150+ Biomarkers: The "More Data is Better" trend

Why the Extremes Fail

To truly optimize your health, you must navigate the spectrum between minimal testing and maximal testing. We believe the key is a targeted, evidence-backed approach that avoids the pitfalls of both extremes.

Where Minimal Panels Fall Short

Most "standard" clinical checkups are designed for a broad population and test a short list of basics (lipids, glucose, organ function). This approach is based on international guidelines that must balance clinical benefit, the risk of overdiagnosis, and healthcare costs for millions of people (1).

While these minimal panels are an essential public health strategy, they often assume an "average patient." They can miss subtle, but important, early signals, such as creeping inflammation or changes in metabolic flexibility, that are unique to you and precede the onset of disease by years (2). For personalized health tracking, purely minimal panels can be too little.

The Pitfalls of Maximal Panels

Conversely, testing everything in your bloodstream, without context, often leads to a complex and confusing overload of data. Here are four common issues with an unguided, maximalist approach:

• A. The "Wobbly Numbers" Trap: Some biomarkers, like Cortisol, exhibit significant diurnal variation or rapid swings due to acute factors like stress or caffeine (3, 4). Testing them once, without proper context, generates false alarms and unnecessary anxiety.

• B. The "Impressive But Useless" Add-ons: Certain tests lack standardized methods or clear clinical value for the general population. For example, while often promoted, there is no consensus that Chromium is even essential for humans, and current testing methods lack the standardization required for reliable clinical screening (5, 6, 7). You may be paying for a number that has no clear meaning.

• C. The "False Security Blanket" Effect: A clean report with 100+ "normal" values can be dangerous if it distracts from crucial, proven, life-saving preventive care like a mammogram or colonoscopy (8). Furthermore, markers like Homocysteine, while once hyped for cardiovascular risk, are not routinely recommended because they add no significant predictive value beyond standard lipid markers (9).

• D. The "Scientific Mirage" Problem: Some markers look exciting in small studies but fail large-scale testing. Copper, for instance, has been explored as a marker of oxidative stress, but differences in lab methodologies make its measurement clinically meaningless for general screening (10, 11).

Targeted, Continuous Tracking

At Nudge Care, guided by our Scientific Advisors, we advocate for a targeted, evidence-backed approach. Our suggested core panel is extensive but focused, designed to catch meaningful changes while remaining reliably interpretable.

We also support your choice by allowing you to upload results from any lab. Our platform uses your data to provide up-to-date insights, helping you focus your next steps. You are not required to have expensive, maximal panels to get transparent and actionable insights.

The greatest value in biomarker testing doesn't come from a single, exhaustive test, but from tracking your numbers over time. A single blood test is a snapshot; what you truly need is a movie to see how your lifestyle and medication changes affect your biology. We suggest retesting the right markers every 3–6 months to create this essential feedback loop.