How do you go about getting a full blood panel every 6 mo? Doesn’t that come from your primary care doctor? Mine would think I’m insane if I asked for a full blood panel every 6 months at my age with no health issues. But I see the utility in it (trends in the data, anomalies, etc.). So how to do it?

Yeah, you're right. No way in hell I could get my doctor to get a full blood panel every 6 months. Even if I could get him to get me one, he won't order all the stuff I want to see. So I use a boutique, turnkey telemedicine practice (I'm not sure how else to describe it). I order the blood panel and then go over the results with one of their expert patient care coordinators and then speak with one or more of their doctors as needed (all over Zoom). The one I use is Marek Health, but there are others (https://marekhealth.com/)

I think my initial intake was $200-300 to get the full blood panel and have a follow-up with a patient care coordinator as well as an appointment with the doctor (who is incredible). At the time I ordered the blood panel, I wasn't even planning on having a long-term relationship with them, but after seeing some stuff on my blood panel that I wanted to work on and having them come up with a plan, speaking to the docs regularly, I've just gotten so much value out of it. The whole thing made me feel like "wow, this is what healthcare should feel like."

Sadly, it's all out of pocket, but it's the last thing on the list of things I would complain about having to spend money on.

For some people, full bloods every 6 months might be overkill, I guess it just depends on what you have going on (not that I had major issues, but definitely things to address and others to optimize). But without a full panel, you're just flying blind. Sometimes, I get the panel and nothing has moved at all and there's nothing to do. Other times there are things I can easily address and the more panels I have, the more of a personal health profile I have to work with.

What physician is saying no to preventative medicine paid for by the consumer? Why do doctors think we are visiting for their benefit? I would be very interested in the arguments against blood labs. For the doctor, they draw blood and review results, which is something they do every day. For the patient, you draw blood and review results and pay for it, which is something normal people are not greatly inconvenienced by. The money may be the thing, but why would your physician know your budget? If you want a zero risk preventative procedure, the doctor should tell you how much it is, not give financial advice.

What argument would a doctor have against order a wider range of tests? The blood is outside of your body, and the physician is not in the lab running the centrifuge or mixing chemical agents to react.

Every Primary Care doctor visit I've ever had in my life (note: USA) felt like a cross between an assembly line and the DMV. It's all about rushing you through the visit as quickly as possible, spending as little time with the actual expensive doctor as possible, and getting you out the door so that other cu$tomer$ can get crammed through after you. Blood labs? They aint got time for that!

And nowadays, to make matters worse, I have to book an appointment for this delightful experience 2 months in advance for my existing doctor, and five months in advance for a "new patient visit" at a new doctor. Everything around Family Doctors says "go away".

> Every Primary Care doctor visit I've ever had in my life (note: USA) felt like a cross between an assembly line and the DMV.

Note that 'the DMV' is itself a bizarre American experience that a lot of the world doesn't put up with/find a need for.

It took quite a lot of references like this going straight over my head to look into this thing 'everyone [in the USA]' has to do and is familiar with and understand. (If I need a replacement driving licence or to change my address or whatever, I spend two minutes on a web form and it comes in the post. There just isn't 'a DMV' or equivalent office for me to (have to) go to.)

I have to fight with the doctor every time I want something he doesn't deem necessary.

The reasoning I heard from a GP is: the more values you get back, the higher the chance of a false positive. A GP who has blood tested will do so based on your symptoms. Get the lab to do all the possible tests, and chances are at least one of them will be off but since you had no symptoms you’re going to have to test again because it might be a false positive. All of which takes a lot of time and creates feelings of insecurity with the patient. So where I’m from, there are no ‘check-ups’ in insured or government funded health care, you strictly react on symptoms. There are only checks for specific forms of cancer and you’re invited for this specifically. Don’t know whether this is the best way, but this explains the approach.

> What physician is saying no to preventative medicine paid for by the consumer?

its more common than you think; and many professionals resent the idea that its anything resembling a 'free market' where a 'consumer' (patient) can 'order services' without their provider's approval.

as you might imagine there are reasonable-sounding prima facie arguments for both sides of this discussion.

Red meat is a carcinogen according to the WHO.

https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E....

https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/farm-animals/para....

Are there any randomized controlled trials that show this? (As opposed to no-randomized observational studies)

That's not true. The WHO thinks red meat might be a carcinogen. From the Q&A mentioned in your first link [0]. Also, I would not consider your second link a reliable source. An animal-rights group is not unbiased.

> In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.

> Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.

[0] https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monograp...

My suspicion is that it's the sodium nitrates used in treating certain meats that's causing a lot of the cancer. But this is just speculation on my end.

Did you miss the last few years? The WHO is not to be referenced

For the general population, meat and eggs are OK within reasonable amounts of consumption. But those with genetic susceptibility to high cholesterol need to be more careful about their diet than the general population. Same story with diabetes and hypertension.

Edit: FWIW, I’m not planning on abandoning red meat and eggs, but striving for no more than 4 eggs a week and 1, or max 2, servings of red meat. I would rather enjoy beef and lamb for the rest of my life and avoid ever having to eat only egg whites.

Eating less red meat is about lowering your inflammation in your veins - which is a major part of the battle for atherosclerosis. Agreed it's not about your dietary cholesterol. Dairy fat is a big issue for atherosclerosis.

However risk factors are individual so take everyones commentary as educational but apply on what's relevant look at your on individual use case.

It’s not red meat causing the inflammation.

It’s sugar.

Sugar also a culprit - its not a red meat vs sugar thing. However one of the top researchers in cholesterol in the US told me specifically to eat red meat once a year as it has inflammation qualities that are risky for people who have higher risk factors for a cardiac event.

> told me specifically to eat red meat once a year as it has inflammation qualities that are risky

Struggling with that - as in at most once a year?

Yes but that was for people with a high risk cholesterol level - not general public.

However translate that to general parameters as you see fit.

Sure, I understand. I was just parsing it as 'you should eat once a year' (not zero times) - which then didn't seem to tally up with the mentioned risk.

I'd think a small amount every other month or so might be safer - you don't want to look forward to that annual treat and go too crazy!

I see what you are saying. I think the advice was enjoy that one steak dinner a year on a special occasion. Yeah you could also break it up into smaller amounts over the year. I'm largely indifferent to beef but it was a surprising bit of advice from a respected source.