My Mid-Year Function Health Results: What Improved, What Did Not, and What I Am Watching Next

Six months after completing my first Function Health panel, I tested again to see what had changed.

The most attention-grabbing result was my estimated biological age.

In 2025, Function calculated it at 26.5. Based on my July 2026 results, it dropped to 24.1, making the estimate 12.5 years younger than my calendar age of 36.6.

I was excited to see it, but the number was not the most valuable part of retesting.

The real value was being able to compare my health over time.

One panel gave me a snapshot. The second gave me direction.

What a Biological-Age Estimate Can Tell Me

Calendar age tells us how long we have been alive. A biological-age calculation uses selected health markers to estimate how the body appears to be aging.

That does not make it a precise measurement of how old my body “really” is.

Biomarkers can fluctuate between tests, and I do not know whether a 2.4-year shift exceeds the expected variability of Function’s specific calculation. I cannot say that I literally reversed exactly 2.4 years of aging in six months.

I see the result as an interesting summary of the data, while giving more weight to the individual markers underneath it.

Those markers tell a more useful story.

My Standard Cholesterol Markers Improved

My standard cholesterol profile showed some of the clearest changes in this mid-year panel.

My current results included:

• Total cholesterol: 195 mg/dL

• LDL cholesterol: 99 mg/dL

• HDL cholesterol: 82 mg/dL

• Triglycerides: 53 mg/dL

• Total cholesterol-to-HDL ratio: 2.4

Function reported that my total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol had moved from out of range into the laboratory’s standard range, while my HDL remained high and my triglycerides remained low.

That was encouraging.

My original testing also showed elevated advanced lipid markers, including ApoB and LDL particle number. Those markers were not repeated in this mid-year panel, so I cannot say whether they improved alongside my standard cholesterol results.

That distinction matters.

The standard lipid panel gives me useful information about total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides. Advanced markers such as ApoB and LDL particle number can add another layer of cardiovascular context, but I need current results before drawing conclusions about whether that part of the picture changed.

So the most accurate takeaway is:

My standard cholesterol profile improved substantially, but I do not yet know whether my advanced lipid markers changed in the same direction.

Those are results I would like to repeat in next years full panel.

My Metabolic Markers Were Broadly Healthy

My fasting glucose was 87 mg/dL, insulin was 3.5 uIU/mL, and hemoglobin A1c was 5.5%. My liver, kidney, thyroid, blood-count, and electrolyte markers were also broadly within their reported ranges.

An A1c of 5.5% remains below the standard prediabetes threshold of 5.7%. The test reflects average blood glucose over approximately the previous three months, rather than only what happened in the days immediately before the blood draw.

Although my A1c remained normal, I was still interested in its direction.

I do not see one normal result as a reason to ignore a trend, but I also do not want to turn a small movement into a diagnosis or claim that one dietary choice caused it.

It is simply another marker I plan to watch.

Not Every Result Improved

My high-sensitivity C-reactive protein increased slightly from 0.9 to 1.1 mg/L, placing it just above Function’s preferred cutoff.

My red blood cell count, hemoglobin, and hematocrit also moved downward, although all remained within the laboratory ranges shown in the report.

These are not necessarily concerning changes on their own, but they are trends I want to continue monitoring.

It would be easy to focus only on the lower biological-age estimate and improved cholesterol. Retesting is more useful when I also pay attention to the results that stayed imperfect or moved in the opposite direction.

That is the point of tracking.

It is not about earning a perfect report. It is about seeing what may need another look.

Why Testing More Than Once Has Been Valuable for Me

A single health panel can identify a baseline, but it cannot show whether a result is improving, worsening, or fluctuating.

Function currently includes a mid-year retest and recommends repeating markers every three to six months to observe changes over time.

For me, six months feels like a useful rhythm.

It gives me enough time to make changes, live normally, and allow new habits to become consistent before looking at the data again.

I do not want to respond to every result by immediately changing ten things at once. That makes it almost impossible to understand what is helping.

Instead, I want to:

• establish a baseline

• notice meaningful trends

• choose a few focused changes

• observe how I feel

• retest when appropriate

• bring unresolved findings to a qualified healthcare professional

Function also states that its testing is not a substitute for medical care or individualized interpretation.

That is how I view it too.

The testing gives me information. It does not replace clinical judgment.

Can I Credit My Fascia and Movement Work?

My fascia, breathing, gait, and movement work continued to deepen throughout the months between these panels.

I became stronger, better able to manage pressure, and more capable of distributing load through my whole body. I also continued working on the areas where my body historically relied on compression, gripping, and disconnected muscular effort.

I believe that our ability to move, breathe, recover, and tolerate physical load can influence the larger health picture.

But these labs cannot prove that fascia work lowered my biological age or improved my cholesterol.

They cannot separate the possible effects of:

• movement

• food

• sleep

• stress

• supplements

• caffeine changes

• illness

• hormones

• normal biological variation

My movement and fascial work was the most consistent long-term change during this period, so it is fair for me to remain curious about its contribution.

It is not fair for me to present that curiosity as established causation.

What I can honestly say is this:

My movement and fascia work continued to progress while several important health markers moved in a favorable direction.

That is worth noticing without turning it into a universal claim.

My MTHFR Result Gave Me Information, Not an Immediate Protocol

MTHFR was not part of my standard mid-year panel. It was an additional test I chose to purchase because I wanted more genetic context.

Function includes more than 160 lab tests across its annual and mid-year testing, but members can also choose from additional tests or retest individual biomarkers for an added cost. Those options allow you to explore something more specific based on your health history, goals, symptoms, or conversations with a healthcare professional. MTHFR gene testing is currently listed as one of those available add-ons.

I chose to add MTHFR testing because I had encountered theories suggesting a possible correlation with traits such as tongue-tie. That made me curious enough to check, while understanding that a correlation does not prove that one caused the other.

My result came back positive for an MTHFR gene variant.

The report export did not identify which variant was detected or whether I carry one or two copies. My homocysteine was 9.3 µmol/L, and my methylmalonic acid was 185 nmol/L, both within the ranges shown in my report.

I am treating this as useful background information, not proof that I immediately need methylfolate or a specialized supplement protocol.

Knowing about the variant gives me another piece of context I can consider alongside future homocysteine, folate, vitamin B12, symptoms, family history, and guidance from a qualified healthcare professional.

That is also part of what I value about having access to additional testing. The goal is not to order every test simply because it is available. It is being able to choose a test when it feels relevant and then interpret the result within the larger picture of my health.

Not every finding requires immediate intervention.

Sometimes the first step is simply knowing what may be worth monitoring.

Why I Am Reconsidering My Diet

These labs also arrived during a period when I had started questioning the pro-metabolic framework I followed over the previous year.

That approach gave me important lessons.

It helped me take adequate fuel, protein, carbohydrates, and blood-sugar stability more seriously. It also helped move me away from the idea that eating less is automatically healthier.

But over time, I started noticing that parts of the approach no longer seemed to match what my body was asking for.

I was holding more body fat despite training consistently and becoming stronger. My meals had become narrower and contained less plant variety than I wanted. Dairy had also become a convenient protein source, even though I repeatedly noticed a sore throat, a heavier feeling through my throat, and more acne when I consumed it regularly.

At the same time, I know I cannot simply return to the way I ate during my alkaline vegan years.

My training now requires more protein than I consistently consumed then.

So I am not trying to decide which previous philosophy was completely right.

I am trying to keep what still feels useful from both.

From my vegan and alkaline years, I continue to value:

• vegetables and plant variety

• fiber

• micronutrients

• digestion

• foods that feel supportive rather than irritating

From pro-metabolic eating, I am keeping:

• adequate protein

• sufficient carbohydrates

• enough total food

• respect for recovery

• the understanding that under-fueling creates stress too

The balance I need now may be somewhere between the two.

Why These Results Cannot Tell Me Whether My New Diet Is Working

I had only been eating Thistle meals and stepping away from my previous dietary framework for about one month before this blood draw.

That is too short a timeline to credit Thistle for the overall results.

It is especially important because A1c reflects approximately three months of average blood glucose, meaning much of that marker represents the period before I made the dietary change.

These labs are not proof that my new diet improved my health.

They are also not proof that pro-metabolic eating caused every marker I still want to address.

They are a transition point.

Over the next six months, I plan to observe what happens as I continue:

• eating a wider variety of plants

• prioritizing fiber more consistently

• meeting my protein needs without relying heavily on dairy and less on animal protein

• continuing my fascia and movement work

• paying attention to energy, digestion, skin, recovery, and body composition

• retesting the markers that still deserve attention

That will not create a perfectly controlled experiment. Real life rarely does.

But it will give me another comparison.

Health Is Not a Fixed Philosophy

This may be the most important lesson I am taking from the entire process.

Something can be supportive during one season without remaining the best answer forever.

We often want to find the correct diet, training method, supplement routine, or wellness philosophy and stop questioning it. That certainty can feel comforting, but it can also make us ignore new information.

Health requires a willingness to keep listening.

That means listening to:

• symptoms

• energy

• digestion

• recovery

• performance

• body composition

• cravings

• bloodwork

• professional guidance

• the broader context of our lives

It does not mean reacting dramatically to every fluctuation.

It means staying curious enough to notice when several signals begin pointing in the same direction.

The goal is not to find one perfect formula and defend it forever.

The goal is to keep adjusting honestly enough to support the body we have now.

What I Am Taking From My Mid-Year Results

My estimated biological age changed from 26.5 to 24.1.

My total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol moved into the standard range, while my HDL remained high and my triglycerides remained low.

My glucose, insulin, liver, kidney, thyroid, and most blood markers were broadly healthy.

My hs-CRP increased slightly, and my A1c remains a marker I want to observe over time.

My original testing also showed elevated ApoB and LDL particle number. Because those advanced lipid markers were not repeated in this mid-year panel, I cannot yet say whether they improved alongside my standard cholesterol results.

The biological-age number is interesting, but the individual trends are more useful.

They show me what moved in a favorable direction, what I still want to monitor, and which markers need to be repeated before I can draw a conclusion.

That is why I plan to continue testing.

Not because one panel can tell me everything, but because repeated check-ins can help me see whether I am actually shifting the needle.

Explore Function Health

Function Health gave me access to a broad range of biomarkers and a mid-year retest that allowed me to compare my results over time. That longitudinal view has been more useful to me than treating one set of labs as a permanent statement about my health.

Through my referral link, you can receive $25 toward a Function Health membership.

This is a referral link. If you join through it and remain a member for 60 days, I may receive a $25 referral reward. I may also qualify for additional referral benefits. My experience is personal and is not medical advice. Testing may not be appropriate or necessary for everyone, and results should be considered alongside your health history, symptoms, and guidance from a qualified healthcare professional.

Next week, I will share what I noticed during my first 30 days of eating Thistle, why I am stepping away from parts of the pro-metabolic approach, and what I am looking for in the way I eat now.