You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
seem to be quite a few available online.
does anyone have recommendations for a decent comprehensive check.
I'm favouring the numan test. I want the results in an accessible format either online or written, ideally with a followup for any recommendations
nhs are strained and slow and for whatever reason I always feel like I'm burdening them and moaning about not feeling well. I'd rather just pay for a diagnostic and then if there is anything found engage with the nhs from an informed postion
nhs are strained and slow and for whatever reason I always feel like I’m burdening them and moaning about not feeling well. I’d rather just pay for a diagnostic and then if there is anything found engage with the nhs from an informed postion
These sort of tests are a bit of a problem for the NHS. Numan offer tests with a "money back if we don't find anything out the norm" pricing model. That's only sustainable if they do find things to flag up to a lot of customers. A lot of those customers probably have nothing wrong with them (or nothing that needed a blood test to know). That doesn't mean the test is wrong or they are fabricating the results, but that an NHS clinician would never have instructed that test in the first place because you don't have any of the symptoms that would trigger it, or e.g. its vit D which in winter many people in the UK will trigger and you don't need your GP to fix (but many people will go to the GP if their blood test has a "warning" on it). So on top of all the other things breaking the NHS we have blood test companies scaring people into seeing their GP to make themselves money. Consider the alternative - if Numan says everything is fine - but you still don't "feel well" - are you still going to go to the GP (I'd suggest you do as not everything that might be wrong is on a blood test).
I went for a blood test once. I got an A.
What @poly said.
Tests are often only good for confirming a diagnosis when there is clinical suspicion, and everything has a false positive rate.
thanks for the opinions and I'm well aware of the counter arguments.
I feel crap. alot. I'm am tired of the nhs system the waits, the tiny window to try and explain things. Ive been in amd out of the gp more jn the last few years than my entire life. I can afford to pay for private tests.
if it shows something like vit d deficiency, I'll just buy vit d. if it seems more serious then I will get a clinical view.
so now I have that off my chest, any actual users of these tests able to provide feedback?
Would paying for a consultation with a private doctor be more beneficial than paying for a wide ranging blood test?
It may be more expensive, but more effective, to seek a private GP consultation rather than just a battery of tests. Without a clinical context, many test results are potentially confusing or unhelpful, and having some directed plan or pre test concern could help specify which tests may be useful.
Edit- what qwerty said!
Is there some particular specific condition that you have concerns about ?
My example is that I have high cholesterol, extensive history of heart disease in the family etc etc. I’m looking at a private clinic in Manchester run by Consultant with NHS and private practice.
That way I actually get the results interpreted and acted on by a specialist. Yes it will cost a bit more but the Numan stuff etc when I looked was fairly basic in comparison and cheaper, but not actually value for money
Vit D isn't a harmful supplement. Try taking some and see if it helps.
But I'd also recommend a proper consultation as others have.
Maybe a blood test will point to something, but perhaps some of the tiredness could be down to not doing the the same amount of cycling (and other exercise) you used to do, so naturally your fitness and energy has dropped while you've got older like the rest of us?
I've used Thriva for years and always had good service. The results are reviewed by doctors and they give you their professional advice online or via their app.
I pay privately for tests I could probably get for free on the state system. It's not expensive and I q like the luxury of going when I want, individual assessment and a nice chat with the doc.
It's your choice of course, I see it as an investment in welfare.
I've done Thriva yearly for a few years, just the basic one for a while now but I did one or two of the extras a few years ago. Certainly helped me push myself to healthier diet and living. Gives me a springtime poke about my unhealthy winter eating and exercise behaviours.
Without a clinical consultation a lab panel is fairly pointless.
More so if you have it as a one-off.
As has been said, these are typically diagnostic tests used in refining a diagnosis identified by medical review, not ‘diagnos-a-grams’ for providing ‘simple answers’.
You can get a ‘wellness’ assessment from many of the private health providers that will include some medical review. This would be a better option than a one-off lab panel. Though not as good an option as seeing your GP to discuss what ails you.
Vitamin D not harmful? Kind of ‘Do not take more than 100 micrograms (4,000 IU) of vitamin D a day as it could be harmful’.
You may be better off seeing a medical professional than seeking the advice of well-meaning strangers on the web and taking some bunch of tests.
Another vote for Thriva here - flagged up liver function issues.
Results are reviewed by GPs and they are perfectly happy if you are spot on and definitely don't give you your money back
I feel crap. alot. I’m am tired of the nhs system the waits, the tiny window to try and explain things. Ive been in amd out of the gp more jn the last few years than my entire life. I can afford to pay for private tests.
I'd spend the money you are proposing giving to Numan on an appointment with a private GP. e.g. my company private medical cover (Aviva) comes with an "on line GP service" which is actually delivered via Square Health and gives 15 minute appointments. I assume you can just pay to go direct to Square, I know some big cities have physical private GPs. They may well say something like - ok lets get your thyroid and vitamin levels checked, but they won't be wasting time and money on stuff that is not linked to your symptoms or missing tests that don't fit with their easy testing regime (e.g. all the tests look to be biochemistry not microbiology or blood counts!). Its also possible the bloods are all normal - but a GP who is not rushed off their feet might get to other possible causes of the problem with the extra time they have.
Go to a GP to get the right test based on their experience but do also get access to the actual results.
I got red flagged for liver function in 2021 when my GP sent me for a range of blood tests. I looked at the results online to better understand what he had said with Google as a reference guide. Unfortunately Google confirmed what the Dr said.
I then spotted some 2015 blood test I had taken after the last round of ankle operations and when I looked at those, they also had raised liver warnings. They weren't as bad as the 2021 results but way higher than the first set of blood results in 2012. This was all for the same 3 tests relating to the liver. The test sets contained many other results.
When I asked my Dr why this trend wasn't picked up he casually said 'those are hospital tests after your operation, we weren't looking at liver function with those'. If they had, they might have noticed that the pain medication they were giving me was causing irreversible liver damage*.
If I had access to the results at the time then I would have checked and asked about it, even if it turned out to be irrelevant. So get GP advice but also check the results and get any queries you have answered.
*Yes, the liver does recover but only a certain amount and not fully. Trust me, I would not be drinking alcohol free beer if it did.
I just had a BUPA full check over through work of which the blood tests were a part of. I think they're good and certainly give you an awareness of anything unusual. There were a number of aspects to mine that warranted follow up and my own doc wanted to repeat the tests.
Included Diabetes, Cholestarol, haemoglobin and white cell levels. Also had ECG while I was there and some other tests that they do to "gentlemen of a certain age".
My own doc didn't seem to be too worried, despite the BUPA doc raising so many issues. But it certainly did put the spotlight on a couple of areas in which I can make lifestyle changes.
I feel crap. alot.
THIS!! Don't fanny about with consumer tests; go and hassle your GP. It's what they are there for.
I felt crap a lot of the time. Turned out to be stage 4 prostate cancer! Ask your GP to run a PSA test too*. Lots of naysayers but if my GP had done this earlier, then my cancer might have been curable.
*I'm making a wild assumption that you are male.
Ok. that last post has given me a kick in the pants to try the GP route.
Can't get through on the phone
Says to use online consult, cant no appointments left
Says to book appointments in NHS app or patient access. Neither offer GP appointments (I appear to just be able to book a blood test though...)
Last time I had to wait 3 weeks for an appointment after I'd filled a form out online detailing issues. Seems they have removed the ability to do that.
Final straw, done with this surgery and have registered the one my wife and kids are using - wife says they've been good the few times she has used them for the kids. If I can't get a decent response out of these guys I'm afraid I'm going private, I'm not made of money but it seems like it might be the only way forward.
apparently you should be able to view test results in the nhs app, but mine is completely blank
Vit D isn’t a harmful supplement
it can be harmful to take too much, and it is probable that many people over supplement nowadays since the pandemic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D_toxicity
This book
Discusses trials data and points out that too much vitamin d is as bad as too little for its health benefits, and argues that Canada’s RDA is much more likely to be correct than the UK one, and that a dose of 1200 iu is the best guess at a safe supplementation level without a blood test.
Just start taking vit D. I am evangelical about it because it made a huge difference to me. almost everyone in the UK will be deficient. I was 20% of normal levels
Ok. that last post has given me a kick in the pants to try the GP route.
Unfortunately though your NHS GP are currently inundated with calls from people, many of which have very specific health time critical issues so your general malaise of feeling not quite right may not mean you are seen any time soon. (I have been through this with my local GP).
Its not that GP's wont want to help you, just that they might not have time to help you when they are dealing with people ringing up with all the signs of prostate cancer etc.
[i]almost everyone in the UK will be deficient. I was 20% of normal levels[/i]
Not knocking the medical bit, just the maths. Everyone is deficient & 20% or normal. is that 20% or the 'normal' level of deficiency or 20% of the level the experts have decided should be normal?
Almost 50% of the population have below average mathematics and this must be changed!
20% of the normal levels / healthy levels as defined by the medical consensus. The difference to my health since I started taking it is huge and obvious but given some of the symptoms were a bit vague ( generalised fatigue etc) of course some could be placebo - but I am convinced. Vit D is cheap and has a large safe range of intake ie the toxic dose is many multiples of the recommended dose. I no longer have night sweats and my fingernails now grow much faster.
Its the NICE recomendation that we should all vit d supplement IIRC
Don't know how old you are, but a lot of surgeries offer an 'over 40s health check' which might be a good starting point.
The problem with broad-spectrum blood tests offered commercially is that they are really hard to put in context with individual circumstances, and, as others have pointed out, the 'find nothing, pay nothing' model makes it more likely that they will try to flag up stuff which is not necessarily problematic, but potentially alarming when you get the email.
As I said, not knocking the health and am actually considering it myself. Interested to hear it clears up that irritating, non-specific feeling of 'Urgh I feel a bitshitty today' which never seems to be worth going to seek medical help for but also builds up over the winter months.
In that case I would certainly try it. Takes 2-4 weeks to build up in your system. Its a low risk thing to try. Intermittant generalised fatigue was my main symptom. Very active people actually need more vit D
I might give it a go then although I don't qualify as "Very active people actually need more vit D"
just as an alternative ive been feeling knackered for over a year. Phoned them up booked in for bloods in 2 weeks. all seams reasonable.
I had a health check last year through Nuffield Health via a work scheme. Just looked at they're the best part of a grand though! Wowzers. Was really good though - did all sorts, felt really thorough. Main reason I booked mine in was a colleague had one done a few months previously and their bloods had highlighted something which required a stint in hospital. Sounded like it had the potential to be quite serious...
it can be harmful to take too much, and it is probable that many people over supplement nowadays since the pandemic.
Interesting use of the word many. The wiki link suggest that problems might start if you are taking 4000 IU a day. That would be 4x the dose that most people taking a pure vit-d supplement will be taking. I don't know anyone who takes more than one tablet a day (1 25ug tablet = 1000 IU). The wiki also confusingly suggests that 25000 IU a day is the suggested upper intake level - surely nobody is taking 25 tablets a day because of the pandemic?
The only was I see it being likely that *many* people are taking too much is if they are taking both a dedicated Vit D supplement and a general multivit. I just has a quick look and most multi vits that include vit D have 400 IU (the UK RDA), whilst most vit D only supplements are 1000 IU.
Discusses trials data and points out that too much vitamin d is as bad as too little for its health benefits,
True of most things - but its very easy to get too little Vit D in the UK. You need a very specific diet to manage it in winter, and even in summer in the UK whilst sunlight should be enough, that requires you to go outside, with bare skin. If you are feeling run down many of us will be more likely to give it a miss - which may make a feedback loop of Vit D deficiency. In contrast with Vit D its almost impossible to accidentally exceed the upper suggested limits.
and argues that Canada’s RDA is much more likely to be correct than the UK one, and that a dose of 1200 iu is the best guess at a safe supplementation level without a blood test.
Odd, because Canadian RDA seems to be 600 IU/day for an Adult, and the UK is 400 IU/day which seems to contradict your argument. Both Canada and the UK seem to agree that taking more than 4000 IU/day might be bad.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d/
For full disclosure I should say I am not an avid vit D taker - but do from time to time if I start to feel run down take it for a week or two. Then I stop feeling so depleted and forget to take it. Of course that may be some entirely unrelated cause and effect. To be honest I'd be much more worried about B12 - the effects of not getting enough of that seem to be irreversible.
Not knocking the medical bit, just the maths. Everyone is deficient & 20% or normal. is that 20% or the ‘normal’ level of deficiency or 20% of the level the experts have decided should be normal?
I think TJ "misspoke" there is no "normal" level for Vit D. It varies too much depending on the time of year etc. But there are established guidelines where below certain levels it is clearly associated with health problems. This is exactly the sort of issue that comes up with blood results reported by commercial companies not clinicians. The public want to talk in "normal" levels, but actually what matters is not what's normal, but what is clinically significant. A healthy individual with lots of sun exposure and a good diet would be expected to have a Vit D level > 50 nM. Dr's tend to get concerned if it is in the 30-49 nM range, and really worried in the <30 nM range. If we add in the general population's inability to communicate maths/statistics/risk then "20% of normal" could probably be anything from 6 to 40 nM! And that's before you consider that different countries use different units for reporting so if you google a Vit D result of 40 without understanding the difference between nM and ng/mL you can misunderstand the result completely. Of course everyone on STW is smarter than the average consumer so they will be able to correctly understand the nuance of the wording that the blood test company has carefully developed (to minimise the number of calls to their support desk not to ensure you get helpful knowledge!). I suspect many GPs will want to repeat the result if you go to them with the report. That creates an interesting problem though - if the NHS lab reports it as normal, was the commercial number wrong? or just noise on your data? or was the NHS value wrong? or just noise on your data?
Almost 50% of the population have below average mathematics and this must be changed!
Good to see Rishi's message is getting through!
Fair enough Poly although I did try to say normal / healthy - IIRC the doc suggested that at <20 my level was of concern as it was so low. I have no doubt taking supplements has made a huge difference tho I am aware of placebo effect here.
Odd, because Canadian RDA seems to be 600 IU/day for an Adult, and the UK is 400 IU/day which seems to contradict your argument. Both Canada and the UK seem to agree that taking more than 4000 IU/day might be bad.
The book has several chapters discussing vitamin D issues, the reductions in cancer rates, diabetes rates, depression rates associaed with decent levels of vitamin D (with lots of references to supporting trials and meta analysis data) and is worth reading (£7.59 on Kindle).
It suggests that it is desirable to maintain a vitamin D level of at least 20ng/ml for strong bones (preferably 32ng/ml), but the current UK recommendations at the time the book was written were 10ng/ml (and a 400UI dose intended to achieve that), enough to prevent the onset of rickets/osteomalacia.
The book quotes that the Institute of Medicine in the USA backed a level of at least 20ng/ml in 2010, and also in 2010 Osteoporosis Cananda recommended a minimum of 30ng/ml.
So maybe my memory abut the Canadian RDA had it swapped with that the Osteoporosis Canada recommendation, but the book quotes as justification (of that value being correct) that a study of surfers in Honolulu, with heavy sun exposure of 30 hours a week, the average serum vitamin D levels were only 31.6ng/ml.
The book also points out that mortality rates worsened as levels were pushed higher than 32ng/ml, so the large dosages being promoted by covid-activists are probably harmful - even Dr Fauci said that he was taking 7000UI I seem to remember.
So the book recommends a supplementation of 1200Ui during the winter months, assuming that you get enough sun in the winter, and doesn't recommend a higher dose unless you have medical advice to do so.
I was on that but now am on 2000UI as the pills come with some vitamin K2, which is suppossed to reduce some risks associated with the vitamin D supplementation.
Thanks for the reminder. Got the old bloods taken last week and was meant to phone Monday for the results but completely forgot(double dose of lung infection a couple of weeks ago), thought to get a test just to be safe)
I reckon its ok, they usually phone me if theres a prob, so the fact they haven't is I think a positive note.