a good indicator of general health, but certainly not age.
As I demonstrated in the video, my data is not usually variable.
You may not think so, but trust me it's true for everyone. Ask a physician.
@@reefkeeper2 Reef I think your point is mostly true, there are many factors that can change the bloods. For example if you were almost in an accident on the way to the path lab, the quick responding tests like glucose would be bad. It would be interesting to measure daily changes, or have checks before testing, but that's just not practical. Sub clinical infections are hard to control for, and we can expect to see some errant immune cell counts occasionally.
Mike has an extensive standardisation procedure before each test that an average person wouldn't do. You can see this in his numbers. They just don't fluctuate like repeated measurements in the scientific literature. He could add things like checking dehydration at home, but for the most part the data speaks for itself.
May be you had viral infection.
If I did, it was localized to the intestine, and not systemic-in support of that, hs-CRP was < 0.3 mg/L, which is Quest's detection limit.
@@conqueragingordietrying1797if you have vaccines, do you ever notice changes short/medium/long on your bloods as a result of the actives or adjuvant?