23 replies to this topic

[Luna]

What blood tests do you do to check your biomarkers, youth, healthiness?

[Ungomma]

I second the question.

It is impossible to visit a full cycle of doctors often - once in a few years is the most frequent I can afford. What quick, cheap and useful tests are there?

[warner]

Track your blood glucose, sex hormone levels, bone density, soft tissue calcification, AGE accumulation.
Adjust diet and take supplements to control these.
Also monitor all surfaces for cancer and other defects: skin, GI tract, and retina.
(All that in addtion to what's typically done in standard yearly checkups.)

[warner]

(Also stay out of sun, get moderate exercise, enough sleep, minimize stress.)

[s123]

It depends on your gender, age, risk factors,...

Track your blood glucose, sex hormone levels, bone density, soft tissue calcification, AGE accumulation.
Adjust diet and take supplements to control these.
Also monitor all surfaces for cancer and other defects: skin, GI tract, and retina.
(All that in addtion to what's typically done in standard yearly checkups.)

I Agree with glucose, very important. Bone density is not needed if you are young but for elder women this might be a valuable test. Soft tissue calcification again is not needed if you are young. AGE accumulation, how will you measure that? HbA1c? Well, this would only give you one piece of the puzzle.

* Glucose
* CRP
* Insulin
* IGF-1
* T3
* Creatinine
* HDL
* Triglycerides
* LDL (sub forms of LDL would be a good idea but more expensive)
* ALT
* AST
* Alkaline phosphatase
* Bilirubin

Some other tests could also be worth doing: sodium, potassium, calcium, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3, ferritin, haemoglobin, sedimentation speed, blood cell count, TSH, amylase,...

[warner]

It depends on your gender, age, risk factors,...

Track your blood glucose, sex hormone levels, bone density, soft tissue calcification, AGE accumulation.
Adjust diet and take supplements to control these.
Also monitor all surfaces for cancer and other defects: skin, GI tract, and retina.
(All that in addtion to what's typically done in standard yearly checkups.)

I Agree with glucose, very important. Bone density is not needed if you are young but for elder women this might be a valuable test. Soft tissue calcification again is not needed if you are young. AGE accumulation, how will you measure that? HbA1c? Well, this would only give you one piece of the puzzle.

* Glucose
* CRP
* Insulin
* IGF-1
* T3
* Creatinine
* HDL
* Triglycerides
* LDL (sub forms of LDL would be a good idea but more expensive)
* ALT
* AST
* Alkaline phosphatase
* Bilirubin

Some other tests could also be worth doing: sodium, potassium, calcium, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3, ferritin, haemoglobin, sedimentation speed, blood cell count, TSH, amylase,...

I was being purposely contrarian to hopefully generate this kind of exchange.

My take is a bit different. Most of the tests you listed are the standard ones we all get (or should get) with routine checkups (and which I acknowledged as desirable). However, they are usually used to detect immediate problems, or at least MDs do not use them properly for long-term prevention of disease and life extension. (Many of these tests are also redundant, such as strong link between blood glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and HDL.)

imho, to live a long time, the trick is to not become a victim of statisical thinking: "xxx is not needed if you are young". That's a cost argument, not a logical argument about life extension. To know whether you're on track to live a long time, you need tests that measure long-term changes, such as bone density, soft tissue calcification, and AGE accumulation. You don't need to do these every year, but you should get baseline values that are updated every few years (perhaps every 5 years). If you wait until your MD says you may need such tests, you run the risk of being irreversibly screwed because you missed something in the previous decades.

Think of it this way: If there are 20 age-related things that might be wrong with you, and, for each of these the MD says, "You're too young to worry about that", then there's a good chance you're going to get screwed by one or more of these (which is exactly what happens - people "discover" having osteopenia, low testosterone, prediabetes, etc.). I think you have to think outside the MD box to optimize your life-long results. Their motivations and constraints are are a poor match to our interests in life extenstion.

The AGE testing would be something like skin fluorescence. I included sex hormones since they are so often overlooked and misunderstood as agents of aging. And I threw in blood glucose because it is so easy to track and has such profound aging-related consequences.

Thanks s123 for your great response, since we get to see both sides of this issue, with a pretty thorough listing.

[kismet]

My take is a bit different. Most of the tests you listed are the standard ones we all get (or should get) with routine checkups (and which I acknowledged as desirable). However, they are usually used to detect immediate problems, or at least MDs do not use them properly for long-term prevention of disease and life extension. (Many of these tests are also redundant, such as strong link between blood glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and HDL.)

Nah, those tests really are superb. Most other variables correlate fairly well with them, giving standard tests outstanding predictive ability.

The AGE testing would be something like skin fluorescence. I included sex hormones since they are so often overlooked and misunderstood as agents of aging. And I threw in blood glucose because it is so easy to track and has such profound aging-related consequences.

Yes, fluoresence would work. There are also several serum AGE assays, but they're expensive and completely unvalidated.

The question is, what knowledge do you gain from those tests that'd justify their use? IMHO: virtually none.

Screening for soft tissue calcification, fine if you have to get the X-ray anyway. Agatston scoring assessing coronary artery calcification? Useless, as you should do basically everything to stave of atherosclerosis anyway; whether you have CAC or not. Classical risk factors predict CAC and mortality very well in most populations -- know your risk factors and fix 'em!

EBCT/MDCT use pretty high doses of radiation. So it ain't worth the risk for no apparent benefit for most of us.

CAC assesses the 'damage done', so risk factors are much more important, because they're measuring the actual molecules doing the damage.
Autofluoresence also assesses the damage done.
Perhaps you could use the non-invasive tests* to improve decision making: should I try this new, superb anti-glycation treatment *at the cost* of some other risk factors if my fluoresence is in the Xth percentile, etc.
This would depend on many variables, especially whether the test is any good. But such situations rarely arise.

Measurements of vascular stiffness and other cardiovascular variables would be a good choice as "non-classical" tests, HR, BP, PP & PWV, etc.

*not involving radiation

Edited by kismet, 12 January 2010 - 03:58 PM.

[s123]

I was being purposely contrarian to hopefully generate this kind of exchange.

My take is a bit different. Most of the tests you listed are the standard ones we all get (or should get) with routine checkups (and which I acknowledged as desirable). However, they are usually used to detect immediate problems, or at least MDs do not use them properly for long-term prevention of disease and life extension. (Many of these tests are also redundant, such as strong link between blood glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and HDL.)

imho, to live a long time, the trick is to not become a victim of statisical thinking: "xxx is not needed if you are young". That's a cost argument, not a logical argument about life extension. To know whether you're on track to live a long time, you need tests that measure long-term changes, such as bone density, soft tissue calcification, and AGE accumulation. You don't need to do these every year, but you should get baseline values that are updated every few years (perhaps every 5 years). If you wait until your MD says you may need such tests, you run the risk of being irreversibly screwed because you missed something in the previous decades.

Think of it this way: If there are 20 age-related things that might be wrong with you, and, for each of these the MD says, "You're too young to worry about that", then there's a good chance you're going to get screwed by one or more of these (which is exactly what happens - people "discover" having osteopenia, low testosterone, prediabetes, etc.). I think you have to think outside the MD box to optimize your life-long results. Their motivations and constraints are are a poor match to our interests in life extenstion.

The AGE testing would be something like skin fluorescence. I included sex hormones since they are so often overlooked and misunderstood as agents of aging. And I threw in blood glucose because it is so easy to track and has such profound aging-related consequences.

Thanks s123 for your great response, since we get to see both sides of this issue, with a pretty thorough listing.

I agree with a preventative approach but when someone is 20 years old than he or she doesn't need a bone density scan every 5 years. In this case the increased exposure to X-rays may upset any benefit.

Unfortunately, not all AGEs are fluorescent, so your assay will underestimate the real amount of AGE damage.

[warner]

I agree with a preventative approach but when someone is 20 years old than he or she doesn't need a bone density scan every 5 years. In this case the increased exposure to X-rays may upset any benefit.

Perhaps not age 20, but I would get my first bone density scan done well before 40, and build up a database that confirmed that I was in control of this factor. The X-rays are a tradeoff, and you have to look specifically at how the dose compares with background. However, the point is to track your bone density througout your life, using whatever means are available, but always aware of risks and new developments.

Unfortunately, not all AGEs are fluorescent, so your assay will underestimate the real amount of AGE damage.

But the skin fluorescence is a much better measure than A1C. If young, the idea would be to get some measure (like a skin fluorescence check), and then keep abreast of developments, improving your measures of AGE with age.

I will return after lunch and give you a more specific example of how a young person can fall victim to statisitical thinking.
(I see others have joined the discussion. I will continue to play devil's advocate for alternative testing. )

Edited by warner, 12 January 2010 - 04:17 PM.

[e Volution]

From another thread, bit more informative than anything posted so far

...these provide a great base line:

o HDL
o triglycerides -- over 70 is bad, and is a clear sign of eating too many carbs, especially fructose
o Lp(a) -- a very bad type of LDL
o A1c (glycated hemoglobin) -- long-term blood glucose measurement
o C-reactive protein (C-RP) -- measures inflammation
o fasting glucose -- above 100 is way too high (probably long-term carb-over-consumption damage)
o fasting insulin
o serum D (vit D level) -- below 50 is too low
o Liver enzymes -- good test to make sure your liver is not under stress from food, alcohol, environmental toxins, illegal or OTC drugs.
o homocysteine -- strongly associated with risk of cardiovascular event

If you're over 35... I also recommend testing thyroid hormones, IGF-1 and sex hormones.

[warner]

From another thread, bit more informative than anything posted so far

...these provide a great base line:

o HDL
o triglycerides -- over 70 is bad, and is a clear sign of eating too many carbs, especially fructose
o Lp(a) -- a very bad type of LDL
o A1c (glycated hemoglobin) -- long-term blood glucose measurement
o C-reactive protein (C-RP) -- measures inflammation
o fasting glucose -- above 100 is way too high (probably long-term carb-over-consumption damage)
o fasting insulin
o serum D (vit D level) -- below 50 is too low
o Liver enzymes -- good test to make sure your liver is not under stress from food, alcohol, environmental toxins, illegal or OTC drugs.
o homocysteine -- strongly associated with risk of cardiovascular event

If you're over 35... I also recommend testing thyroid hormones, IGF-1 and sex hormones.

- Good list. (I figured there must be innumerable past threads like this. )

- Note predominance of blood glucose-related measurements (HDL, TG, A1C, FBG, insulin). So simple, periodic home BG measurement would save system a lot of money.

- Hard part of above tests are the details, and how test results are used, which is where the MDs become next-to-useless (often relying on "95%" ranges for "normal"), and usually just get in the way of doing comprehensive testing. What is an optimal A1C level? serum D? thyroid? testosterone? All HUGELY controversial issues, but all potentially important with respect to longevity.

- On the other hand, a bone density test (of some sort), for example, can yield remarkably pertinent and unambiguous info, such as how your bones now compare to those of young adults, as well as how much bone you've lost in recent years. That's info you can believe, whereas projecting your future bone health (for the next 20 years!) based only on someone's latest theory about diet and nutrition takes an unnecessary leap of faith.

- So I'm basically skeptical about whether the propenents of various diets and supplement regimes really know enough to predict how the typical tests will affect longevity (vs. simply holding at bay certain diseases).* Much better to (also) include direct measures of aging (and especially avoid using stuff like "appearance" to justify a lifestyle choice). imho

* I'm also unnerved by the common argument made by CR followers that they know CR works (has desired end result), and therefore will follow CR even if not knowing why it works, which tells me that many of them too have little confidence in standard testing as a predictor of increased lifespan.

(btw, am concerned about the truth, not ego, so blast away if you think I'm being stupid/naive )

Edited by warner, 12 January 2010 - 07:48 PM.

[DairyProducts]

o HDL
o triglycerides -- over 70 is bad, and is a clear sign of eating too many carbs, especially fructose
o Lp(a) -- a very bad type of LDL
o A1c (glycated hemoglobin) -- long-term blood glucose measurement
o C-reactive protein (C-RP) -- measures inflammation
o fasting glucose -- above 100 is way too high (probably long-term carb-over-consumption damage)
o fasting insulin
o serum D (vit D level) -- below 50 is too low
o Liver enzymes -- good test to make sure your liver is not under stress from food, alcohol, environmental toxins, illegal or OTC drugs.
o homocysteine -- strongly associated with risk of cardiovascular event

OK, noob question, but how do you get these? Do you go to your general practitioner doctor and ask for these ten tests and then (s)he sends you to a lab? Do you just go to a lab? I know there are kits out there for this stuff but it seems expensive. Does insurance (USA) generally speaking cover preventative testing like this? If not, how much are these? Can you get these tests all at once? What do you tell your doctor about why you want these tests? (ie - My research has led to wanting to take more notice to my health so I want to do these tests .... what if they say some of these tests are worthless?)

[kismet]

However, the point is to track your bone density througout your life, using whatever means are available, but always aware of risks and new developments.

But what for? If you are a 40-year-old ad lib male the benefit is exactly zero (your risk of osteo* is basically zero anyway & as always you should try to prevent that disease anyway), but the cancer risk is real. Fractures don't kill 40 year old guys. Cancer does.
I don't get what the purpose is? Assuming that usually no planes crush into skyscrappers and working there is safe, is not falling victim to "statistical thinking". That's sane decision making as would be forgoing invasive tests that provide no benefit.

BTW, there is no direct measure of aging. Unfortunately.

Edited by kismet, 12 January 2010 - 08:02 PM.

[warner]

However, the point is to track your bone density througout your life, using whatever means are available, but always aware of risks and new developments.

But what for? If you are a 40-year-old ad lib male the benefit is exactly zero (your risk of osteo* is basically zero anyway & as always you should try to prevent that disease anyway), but the cancer risk is real. Fractures don't kill 40 year old guys. Cancer does.
I don't get what the purpose is? Assuming that usually no planes crush into skyscrappers and working there is safe, is not falling victim to "statistical thinking". That's sane decision making as would be forgoing invasive tests that provide no benefit.

BTW, there is no direct measure of aging. Unfortunately.

I addressed this in my previous post. It's a matter of checking predictions with measurements. And there's always risk involved. One needs to weigh that against whatever advantage there is in taking the measurement. And the more skeptical I am about what my MD and others believe about projecting my bone density (over the next 20 years!) based on typical lab measurements, then the more inclined I should be to measure it directly. (What often happens, after all, is that they wait until you've already got bone loss, and then start measuring bone density every year or two after that. Much better to see it coming, have figured out what to do about it, and then stick to your n year schedule based on real data.)

Besides, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm hardly worried about a DEXA scan done once every n years:
DEXA = 1/10 that of chest xray (from wikipedia, will check this again)
chest xray = 1/100 that of year's worth of background radiation

Also, it can be true that one would be better off knowing what one's bone density is, even if it is impractical or too risky to currently measure it. This is especially important for young people looking ahead, since they will be exposed to many new and safer options.

And I disagree with contention that there is no direct measure of aging. Calcium maldistribution (too little in bones and too much in soft tissue), as well as AGE accumulation, are very useful (if imperfect) measures of aging (much better than your calendar age) - in sense that they are predictive of a wide range of diseases of aging.

[s123]

BTW, there is no direct measure of aging. Unfortunately.

Not an approved one but the lab of dr. Chen (University of Ghent, Belgium) has developed what appears to be a good blood test for aging. They measure the sugar composition of the N-glycans on the immunoglobulins and for some strange reason this composition predicts biological age (it even works in CR and dwarf mice). This biomarker will soon get tested in a large European study in humans (including centenarians but sadly not in cronies).

http://www.americana...g/2005/chen.pdf
Vanhooren et al. N-glycomic changes in serum proteins during human aging. Rejuvenation Research, 2007, 10(4): 521-531.
Vanhooren et al. N-Glycan profiling in the study of human aging. Biogerontology, 2008, 9(5): 351-356.

[warner]

http://www.americana...g/2005/chen.pdf
Vanhooren et al. N-glycomic changes in serum proteins during human aging. Rejuvenation Research, 2007, 10(4): 521-531.
Vanhooren et al. N-Glycan profiling in the study of human aging. Biogerontology, 2008, 9(5): 351-356.

As time passes, I'm sure that there will be many other such methods developed to measure aging. And with respect to AGEs and glycation, a simple googling of "autofluorescence and aging" will yield lots of hits. I first investigated the latter a couple of years ago, called one of the companies involved in producing instruments for hospitals/clinics, and asked when they thought there might be a "home device" (since technology is pretty simple, although interpretation and calibration is not). They chuckled a bit at my question (they were gearing up to make big bucks off bigger fish).

btw, with respect to my contention that calcium accumulation in soft tissue should be measured: A heart CT scan to get a calcium score, for example, is currently 2/3 to one full year's worth of background radiation (even though this type of CT scan is at low end of all CT scans with respect to radiation dose). However, if one has reason to think that one's calcium has been "maldistributed", then a heart scan is probably worth the risk. (The AHA reversed its position on this last year or year before, to now support heart scans.) Anyway, my main point though was that it would be a really good thing to know the degree of one's soft tissue calcification as one aged so that you knew you were on the right track. And if a safer way becomes available, then young people should jump at the chance to get this parameter measured every n years to confirm that whatever lifestyle they have chosen is not distributing extra calcium throughout their bodies. imho

For those befuddled by this conversation, here's a link with some pictures describing what Calcium Scoring is all about (and no, I don't believe everything this guy says ):
How to Reverse Heart Disease with the Coronary Calcium Score

Edited by warner, 13 January 2010 - 12:09 AM.

[s123]

http://www.americana...g/2005/chen.pdf
Vanhooren et al. N-glycomic changes in serum proteins during human aging. Rejuvenation Research, 2007, 10(4): 521-531.
Vanhooren et al. N-Glycan profiling in the study of human aging. Biogerontology, 2008, 9(5): 351-356.

And a simple googling of "autofluorescence and aging" will yield lots of hits. I first investigated this a couple of years ago, called one of the companies involved in producing instruments for hospitals/clinics, and asked when they thought there might be a "home device" (since technology is pretty simple, although interpretation and calibration is not). They chuckled a bit at my question (they were gearing up to make big bucks off bigger fish).

I don't see why you quote me given the fact that I'm talking about enzymatic glycosylation which is something completely different than glycation.

[warner]

I don't see why you quote me given the fact that I'm talking about enzymatic glycosylation which is something completely different than glycation.

Fixed. There will be lots of methods to measure aging, and many are coming on-line now.

Edited by warner, 13 January 2010 - 12:14 AM.

[RighteousReason]

What blood tests do you do to check your biomarkers, youth, healthiness?

Excellent question.

[warner]

o HDL
o triglycerides -- over 70 is bad, and is a clear sign of eating too many carbs, especially fructose
o Lp(a) -- a very bad type of LDL
o A1c (glycated hemoglobin) -- long-term blood glucose measurement
o C-reactive protein (C-RP) -- measures inflammation
o fasting glucose -- above 100 is way too high (probably long-term carb-over-consumption damage)
o fasting insulin
o serum D (vit D level) -- below 50 is too low
o Liver enzymes -- good test to make sure your liver is not under stress from food, alcohol, environmental toxins, illegal or OTC drugs.
o homocysteine -- strongly associated with risk of cardiovascular event

OK, noob question, but how do you get these? Do you go to your general practitioner doctor and ask for these ten tests and then (s)he sends you to a lab? Do you just go to a lab? I know there are kits out there for this stuff but it seems expensive. Does insurance (USA) generally speaking cover preventative testing like this? If not, how much are these? Can you get these tests all at once? What do you tell your doctor about why you want these tests? (ie - My research has led to wanting to take more notice to my health so I want to do these tests .... what if they say some of these tests are worthless?)

Hi DairyProducts. Excellent questions. I've written an outline that begins to address these (starting with the state of the US medical system and how it affects testing), but I'm getting the impression that perhaps others may not appreciate my less-than-positive take on this stuff (I'll be explaining, for example, why all of this testing stuff is so much more complex than other posters are implying), and that I may have already pissed off some medical personnel, MDs, and CR advocates. So perhaps I should shutup for awhile, and see if we can get a professional of some sort to answer your questions about testing. If I've misread this, then someone speak up and I'll continue posting tomorrow. (Else much less work to lurk.)

Edited by warner, 13 January 2010 - 02:34 AM.

[niner]

However, the point is to track your bone density througout your life, using whatever means are available, but always aware of risks and new developments.

But what for? If you are a 40-year-old ad lib male the benefit is exactly zero (your risk of osteo* is basically zero anyway & as always you should try to prevent that disease anyway), but the cancer risk is real. Fractures don't kill 40 year old guys. Cancer does.
I don't get what the purpose is? Assuming that usually no planes crush into skyscrappers and working there is safe, is not falling victim to "statistical thinking". That's sane decision making as would be forgoing invasive tests that provide no benefit.

You're overestimating the risk of a DEXA scan. The amount of radiation is so low that the technician does not need to leave the room like they do for an ordinary X-ray. It is a lot less than 1/10th of a chest X-ray, at least with the machine I've used. It's not particularly expensive; a couple hundred bucks or so. The risk of osteopenia to a 40 year-old ad lib male is certainly not zero. I'm the existence proof for that. Osteopenia is not particularly rare; it's a common comorbidity with Celiac disease. I think a DEXA scan at 30 is reasonable, with a followup every 10 years if things look good, more frequently if there's a problem. It shouldn't be thought of as an invasive procedure.

Here are some comparative X-ray exposures (taken from here)

Exposure Type...............................Dose, microSv
------------------------------------------------------
Body CT scan................................5000-15000
Head CT scan................................2000-4000
Lumbar Spine X-ray.......................600-1700
Lateral Spine X-ray........................820
Dental Bite Wing............................60
Chest X-ray...................................50
One Day Natural Background....10
DEXA Total Body.........................0.2 - 0.4

[kismet]

The risk of osteopenia to a 40 year-old ad lib male is certainly not zero. I'm the existence proof for that. Osteopenia is not particularly rare; it's a common comorbidity with Celiac disease. I think a DEXA scan at 30 is reasonable, with a followup every 10 years if things look good, more frequently if there's a problem. It shouldn't be thought of as an invasive procedure.

Osteopenia is not even a disease sensu strictu; DEXA does not assess bone quality; it's also rather unreliable at assessing actual, individual fracture risk. Osteopenia, heck not even osteporosis, kills 40 year old guys. Cancer does. I know that DEXA uses low levels of radition (although, I didn't think it was so incredibly low), but it's still almost useless, even if it was completely free. Any risk you trade for zero benefit is not worth it (and you're also wasting time and/or money on it).

We're talking healthy people, so diseases predisposing to bone disorders are not a good example of actual risk.

(and to use your example, if I may: how did the DEXA scan affect your decision making? Supplement, drug and life style choice & why?)

I'm not that convinced, unless there are any benefits from it. I have a hard time to come up with safe bone-building supplement which you wouldn't have been taking in the first place. Maybe switching to MK-4 and upping calcium (although, this is not risk free; & there's likely no evidence of benefit in such populations at super-low-risk). Knowledge is fine, but useless if you can't do anything with it?

EDIT: & to put it simply, I am not sure this test is more than a gimmick at this age.

Edited by kismet, 14 January 2010 - 06:15 PM.

[DO1234]

I wanted to second DairyProducts' post earlier as I am planning to embark on the "preventative testing" path soon for the first time in my life. I've researched what tests I'd like and they do match up pretty closely with the list below that someone else posted here. I've checked with LEF and it's ~$300 to get most of these tests run. That's fine if that's the cheapest out-of-pocket I can do it but I'd love to have my insurance (with Kaiser) cover this if possible. I don't use my insurance for much else so it's the least they could do for me.

Any thoughts on the best approach here and how to get this stuff covered on insurance instead of having to go out of pocket for testing?

[DO1234]

I wanted to second DairyProducts' post earlier as I am planning to embark on the "preventative testing" path soon for the first time in my life. I've researched what tests I'd like and they do match up pretty closely with the list below that someone else posted here. I've checked with LEF and it's ~$300 to get most of these tests run. That's fine if that's the cheapest out-of-pocket I can do it but I'd love to have my insurance (with Kaiser) cover this if possible. I don't use my insurance for much else so it's the least they could do for me.

Any thoughts on the best approach here and how to get this stuff covered on insurance instead of having to go out of pocket for testing?

Bumping in a last-ditch effort to see if anyone has gotten their doctor to approve tests? Here is a list of what I'm planning to have done (pulled from a DukeNukem post). Would love to have insurance cover as much of this as possible but will go out of pocket for what they can't/won't do.

o HDL
o triglycerides -- over 70 is bad, and is a clear sign of eating too many carbs, especially fructose
o Lp(a) -- a very bad type of LDL
o A1c (glycated hemoglobin) -- long-term blood glucose measurement
o C-reactive protein (C-RP) -- measures inflammation
o fasting glucose -- above 100 is way too high (probably long-term carb-over-consumption damage)
o fasting insulin
o serum D (vit D level) -- below 50 is too low
o Liver enzymes -- good test to make sure your liver is not under stress from food, alcohol, environmental toxins, illegal or OTC drugs.
o homocysteine -- strongly associated with risk of cardiovascular event