Skip to main content
Evidence Based Longevity (EBL)Check what I take

The labs this panel covers

The Longevity Lab Panel.

Every threshold below is labeled with what kind of number it is. How to read a lab number explains the four kinds and where each one comes from.

28 evidence-informed reference thresholds across 7 systems, each labeled as a guideline target, a randomized treatment target, an observational Research that watches what people already do rather than assigning a treatment. It can show that two things travel together, not that one causes the other. lower-risk range, or not established. Guideline ranges against those thresholds. Every threshold cited to PubMed. A laboratory reference interval is derived from a defined reference population by statistical procedure; a clinical decision limit comes from outcome data or a guideline. They answer different questions, and this panel labels which one each threshold is. Each threshold on this panel says which kind it is: a guideline target, a clinical decision limit, an observational lower-risk association, a trial treatment target, or not established.

Where these tests come from

EBL does not sell, order, administer or process any of these tests, and charges nothing for this panel. Most of the markers below require a practitioner order in most states, so the usual routes are a physician who writes the requisition, or a direct-to-consumer laboratory where state law allows it. The per-test figures in the cost column are retail estimates for sourcing them that way.

The testing platforms EBL references, and what each does and does not carry, are listed on EBL Clinical Testing. They are named for reference. EBL earns nothing on any of them except where a page says otherwise.

This panel is for discussion with your physician. The EBL reference column is not one kind of number: each row states whether it is a guideline threshold, a lower-risk observational association, a practice convention no trial has validated, or not established at all. None of them is a diagnostic threshold. Your physician determines which tests are appropriate.

Metabolic Health

Start here. Disease hides earliest
Biomarker A measurable sign in the body, such as a blood test value, used to track a condition or the effect of a treatment.
Standard
EBL reference
Why it matters · Citation
Fasting Insulin
Most important metabolic marker
< 25 mIU/L
< 5 mIU/L
Practice convention
Standard reference: LabCorp 2.6–24.9 µIU/mL, derived from population distribution. Commonly targeted in longevity and functional practice: below 5 mIU/L, a practice convention representing highly insulin-sensitive status. Elevated fasting insulin precedes glucose abnormality by 10 or more years. HOMA-IR above 2.5 is widely used to define insulin resistance. In observational data, the highest vs. lowest insulin quartile carries approximately a 2.1-fold higher cardiovascular mortality risk, though insulin itself is a marker of metabolic state rather than a proven causal driver.
Standard range source · LabCorp reference interval: 2.6–24.9 µIU/mL (fasting). Derived from a healthy non-diabetic population distribution, not an outcome-validated threshold.
EBL reference source · Practice convention in longevity and functional medicine. Not a clinical guideline target. No randomized trial has established that treating fasting insulin below 5 mIU/L reduces mortality or cardiovascular events. Derives from the distribution of insulin-sensitive individuals and from HOMA-IR studies showing metabolic risk rises well within the conventional normal range.
Meta-analysis A study that pools the numbers from several trials into one combined estimate. of observational studies
PMID:28811358 Zhang 2017, Biosci Rep, meta-analysis, n=26,976
HbA1c A blood test that reflects average blood sugar over the previous two to three months.
3-month glucose average
< 5.7%
< 5.3%
Practice convention
Standard reference: ADA below 5.7% as normal, 5.7–6.4% as prediabetes. Commonly targeted in longevity and functional practice: below 5.3%, a practice convention. Each 1% increase above 5.0% is associated with roughly 20–30% higher cardiovascular mortality in observational data, and metabolic dysfunction appears well before the 5.7% prediabetes threshold. The optimal target has no RCT Randomized controlled trial: people are assigned to the treatment or a comparison by chance, so the groups differ only in what they received. It is the design that can show cause and effect. basis in non-diabetic individuals.
Standard range source · American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Diabetes Care 2024: normal below 5.7%, prediabetes 5.7–6.4%, diabetes 6.5% or higher. The ADA threshold was derived from the glycemia-to-retinopathy relationship, not a longevity endpoint The outcome a trial measures to decide whether the treatment worked, such as heart attacks, blood pressure or a symptom score..
EBL reference source · Practice convention in longevity and functional medicine. Not an ADA guideline target. No RCT has established that treating HbA1c below 5.3% in non-diabetic individuals reduces mortality or cardiovascular events. Derives from population data showing continuous metabolic risk extends below the ADA prediabetes threshold.
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:20200384 Selvin 2010, NEJM, n=11,092 (PMID PubMed ID: the permanent number the US National Library of Medicine gives a published paper. Each one links to that paper's record on PubMed. 20200384)
Fasting Glucose
< 100 mg/dL
< 90 mg/dL
Practice convention
Standard reference: ADA below 100 mg/dL as normal. Commonly targeted in longevity and functional practice: below 90 mg/dL, a practice convention. The relationship between glucose and cardiovascular risk extends below the diabetic threshold, as shown in the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration (PMID 20801498). The longevity target has no RCT basis in normoglycemic individuals.
Standard range source · American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Diabetes Care 2024: normal fasting plasma glucose below 100 mg/dL; impaired fasting glucose (prediabetes) 100–125 mg/dL; diabetes 126 mg/dL or higher on two occasions.
EBL reference source · Practice convention. The Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration (Lancet 2010, PMID 20609967, 698,782 participants across 102 prospective studies) showed continuous cardiovascular risk extending below the diabetic threshold, but did not establish 90 mg/dL as a specific intervention target. No RCT has tested treating normoglycemic individuals to below 90 mg/dL.
Meta-analysis of observational studies
PMID:10333939 PMID:20609967 Coutinho 1999, Diabetes Care, n=95,783 · qualified by ERFC 2010, Lancet, n=698,782
HOMA-IR
Insulin resistance index
< 2.5
< 1.0
Practice convention
Standard reference: HOMA-IR below 2.5 is the widely used clinical cutoff for insulin resistance, though thresholds from 1.7 to 2.9 appear in the literature. Commonly targeted in longevity and functional practice: below 1.0, representing the highly insulin-sensitive range. Calculated as (fasting insulin × fasting glucose) / 405. In observational data, the highest vs. lowest HOMA-IR carries approximately 34% higher all-cause mortality and 2.1-fold higher cardiovascular mortality.
Standard range source · Matthews 1985 (PMID 3899825) derived the HOMA formula. The clinical cutoff for insulin resistance varies by study: 1.7 to 2.9 are all used, and no single authoritative body has adopted a universal threshold. The < 2.5 value is the most widely cited in clinical practice.
EBL reference source · Practice convention in longevity and functional medicine representing highly insulin-sensitive status. Not a guideline threshold. No RCT has established that treating HOMA-IR below 1.0 reduces mortality or cardiovascular events. Calculated from fasting insulin and fasting glucose rather than measured directly.
Meta-analysis of observational studies
PMID:28811358 Zhang 2017, Biosci Rep, meta-analysis

Cardiovascular

Beyond the basic cholesterol panel
Biomarker
Standard
EBL reference
Why it matters · Citation
ApoB Apolipoprotein B, a protein carried once on each cholesterol particle that can enter the artery wall, so it counts those particles directly.
< 130 mg/dL
< 80 mg/dL · Longevity: < 60
Guideline threshold
Standard reference: NCEP ATP III below 130 mg/dL. The ACC/AHA 2018 guidelines support below 80 mg/dL for high-risk and below 60 mg/dL for very high-risk patients in secondary prevention. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: below 60 mg/dL, a convention for primary prevention. ApoB is superior to LDL-C Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, the cholesterol fraction most closely tied to plaque in the arteries. in 9 of 9 discordance studies because it counts atherogenic particles, not cholesterol mass. Two people with identical LDL-C can have meaningfully different ApoB and different risk.
Standard range source · NCEP ATP III: ApoB below 130 mg/dL for average risk. ACC/AHA 2018 Cholesterol Guidelines (PMID 30423391) support ApoB measurement for risk stratification but set no specific ApoB threshold: they state it may guide treatment in borderline and intermediate risk groups.
EBL reference source · The below 80 mg/dL target is consistent with ACC/AHA 2018 guidance for high-risk patients (PMID 30423391) and is supported by statin RCTs. The longevity practice target of below 60 mg/dL is a convention extrapolated from Mendelian randomization A method that uses gene variants people are born with as a natural experiment, to test whether a factor causes an outcome. studies; no RCT has tested this threshold specifically for primary prevention in healthy adults.
Causal evidence · genetic · 1 analysis
Genetic evidence supports causality for coronary heart disease. When LDL cholesterol, triglycerides and apolipoprotein B were separated in one multivariable analysis, apolipoprotein B was the trait that accounted for the relationship between lipoprotein lipids and coronary risk.
Population studied: UK Biobank and CARDIoGRAMplusC4D, predominantly European ancestry
PMID:32203549 Richardson 2020, PLoS Med, multivariable Mendelian randomization
Genetic evidence describes the marker. It never sets or changes an EBL letter grade, which comes only from human randomized trials of an intervention at the dose and form studied. How this works
Meta-analysis of observational studies
PMID:21487090 Sniderman 2011, meta-analysis, Circ CQO
Lipoprotein(a)
Not routinely tested
< 30 mg/dL, or < 75 nmol/L
Guideline threshold
Standard reference: EAS 2022 below 30 mg/dL or below 75 nmol/L as low risk, with risk rising continuously above it. Lp(a) Lipoprotein(a), a cholesterol-carrying particle whose level is set largely by genetics. is not routinely tested in standard panels despite affecting approximately 20% of the population. It is genetically determined and is an independent cardiovascular risk factor. Whether statins change Lp(a) is genuinely contested, and the two largest randomized analyses disagree by design: Tsimikas et al. (Eur Heart J, 2020; PMID 31111151), a subject-level meta-analysis of 5,256 patients across six randomized trials, found statins raised Lp(a) relative to placebo An inactive substitute made to look like the real treatment, so participants cannot tell which one they received. (ratio of geometric means 1.11, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.14, P<0.0001), while Xie et al. (Atherosclerosis, 2025; PMID 40618457), pooling 147 RCTs and 145,314 subjects, found statins did not affect it. The disagreement is methodological rather than a contradiction in the data: Tsimikas measured proportional change on log-transformed values, Xie measured absolute change in mg/dL, and because Lp(a) is heavily right-skewed a 10 to 20 percent proportional rise on a low baseline is a small absolute change that pools toward zero. EBL states this as unsettled rather than picking a side. Neither analysis supports any claim that statins lower Lp(a). Of the therapies Xie tested, PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies reduced Lp(a) by about 29 percent, inclisiran 22 percent, CETP inhibitors 46 percent and niacin 37 percent, while bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, omega-3 fatty acids and fibrates did not change it; whether any of those reductions produces cardiovascular benefit is untested. The EAS and ACC/AHA both recommend testing once in every adult's lifetime. A single measurement predicts MACE risk up to 30 years later.
Standard range source · European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2022 Consensus Statement (PMID 36036785): recommends measuring Lp(a) at least once in adults. EAS defines below 30 mg/dL or below 75 nmol/L as a low-risk range, with cardiovascular risk rising continuously above it.
EBL reference source · EAS 2022 Consensus (PMID 36036785): the below 30 mg/dL or below 75 nmol/L target is guideline-consistent but not yet outcome-validated. Lp(a) is genetically determined and responds minimally to diet, statins, or most medications. The HORIZON (pelacarsen) and OCEAN(a) (olpasiran) Lp(a)-lowering RCTs are ongoing and have not reported primary endpoints The one outcome a trial names in advance as its main test. Results on other outcomes carry less weight..
Causal evidence · genetic · 1 analysis
Genetic evidence supports causality for myocardial infarction. The KIV-2 size polymorphism, which sets lifelong Lp(a) level and is fixed at conception, tracks myocardial infarction risk in the same direction and roughly the same magnitude as measured Lp(a) does. Causality here is not the same as a treatment answer. No cardiovascular outcome trial of any Lp(a)-lowering drug has reported. The largest, Lp(a)HORIZON, passed its stated mid-2026 readout window in June 2026 without a disclosed result.
Population studied: Copenhagen cohorts, white Danish participants
PMID:19509380 PMID:20032323 Kamstrup 2009, JAMA; Clarke 2009, N Engl J Med
Genetic evidence describes the marker. It never sets or changes an EBL letter grade, which comes only from human randomized trials of an intervention at the dose and form studied. How this works
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:20965889 PMID:31111151 PMID:40618457 Nordestgaard 2010, EAS Consensus, EHJ; Tsimikas 2020, Eur Heart J; Xie 2025, Atherosclerosis
hsCRP High-sensitivity C-reactive protein, a blood marker of low-grade inflammation.
High-sensitivity C-reactive protein
< 3.0 mg/L
< 1.0 mg/L
Guideline threshold
Standard reference: AHA/CDC 2003 below 3.0 mg/L as the upper boundary of acceptable risk; above 3.0 = high risk. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: below 1.0 mg/L, in the low-risk tier. Inflammation is an independent cardiovascular risk factor. CANTOS proved reducing it reduces MACE Major adverse cardiovascular events: heart attack, stroke and cardiovascular death counted together as one trial outcome. events, but the RCT enrolled patients with hsCRP above 2.0 mg/L after a prior event: it tested the direction, not a specific low-end target.
Standard range source · AHA/CDC Joint Scientific Statement 2003 (Pearson et al., Circulation; PMID 12551878): below 1.0 mg/L = low cardiovascular risk; 1.0–3.0 mg/L = average risk; above 3.0 mg/L = high risk. Derived from population distribution data, not an outcome-validated intervention threshold.
EBL reference source · The below 1.0 mg/L target is the low-risk category from the AHA/CDC 2003 statement. Epidemiologically supported and consistent with clinical evidence that inflammation is an independent CVD risk factor. CANTOS (PMID 28845751) proved that reducing inflammation from a high baseline reduces MACE, but the protocol targeted high-baseline patients and did not establish a specific low-hsCRP target.
Causal evidence · genetic · 1 analysis
Genetic evidence does not support causality for coronary heart disease. Across 194,418 participants in 47 studies, the risk ratio for coronary heart disease per one standard deviation of genetically raised C-reactive protein was 1.00, with a confidence interval The range the true effect probably falls in. A wide interval means the estimate is uncertain. from 0.90 to 1.13. hsCRP remains one of the strongest observational predictors on this panel. Predicting risk and causing it are separate questions, and this marker answers yes to the first and no to the second. The canakinumab trial cited on this row is not a counter-example. Blocking interleukin-1 beta reduced cardiovascular events and lowered CRP as a downstream readout, without touching lipids. Genetics test whether CRP itself carries the risk, and they say it does not. CRP marks the inflammatory pathway; it is not the pathway.
Population studied: 47 studies across 15 countries; predominantly European ancestry
PMID:21325005 PMID:19567438 CRP CHD Genetics Collaboration 2011, BMJ; Elliott 2009, JAMA
Genetic evidence describes the marker. It never sets or changes an EBL letter grade, which comes only from human randomized trials of an intervention at the dose and form studied. How this works
Randomized trial
PMID:28845751 PMID:12551878 Ridker 2017, CANTOS, NEJM, n=10,061
LDL-C
Standard panel marker
< 130 mg/dL
< 100 mg/dL · High risk: < 70
Practice convention
Standard reference: ACC/AHA 2018 below 100 mg/dL for high-risk, below 70 mg/dL for very high risk. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: below 70 mg/dL as a primary prevention goal, below 55 mg/dL in high-risk or genetically elevated individuals. LDL-C is inferior to ApoB when the two disagree: LDL-C misses atherogenic particle burden in insulin-resistant individuals. Mendelian randomization shows lifelong lower LDL-C is associated with dramatically lower cardiovascular risk.
Standard range source · NCEP ATP III: below 130 mg/dL near-optimal for average risk. ACC/AHA 2018 Cholesterol Guidelines (PMID 30423391): below 100 mg/dL for high-risk patients; below 70 mg/dL for very-high-risk patients. ESC 2019 (PMID 31504418): below 55 mg/dL for very high risk in secondary prevention.
EBL reference source · The below 100 mg/dL and below 70 mg/dL targets are guideline-supported for high-risk and very-high-risk individuals respectively, backed by statin RCTs. The longevity practice target of below 55 mg/dL is guideline-consistent only for secondary prevention (ESC 2019). Applied to primary prevention in healthy adults, it is a practice convention supported by Mendelian randomization but not by an RCT.
Causal evidence · genetic · 1 analysis
Genetic evidence supports causality for coronary heart disease. Variants that lower LDL cholesterol from birth are associated with proportionally lower coronary risk, and the size of the association tracks both how much lower the exposure is and how long it has been lower.
Population studied: Predominantly European ancestry
PMID:25770315 Ference 2015, J Am Coll Cardiol, Mendelian randomization
Genetic evidence describes the marker. It never sets or changes an EBL letter grade, which comes only from human randomized trials of an intervention at the dose and form studied. How this works
Clinical guideline
PMID:30586774 Grundy 2018, ACC/AHA Guideline
Triglycerides
< 150 mg/dL
< 80 mg/dL
Practice convention
Standard reference: AHA below 150 mg/dL as normal. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: below 80 mg/dL, a convention reflecting insulin-sensitive metabolic status. TG above 100 mg/dL is an early signal of insulin resistance. The TG/HDL ratio is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular risk than total cholesterol and is computable from this and the HDL row.
Standard range source · AHA Scientific Statement 2011 (PMID 21502576): below 150 mg/dL normal; 150–199 borderline high; 200–499 high; 500 or higher very high (hypertriglyceridemia carrying pancreatitis risk).
EBL reference source · Practice convention in longevity and metabolic medicine. The below 80 mg/dL target reflects insulin-sensitive metabolic status. Not an AHA guideline target. No RCT established that treating triglycerides below 80 mg/dL in normotriglyceridemic individuals reduces mortality. Used alongside the TG/HDL ratio, where below 2.0 (ideally below 1.0) is a strong cardiovascular predictor.
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:9355888 Gaziano 1997, Circulation, n=14,916
HDL-C
> 40 (M) / > 50 (F)
> 60 mg/dL
Lower-risk association
Standard reference: ACC/AHA below 40 mg/dL (men) or below 50 mg/dL (women) as a risk-enhancing factor. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: above 60 mg/dL. Higher HDL-C is generally associated with lower cardiovascular risk in observational data, but HDL-raising drug trials failed, indicating HDL may be a marker of metabolic health rather than a causal driver. HDL function (cholesterol efflux capacity) matters more than HDL-C quantity alone.
Standard range source · ACC/AHA 2018 Cholesterol Guidelines (PMID 30423391): HDL-C below 40 mg/dL (men) or below 50 mg/dL (women) is a cardiovascular risk-enhancing factor. AHA risk categories: above 60 mg/dL is the highest-associated (lowest risk) stratum.
EBL reference source · Epidemiologically derived. Higher HDL-C associates with lower cardiovascular risk in observational studies, and above 60 mg/dL is the lowest-risk AHA category. However, HDL-raising drugs (ILLUMINATE, AIM-HIGH, HPS2-THRIVE) all failed to reduce cardiovascular events in RCTs, demonstrating the observational association is not proven causal. The optimal range reflects epidemiological data, not a proven intervention target.
Causal evidence · genetic · 1 analysis
Genetic evidence does not support causality for myocardial infarction. Carriers of a variant that raises HDL cholesterol did not have lower myocardial infarction risk, and a 14-variant HDL score showed no association, while the LDL score used as a positive control in the same analysis behaved exactly as expected. This is the clearest case on the panel of a marker that predicts risk without sitting on the causal path. The drug programs that raised HDL cholesterol went on to produce no reduction in cardiovascular events, which is what the genetics had already indicated. EBL grades those interventions on their trials, not on this analysis.
Population studied: Predominantly European ancestry
PMID:22607825 Voight 2012, Lancet, Mendelian randomization
Genetic evidence describes the marker. It never sets or changes an EBL letter grade, which comes only from human randomized trials of an intervention at the dose and form studied. How this works
Clinical guideline
PMID:30586774 ACC/AHA 2018 Guideline
NMR LipoProfile
Not routinely ordered
LDL-P < 1000 · Small LDL-P < 500 · Pattern A (large buoyant)
Lower-risk association
Standard reference: Not routinely ordered. LipoScience reference intervals define borderline-high LDL-P at 1000–1300 nmol/L and small LDL-P above 527 nmol/L. Commonly targeted in longevity and functional cardiology practice: LDL-P below 1000, small LDL-P below 200, and pattern A (large buoyant particles). NMR measures particle number and size, not cholesterol mass. Small dense LDL is more atherogenic. Two people with identical LDL-C can have very different particle counts and correspondingly different cardiovascular risk.
Standard range source · LipoScience/LabCorp NMR LipoProfile reference intervals: LDL-P 1000–1300 nmol/L borderline high; above 1300 high. Small LDL-P above 527 nmol/L exceeds the 20th percentile of a non-diabetic reference population. Not routinely ordered in standard lipid panels.
EBL reference source · LDL-P below 1000 nmol/L and small LDL-P below 200 nmol/L represent low-risk ranges per LipoScience reference data. The JUPITER trial (PMID 18997196) used LDL-P as a secondary endpoint An outcome a trial also measures but did not choose as its main test.. Primary evidence for particle number superiority over LDL-C comes from observational discordance analyses (9 of 9 studies showing ApoB/LDL-P more predictive than LDL-C when they disagree), not from RCTs testing particle targets directly.
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:19204302 Mora 2009, Circulation. LDL-P vs LDL-C for cardiovascular risk
Homocysteine An amino acid in the blood that rises when vitamin B12, folate or B6 are low.
< 15 µmol/L
< 7 µmol/L
Practice convention
Standard reference: LabCorp below 15 µmol/L. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: below 7 µmol/L, a practice convention. Elevated homocysteine is associated with impaired methylation, often driven by MTHFR variants or B-vitamin deficiency. It is linked to cardiovascular disease, stroke, and dementia in observational data. However, B-vitamin supplementation lowers homocysteine without reducing cardiovascular events in RCTs (HOPE-2), so lowering the number alone does not establish causal benefit. Responds to methylated B12, folate, and B6.
Standard range source · LabCorp reference interval: 0–15 µmol/L. Some laboratories use below 12 µmol/L. WHO defines hyperhomocysteinemia as above 15 µmol/L.
EBL reference source · Practice convention in longevity and functional medicine. The below 7 µmol/L target represents the lower portion of the normal range, below the level where observational cardiovascular risk rises. Not outcome-validated: HOPE-2 (Lonn et al., New England Journal of Medicine, 2006; PMID 16531613, n=5,522) showed B-vitamin supplementation lowering homocysteine did not reduce major cardiovascular events, suggesting homocysteine may be a marker of impaired methylation rather than a direct causal driver. Lowering it is a separate question from benefiting from it: B vitamins reliably lower homocysteine, and randomized trials of homocysteine-lowering therapy have not shown a reduction in myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality. The Cochrane review (Marti-Carvajal, 2017; PMID 28816346) pooled 15 randomized trials and 71,422 participants at high-quality evidence and found no difference versus placebo in myocardial infarction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or death from any cause (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06). Stroke was the one endpoint that moved: 4.3% versus 5.1%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99. Treat this as a risk marker, not as a treatment target.
Causal evidence · genetic · 1 analysis
Genetic evidence does not support causality for coronary heart disease. In 19 previously unpublished datasets covering 48,175 coronary cases, the odds ratio for the MTHFR genotype that raises homocysteine was 1.02, confidence interval 0.98 to 1.07. The published literature on the same genotype gave 1.15, a difference the authors attribute to publication bias. This is the clearest published demonstration on the panel that the literature a marker generates can point one way while the unpublished data point another.
Population studied: Multiple populations; effect examined separately in low-folate unsupplemented populations
PMID:22363213 Clarke 2012, PLoS Med, MTHFR meta-analysis avoiding publication bias
Genetic evidence describes the marker. It never sets or changes an EBL letter grade, which comes only from human randomized trials of an intervention at the dose and form studied. How this works
Meta-analysis of observational studies
PMID:12446535 PMID:16531613 PMID:28816346 Wald 2002, BMJ, meta-analysis; Lonn 2006, New England Journal of Medicine, HOPE-2; Marti-Carvajal 2017, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews A review that searches for every study on a question using a method set in advance, then assesses them together.
Coronary Artery Calcium
Not routinely ordered
Score = 0 · Any > 0 = plaque present
Practice convention
Standard reference: ACC/AHA 2018 Class IIa recommendation for CAC scoring at intermediate risk. CAC = 0 is guideline-supported as a basis for deferring statin therapy; any score above 0 supports initiating it. At roughly $100–300 cost, it reclassifies approximately 50% of intermediate-risk patients to low risk. The ACC/AHA recommends considering it from age 40–45 for baseline tracking. Any score above 0 indicates plaque is present regardless of conventional lipid values.
Standard range source · ACC/AHA 2019 Guideline on Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease (PMID 30879355): Class IIa recommendation for CAC scoring in adults aged 40–75 at intermediate 10-year risk (7.5–20%) when statin initiation is uncertain. CAC = 0 supports deferring statin therapy; any score above 0 supports initiating it. MESA study established prognostic reference data.
EBL reference source · CAC = 0 is guideline-consistent per ACC/AHA 2019 (PMID 30879355) as the basis for deferring lipid-lowering therapy: evidence-based, not merely a practice convention. The underlying evidence is observational (MESA cohort) and decision-analytic, not a randomized trial of treating-to-zero. Any positive score indicates subclinical atherosclerosis regardless of LDL-C.
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:26449133 McClelland 2015, MESA, JACC

Inflammation

The root driver of chronic disease
Biomarker
Standard
EBL reference
Why it matters · Citation
ESR (Sed Rate)
< 20 mm/hr
< 10 mm/hr
Practice convention
Standard reference: Westergren method below 20 mm/hr for younger adults, age-adjusted for older adults. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: below 10 mm/hr, a convention reflecting the low-inflammation range. ESR is a non-specific marker: elevated ESR with normal hsCRP can indicate autoimmune conditions. Low-grade elevation within the normal range carries clinical meaning when trended over time alongside more specific markers.
Standard range source · Westergren method: most labs use below 20 mm/hr for adults under 50, with age-adjusted formulas for older adults (men: age divided by 2; women: age plus 10, divided by 2). LabCorp provides age- and sex-specific reference intervals.
EBL reference source · Practice convention in longevity and functional medicine representing low systemic inflammation. Not a clinical guideline target. No RCT has established that treating ESR below 10 mm/hr improves outcomes. ESR lacks specificity for any single condition and is best used alongside hsCRP for inflammatory profiling.
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:30537394 Fest 2019, J Intern Med, ESR + mortality
Uric Acid
< 7.0 (M) / < 6.0 (F)
3.0–5.5 mg/dL
Practice convention
Standard reference: solubility threshold below 7.0 mg/dL (men) and below 6.0 mg/dL (women); ACR gout target below 6.0 mg/dL. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: 3.0–5.5 mg/dL, a practice convention. Uric acid is tied to metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, and fructose intake. A U-shaped mortality curve means both extremes elevate risk, making the mid-normal range the conventional target.
Standard range source · The clinical reference of below 7.0 mg/dL (men) and below 6.0 mg/dL (women) reflects the solubility threshold (~6.8 mg/dL) above which monosodium urate crystals may form. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 Gout Guidelines define below 6.0 mg/dL as the serum urate level at which crystal formation risk is substantially reduced, based on the physical chemistry of urate solubility.
EBL reference source · Practice convention. The 3.0–5.5 mg/dL range reflects the middle of the normal population distribution, below the level at which observational cardiovascular and metabolic risk rises. A U-shaped mortality association has been documented: both very high and very low uric acid are associated with higher mortality. Not an ACR guideline target for non-gout populations.
Causal evidence · genetic · 1 analysis
Not adequately established by genetic evidence for coronary heart disease. Conventional analysis gave an odds ratio of 1.18 per standard deviation of urate and multivariable analysis gave 1.10, but MR-Egger, which corrects for pleiotropy at the cost of statistical power, gave 1.05 with a confidence interval from 0.92 to 1.20. The answer here depends on which method is applied, which is what pleiotropy does to a genetic instrument. Urate variants also associate with blood pressure and lipids, so a naive instrument carries those effects with it.
Population studied: 58 studies, 198,598 individuals; predominantly European ancestry
PMID:26781229 White 2016, Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol
Genetic evidence describes the marker. It never sets or changes an EBL letter grade, which comes only from human randomized trials of an intervention at the dose and form studied. How this works
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:22923756 Kuo 2013, Rheumatology
SII
Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index · calculated from a CBC with differential
No clinical reference range
Not established
Not established
Calculated, not ordered: platelets × neutrophils ÷ lymphocytes, each in ×10⁹/L, taken from the CBC with differential that most routine bloodwork already includes. Standard reference: none. In 42,875 US adults (NHANES) followed for up to 20 years, the top quarter (above 655.56) carried higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.29) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.33) than the bottom quarter (below 335.36) after adjustment; the two middle quarters did not differ from the bottom one. A second NHANES analysis of 42,503 adults found the same direction by thirds (all-cause HR 1.24 for the top third, at or above 600.23). Acute infection, recent surgery or trauma, corticosteroids, pregnancy, smoking and hard exercise in the prior 24 to 48 hours all raise it, and anything that lowers the lymphocyte count inflates it, so a single value taken during any of these says little. No trial has shown that lowering SII changes any outcome.
Standard range source · No reference interval exists. Laboratories report the three cell counts, not the index. Published study cut points vary widely (roughly 330 to 900) and each comes from that study's own population, so none transfers as a clinical range.
EBL reference source · Not established. Some practitioner programs publish a functional target below 348. That figure is the top of the lowest quarter in a single cross-sectional NHANES study of biological age (Wang 2024), not an outcome-validated threshold. In the 20-year mortality cohort, SII between about 335 and 655 carried no excess mortality after adjustment, so the data do not support a target inside that range. No randomized trial has tested lowering SII.
Optimization target · not established
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:36769776 PMID:41618759 PMID:38993709 Xia 2023, J Clin Med, NHANES, n=42,875 · Hu 2026, J Int Med Res, NHANES, n=42,503 · Wang 2024, Front Public Health, source of the 348 figure
SIRI
Systemic Inflammation Response Index · calculated from a CBC with differential
No clinical reference range
Not established
Not established
Calculated, not ordered: neutrophils × monocytes ÷ lymphocytes, each in ×10⁹/L, from the same CBC with differential. Standard reference: none. In the 42,875-adult NHANES cohort, the top quarter (above 1.43) carried higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.39) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.39) than the bottom quarter (below 0.68) after adjustment. The 42,503-adult NHANES analysis found the same direction by thirds (all-cause HR 1.33, cardiovascular HR 1.42). In 85,154 adults of the Chinese Kailuan cohort followed for 10 years, the top quarter carried higher all-cause mortality (HR 1.39) and stroke risk (HR 1.19); the link with heart attack (HR 1.20) did not hold in those aged 60 and over. Acute infection, recent surgery or trauma, corticosteroids, pregnancy, smoking and hard exercise in the prior 24 to 48 hours all raise it, and anything that lowers the lymphocyte count inflates it, so a single value taken during any of these says little. No trial has shown that lowering SIRI changes any outcome.
Standard range source · No reference interval exists. Laboratories report the three cell counts, not the index. Published study cut points vary by study and population, so none transfers as a clinical range.
EBL reference source · Not established. Some practitioner programs publish a functional target below 0.99. That figure is the median of the 20-year NHANES mortality cohort (Xia 2023), the boundary between its second and third quarters, not an outcome-validated threshold. No randomized trial has tested lowering SIRI.
Optimization target · not established
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:36769776 PMID:41618759 PMID:33500649 Xia 2023, J Clin Med, NHANES, n=42,875 · Hu 2026, J Int Med Res, NHANES, n=42,503 · Jin 2021, J Inflamm Res, Kailuan, n=85,154

Nutrients

The foundation nobody checks
Biomarker
Standard
EBL reference
Why it matters · Citation
Vitamin D (25-OH)
≥ 20 ng/mL (National Academies)
Not established
Not established
VITAL (n=25,871) randomized 2000 IU/day for the prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Neither primary endpoint was reduced: invasive cancer of any type and major cardiovascular events were both null. Death from cancer, a secondary endpoint, was lower. No randomized trial establishes an optimal concentration for longevity or disease prevention, so no optimal range is published here. The reference figure above is the National Academies sufficiency cutpoint; the 30 ng/mL target that circulates widely comes from the 2011 Endocrine Society guideline, which its own 2024 successor replaced while declining to set concentration thresholds for generally healthy people. How common low status actually is, and at which threshold, is set out under Nutrient Gaps.
Standard range source · National Academies (Institute of Medicine, 2011) sufficiency cutpoint for bone health, 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L). The 30 ng/mL figure that circulates widely comes from the 2011 Endocrine Society guideline, whose 2024 successor replaced it and declined to set concentration thresholds for generally healthy people.
EBL reference source · None. No randomized trial establishes an optimal 25(OH)D concentration for longevity or disease prevention, so EBL publishes no target. VITAL (PMID 30415629) is cited because it tested supplementation against hard endpoints An outcome that matters directly to a person and is counted without judgment, such as death, heart attack, stroke or fracture. and was null, not because it sets a threshold.
Optimization target · not established
Safety signal. 311 healthy adults aged 55 to 70 randomized to 400, 4000 or 10 000 IU/day of vitamin D3 for three years. Achieved 25(OH)D was 132.2 nmol/L (53 ng/mL) in the 4000 IU arm and 144.4 nmol/L (58 ng/mL) in the 10 000 IU arm, both inside the 50 to 80 ng/mL window this site previously described as optimal. Radial volumetric bone density was lower in both higher-dose arms against 400 IU: -3.9 mg HA/cm3 (95% CI -6.5 to -1.3) at 4000 IU and -7.5 (-10.1 to -5.0) at 10 000 IU. Bone strength did not differ significantly (radius p=0.06, tibia p=0.12). Randomized, double-blind Neither the participants nor the people assessing them know who received the real treatment until the trial ends., three-year dose-comparison trial. It is reported because it is the only directly relevant finding EBL located and it points away from the target this page used to publish.
Causal evidence · genetic · 2 analyses
Not adequately established by genetic evidence for all-cause mortality. Two Mendelian randomization analyses of overlapping UK Biobank data reach different answers and are shown together. Sutherland 2022 (n=307,601; PMID 36279545) found an L-shaped relationship: risk fell steeply up to 50 nmol/L then flattened, with odds of death 25 percent higher at a measured 25 nmol/L than at 50. Sofianopoulou 2024 (PMID 38048800) (n=386,406 across UK Biobank, EPIC-CVD and two Copenhagen cohorts, 27,885 deaths) found no association of genetically predicted 25(OH)D with all-cause mortality (OR 0.99 per 10 nmol/L, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.02), and reported that null explicitly at all observed concentrations including the deficient stratum. Note also that Trummer 2013 (PMID 23319826), previously cited here as support, concluded that variants predicting 25(OH)D did not predict mortality and that low vitamin D is unlikely to be causal. The disagreement is likely methodological rather than substantive. Nonlinear Mendelian randomization by the residual stratification method violates the constant-genetic-effect assumption; the doubly-ranked method (PMID 37390109) was developed as the fix, and reanalysis of a comparable nonlinear finding by the corrected method weakened it (PMID 38749693). Which method Sutherland used could not be confirmed from the abstract, so this is offered as the likely explanation and not as a verdict. The genetic analysis and the supplementation evidence are not in conflict. Genetics cover a lifetime across the whole range including genuine deficiency. The large supplementation trials enrolled populations mostly already above the deficient range and are graded on this site under vitamin D3. Both results can be correct because they test different exposures.
Population studied: UK Biobank and European-ancestry cohorts only
PMID:36279545 PMID:38048800 PMID:23319826 Sutherland 2022, Ann Intern Med, nonlinear MR, PMID 36279545; Sofianopoulou 2024, Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, PMID 38048800; Trummer 2013, Clin Chem, PMID 23319826
Genetic evidence does not support causality for coronary heart disease and stroke. In 386,406 individuals including 33,546 with coronary heart disease and 18,166 with stroke, genetically predicted 25(OH)D was not associated with coronary heart disease (OR 0.98 per 10 nmol/L, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.01) or stroke (1.01, 0.97 to 1.05). Stratified analyses were null at every observed concentration. The authors' own reading is that substantial reductions in cardiovascular morbidity from long-term low-dose supplementation are unlikely even if targeted at people with low vitamin D status.
Population studied: UK Biobank, EPIC-CVD and two Copenhagen cohorts, European ancestries
PMID:38048800 Sofianopoulou 2024, Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, PMID 38048800
Genetic evidence describes the marker. It never sets or changes an EBL letter grade, which comes only from human randomized trials of an intervention at the dose and form studied. How this works
Clinical guideline cutpoint
PMID:30415629 Manson 2019, VITAL, NEJM, n=25,871
Vitamin B12
Depleted by metformin + PPIs
> 200 pg/mL
> 600 pg/mL
Practice convention
Standard reference: most laboratories treat below 200 to 250 pg/mL as subnormal (NIH Office of Dietary Supplements). Commonly targeted in longevity and functional practice: above 600 pg/mL, a practice convention rather than a trial-derived threshold. Aroda 2016 found long-term metformin use associated with lower B12 in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study; it addresses depletion A fall in a nutrient's level caused by a medication, for example through reduced absorption or increased loss., not where optimal begins.
Standard range source · NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: most laboratories define subnormal serum or plasma B12 as below 200 to 250 pg/mL (148 to 185 pmol/L). Mayo Clinic Laboratories treats below 150 ng/L as deficient and 150 to 400 as borderline. Methylmalonic acid is the more sensitive marker of functional status.
EBL reference source · Practice convention used in longevity and functional practice, within a commonly cited target of 500 to 900 pg/mL. Not a guideline threshold, not outcome-validated, and no randomized trial has tested treating B12 to it. How much the cutoff itself decides: in NHANES 1999 to 2004 the proportion of adults classed as low was 3 percent at a 200 pg/mL cutoff and 26 percent at 350 pg/mL. Same population, same blood, an eightfold difference decided by where the line is drawn.
Laboratory reference interval
PMID:26900641 Aroda 2016, JCEM, metformin and B12 in DPPOS. Addresses depletion, not a reference interval.
Ferritin
15–150 ng/mL (menstruating women) / 15–200 ng/mL (men and non-menstruating women)
50–150 ng/mL (menstruating women) / 50–200 ng/mL (men and non-menstruating women)
Practice convention
Standard reference: WHO sets iron deficiency below 15 ng/mL and flags overload risk above 150 ng/mL in menstruating women and 200 ng/mL in men. Commonly targeted in longevity and functional practice: a floor of 50 ng/mL, which is a practice convention rather than a trial-derived threshold. Ferritin is also an acute-phase reactant, so inflammation raises it independently of iron stores, which is why WHO applies a higher 70 ng/mL deficiency threshold when infection or inflammation is present.
Standard range source · WHO 2020, Guideline on use of ferritin concentrations to assess iron status in individuals and populations. Iron deficiency below 15 µg/L in apparently healthy adults, below 70 µg/L where infection or inflammation is present; risk of iron overload above 150 µg/L in menstruating women and above 200 µg/L in men and non-menstruating women. ng/mL and µg/L are the same unit. WHO states these thresholds rest on expert opinion last revised in 1993, at low to very low certainty.
EBL reference source · The UPPER bounds are WHO 2020 overload thresholds, not convention. The 50 ng/mL floor is a practice convention used in longevity and functional practice: not a guideline threshold, not an outcome-validated cutpoint, and no randomized trial has tested treating ferritin to it. Worth knowing in the other direction: physiologically based analyses of blood donors and of NHANES put the deficiency threshold for women of reproductive age nearer 25 µg/L than WHO's 15, so the standard floor may be too low.
Narrative review
PMID:26314490 Lopez 2016, Lancet, narrative review of iron deficiency anaemia. Does not establish a reference interval.
RBC Magnesium
RBC rather than serum; no assessment method is satisfactory
3.7–7.0 mg/dL (RBC)
5.0–6.5 mg/dL (RBC)
Practice convention
Standard laboratory reference interval: 3.7–7.0 mg/dL (LabCorp Test 080283). Commonly targeted in longevity and functional practice: 5.0–6.5 mg/dL, a practice convention used by multiple longevity clinicians and functional medicine sources, not a trial-derived threshold. No randomized outcome trial has established that treating RBC magnesium to 5.0–6.5 mg/dL improves clinical endpoints. RBC magnesium reflects intracellular magnesium more reliably than serum, but neither measure has been validated against hard clinical outcomes in an RCT. The Zhang 2016 meta-analysis of 34 RCTs (PMID 27402922) established that magnesium supplementation reduces blood pressure (systolic -3.6 mmHg, diastolic -2.3 mmHg), it did not validate RBC magnesium as a monitoring target. Serum magnesium below 0.75 mmol/L is useful for detecting frank deficiency; within normal ranges, the assay is a poor index of body stores.
Standard range source · LabCorp, Magnesium, RBC, Test 080283
EBL reference source · Practice convention, not a guideline threshold and not an outcome-validated cutpoint. Sources include The Longevity Index and multiple functional medicine references, and the ranges vary between them (5.0–6.5, 5.2–6.5, 5.5–6.5 mg/dL). On the choice of test: serum magnesium is the most commonly used measure and correlates poorly with whole-body stores, erythrocyte magnesium is one alternative, and the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements states that no single method of assessing magnesium status is considered satisfactory. This record does not claim RBC is the correct test, only that serum alone does not answer the question.
Laboratory reference interval
PMID:27402922 Zhang 2016, Hypertension, 34-RCT meta-analysis
Folate
> 4.4 ng/mL (10 nmol/L), serum
> 15 ng/mL, serum
Practice convention
Standard reference: WHO sets possible serum deficiency below 10 nmol/L, about 4.4 ng/mL, and prefers red-cell folate as the status biomarker. Commonly targeted in longevity and functional practice: above 15 ng/mL serum, a practice convention rather than a trial-derived threshold. Wald 2002 established the homocysteine to cardiovascular risk relationship and the folate to homocysteine link; it does not establish where a folate level should sit.
Standard range source · WHO 2005 Technical Consultation on folate and vitamin B12 deficiencies: possible serum folate deficiency below 10 nmol/L (about 4.4 ng/mL), possible red-cell folate deficiency below 340 nmol/L, both derived from the point at which homocysteine begins to rise. WHO treats red-cell folate, not serum, as the preferred status biomarker.
EBL reference source · Practice convention, roughly 3.4 times the WHO serum deficiency threshold. Not a guideline threshold and not outcome-validated. WHO recommends no serum folate threshold at all: its only target is red-cell folate above 906 nmol/L (400 ng/mL) in women of reproductive age for neural tube defect prevention, a population-level recommendation on low-quality evidence that WHO states cannot predict individual risk. Assay matters more than most readers expect: the modern microbiologic assay reads about 40 percent higher for serum and 80 percent higher for red cell than the older Bio-Rad assay, so equivalent cutoffs become 14 nmol/L serum and 624 nmol/L red cell. A folate number means little without knowing which assay produced it.
Meta-analysis of observational studies
PMID:12446535 Wald 2002, BMJ, homocysteine and cardiovascular disease meta-analysis. Does not establish a folate interval.
Omega-3 Index The share of EPA and DHA among the fatty acids in red blood cell membranes, reported as a percentage.
EPA+DHA in RBC membranes
Not routinely tested
> 8%
Lower-risk association
Standard reference: no established range. Harris and Von Schacky 2004 defined risk zones: above 8% associated with greatest cardioprotection; below 4% with least. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: above 8%. The index reflects EPA+DHA incorporation into red blood cell membranes, which turns over approximately 90 days and is not subject to the daily variation of plasma omega-3 measurements. The REDUCE-IT trial (n=8,179) showed icosapentaenoic acid at 4 g/day reduced cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, but enrolled patients with low omega-3 status and did not test targeting the index to 8%.
Standard range source · No established clinical standard range. The Omega-3 Index is a validated research measure of erythrocyte EPA+DHA as a percentage of total fatty acids, not routinely ordered in standard panels. Harris and Von Schacky 2004 (PMID 15208005) defined the measure and established risk zones.
EBL reference source · Harris and Von Schacky 2004 (PMID 15208005) proposed above 8% as a cardioprotective zone based on epidemiological association with lower sudden cardiac death risk. Epidemiologically derived, not an RCT-validated intervention threshold. Conflict of interest disclosure: Harris holds patents related to the Omega-3 Index, disclosed in the original paper. REDUCE-IT (PMID 30415628) showed benefit of high-dose icosapentaenoic acid in high-risk patients, which is distinct from testing the index as a target.
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:15208005 Harris 2004, Preventive Medicine

Liver & Detox

Biomarker
Standard
EBL reference
Why it matters · Citation
GGT
Earliest liver stress marker
< 45 (M) / < 35 (F)
< 20 U/L
Lower-risk association
Standard reference: LabCorp below 65 U/L (men) and below 45 U/L (women), though ranges vary by lab. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: below 20 U/L, a convention reflecting low hepatic and oxidative stress burden. GGT rises before ALT and AST and is an independent marker of cardiovascular risk in a dose-response relationship with all-cause mortality. Also associated with metabolic syndrome, fatty liver, and alcohol intake.
Standard range source · LabCorp reference interval: below 65 U/L (men), below 45 U/L (women). Ranges vary substantially by lab. Standard ranges are derived from population distribution data and are higher than historically used thresholds, partly reflecting the metabolic burden of the modern reference population.
EBL reference source · Epidemiologically derived. GGT in the upper-normal range associates with increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in large prospective studies (Ndrepepa 2018, PMID 29175647). The below 20 U/L target reflects the lower portion of the normal range where population data shows the lowest risk. Not a clinical guideline target; no RCT established that treating GGT below 20 U/L improves outcomes.
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:16186419 PMID:29175647 Ruttmann 2005, Circulation, n=163,944
ALT
< 45 (M) / < 35 (F)
< 25 U/L
Lower-risk association
Standard reference: most labs below 45 U/L (men) and below 35 U/L (women), but Prati 2002 (PMID 12093239) showed the true normal in healthy adults is substantially lower. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: below 25 U/L, a midpoint between the Prati-derived normal and the conventional permissive range. Current lab ranges are too permissive because their reference populations include individuals with subclinical fatty liver and metabolic dysfunction.
Standard range source · Most clinical laboratories: below 45 U/L (men) and below 35 U/L (women). Prati 2002 (PMID 12093239) established lower true-normal ranges of below 30 U/L (men) and below 19 U/L (women) in healthy blood donors free of liver disease, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, substantially below current lab upper limits.
EBL reference source · Derived from the Prati 2002 (PMID 12093239) updated reference population. The below 25 U/L target is a clinical midpoint between the Prati-derived true normal and the conventional permissive lab upper limit, used in longevity and hepatology practice. Not an official guideline target, but better supported than the current conventional ranges, which include metabolically compromised individuals in the reference population.
Population reference-range study
PMID:12093239 Prati 2002, Ann Int Med, n=6,835

Thyroid

TSH alone is not a thyroid panel
Biomarker
Standard
EBL reference
Why it matters · Citation
TSH
0.4–4.5 mIU/L
1.0–2.5 mIU/L
Practice convention
Standard reference: ATA 0.4–4.5 mIU/L, derived from a population that includes individuals with undiagnosed thyroid disease. Commonly targeted in longevity and functional practice: 1.0–2.5 mIU/L. In thyroid-antibody-negative, iodine-sufficient adults, TSH above 2.5 mIU/L exceeded the 97.5th percentile in NHANES III data, suggesting the upper conventional limit captures early thyroid dysfunction. TSH in the 2.5–4.5 range may represent early thyroid dysfunction in many people, though no RCT has tested treating euthyroid adults to the lower portion of the range.
Standard range source · American Thyroid Association (ATA) and most clinical laboratories: 0.4–4.5 mIU/L. Derived from NHANES III population data, which included individuals with undiagnosed thyroid disease and elevated antibodies, inflating the upper reference limit. The Hollowell 2002 (PMID 11836274) analysis of antibody-negative, iodine-sufficient adults showed a 97.5th percentile of 2.5 mIU/L.
EBL reference source · Practice convention, partly supported by population data. In antibody-negative, iodine-sufficient adults in NHANES III, TSH above 2.5 mIU/L exceeded the 97.5th percentile, suggesting the upper conventional limit may include subclinical thyroid dysfunction. No RCT has established that treating TSH into the 1.0–2.5 mIU/L range improves longevity outcomes in euthyroid adults.
Population reference-range study
PMID:11836274 Hollowell 2002, JCEM, NHANES III, n=16,533
Free T3
Active thyroid hormone
2.3–4.2 pg/mL
Not established
Not established
Standard reference: LabCorp 2.3–4.2 pg/mL, highly assay-dependent. Optimal range: not established. EBL previously published 3.0–4.0 pg/mL as an optimal range and removed it in July 2026 because no randomized trial has shown that targeting any particular Free T3 concentration in euthyroid individuals changes a clinical outcome. Free T3 is the biologically active thyroid hormone; most standard panels omit it. If a clinical reason exists to check it, interpret it in the context of TSH and Free T4, not in isolation.
Standard range source · LabCorp: 2.3–4.2 pg/mL. Reference range is highly assay-dependent; Quest and LabCorp intervals differ by up to 0.5 pg/mL. Derived from population distribution, not an outcome-validated threshold.
EBL reference source · Not established. EBL published a target of 3.0–4.0 pg/mL here and removed it in July 2026 because no evidence supported it. No RCT establishes a Free T3 target for longevity or cardiovascular outcomes in euthyroid individuals. Free T3 is the most active thyroid hormone and is not included in standard thyroid panels, which check only TSH and often Free T4.
Optimization target · not established
Safety signal. Higher free T3 within the normal range associated with lower hip BMD and 20% increased nonvertebral fracture risk in healthy postmenopausal women (OPUS, 6-year prospective). Prospective cohort. Observational, not randomized. It is reported because it is the only directly relevant finding EBL located and it points away from the target this page used to publish.
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:20410228 Murphy 2010, JCEM, OPUS, 6-yr prospective · safety signal, not a target
Free T4
Thyroid hormone precursor
0.8-1.8 ng/dL (lab-dependent)
Not established
Not established
Standard reference: LabCorp 0.8–1.8 ng/dL, highly assay-dependent. Optimal range: not established. EBL previously published 1.0–1.5 ng/dL as an optimal range and removed it in July 2026. No RCT establishes a Free T4 target in euthyroid individuals. Free T4 reflects the circulating hormone that is converted to active Free T3 in peripheral tissues; the conversion ratio varies by individual and tissue, making Free T4 alone an incomplete picture.
Standard range source · LabCorp: 0.8–1.8 ng/dL. Highly assay-dependent; reference ranges differ meaningfully between laboratories. Derived from population distribution, not an outcome-validated threshold.
EBL reference source · Not established. EBL published a value of 1.0–1.5 ng/dL here and removed it in July 2026. No randomized trial establishes a Free T4 concentration for longevity outcomes in euthyroid individuals. In patients on levothyroxine, TSH is the primary titration measure and Free T4 is a secondary check; the clinical basis for dose adjustment is TSH, not a Free T4 concentration.
Optimization target · not established
TPO + TG Antibodies
< 35 IU/mL
< 9 IU/mL
Practice convention
Any elevation = immune attack on thyroid. Hashimoto's present 5-10 years before TSH abnormality. If nobody checks antibodies, nobody catches it.
Standard range source · LabCorp reference: anti-TPO below 35 IU/mL; anti-TG below 20 IU/mL.
EBL reference source · Practice convention.
Population reference-range study
PMID:11836274 Hollowell 2002, NHANES III

Longevity-Specific

Aging biomarkers not on standard panels
Biomarker
Standard
EBL reference
Why it matters · Citation
DHEA-S
Age-dependent (declines ~2%/yr)
Upper quartile for age
Practice convention
Standard reference: LabCorp age-specific ranges; DHEA-S declines approximately 2–3% per year after age 25–30. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: upper quartile for age, a convention based on epidemiological associations between higher DHEA-S and lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Lower DHEA-S is independently associated with cardiovascular mortality and biological aging. Supplementation RCTs have not confirmed causal benefit, so this is a monitoring target, not a proven intervention target.
Standard range source · LabCorp age-specific reference ranges vary substantially: young adults typically 350–430 µg/dL (men) and 65–380 µg/dL (women), declining approximately 2–3% per year after age 25–30. No universal clinical cutoff for treatment exists; the reference interval describes the age-matched population distribution.
EBL reference source · Practice convention in longevity medicine based on epidemiological data. Barrett-Connor 1986 (PMID 2946952) associated higher DHEA-S with lower cardiovascular mortality in men. The upper-quartile-for-age target reflects this association. DHEA supplementation RCTs have not shown robust hard-endpoint benefits, so the observational association is not proven causal.
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:20610590 PMID:2946952 Ohlsson 2010, JCEM, n=2,644
IGF-1
Age-dependent ~100-300
100–180 ng/mL · U-shaped curve
Lower-risk association
Standard reference: LabCorp age-specific ranges. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: 100–180 ng/mL, the nadir of the U-shaped mortality curve. Too high increases cancer risk; too low is associated with frailty and cardiovascular disease. This is not a 'lower is better' biomarker. It is read in the context of age, body composition and cancer history, and it is measured before any peptide or growth hormone protocol begins.
Standard range source · LabCorp age-specific reference ranges: approximately 200–400 ng/mL in young adults, declining to 75–175 ng/mL in adults over 65. Varies substantially with age; the age-matched reference range is the clinically relevant standard.
EBL reference source · Epidemiologically derived from a U-shaped mortality association. Burgers 2011 (PMID 21795450), a meta-analysis of 12 population studies, found all-cause mortality raised at both low and high IGF-1, a U-shaped relation. The 100–180 ng/mL range reflects the nadir of the U-shaped curve in observational studies. Not an outcome-validated intervention target; no RCT has tested treating IGF-1 to 100–180 ng/mL for mortality reduction. Context matters: cancer history, body composition, and peptide use all affect interpretation.
Meta-analysis of observational studies
PMID:21795450 Burgers 2011, JCEM, meta-analysis
Cystatin C
Kidney. Better than creatinine
< 1.0 mg/L
< 0.8 mg/L
Lower-risk association
Standard reference: LabCorp 0.56–1.00 mg/L; KDIGO defines CKD by eGFR derived from cystatin C. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: below 0.8 mg/L, a convention reflecting below-median renal and vascular function. Cystatin C is more accurate than creatinine-based eGFR in older adults and those with low muscle mass because it is not influenced by muscle mass. It independently predicts cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality in large prospective cohorts.
Standard range source · LabCorp reference interval: 0.56–1.00 mg/L. The CKD-EPI cystatin C equation uses cystatin C to estimate GFR and classify CKD stage. KDIGO 2012 defines CKD as eGFR below 60 mL/min/1.73m² on two or more occasions.
EBL reference source · Epidemiologically derived. Lower cystatin C within the normal range associates with lower cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in prospective studies (Shlipak 2006, PMID 16267155). The below 0.8 mg/L target reflects the below-median portion of the normal range where observational data shows lowest risk. Not a KDIGO guideline target; KDIGO thresholds address CKD management, not optimization in those with normal renal function.
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:15901858 PMID:16267155 Shlipak 2005, NEJM, n=4,637
VO2max The most oxygen the body can use during all-out exercise, a standard measure of aerobic fitness. (cardiorespiratory fitness)
Strongest single mortality predictor in the fitness literature
Varies by age/sex percentile
Top quartile for age and sex
Lower-risk association
Standard reference: No single cutoff; fitness is continuous. AHA/ACSM percentile categories by age and sex are the reference framework. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: top quartile for age and sex, derived from observational data showing the lowest mortality in the highest-fitness stratum. In 122,007 adults undergoing treadmill testing, the least-fit had approximately 5-fold higher mortality than elite performers. No RCT randomizes people to a VO2max target; the association is prognostic, but the magnitude of benefit from improving fitness is as large as or larger than any pharmacologic longevity intervention.
Standard range source · No single clinical standard range. AHA/ACSM fitness categories by age and sex are the closest reference. Kaminsky 2015 (PMID 26455884) established percentile reference tables from large population datasets. No single 'normal' cutoff exists; cardiorespiratory fitness is continuously associated with mortality risk across the entire distribution.
EBL reference source · Prognostic association, not an RCT-validated intervention target. Large prospective observational data (Myers 2002, PMID 11893790, n=6,213; Kokkinos 2022) establishes that top-quartile fitness is associated with the lowest mortality, with no upper limit of benefit observed. No RCT has randomized people to a VO2max target and measured hard outcomes, but the observational evidence is among the strongest dose-response relationships in preventive medicine.
Optimization target · not established
Observational (cohort or case-control)
PMID:30646252 PMID:35926933 PMID:27881567 PMID:26455884 PMID:11893790 Mandsager et al. 2018, JAMA Netw Open, retrospective cohort, n=122,007
Appendicular lean mass (DEXA)
Body-composition marker of sarcopenia Age-related loss of muscle mass and strength. risk
ALM/height^2 sex-specific
Above EWGSOP2 sarcopenia cut-point for sex
Guideline threshold
Standard reference: EWGSOP2 2019 sarcopenia diagnostic cutpoints (below 7.0 kg/m² men, below 5.5 kg/m² women). Commonly targeted in longevity practice: above the EWGSOP2 cut-point, with higher being better. Low appendicular lean mass predicts incident fractures, falls, and mortality independently. DEXA is a measurement, not a treatment: the goal is to track lean mass trajectory and ensure resistance training is preventing the age-related decline that begins in the fourth decade.
Standard range source · EWGSOP2 2019 (Cruz-Jentoft 2019, PMID 30312372): sarcopenia defined as ALM/height² below 7.0 kg/m² (men) or below 5.5 kg/m² (women). These are diagnostic cutpoints for sarcopenia, not population reference intervals. FNIH Sarcopenia Project uses different cutpoints (below 0.789 kg/m² men, below 0.512 kg/m² women).
EBL reference source · Above the EWGSOP2 cutpoint is the evidence-consistent minimum for sarcopenia prevention. The prognostic evidence is observational: low DXA-measured ALM predicts falls, fractures, and all-cause mortality independently of FRAX and prior falls. No RCT has established that treating lean mass to a specific threshold by a specific training protocol reduces hard endpoints versus a lower-volume alternative.
Optimization target · not established
Observational cohort + meta-analysis of observational studies
PMID:33450071 PMID:34214624 Zheng/WHI 2021, J Bone Miner Res (n>11,000); Sun et al. 2021, Exp Gerontol, meta-analysis
Grip strength (hand dynamometer)
Functional marker; the primary defining parameter of sarcopenia
Sex-specific (EWGSOP2: <27 kg men, <16 kg women)
Above EWGSOP2 cut-point for sex
Guideline threshold
Standard reference: EWGSOP2 2019 cutpoints for sarcopenia diagnosis. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: above the EWGSOP2 cut-point, with more being better. Grip strength is the simplest, lowest-cost longevity test available and among the strongest predictors of all-cause mortality across large cohorts. EWGSOP2 makes it the primary defining parameter of sarcopenia. A hand dynamometer costs under $30 and a test takes 30 seconds.
Standard range source · EWGSOP2 2019 (Cruz-Jentoft 2019, PMID 30312372): probable sarcopenia defined as grip strength below 27 kg (men) or below 16 kg (women). These are diagnostic cutpoints, not general population reference intervals. FNIH and other consortia use slightly different thresholds.
EBL reference source · Above the EWGSOP2 cutpoint is the minimum evidence-consistent target for sarcopenia prevention. The prognostic evidence is observational and very strong: lower grip strength independently predicts higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality across large prospective cohorts including PURE (n=139,691) and UK Biobank (~500,000). No RCT has randomized individuals to a specific grip strength target for mortality reduction.
Optimization target · not established
Observational cohorts + clinical consensus statement
PMID:25982160 PMID:29739772 PMID:30312372 Leong et al. 2015 Lancet (PURE, n=139,691); Celis-Morales et al. 2018 BMJ (UK Biobank ~500,000); Cruz-Jentoft et al. 2019 Age Ageing (EWGSOP2 consensus)
Daily step count
Prognostic activity marker
Varies
~7,000–8,000+ steps/day (mortality plateau)
Lower-risk association
Standard reference: no clinical standard. CDC and WHO specify 150 minutes per week of moderate-intensity activity, not steps. Commonly targeted in longevity practice: 7,000–8,000 steps per day, the level at which Paluch 2022 (meta-analysis of 15 cohorts, n=47,471) found the mortality-reduction plateau. Above this threshold, additional steps were not associated with additional mortality benefit in that analysis. The 10,000-step target has no evidence basis. No RCT tests a step-count target: this is prognostic epidemiological evidence.
Standard range source · No established clinical standard for step count. CDC and WHO physical activity guidelines specify 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity per week, without step targets. The widely cited 10,000-step target originated in a 1960s Japanese marketing campaign, not clinical evidence.
EBL reference source · Paluch 2022 (PMID 35247352), meta-analysis of 15 cohorts (n=47,471): mortality risk decreased with increasing daily steps in a dose-response pattern that plateaued at approximately 7,000–8,000 steps per day, after which no further mortality reduction was observed. Epidemiologically derived; no RCT has randomized individuals to a step-count target for hard outcome measurement.
Optimization target · not established
Meta-analysis of observational cohorts
PMID:35247352 Paluch et al. 2022, Lancet Public Health, meta-analysis of 15 cohorts
Epigenetic age (DNA methylation clock)
Sold direct to consumers as a single number
Reported either as an age in years, or as a pace ratio where 1.0 is one biological year per calendar year
Not established
Not established
Standard reference: no established range. Reports contextualize results against each company's reference population. Optimal range: not established. Epigenetic clocks A test that estimates biological age from chemical marks on DNA (DNA methylation). are among the most promising longevity biomarkers, but commercial precision is not yet sufficient for confident clinical decision-making. Intraclass correlations of 0.86–0.99 sound high but translate to meaningful variation in absolute age estimates. Most useful as a tracking tool over time within the same individual using the same assay, not as a single-point comparison.
Standard range source · No validated clinical reference range. Epigenetic clocks (Horvath 2013, Hannum 2013, PhenoAge, GrimAge, DunedinPACE An epigenetic test that estimates how fast a person is aging now, in years of biological aging per calendar year.) produce different age estimates from the same DNA sample. No authoritative body has adopted a clinical reference interval. Commercial reports contextualize results against their own reference population, which varies by company.
EBL reference source · Not established. No RCT has established that treating epigenetic age to any specific value reduces mortality or disease. Reliability varies by clock and laboratory: intraclass correlations of 0.86–0.99 across technical replicates, with biological age estimates differing by up to 9 years for the same DNA sample in first-generation clocks. The measure is valuable for tracking longitudinal change within the same individual using the same assay, not as an absolute cross-individual comparison.
Optimization target · not established
Narrative review
PMID:41403206 Apsley 2025, Epigenomics 17(18):1447-1461, narrative review
Leukocyte telomere length
Chromosome end length; widely sold as a biological-age readout
No validated clinical reference range
Not established
Not established
Standard reference: no established range. Telomere length associates with age and with several diseases. Optimal range: not established. Telomeres shorten with cell division and oxidative stress. The UK Biobank association (n=472,174) is prognosticly real, but commercial testing reproducibility remains too variable for reliable individual guidance. Most appropriate as a research tool or for longitudinal tracking within a single individual using the same laboratory methodology.
Standard range source · No validated clinical reference range. Telomere length measurement varies substantially by method (qPCR, Southern blot, flow-FISH), by leukocyte subtype, and by laboratory. No authoritative body has adopted a reference interval for clinical use. Commercial platforms each apply their own proprietary reference population.
EBL reference source · Not established. In 472,174 UK Biobank participants, those with telomere length one standard deviation below the mean at age 40 had an estimated 2.5-year lower life expectancy than those one standard deviation above. The association is real; a validated clinical target is not. Measurement reproducibility on commercial platforms is insufficient to guide clinical decisions: a reported age-acceleration may reverse on retest using a different method.
Optimization target · not established
Causal evidence · genetic · 2 analyses
Genetic evidence supports causality for several site-specific cancers. Across 35 cancers and 48 non-neoplastic diseases, genetically LONGER telomeres were associated with higher risk of several cancers. Odds ratios per one standard deviation longer were 5.27 for glioma, 3.19 for lung adenocarcinoma, 1.87 for melanoma and 1.55 for kidney cancer. Associations were stronger for rarer cancers and at tissue sites with lower rates of stem-cell division. This is the reason a causal verdict on this site is attached to an outcome rather than to a marker. The same genetic evidence points in opposite directions for cancer and for cardiovascular disease, so there is no single answer to the question of whether longer telomeres are better.
Population studied: 103 genome-wide association studies, 420,081 cases and 1,093,105 controls; predominantly European ancestry
PMID:28241208 Haycock 2017, JAMA Oncol, Mendelian randomization
Genetic evidence supports causality for coronary heart disease. In the same analysis, genetically longer telomeres were associated with LOWER risk of coronary heart disease, odds ratio 0.78 per standard deviation, and of abdominal aortic aneurysm at 0.63. There was little evidence of association with psychiatric, autoimmune, diabetic or most other non-neoplastic disease.
Population studied: Same 103 genome-wide association studies; predominantly European ancestry
PMID:28241208 Haycock 2017, JAMA Oncol, Mendelian randomization
Genetic evidence describes the marker. It never sets or changes an EBL letter grade, which comes only from human randomized trials of an intervention at the dose and form studied. How this works
Genetic association study in a prospective cohort
PMID:34611362 Codd 2021, Nat Genet, UK Biobank, n=472,174
Physician Discussion Sheet
EBL Longevity Lab Panel, Quick Reference
Estimated cash-pay prices (without insurance)
Fasting Insulin: ~$15-25
HbA1c: ~$15-30
ApoB: ~$20-40
Lp(a): ~$30-50
hsCRP: ~$15-30
NMR LipoProfile: ~$50-100
Lipid Panel: ~$15-30
Homocysteine: ~$30-50
Vitamin D: ~$25-40
B12: ~$15-25
Ferritin: ~$15-25
RBC Magnesium: ~$20-35
Omega-3 Index: ~$50-75
Thyroid Panel: ~$50-80
DHEA-S: ~$25-40
IGF-1: ~$40-60
Cystatin C: ~$25-40
CBC + CMP: ~$15-30
Prepared via Evidence Based Longevity (evidencebasedlongevity.co). The EBL reference column is not a single kind of number: across these 38 markers it spans clinical guidelines, randomized trials, observational associations, laboratory reference intervals and, for several rows, practice convention that no trial has validated. Every row on the full panel states which of those it is and cites its source. Not diagnostic criteria. For discussion with your physician.
METABOLIC
Fasting Insulin: EBL reference < 5 mIU/L (std < 25) · PMID:28811358 [convention]
HbA1c: EBL reference < 5.3% (std < 5.7%) · PMID:20200384 [convention]
Fasting Glucose: EBL reference < 90 (std < 100) · PMID:10333939 [convention]
HOMA-IR: EBL reference < 1.0 (std < 2.5) · PMID:28811358 [convention]
CARDIOVASCULAR
ApoB: EBL reference < 80, longevity < 60 (std < 130) · PMID:21487090 [guideline]
Lp(a): EBL reference < 30 mg/dL. Test once · PMID:20965889 [guideline]
hsCRP: EBL reference < 1.0 (std < 3.0) · PMID:28845751 [guideline]
LDL-C: EBL reference < 100, high-risk < 70 · PMID:30586774 [convention]
Triglycerides: EBL reference < 80 (std < 150) · PMID:9355888 [convention]
HDL-C: EBL reference > 60 · PMID:30586774 [lower-risk assoc]
NMR LipoProfile: LDL-P < 1000, small LDL-P < 500, Pattern A · PMID:19204302
Homocysteine: EBL reference < 7 (std < 15) [convention] · PMID:12446535
CAC Score: EBL reference = 0 (CT, age 40-45) · PMID:26449133 [convention]
INFLAMMATION
ESR: EBL reference < 10 (std < 20) · PMID:30537394 [convention]
Uric Acid: EBL reference 3.0–5.5 · PMID:22923756 [convention]
NUTRIENTS
Vitamin D: no established optimum; VITAL found no fracture benefit in replete adults · PMID:30415629
B12: EBL reference > 600 (std > 200) · PMID:26900641 [convention]
Ferritin: EBL reference 50–150 F (std 12–150) · PMID:26314490 [convention]
RBC Magnesium: EBL reference 5.0–6.5 (not serum) · PMID:27402922 [convention]
Folate: EBL reference > 15 (std > 3) · PMID:12446535 [convention]
Omega-3 Index: EBL reference > 8% · PMID:15208005 [lower-risk assoc]
LIVER
GGT: EBL reference < 20 (std < 45) · PMID:16186419 [lower-risk assoc]
ALT: EBL reference < 25 (std < 45) · PMID:12093239 [lower-risk assoc]
THYROID (full panel. TSH alone insufficient)
TSH: EBL reference 1.0–2.5 (std 0.4–4.5) · PMID:11836274 [convention]
Free T3: target not established (std 2.3–4.2 pg/mL) · PMID:20410228 safety signal
Free T4: target not established · no citation; removed July 2026
TPO + TG Antibodies: EBL reference < 9 (std < 35) · PMID:11836274 [convention]
LONGEVITY-SPECIFIC
DHEA-S: upper quartile for age · PMID:20610590
IGF-1: EBL reference 100–180 (U-shaped) · PMID:21795450 [lower-risk assoc]
Cystatin C: EBL reference < 0.8 · PMID:15901858 [lower-risk assoc]

Ready for your 12-week retest? The Smart Retest Guide shows which markers are due at a 12-week retest and which have not changed.

Have your results? The check shows whether medications are depleting nutrients.

Run the Medication Check →

Educational use only. Not medical advice. Every EBL reference value states what kind of number it is, and several are practice conventions rather than validated targets. Every value here is a conversation for your physician. Affiliate links never change a grade. Full disclosure →

EBL Method · 4. Lab Panel complete
Next: Build your targeted retest plan

A full panel repeated is mostly unchanged numbers. Each intervention has its own retest window.

Build your targeted retest plan →

For clinicians: See how patients use EBL to prepare for medication reviews and shared decisions.

View EBL Clinical →

Educational use only · Not medical advice · © 2026 Evidence Based Longevity, Inc. All rights reserved. · Privacy · Disclosure · Terms · Accessibility · Citation Audit

Evidence Based Longevity, Inc. is owner-operated and edited by Arnold Sandlow, D.C., a California-licensed chiropractor. Evidence Based Longevity publishes in English only Machine translations are not produced or reviewed by EBL for accuracy