• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Laboratory reference ranges history?

testing

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 1,765 posts
  • 379
  • Location:Austria

Posted 16 May 2017 - 07:29 PM


Since starting to supplement nutrients 8 years, I also tested them whenever I could. However, thereby I mentioned that the 'normal' lab references for nutrients get reduced every few years. That's because they usually represent the middle 95% of everyone tested from a lab. So it seems there is a ceaselessly downward movement what's considered as a 'normal' nutrient status.

 

This honestly scares me. Because ultimately it implies not only that the nutrient status in the average population is steadily declining, but especially in the diseased part of the population, which naturally would have more incentive for getting it tested. All the while being assured of having 'normal' nutritional status.

 

That's why I'm asking anyone in the known: What have been the 'normal' ranges for these nutritional (but also most common functional) blood tests, short after they been invented?

 

Sure there must be somebody here with ancient textbooks laying around..


  • Informative x 1

#2 albedo

  • Guest
  • 1,358 posts
  • 414
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 17 May 2017 - 01:30 PM

Does not likely reply your question Pamojja but maybe logging here this study on how reference ranges might need to be reconsidered for senior population would be interesting as definition of health and biomarkers for this population might be challenging:

 

Risch M, Nydegger U, Risch L. SENIORLAB: a prospective observational study investigating laboratory parameters and their reference intervals in the elderly. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(1):e5726.

 

 

 

 


  • Informative x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this MEDICINES advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 pamojja

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,765 posts
  • 379
  • Location:Austria

Posted 25 May 2017 - 09:07 AM

Found this tidbit in an article without reference, and rather suspect it related to intake levels:

 

The average omega 6: omega 3 ratio has changed since 1930:

  • 8:1 from 1930-1935
  • 10:1 from 1935-1985
  • 12:1 in 1985 alone
  • 25:1 in 2009

Edited by pamojja, 25 May 2017 - 09:25 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this MEDICINES advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#4 HighDesertWizard

  • Member
  • 809 posts
  • 770
  • Location:Bend, Oregon, USA

Posted 21 August 2017 - 04:54 AM

 

Found this tidbit in an article without reference, and rather suspect it related to intake levels:

 

The average omega 6: omega 3 ratio has changed since 1930:

  • 8:1 from 1930-1935
  • 10:1 from 1935-1985
  • 12:1 in 1985 alone
  • 25:1 in 2009

 

 

Great Forum Thread Idea and posts pamojja!

 

An additional thought... historical reference ranges, yes, but, in addition, the dose and frequency we take to be optimal today...

 

---

 

HDW, aka, wccaguy @ Track Your Plaque


Edited by HighDesertWizard, 21 August 2017 - 04:56 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: testing

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users