hi this is all good info to have.
first, take a deep breath. normal ranges by definition cover 95% of the population statistically.
if 95% of the population were also in perfect health, then it could make sense to equate normal to healthy, but it's not true.
in many cases you find ms patients with low normal levels of beneficial essential nutrients, while healthy controls have high normal levels for the same nutrients.
re results:
zinc 97 ( ref.range 70-150)
cu 125 (80-155)
ferritin 37 (13-150)
zinc is low normal, characteristic for ms.
copper:zinc ratio is high, a problem in many chronic illnesses.
the good news, you can safely boost zinc-rich foods and consider supplemental zinc, without worrying about depleting copper too far. in fact it would be great if adding zinc pulled that copper level down a bit.
with copper and zinc, the ratio is more important than the absolute serum values.
a healthy copper-zinc ratio in serum ranges from 0.7-1.0.
yours is 125/97=1.3
if you push the zinc up to 120 and achieving that pulls the copper down to 110, your bloodwork would be more consistent with healthy controls and less consistent with chronic illness.
ferritin is on the low side, it's my understanding that 80-90 is lowest risk.
adding more iron rich foods will help you boost that level without affecting other minerals.
if you take a ferritin supplement, it will interact with zinc. when you push iron up via a supplement, zinc will come down and vice versa. if you get some of each eg every other day, both will still come up but more slowly. safer than boosting one at the expense of the other.
d3 and magnesium
25-OH Vit D 199 (normal 20-50 ng/ml)
mg-magnesium 2.1 ( 1.5-2.6)
d3 is above, and mag is below where you want these, ideally.
the debate re ranges for d3 continues.
sample d3 cutoffs (i do not have time today to reference all of this):
<12.5 ng/mL or.............30 nmol/l - deficient (IOM, 2016)
12.5 - 20ng/ml or ......30-50 nmol/l - insufficient
20 ng/ml or ...............>50 nmol/l - adequate
36-40 ng/ml or ........90-100 nmol/l - protective for a variety of health outcomes
40-50 ng/ml or .....>100-125 nmol/l - reduced risk/protective re ms
40-60 ng/ml or .......100-150 nmol/l - recommended (endocrine society, 2011)
>60 ng/ml or .............>150 nmol/l - increased risk for some undesirable health outcomes
100 ng/ml or .............>250 nmol/l - increased risk for more undesirable health outcomes
related
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Vitam ... fessional/
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/vit ... 6121910893
i haven't yet heard any good specific arguments for very high d3 levels other than 'it's safe' .
many arguments for the safety of higher levels are not yet looking at all factors worthy of measurement, from both personal and an environmental perspectives.
per the above, your d3 level is well above desirable for ms in particular and into a range which can represent higher risk for some health problems.
i personally am content with serum d3 levels in the 40-60 range as long as everything else is in good shape too.
your serum
magnesium level is well down into the suboptimal section of the normal range, within which symptoms of mag deficit are to be expected.
pushing d3 higher at magnesium's expense is not a great idea.
magnesium
please consider 2.3 an absolute lower cutoff to protect from syptoms of mag deficit. 2.3-2.7 is a beneficial serum mag range.
it is possible to have much lower background magnesium levels than are represented in serum, so treat low normal serum mag as a stark warning sign.
ms patients have been documented with simultaneously 'normal' serum levels and deficient tissue magnesium.
vitamin b12 would be safer well below 1000 pg/ml. the relevant research is limited on this point, and i don't have the figure at my fingertips, but increased risk from high b12 starts to appear in the high hundreds, no higher than 950 if memory serves.
the high
urea number, prompts me to ask if you have ever had serum ammonia or serum uric acid tested.
i ask because i personally had low uric acid, consistent with typical ms patients in research, which resolved only after i corrected deficient zinc (level at first ever zinc test was 56).
i never had ammonia or urea tested but the interaction in my system between uric acid and zinc, suggest to me that my ammonia (and urea) levels would have been high to extremely high.
to my thinking these different aspects help explain the severe cognitive issues i had leading up to my first zinc test. glad that's over now!
hope all of the above makes sense
