The supplement protocol
Three Supplements Earned a Slot. My Bloodwork Did the Hiring.
Supplement advice usually starts with a stack and works backwards to a justification. I ran it the other direction: a 100-marker Function Health draw, a watch with twelve weeks of receipts, and one hiring rule — no measured signal, no slot. Three things survived the interview.
Boundary
A personal protocol with citations — not a prescription.
This page documents what my own labs justified and what they disqualified, with the evidence cited next to each slot. No clinician reviewed it. Out-of-range labs, supplements alongside medications or conditions, and dosing decisions belong with qualified professionals.
- Educational field notes, not medical advice.
- No clinician reviewed this page.
- Use qualified professionals for diagnosis, treatment, medication, supplement, and testing decisions.
The hiring rule
How a supplement gets a slot here.
This is the anti-stack position. Stack culture answers “what should I take?” with a shopping list. The bloodwork answers it with a shorter question: what, specifically, is measured as wrong — and what is the cheapest honest lever that moves it?
The signal
A measured value opens the slot.
Not a vibe, not a podcast, not a vague sense of being tired — a number on a lab report sitting outside its range, attached to something a supplement can plausibly move. One value in my entire draw met that bar.
The evidence
A real evidence base keeps it open.
Position stands and controlled trials, not testimonials. This clause also admits the one honest exception: creatine entered on evidence alone, because there is no creatine panel for it to fail. I am not going to pretend otherwise.
The review
The retest is the performance review.
Every slot carries a follow-up draw. If the number the supplement was hired to move does not move, the slot closes. A protocol without a retest date is just a subscription.
The default
No signal, no slot.
In-range labs close slots. That is not negligence — that is the panel doing its job. The most useful output of a 100-marker draw is the long list of things you are now allowed to not buy.
The evidence on the table
What the draw actually said.
Most of my panel came back calm — which matters, because calm numbers are the ones that close supplement slots. One value opened one. The full marker-by-marker translation lives here.
The protocol
Three slots. Three different kinds of justification.
Slot 01 · Hired by the lab
Omega-3: the one my bloodwork demanded.
Out of a 100-marker draw, this was the line item that came back below range and pointed at a lever I control. Food first — the AHA’s two servings of fatty fish per week is the actual foundation — with EPA/DHA supplementation as the tracked consistency layer, and a retest already on the calendar to grade it.
OmegaCheck
3.2%Total EPA + DHA + DPA as a percentage of blood fatty acids. Below range — the one line in the draw that demanded action.
EPA
0.3%The clearest single deficit on the panel. Fatty fish was clearly not happening often enough to argue with.
DHA
1.8%Better than EPA, still part of a low overall status. The fix is the same lever either way.
What trials use
Roughly 1–2 g/day combined EPA+DHA.
Intervention studies that move omega-3 status typically land in that range, and individual response varies enough that the retest — not the label — is the verdict. The NIH ODS fact sheet carries the dosing and safety context.
The target in the literature
An omega-3 index around 8%.
Harris and von Schacky proposed the omega-3 index as a risk marker, with roughly 8% framed as the lower-risk zone and 4% as the higher-risk zone. My 3.2% OmegaCheck is the same family of measurement reading uncomfortably close to the wrong end.
Why the retest waits
Membranes turn over in months, not weeks.
Red blood cells live about four months, so blood fatty-acid status moves slowly no matter how disciplined the supplementation is. Retesting before roughly three to four months is testing your patience, not your protocol.
Where I stop
High-dose omega-3 is a medical decision.
Prescription-strength dosing for triglycerides is a different sport with a clinician keeping score. My triglycerides sit at 63 — nothing in my panel asks for that conversation, so I am not having it with a softgel bottle.
Boundary before the buy button
One product link belongs on this entire page, and this is it — the same omega-3 slot the bloodwork opened. The click is convenience, not proof: the protocol is graded by the next draw, not by the checkout. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Iron & Threads may earn through these Sports Research links.
Slot 01 follow-through
The only supplement link this audit allows.
A low OmegaCheck is the one measured signal on this page with a product attached. If omega-3 consistency is not a lever you intend to track and retest, skip the click — the fish counter covers the same job.
View on AmazonLow OmegaCheck lever
Omega-3 Fish Oil 1250
This is the omega-3 supplement slot in the loop after a low OmegaCheck result. The click is not the proof; the follow-up lab is.
Slot 02 · Hired by the evidence
Creatine: the honest exception.
If I claimed a lab value justified creatine, this page would be lying to you within three sections of promising not to. It earns its slot a different way — the deepest evidence base in the supplement literature, attached to training I demonstrably do. The strength system it reports to is documented here.
The honest part
No lab value hired creatine.
There is no creatine line in my draw that came back low, because that panel does not exist. This slot is held by the evidence base — and I would rather say that plainly than retrofit a biomarker justification that is not there.
The evidence
The best-studied supplement in the building.
The ISSN position stand calls creatine monohydrate one of the most effective and most studied supplements for high-intensity exercise performance and training adaptation, with a long safety record in healthy adults.
The dose
3–5 g of plain monohydrate, daily.
No loading phase required — a steady 3–5 g/day saturates stores in three to four weeks. No cycling, no blends, no proprietary matrix. The boring version is the evidence-backed version.
The after-40 case
It supports the work the labs care about.
Twenty-plus years of lifting is the metabolic infrastructure under everything else on this site, and the lifts held through the entire 12-week cardio block. Creatine supports that training stimulus. Kidney disease or relevant medications move this to clinician territory.
Slot 03 · Hired by the lipid plan
Psyllium: the least glamorous hire on the page.
No one has ever been excited about psyllium husk, which is roughly how you can tell it is not being sold to you. It is in the protocol because the prevention plan that came out of my draw runs on boring, repeatable levers — and fiber is the one that fits in a glass of water.
The claim, verbatim-careful
The FDA language is deliberately modest.
The authorized health claim (21 CFR 101.81) says soluble fiber from psyllium husk, inside a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce heart disease risk — at intakes around 7 g/day of soluble fiber. May. Inside a diet. That modesty is why it made the protocol.
The job
Hired by the lipid plan, not by a craving.
My draw left one open lipid question — LDL-P at 1279 — and the prevention plan that came out of it runs on boring levers: fish, fiber, Zone 2, sleep. Psyllium is the fiber lever made repeatable. It is barely a supplement; it is logistics.
The accountability
The trio answers to the same retest.
If the next draw moves LDL-P, the boring stack — food, fiber, training — gets the credit before anything exotic does. If it does not move, I escalate the question to a clinician, not to a bigger shopping cart.
The disqualified list
Everything that did not survive the interview.
This list is the actual product of the audit. The three hires above cost less per month than one tub of most of what is below — and unlike what is below, each one has a number waiting to grade it.
Multivitamin
No measured deficiency to shotgun.
The entire point of an itemized draw is that nothing has to be supplemented "just in case." Covering a hundred markers with one pill is how shelves fill up and questions stay unanswered.
Vitamin D
49 ng/mL. In range. Slot closed.
The supplement everyone assumes is mandatory after 40 is the cleanest example of the rule working: the lab closed this slot, I did not. If a future winter draw says otherwise, the slot reopens.
Iron
Ferritin 92. Do not freelance with iron.
Reassuring iron status, and the one aisle where supplementing without a measured deficiency carries real, well-documented downside. The clearest "no" on the panel.
Greens powders
No marker they would move that food does not.
There is no greens-powder line on a lab report. If something is actually missing, the draw names it specifically — and the specific fix is cheaper than the scoop.
Test boosters & fat burners
No signal, weak evidence, real downside.
Hormones are lab-and-clinician territory, not a checkout upsell. Nothing in my panel asked for this aisle, and the evidence base would not survive the hiring rule even if it had.
Peptides & the exotic shelf
Risk without a reading.
This site used to hold a draft brief that filed these under "risky interventions." The audit you are reading retired that brief — same verdict, more receipts: no measured signal, clinician-grade downside, no slot.
The performance review
Every slot on this page is provisional.
Baseline
The numbers above are on the record.
OmegaCheck 3.2%, LDL-P 1279, and the calm markers around them are the published starting line. A protocol you cannot grade is a belief system.
Levers
Three slots, all trackable.
Omega-3 consistency, daily creatine, psyllium inside the food plan — plus the training and sleep the rest of this site documents. Nothing in the protocol hides from measurement.
Verdict
The next draw does the firing.
Whatever moves, holds, or worsens goes back to a qualified clinician with the full picture. Slots that did not earn their keep close. That is the whole system.
Sources and next reads
The evidence each slot answers to.
ISSN position stand: creatine supplementation (2017)
The evidence review behind the creatine slot: safety context, 3–5 g/day dosing, exercise performance, and training adaptation in healthy adults.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: omega-3 fact sheet
Health-professional context for EPA/DHA: dietary sources, supplement forms, dosing, and safety boundaries.
Harris & von Schacky, Preventive Medicine (2004)
The omega-3 index proposal: blood EPA+DHA status as a cardiovascular risk marker, with ~8% framed as lower-risk and ~4% as higher-risk territory.
American Heart Association: fish and omega-3 guidance
The food-first layer the supplement slot sits behind: two servings of fish per week, particularly fatty fish.
21 CFR 101.81: psyllium soluble-fiber health claim
The FDA-authorized claim language for soluble fiber from psyllium husk and coronary heart disease risk — the careful wording the psyllium slot is built on.
The bloodwork behind this protocol
The full Function Health translation: LDL-P 1279, OmegaCheck 3.2%, the calm markers, and the retest plan this page reports to.
Strength after 40: where the creatine actually works
The training context that justifies the second slot — muscle as metabolic infrastructure, protein, and the ISSN evidence in practice.
Function Health review
The lab service that produced the draw: what I ordered, what it cost, and why a 100-marker panel changed more decisions than a decade of "eat clean."
FAQ
The supplement questions, answered dry.
What supplements should I take based on my bloodwork?
The ones a measured value justifies — and almost nothing else. The working sequence: get an itemized panel, list the values actually outside range, match each to a lever with real evidence (food first, supplement second), and book the retest that grades it. My 100-marker draw justified exactly one supplement on labs: omega-3, after a low OmegaCheck of 3.2%. That is a personal protocol and a framework, not a prescription — out-of-range labs belong in front of a clinician before they belong in a cart.
Do I need supplements if my labs are normal?
Mostly no — and that answer saves real money. In-range values close slots: my vitamin D came back at 49 ng/mL and ferritin at 92 ng/mL, so neither gets supplemented, and unmeasured iron supplementation in particular carries real downside. The honest exception is creatine monohydrate, which no lab orders but a deep evidence base supports for people doing serious strength work. If nothing is measured and nothing is trained, the supplement aisle has very little left to offer.
What omega-3 dose should I take for a low omega-3 index?
Trials that raise omega-3 status typically use roughly 1–2 g/day of combined EPA and DHA, with the literature framing an omega-3 index around 8% as the lower-risk zone versus roughly 4% as higher-risk. Response varies by individual, and blood fatty-acid status takes about three to four months to move because red blood cells turn over slowly — so the retest is the verdict, not the label. Prescription-strength dosing for high triglycerides is a separate, clinician-managed decision.
Is creatine worth taking after 40?
If you do resistance training, the evidence says it is one of the few supplements worth the shelf space. The ISSN position stand rates creatine monohydrate among the most effective and most studied supplements for high-intensity performance and training adaptation, with a strong safety record in healthy adults at 3–5 g/day. It supports the training, it does not replace it — and kidney disease or relevant medications make it a clinician conversation first.
Do I need to load or cycle creatine?
No to both. A loading phase (around 20 g/day for a week) saturates muscle stores faster, but a steady 3–5 g/day gets to the same place in three to four weeks, which is the version that survives real life. Cycling has no evidence base behind it. Plain creatine monohydrate, daily, with water — the boring protocol is the studied one.
Does psyllium actually lower cholesterol?
The FDA-authorized health claim is deliberately careful: soluble fiber from psyllium husk, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease — with the claim built around roughly 7 g/day of soluble fiber. It is an adjunct inside a dietary pattern, not a statin substitute. In my protocol it is the repeatable fiber lever inside a lipid plan whose open question is LDL-P at 1279, and the next draw grades it.
Is this medical advice?
No. This is a personal protocol built from my own lab results plus cited evidence, published as a worked example of the bloodwork-first framework. No clinician reviewed this page. Out-of-range labs, supplement decisions alongside medications or conditions, dosing beyond label ranges, and retest cadence belong with qualified healthcare professionals.
Important note
This page documents a personal supplement protocol built from my own lab results and the cited evidence. It is educational, not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, and no clinician reviewed it. Supplement decisions alongside medications, kidney or liver conditions, pregnancy, or out-of-range labs — and any dosing beyond label ranges — belong with qualified healthcare professionals. One outbound product link on this page is an affiliate link; it is labeled where it appears.