healthcare in the US is another country

Read more here https://t.co/4fyzHqJaoa

Bryan has spent $2M/year optimizing his health through his Blueprint protocol tracking hundreds of biomarkers, taking 111 daily supplements, and publishing everything publicly. Our medical team at Nudge Care decided to test that claim using his publicly shared lab results

We analyzed @bryan_johnson's public blood work. The results were surprising 🧵

We had an office party and asked everyone to write one health goal for 2026. Most were normal. One guy… wasn’t.

Build your company. Put in the work. Just do it by taking care of your future self.

But the real risk isn’t just stress it's also not noticing the early signals. At Nudge, we visited founders at their workplace to help them detect risk early, translate complex health data into clear action, and stay in control before burnout or illness makes the decision for you

Founder life is intense. Long hours, constant context switching, pressure from every direction. In the middle of building, shipping, fundraising, and firefighting, health is often the first thing to slip into the background 🧵

https://t.co/xcylPtJkTP

Hims & Hers going down the Oura/ Whoop path, going down the Function Health path

Bottom line: Supplement only if you’re low or at risk—blind supplementation isn’t prevention. Nudge Care connects your labs, diet & wearables so you know what you actually need. https://t.co/9EihFUQM2V

☀️ Balanced sun exposure 🥛 Fortified foods (dairy, fish, eggs, mushrooms) 🧂 Support with magnesium + calcium Who may need more? • Limited sun exposure • Darker skin / older adults • Vegans • Malabsorption or chronic illness

Vitamin D is vital, but personal. 🧪 Test, don’t guess. ✔️ Ideal levels: 30–50 ng/mL ⚠️ <20 = deficiency ❌ >60–80 = toxicity risk Most adults do well with 800–2000 IU/day (with fat). Higher doses only with medical supervision.

Takeaway: Minimal panels lack depth; maximal panels create noise. The smart approach is focused, adaptive, and evidence-backed, helping individuals act on what truly matters rather than chasing every number. Read more on our latest blogpost https://t.co/LF3BeAkBAF

We emphasize longitudinal analysis over one-off mega-panels: true health insight comes from trends, not snapshots.

What we think We advocate targeted, continuous tracking: a curated set of meaningful biomarkers tested regularly (every 3–6 months). We support user choice: results from any lab can be uploaded for ongoing insights.

“False security blanket”: 100 “normal” values can mask real preventive gaps. “Scientific mirage”: markers promising in small studies (e.g., Copper) fail to prove clinical relevance.

Maximal panels (testing everything possible) cause overload and confusion. Common pitfalls include: “Wobbly numbers”: markers like cortisol fluctuate daily, leading to false alarms. “Impressive but useless” tests: some biomarkers (e.g., Chromium) lack validated clinical value.

Minimal panels (like standard checkups) cover population-level basics but miss early, individualized signals of disease. They’re too limited for personalized prevention.

Most health platforms promote massive blood panels boasting 100+ biomarkers as shortcuts to longevity. However, more data doesn’t always mean better insight. We argue for a balanced, evidence-based approach to biomarker testing that prioritizes clinical relevance over quantity.