Objective metrics that change the most as we age | Hacker News Reader

Objective metrics that change the most as we age

empirical.health

18 pointsbrandonb16 comments

Yet, the metrics in the article are routinely ignored (or not tracked at all) by your typical PCP doctor.

I think more frequent and more thorough blood testing is something I'd love to see become more common place. Even if it's for no other reason than to know what your benchmark is so that if you have a health issue down the line, you know what your values were when you weren't sick.

If your PCP checks a CBC and a CMP, all of these metrics are there (which virtually 99% of PCP’s do yearly). Lipid panels are regularly checked, A1c is checked periodically if you have a diabetes risk, usually every 1 to 3 years based off USPSTF guidelines.

The only thing that is not regularly checked is a vitamin D level.

So unless you go to some quack MD who orders nothing (which is usually the exact opposite of what quack MDs do) you’re wrong.

Source: I’m a MD

You're right.

I was thinking of Lp(a), ApoB, A1c, cystatin c, GGT, and HS CRP.

I personally like getting those tested at least twice a year in addition to CBC/CMP/hormones/lipids.

I'm honestly surprised more doctors aren't ordering more advanced cardiac panels (specifically LP(a) and ApoB). Even though you can't do much about Lp(a), knowing you're genetically at risk can be a motivator to reduce other risk factors.

The Lymphocyte Percent graph shows a range from about 0.21 to 0.42, but the net tells me that the normal range is 20-40% and the results from the last time mine was tested suggests that the net is right. Is the graph something other than lymphocyte percentage that got mislabeled, did they make a mistake with the scale, or are there two things that can reasonably be called "lymphocyte" percentage and the graph is the one that is not on a CBC panel?

The graph y axis is showing fractions (i.e., 0.21 is 21%). Sorry for the slightly confusing label.

An upstream metric that can be measured daily is sleep slow-wave activity or delta power.

This is the synchronous firing of neurons which define restorative deep sleep, and one of the primary patterns which we describe as the Neural Function of Sleep.

This Neural Function of Sleep naturally declines with age, but more importantly, through stimulation we can enhance it which research is showing improves immune function, increases HRV, and more.

So while the original post discusses markers they expect to measure every 3 months, our work at https://affectablesleep.com measures the Neural Function of Sleep daily, but not to give you a score, but to actively support how well the brain sleeps, not how long.

Though there are over 50 published peer-reviewed papers in these techniques, I'm curious to see if we begin stimulation in our 30s, prior to the decline in sleep, do we slow the rate of decline as we age, as well as supporting daily function.

Also only works with iPhones, oops.

We're reviewing this, but don't have an update just yet.

Most of our team are daily Android users, including me, but we need to serve the larger customer base.

That's a strained claim to make. From a quick search assist response: "As of 2026, there are approximately 3.5 billion active Android users and around 1.5 billion active iOS users globally"

How are you serving the larger customer base by being iphone only?

We're not shipping globally to start. Australia (where we're based) and US only. When we look at our user groups, they are almost entirely iPhone.

The user groups of an iPhone app will be overwhelmingly iPhone users, I reckon.

I’ve not seen the benefit of a yearly checkup (I already know I’m growing old) until reading this article (I like metrics). I usually go with, ain’t broke, don’t fix it. (Context, I’m 55)

I hope everyone is getting their recommended screenings even if you feel okay. I learned I had a life-threatening disease because my PCP told me at an annual exam to get a routine screening.

The training kicks in and my knee-jerk reaction to not one of the graphs starting at zero is to discount the trustworthiness of the entire article, whether that is well deserved or not...

For most of these metrics, zero is not a logically possible data point. For example, somebody with an HbA1c of 0 would be dead.

Well, that is a metric that we all achieve as we age

Reply on news.ycombinator.com