So it'd be possible to supplement what's needed, and not the rest.
A blood test supposedly should show this, but I only get one of those very rarely, and a snapshot of one such test doesn't tell much.
We get our teeth checked once or twice a year. I honestly think we’d catch a lot if we did the same with blood tests. We’d probably save a lot on healthcare with early detections and corrections.
Don't we? The blood tests seem to be the main point of an annual checkup when nothing else is obviously wrong.
That is definitely not clear. Also every procedure has iatrogenic risk.
Look at cancer screenings in the USA: they have gotten more precise and more frequent, so more cancers are caught earlier and survival time increased.
Or has it? Since we find smaller tumors, we find ones that might never have metastasized at all, but intervene anyway. Even for the dangerous ones, earlier detection means earlier treatment, but was the patient going to at 50 either way? That just means they are a cancer patient for a longer period, which by the metrics counts as longer survival.
The book Risk Savvy by Gerd Gigerenzer has a chapter that does a good job of covering these. The entire book is worth a read.
Since no one can convince you, indeed you should not bother to read any of the extensive literature on the subject.
But consider that if indeed it does not extend lifespan, but does extend treatment span, patients will suffer a worse quality of life on painful treatment that does not help and the concomitant fear.
A shame, because you finger health care expense and this phenomenon increases health care expense.
You're complaining a test doesn't exist because it's a test you only get done rarely...?
Headaches and lack of sleep can be caused by hunger, stress, tension, anxiety...
The tests aren't that expensive. At insurance rates, it'll run you maybe $75-150 for the whole standard set in the US if you're paying 100%. And the first one is mostly covered as part of your free annual checkup anyways.
Are they slow and a hassle? Sure, but what do you expect? They're also a minor miracle, that they can detect so much about your health from little vials.
Point is, if you want to do it, you can.
At only $80 and an easy visit to a local blood draw clinic, I do this twice a year by my own volition and now have several years of data and trends to monitor. I'm still quite young and healthy, but I hypothesize that having this data from my health will be very useful as a baseline as I age. If something concerning crops up, then I would pay to see a doctor for further testing and diagnosis. I also add testosterone and H1C tests for good measure. Considering also adding Apo-B to keep well on top of atherosclerosis risk.
Now, a comprehensive vitamin panel (closer to what you're asking for) is a lot more expensive. Most people are more than fine just taking a multivitamin and calling it good. Luckily, true vitamin deficiency is fairly rare, and the information you get in a standard blood panel will help catch all the heavy hitter mortality risks. https://www.healthlabs.com/comprehensive-vitamin-panel-1
As opposed to a doctor ordering a test, as either part of a routine checkup or for a more specific reason.
Everything else falls under “eat a healthy balanced diet”. And supplementing doesn’t help.
Get your blood tested yearly at s physical to make sure nothing odd is going on and you’ll be doing about as good as you can.
Even that is not clear. We know that sick people often have lower D levels but we don’t know which way the causality runs.
Or there could be no causality at all: low D levels could simply be correlated with a sedentary lifestyle which is the actual problem is some cases. Thus adjusting the level would be a waste of time.