When testing just becomes more noise.

Anyone who listens to Andrew Huberman - which admittedly I do from time to time, as he is great at communicating science to the masses - has sat through the sponsored bit where blood tests for heavy metals are framed as a detox compass. To be frank: This sponsored bit is pretty impressive confidence for inaccurate science. And it hurts my soul.

As someone who routinely screens and treats clients for environmental toxins for over a decade, this is just not right.

Blood heavy metals reflect what you ate yesterday. Sushi today, panic tomorrow - according to blood test. Skip fish for a few days, miracle recovery - also according to blood test. That’s simply temporary exposure and has nothing to do with toxic body burden.

Using this to sell testing is like checking your fuel gauge to diagnose engine wear. It’s just not hot. And when big platforms normalize this, the whole field looks unserious.

Health practitioners come from very different training backgrounds, and that actually matters. The tricky part is that listeners now have to do their own filtering. Expertise doesn’t automatically carry over into every topic, and a big platform doesn’t equal broad clinical training. So it’s worth pausing to check whether someone’s background really matches what they’re advising on if you want to make sure your latest hack actually is a hack indeed.

Testing without proper interpretation is just more noise at best - and wrong guidance at worst.

When choosing a health checkup or a practitioner who offers testing, you’ll want to look into, if they actually have any relevant background for interpreting the tests they offer. Otherwise it’s just waste of money.