Sample protocol

The report is sixteen pages. For a reason.

Every client who orders labs through me receives a Functional Health Report: not a one-page summary with arrows, but a sixteen-page interpretive document that reads every biomarker against functional-optimal ranges and names exactly what needs work. What follows is my own panel from March. Top findings only. Unedited.

What makes it different

"Normal" is a diagnostic threshold. Optimal is the standard.

Your standard lab report tells you one thing: whether a value sits inside the range that rules out acute disease. That range is wide. Deliberately wide. It has to include the sedentary, the aging, and the unwell.

The functional-optimal range is a tighter subset inside it. Where high performers actually live. A value that sits at the bottom of the standard reference range can be "in range" for a disease screen and badly suboptimal for the person wearing the body. The report calls the difference out, every time.

Example · from my panel
HDL Cholesterol
Standard lab range vs. functional optimal, with my actual value.
Standard lab reference > 40 mg/dL
Your doctor sees this as a binary: above 40 is "normal," below 40 triggers a flag.
Functional optimal 55–93 mg/dL
The report flags anything below 55. Because HDL's cardiovascular protection curve keeps bending higher up the range. Mine came in at 28.
Standard lab range Functional optimal My value
What's in the report

Twelve biomarker systems. Every one read against optimal.

Not a single lipid panel and a note to "watch your cholesterol." A full-system read. Hormones, metabolism, cardiovascular, kidney, liver, thyroid, immune, and more. Each section flags out-of-optimal values and explains the why in plain language.

01Hormones & Growth FactorsT-total, T-free, SHBG, E2, DHEA-S, IGF-1
02Blood Glucose & MetabolismGlucose, HbA1c, Insulin
03Lipid PanelTotal chol, HDL, LDL, Trig, ratios, non-HDL
04Cardiometabolic Markershs-CRP, Apolipoprotein B
05Kidney FunctionCreatinine, eGFR, BUN, BUN/Cr ratio
06Liver & GallbladderAST, ALT, GGT, Alk Phos, bilirubin
07ThyroidTSH, Free T4, Free T3
08Electrolytes & MineralsNa, K, Cl, CO₂, Ca
09ProteinsTotal protein, albumin, globulin, A/G ratio
10Red Blood Cell PanelRBC, Hgb, Hct, MCV, MCH, MCHC, RDW, platelets, MPV
11White Blood Cells & DifferentialWBC, neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, eosinophils, basophils
12Prostate (men)PSA total, PSA free, PSA % free
Here's my panel · unedited

Five high-priority findings. My read on each.

I run the same report on myself every quarter. Same lab, same ranges, same standard. Below are the five findings my report flagged HIGH PRIORITY. Erythrocytosis, elevated transaminases, low HDL, elevated testosterone and estradiol, elevated IGF-1. A functional-medicine algorithm reads each one as a problem to correct. I read each one in context. What am I running, what are the downstream symptoms, what's the rest of the panel saying? Some need monitoring. Some need nothing. Some would need immediate action in a different person. That's the whole point.

PatientMichael Warner
Date drawn03/04/2026
FastingYes
LaboratoryQuest Diagnostics
Priority findings5
Report: High priority → My call: Monitor · no action
Finding 01 of 05

Erythrocytosis · elevated hemoglobin & hematocrit

Expected on elevated androgens. Monitored closely. No dose reduction indicated.

High
17.6g/dL
Hemoglobin
Optimal: 14–15
High
53.5%
Hematocrit
Optimal: 40–48
High
15.2%
RDW
Optimal: 11–13
The read

Not a major concern, and it needs context. Elevated androgens drive erythropoiesis. The body produces more red cells in response to higher testosterone. That's expected physiology on this protocol, not a failure of it. I manage it by monitoring trend and symptoms closely, using CPAP (which addresses the sleep-disordered-breathing contribution), and keeping an eye on blood pressure, which stays well regulated. No dose reduction indicated here. If blood pressure were climbing or I were symptomatic (headaches, visual changes, unusual fatigue), the plan would change. None of that is happening. The plan is to watch.

Report: High priority → My call: Expected · training-driven
Finding 02 of 05

Elevated AST & ALT

Transaminases elevated, GGT optimal. The ratio and the context tell the story.

High
74IU/L
AST
Optimal: 10–26
High
73IU/L
ALT
Optimal: 10–26
Optimal
25U/L
GGT
Optimal: 15–35
The read

No action needed. The AST:ALT ratio is favorable despite both values being elevated, and GGT at 25 (optimal) rules out alcohol, biliary load, and oral-steroid hepatotoxicity (the first exclusions to make). That narrows the source almost entirely to skeletal muscle turnover from training, and I didn't rest before this draw. Zero oral PEDs in my current protocol. Context separates "this is a problem" from "this is what hard training looks like on a panel." The same numbers on a client with high GGT, an oral stack, or no training context would read completely differently, and the plan would look completely different.

Report: High priority → My call: Expected · continue EPA/DHA
Finding 03 of 05

Low HDL cholesterol

Expected on PEDs. The real question is whether the rest of the lipid picture holds up.

Low
28mg/dL
HDL
Optimal: 55–93
Low
105mg/dL
Total Chol
Optimal: 160–199
Optimal
63mg/dL
ApoB
Optimal: < 90
Optimal
0.3mg/L
hs-CRP
Optimal: < 1
The read

Low HDL is expected on PEDs. Hepatic lipase upregulation clears it faster. It's a known consequence of the protocol, not a surprise or a failure. The real question isn't "how do I fix HDL," it's: given what I'm running, is the rest of the lipid picture clean enough that HDL alone isn't carrying the cardiovascular signal? ApoB at 63 (optimal) and hs-CRP at 0.3 (optimal) say yes. Particle burden is low, systemic inflammation is low. No serious TRT dose review is indicated here; I'm running supraphysiologic testosterone by design. Ongoing EPA/DHA supplementation continues. Not every low HDL needs an intervention. Some of them are the price of an optimization choice that's serving the rest of the system.

Report: High priority → My call: By design · no action
Finding 04 of 05

Elevated testosterone & estradiol

The bloodwork of a deliberately elevated-androgen protocol. Read the ratios, not just the absolutes.

High
2019ng/dL
Testosterone Total
Optimal: 700–1100
High
835.9pg/mL
Testosterone Free
Optimal: 150–224
Low
4nmol/L
SHBG
Optimal: 40–46
High
75pg/mL
Estradiol
Optimal: 24–39
The read

Total T and free T are elevated because I run an elevated-androgen protocol deliberately. SHBG at 4 is expected when elevated androgens are combined with additional AAS, which inhibits hepatic SHBG synthesis. Estradiol at 75 is completely fine in this context. Zero estrogen-related side effects, no aromatase inhibitor indicated, no AI in use. What matters on a panel like this isn't the absolute number. It's the T:E ratio and whether downstream symptoms are present. I manage the ratio. No dose reduction. No AI. This is what the bloodwork of a higher-testosterone lifestyle looks like, read correctly. In a client with different goals, different symptoms, or a different protocol, the same values would drive a completely different conversation.

Report: High priority → My call: On target · continue
Finding 05 of 05

Elevated IGF-1 · growth hormone axis

On exogenous growth hormone. Target range for GH-supported protocols is above 300.

High
356ng/mL
IGF-1
Optimal: 100–170
High
+2.2SD
IGF-1 Z-score
Target: < +1.5
The read

IGF-1 at 356 is where I want it. I'm on exogenous growth hormone, and my target range is above 300, in line with Dr. Thierry Hertoghe's recommendations for GH-supported protocols. Recovery capacity, body composition, and training response are all in a strong place. No adjustment needed. If recovery were poor, joint symptoms were up, or fasting glucose were drifting, the read would change. None of those are happening. IGF-1 at 356 in someone not on exogenous GH, not pursuing the same goals, is a different conversation entirely. Mine isn't that conversation.

None of these reads are universal. If the same findings showed up on a client's panel with different context (different protocol, different symptoms, different training state), the call might be completely different. Knowing which is which is the entire job.

The work downstream

Every flagged marker drives a decision.

The report is the front end. It produces a ranked list of what's actually happening in the body. What follows is the work: a protocol that responds to those findings, a re-panel that measures whether the response worked, and a calibration pass that tightens the plan.

01 · Read
From number to meaning

Every out-of-optimal marker gets interpreted in the context of the full panel. HDL at 28 alone is one story. HDL at 28 with TRT at 2019 is another. The protocol is written against the full picture, not any single number.

02 · Decide
The right response, not the reflexive one

Each finding gets a matched response: correction, monitoring, or continuation, depending on context. Not every flagged number is a problem to fix. The right question isn't "how do I get this back in range," it's "what does this number actually mean given what I'm running and how I'm feeling."

03 · Re-panel
Measure the response

Strategic re-draws at 6–12 weeks, targeted to the markers the protocol was designed to move. Either the number moved or it didn't. The data decides whether the call was right. The next protocol iteration is informed by what came back, not by what we expected.

Want this level of detail on your own physiology?

A consult is where we find out if this is the right work for you. No commitment. No sales pressure. If it's not, I'll tell you that too.

Schedule your consult → Back to homepage