017: Vitals - I Paid Out of Pocket for 100+ Biomarkers My Physical Never Orders. One Result Broke My Model.

Note: This post contains affiliate links to some of the products I use in the Lab. If you make a purchase through these links, I may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. I only highlight products that are a core part of my actual routine.

I Can Optimize Every Daily Input. But Biology Still Owns the Bottom Line.

I paid out of pocket for the blood work most annual physicals never order. A full panel. Over a hundred biomarkers. Not the standard "you're fine" executive summary — this was the deep-dive audit.

I went into the lab expecting confirmation. Nearly 4,000 days of tracked macros. Workouts built around lifting heavy. DEXA scans that look like progress. A year of above-average sleep scores on my Oura ring. I thought the blood would mostly agree.

But one marker broke the model. An autoimmune screen came back positive.

This is not a diagnosis, and this particular result turns out to be far more common in healthy women than I knew. But it is a flag. And none of my daily tools could see it. Not the ring. Not the scale. Not the workout log.

I realized: I can optimize every daily input. But biology still owns the bottom line.

Today I'm sharing those baseline labs — the result that genuinely surprised me, the numbers that look alarming only because I lift, and the quiet proof that the boring basics are working.

The Unfair Advantage: The Season 2 Finale

This is the finale of Season 2 — The Unfair Advantage. Six experiments. N-of-1 data. No guru claims — just what showed up when I treated my biology like an asset worth auditing.

If you've been here for the glucose curves, the DEXA scan, and the smart ring data, this is where the upstream numbers sit.

Last week, nearly 600 nights of ring data showed me something uncomfortable: my sleep score could look perfectly healthy while my body paid the invoice somewhere else entirely. That ring is a brilliant daily dashboard. But it cannot run a root cause analysis on why my recovery drifts. Because every number on a wearable is downstream of what's moving in the bloodstream.

So this week, we go upstream. My wearable tracks the daily outputs. My blood work audits the supply chain.

Why does this matter? As executives — whether that's in an office, at home, or both — we are often burning the candle at both ends. And we find ourselves exhausted. We get our bloodwork done, searching for an answer, and we hear: "your labs are fine." I've come to read "fine" as a compliance metric. It means I'm not sick yet. But it is not a performance strategy.

If I refuse to settle for "fine" in business, why would I accept it in my biology?

I'm not a physician. I'm a 44-year-old executive and a mom, trying to bring the same intensity to my biology that I bring to the boardroom. I decided the standard panel wasn't comprehensive enough for me to make thoughtful, data-driven decisions — so I paid out of pocket for a direct-to-consumer longevity panel with over a hundred markers that my general practitioner doesn't routinely order.

Here's the topline. Three key takeaways: the result that genuinely surprised me, the numbers that look "off" without context, and the receipts that the boring basics are working — plus the one marker sitting a single step away from optimal.

Takeaway 1: The Result That Stopped Me

Here's the result that stopped me — first in plain English, then in the exact lab language.

My blood was screened for a class of immune activity that most annual physicals never run. That screen came back positive. Not a diagnosis of an autoimmune disease. A biological yellow flag — my immune system showing activity that a wider panel can catch, and a standard "you're fine" panel isn't looking for.

Now the technical language. On the report it reads: ANA — anti-nuclear antibodies — screen, positive. Titer, one-to-eighty. On this lab's scale, that's the low-antibody band.

And here's the context I had to go find myself, which is why I'm handing it to you up front: a positive result at this dilution shows up in a meaningful share — roughly 13% according to a comparative study — of perfectly healthy people. It's more common in women, and more common with age. A low-titer positive is the start of a conversation, not the end of one.

The report also showed two distinct cellular patterns — enough to treat this baseline as an open audit item instead of a victory lap.

In business, when an audit flags an anomaly, we immediately check the usual suspects. In biology, those suspects are things like rheumatoid arthritis or thyroid disease. My tests for those came back completely clear. I didn't walk out of the clinic with a tidy diagnosis or a neat treatment protocol. I walked out with a biological anomaly on my watchlist — something to document, track, and monitor. Not overreact to.

Let's come back to "why does this matter?" There's a real conversation happening right now under terms like "autoimmune perimenopause" — the idea that the forties can be a more inflammatory season, and that for some women the immune system gets louder while hormones are already renegotiating the biological portfolio. Not everyone. Not necessarily you. It's a data point to be aware of, not a biological inevitability.

But for an execYOUtive™ who tracks everything diligently, a lab finding like this can feel like a contradiction. It's easy to look at the effort we're putting in and wonder: how did my lifestyle fail? I had to reframe how I read my own data.

Optimization and a red flag can share the same balance sheet. That's not failure. That's risk detection.

My DEXA scans show solid body recomposition. My daily sleep scores looked above average right through my hardest professional year. But optimizing those daily performance metrics was never going to catch an upstream immune anomaly. They're simply the wrong tools for that job.

Different tools audit different departments. My smart ring asks: how is our daily operational recovery? My DEXA scan asks: what is the physical composition of our assets? This biomarker asks: is the immune system quietly running operations off the books?

I've learned that I can't run a biological enterprise off a single dashboard.

When my lab results landed in my inbox, I didn't spiral. But I didn't shrug it off, either. I logged it as a strategic update to myself: positive screen, low range, no instant label, revisit with a clinician, lock this in as the baseline for the next draw. That is the posture I want to hold. Visibility without drama. Concern without catastrophe.

If you've ever been told your labs are "normal" and still felt like something wasn't adding up — this is exactly why I found a deeper audit worth the investment. We don't run these panels to manufacture fear. We run them to retire the guesswork.

Takeaway 2: The Numbers That Look Wrong Until You Read Them Next to a Squat Rack

This one is less plot twist, more "read-the-footnote." A few lines on this panel look concerning if you only speak Lab. They look completely predictable if you also speak Lifter.

Group one — the kidney-context markers. Three markers on my panel sit right at the top of the normal range. Two of the three are byproducts of muscle and protein — which is to say, byproducts of exactly what I do on purpose. I lift heavy, and I hit 150 grams of protein a day. To a standard lab, high-normal on those reads as a question. To an executive who trains for strength and eats to support it, it's the cost of doing business. None of that made me blink.

Group two — leptin. Leptin is the hormone that tells your body it has enough energy on board — that you aren't starving. Mine came in at 2.0. For adult lean subjects, this lab's reference range starts at 4.7. My result was less than half the floor.

I want to be consistent here, because I just told you the kidney markers were predictable — and honestly, so is this one. Leptin tracks closely with body fat, which recent DEXA scans show in the low percentile group. A low reading is roughly what the physiology would predict. What made me sit up wasn't that it was low. It's how far under the floor it landed — and that nearly the entire public conversation about leptin is about it being too high. My daily nutrition is structured, consistent, and built to fuel my activity. And still, that number came in well below the standard lean-female range. I'm not turning this into a self-diagnosis. I'm filing it under: "context is everything."

A metric without context is a liability.

The same rule applies to the kidney panel. A rushed glance at those numbers triggers a panic about kidney function. A full brief adds the nuances regarding high protein intake and normal muscle turnover. Standard lab reference ranges simply aren't built as a custom dashboard for strength-training executives.

So my biggest takeaway wasn't to ignore the labs. It was that I have to bring my lifestyle to the lab slip, the same way I bring context to a board presentation. So I drafted an executive summary for my next appointment: daily activity baseline, nutrition targets, and lean mass data. Completely different conversations open up when I walk in with the context clearly defined.

A caveat. The "athlete artifact" is the idea that standard lab reference ranges — built using data from the general population — may indicate disease in a sedentary person, but may actually be a normal, temporary response for those who train heavy. It's a useful hypothesis. But it's not a free pass. Persistent flags still need an audit. That's exactly why re-testing matters — to see which of these markers hold, which move, and which were just noise.

Takeaway 3: The Receipts That the Boring Basics Are Working

Not every line on this report was a cliffhanger. Some of it was proof of the boring basics at work. High "good" cholesterol. Low triglycerides. A safer-looking LDL particle pattern. And one nutrition-status marker that is so close to being a green light.

Here's the printout.

High-density lipoprotein — HDL — 81. For women, the "good enough" conversation often starts around 50. Eighty-one is not "fine." That's a real asset on a lipid panel.

Triglycerides — 56. Under 150 is the usual reference line. Fifty-six is the kind of number that usually only shows up when consistency has been king for a long time.

LDL pattern A — larger, buoyant particles. Optimal. A favorable profile as it relates to heart disease. None of that is triage. That's proof of work.

Then the one that is almost a green light. Omega-3 index — 5.4%. This lab's optimal band starts at 5.5. I am sitting one small step under the line. The risk band: moderate, not high, but also not optimal.

That is the most executive finding on the whole PDF. Not a crisis. Not a victory lap. A single light that isn't fully green yet — the kind of gap I can actually manage before the next draw.

Executives don't just manage crises. We manage the margins.

If brilliance is just the boring basics executed consistently, this panel is what that buys me on HDL and triglycerides — and what it still owes me on omega status. September is the next draw. That's when we get the first real before-and-after on the comprehensive panel.

The Bottom Line: A Complete Reporting Structure

The ring is the daily dashboard. The DEXA is the balance sheet. The blood work is the independent audit.

This season was me refusing to fly blind. A positive immune flag doesn't mean my protocol failed. Kidney markers at the ceiling don't mean my kidneys are collapsing. And an HDL of 81 doesn't mean I get to coast. It simply means the business of my health finally has a complete reporting structure.

And if you're in the perimenopause window — navigating a high-output career and a high-output home — the unfair advantage is not grinding harder. It's building the dashboard before a crisis forces an emergency meeting.

Boring + Consistency = Results.

Two Questions You Might Be Asking

"If my annual physical is fine, why do an independent lab audit?"

Because standard labs test for pathology. They check whether the building is actively on fire. I want to know if the wiring is frayed before I smell smoke. At 44, coming off the hardest professional year of my career, "not sick" is simply not a high enough benchmark. If we want to drive high output — in the boardroom, in the gym, and at home — we need a forensic look at the data, not a passing grade.

"How do I get my doctor to actually engage with this without rolling their eyes?"

By changing how we facilitate the conversation. I don't walk into an appointment asking a physician to validate a YouTube video (they don't seem to care for that), and I don't treat them like a vending machine for lab slips. I bring a business case, and I arrive ready to negotiate. When I sit down with my physician, I share the operational context, and I treat them like a highly specialized consultant on my advisory board. If I want strategic advice, I've learned I have to hand them a brief. They bring the medical expertise. I bring the daily data. That's how I turn a routine fifteen-minute appointment into an actual strategy session.

Your Next Move

Don't try to overhaul your entire lab strategy tomorrow. Be kind to yourself. Pick one.

If you've only ever had a standard "you're fine" panel and something still hasn't added up, the move is to learn what a more comprehensive audit would actually cover — and decide whether that visibility is worth the investment for you.

If you have lab results that flagged high but you train hard or eat high-protein, the move is to bring your context to the conversation. Write down your activity baseline, your nutrition targets, and your body composition before your next appointment.

If you have a physician you'd like to engage more deeply, the move is to arrive with a brief, not a demand. Hand them the daily data. Let them bring the medical expertise.

If you want to audit your own biology without ordering a hundred biomarkers, the free one-page ASSETS Audit is linked below. Six pillars, one page — Activity, Strength, Sleep, Equilibrium, Total Energy, and Sustenance. Use it to find the one green-light move you can make in the next 24 hours.

Because you can't lead from empty.

When you're optimized, everyone wins.

• Grab the free ASSETS Audit

• Watch the full video: "Your Annual Physical Might Be Lying to You | Here's Why”

• Coming next — Season 3: The Company of One. Season 1 built the ASSETS framework — the balance sheet for the execYOUtive™. Season 2 put my real numbers under the microscope. Season 3 is how I run myself with the same standards we use to lead teams: rocks, essentialism, deep work, priority as capital allocation. We've optimized the machine. Next, we operationalize that capacity. audit.

Alysia Bell is the founder of All Green Lights CEO. She's tracked her nutrition for ~4,000 consecutive days, wears an OURA ring 24/7, and is currently concluding Season 2 of the show — The Unfair Advantage — a series of N-of-1 biohacking experiments including continuous glucose monitor data.

Topics referenced in this episode: comprehensive direct-to-consumer biomarker panels; ANA (anti-nuclear antibody) screening, titer, and low-titer positives in healthy populations; the "autoimmune perimenopause" conversation; kidney-context markers and muscle/protein turnover; leptin and its relationship to body fat; HDL, triglycerides, and LDL particle pattern; the omega-3 index; and the "athlete artifact" hypothesis regarding standard lab reference ranges.

The N-of-1 Disclaimer:

I am an executive and a mom, not a doctor or medical professional of any sort. The content shared here — including biometric data, protocols, and experiments — is for informational and experimental purposes only. It is a documentation of my personal journey and should not be taken as medical advice. If you have diabetes, prediabetes, or any other metabolic condition, please work with your healthcare provider before making dietary changes or interpreting your own glucose data. Always consult with a qualified healthcare professional before making changes to your health, diet, or supplement routine.