3 ms·

B vitamin levels beyond B12 are rarely tested. You're unlikely to ever get it checked unless you experience specific neurological issues. Overtesting itself is

B vitamin levels beyond B12 are rarely tested. You're unlikely to ever get it checked unless you experience specific neurological issues. Overtesting itself is dangerous, so... doctors don't have the incentive.

kvgr 2y ago
Dangerous in a sense: costs money right now, we would have to deal with it. My friend once said: “no one is healthy, your doctor just does not have the testing resolution to find the issues” and in 3 years you get parkinsons…
- viraptor 2y ago
  That's too cynical. In reality, you're going to die with a number of completely benign issues. The more issues you find and try to interfere, the more likely you are to have a negative impact. And that's before running into issues with testing failures from a large number of tests. We not only can't find all issues, we can find more other issues than are ever going to be an actual problem. But it's not really a money issue (not in a lot of cases anyway) - where it leads to better outcomes, doctors do aim for overdiagnosing to a certain % to cover cases which would be otherwise missed.
lurking15 2y ago
B12 can be tricky to pin down. It can be falsely elevated by vitamins. You need cofactors, e.g. a B2 deficiency could falsely give the impression of repletion. This is ON TOP of the really loose grounding of accepted ranges for various vitamins. Many of the levels are established on the basis of avoiding severe disease like vitamin D: "no rickets above this level" and B12: "no anemia above this level." Which is completely different than assessing optimal levels.
- voisin 2y ago
  > This is ON TOP of the really loose grounding of accepted ranges for various vitamins. Many of the levels are established on the basis of avoiding severe disease like vitamin D: "no rickets above this level" and B12: "no anemia above this level." Which is completely different than assessing optimal levels. This is concerning. Is there anyone keeping a database of optimal rather than minimal levels?

kvgr 2y ago

Dangerous in a sense: costs money right now, we would have to deal with it. My friend once said: “no one is healthy, your doctor just does not have the testing resolution to find the issues” and in 3 years you get parkinsons…

viraptor 2y ago
That's too cynical. In reality, you're going to die with a number of completely benign issues. The more issues you find and try to interfere, the more likely you are to have a negative impact. And that's before running into issues with testing failures from a large number of tests. We not only can't find all issues, we can find more other issues than are ever going to be an actual problem. But it's not really a money issue (not in a lot of cases anyway) - where it leads to better outcomes, doctors do aim for overdiagnosing to a certain % to cover cases which would be otherwise missed.

lurking15 2y ago

B12 can be tricky to pin down. It can be falsely elevated by vitamins. You need cofactors, e.g. a B2 deficiency could falsely give the impression of repletion. This is ON TOP of the really loose grounding of accepted ranges for various vitamins. Many of the levels are established on the basis of avoiding severe disease like vitamin D: "no rickets above this level" and B12: "no anemia above this level." Which is completely different than assessing optimal levels.

voisin 2y ago
> This is ON TOP of the really loose grounding of accepted ranges for various vitamins. Many of the levels are established on the basis of avoiding severe disease like vitamin D: "no rickets above this level" and B12: "no anemia above this level." Which is completely different than assessing optimal levels. This is concerning. Is there anyone keeping a database of optimal rather than minimal levels?