‘Normal' Does
not mean Optimal.
Most labs formulate their reference ranges using normal distribution, whereby the middle 95% of a healthy population’s results are considered normal, and the 2.5% on either end are classified as abnormal. This method provides benefit when people are acutely unwell, allowing for easy interpretation by creating clear cut-offs for disease.
However, this over-reliance on statistics means a ‘normal’ result may correspond to the absence of overt disease, but not ideal physiology. These ranges lead to a reactive approach to healthcare; trends towards dysfunction are often overlooked until they cross the pathological threshold.
In the world of human performance, this method does not work. A new gold standard is required because if you compare yourself to the average, you will become the average.
Creating Reference Ranges
that Matter
By comparing results from high-performing athletes and using research on the cutting edge of peak performance and longevity medicine, reference ranges can be formed that actually correlate with high-level results. Standard values are either ‘cut’, ‘compressed’ or ‘conveyed’ (or often a combination of all three) to reflect physiology, not statistics.
Many biomarkers need either the upper or lower end of normal adjusted.
Any rise in inflammatory markers, auto-antibodies and cardiac enzymes can reflect significant dysfunction. The normal range is corrected by cutting out the upper end.
Vitamins and minerals benefit from being kept as high as safely possible. The low end of normal can still correlate to a deficiency.
Most normal ranges require tightening at both ends. This does not mean compressing both sides of the range equally, as this is just a more extreme approach to how labs create their ranges in the first place.
Compressed optimal ranges are created by analysing data from athletes and healthy individuals and identifying patterns linked to performance and longevity.
This is then combined with the latest research on biomarkers and their associated diseases to form the optimal range.
Performance and longevity are not mutually inclusive i.e ‘what is best for your health, is not always best for your sport’.
Optimal performance ranges can be shifted into the abnormal range, where performance benefits can be obtained at a potentially increased risk to health.
The benefits vs. risks need to be weighed up on an individual basis to decide what limits are prepared to be pushed.
