#41

Link to ?? @John_Hemming

#42

This is the link I suggested people read up thread.

https://citrate.science/2024poster/poster.html

#43

It was an interpolation @John_Hemming based on NHANES (including Ford’s article based on it: Ford et al., 2003, "C-Reactive Protein Concentration Distribution Among US Adults), Framingham, Health ABC, CHS, and Rotterdam. I have been interested in CRP as a potentially highly leveraged health metric. These numbers seem reasonable although the variance between them is not a small as I would like to see it.

#44

Got it. There is no link. I have studied most of the research resultant from those initiatives and did the interpolations myself. One can find many tables indicating mean or modal CRP by age. Here is one the
clinchem0934.pdf (184.9 KB)
results of which come closer to my expectations.

2 Likes
#45

Here is another but the last decile is another extrapolation.

  • 20-29 years: 0.7 mg/L
  • 30-39 years: 1.0 mg/L
  • 40-49 years: 1.3 mg/L
  • 50-59 years: 1.8 mg/L
  • 60-69 years: 2.4 mg/L
  • 70-79 years: 3.0 mg/L
#46

Looking at the report you cited and considering the 65-74 range the 25 percentile for females is 1.06 and males 1.2, they don’t have a 10 percentile, but 0.25mg/L is just above the lowest 1%. 2.5 is 0.30 and 0.33

#47

I agree, unless one has liver failure and other proteins are getting too low as well.

1 Like
#48

I may not have made it clear enough to jump back and forth across the sources easily but this kind of variance and the lack of clarity for the older populations is more or less common to most CRP research I have seen. For example, some of the location cohorts in the very large Hutchinson et al. study I posted stops at 64 but the progression leaves several common interpolation possible for the 65-74 category. Notice the large SDs, given the N.

#49

I have made my point. We dont have to agree. The figures i have seen are reasonably consistent and values for older people are quite a bit higher which is why Morgan Levines algorithn uses the natural logarithm of CRP. If you want the last word you are welcome.

#50

And that is??? 20char

1 Like
#51

I’m sorry @John_Hemming. Not the last word here at all. I didn’t think we were disagreeing. I hope you will set me straight if I’m missing an important point. I have no pride in any particular position nor, especially, in my being right.

2 Likes
#52

Looking at the report you cited and considering the 65-74 range the 25 percentile for females is 1.06 and males 1.2, they don’t have a 10 percentile, but 0.25mg/L is just above the lowest 1%. 2.5 is 0.30 and 0.33

1 Like
#53

Great thread — lots of smart points brought up.

Just adding: WBC (white blood cell count) is another simple but powerful marker many people overlook. Small shifts in WBC can sometimes hint at underlying immune activity even before CRP or IL-6 move. It’s an easy, affordable piece to add if you’re building a broader inflammation profile.

Like others here, I still find CRP, IL-6, ESR and WBC to be the best accessible foundation — even as newer markers like GlycA and Lp-PLA2 become more available.

If helpful: through our nationwide lab partnerships, IL-6 (standard sensitivity) is available through Boston Heart Diagnostics. We also have available High-Sensitivity IL-6 (hs-IL6), which detects much lower levels of inflammation compared to standard IL-6. I

➔ Detection range comparison:
:black_small_square: Standard IL-6 typically detects inflammation levels down to ~1–5 pg/m.
:black_small_square: High-Sensitivity IL-6 (hs-IL6) can detect much lower often ~0.1 pg/mL, making it quite useful for longevity “optimization” when your labs are technically “normal.”

I curated a flexible inflammation labshop that includes CBC, ESR, Homocysteine, CRP, hs-CRP, and blood spot inflammation panels — so people can build their own baseline depending on what they want to track.

You can check our the Deep Inflammation Panel I curated here if you like..

2 Likes
#54

Also available from: http://ultalabtests.com.

image
image2740×289 45.8 KB

2 Likes
#55

Hi Kat and welcome to our forums. While we welcome the participation of people involved in the commercialization of longevity we try to keep the blatant commercial postings to a bare minimum. It’s fine to post the availability of your services here once, but please limit them in the future. The best way to get people interested in services like these is by participating in the forum, and adding value, from an information/ content perspective without veering into advertorials or other purely commercial efforts.

Thanks.

5 Likes
#56

If you want to inform others about your services, you could create a topic that is focused on the services you provide. That way you can get your message out and people can find information about your services there. However we would ask you to refrain from marketing in other topics.

We have similar topics for GetHealthspan.com.

#57

Thanks for the welcome! I appreciate the space you’ve built here — and I fully understand the importance of keeping the forum focused on value-driven discussion, not commercial posts. I will stick to contributing insights and evidence-based content from here on. Appreciate the clarification.

2 Likes
#58

Thanks, appreciate the suggestion. I’ll keep service mentions out of general threads and explore creating a focused topic if needed.

3 Likes