I believe most of us are of the opinion that the "normal" ranges for lab tests are a far cry from optimal. Indeed, a large portion of the so-called normal ranges are often unhealthy, and sometimes much worse.
An example of the idiocy behind these ranges is free testosterone
. According to Quest, normal T range is 250-1100. As we know, Quest, like most of the labs, failure to break the range down by age, which is absurd. Thus, my total T of 350 & 373 (approximately the 14th% of the range) are labeled normal, even though I'm 37 years old. Making matters worse is the range for % free testosterone, which is 1.5 - 2.2. Mine happens to be 1,22, outside the range. But Quest multiplies the % free testosterone by the total testosterone to get the normal free testosterone range (35-155). Thus, anything beyond .155 times 250 is deemed normal. As a result, my total free T of 45.3 ( approximately the 8th% of the range) is deemed within the normal range. How and the hell can that be??? It's considered normal to be a the bottom of the barrel of both ranges??? The mid point of total T times % free T is 125 -- I'm 1/3rd of that and I am considered within the "normal" range? And the guy who has the top of both ranges, with 5 times as much free T as me, is also in the "normal" range?!?!?! This flips the concept of "normal" on its head, even if you leave aside the fact that the ranges should be aged based. Certainly, there should be an adjustment when you are multiplying two variables. Otherwise you end up with low normal times low normai, which is REALLY JUST LOW, under any reasonable evaluation. Mathematically, this makes no sense to me. IF WE WERE RACE HORSES, WITH PATHETICALLY LOW NUMBERS LIKE MINE, WOULD THE VET CALL US "NORMAL"??? Me thinks not. But, alas, we are not race horses, we're just humans, expected to accept our "normal" pathetic plight. HORSE SHIT, I say!
I imagine that some of the home collection kits provide much more appropriate aged based ranges. Might anyone have those ranges in a readable form? I dont have Excel on my home computer, so I am unadle to open the file that is posted on these boards. But mostly, I'm just airing my frustrations. This sort of thing needs to be better regulated so that the clueless doctors can know when it is appropriate to send a patient to a specialist who has a clue. Fortunately, if you are here, you figured it out yourself. Kudos to you. I'd like to help those that suffer for faults in the system, such as this one.
Thanks in advance for the ranges, should you post them.