A consumer biomarker results export. 104 markers tested. 22 out of range. The "Next Steps" column is blank on every row. The document at the center of this post's argument.
← Back to Writing

Standard vs Optimal · Evidence Brief

Function health vs. Protocol: testing vs. action

Words by the Protocol Team · January 13, 2026

Book a call 7 min read
Figure 1 · Primary sourceA consumer biomarker results export. 104 markers tested. 22 out of range. The "Next Steps" column is blank on every row. The document at the center of this post's argument.

Function health vs. Protocol: testing vs. action

P
Protocol Team
Published January 13, 2026 · 7 min read

Hero image

Function health vs. Protocol: testing vs. action

Function Health made comprehensive biomarker panels affordable. $499 a year gets you 100+ markers twice a year, including ApoB, fasting insulin, vitamin D, and dozens of markers your annual physical skips.[1]

That’s useful. A lot of Protocol members first learned their ApoB was elevated because of a Function Health report. It’s what brought them to us.

This post isn’t about why Function Health is bad. It’s about where the testing-only model stops, and what happens after.

What function health does well

Credit where it’s earned. Function Health solved a real problem.

Before Function Health, getting a comprehensive panel meant finding a forward-thinking doctor (rare), ordering labs piecemeal direct-to-consumer (confusing), or paying $2,000+ for an executive physical. There was no good middle option.

Function Health built one. One order, one draw, 100+ markers, a dashboard, twice a year. The panel includes things most primary care doctors never test: ApoB, Lp(a), fasting insulin, HOMA-IR, a full thyroid panel, vitamin D, and omega-3 index.

None of that was trivial to get on a standard panel before. ApoB is the strongest lab-based predictor of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and Mendelian randomization data shows the relationship is causal.[2] Lp(a) is genetic and stable over your lifetime, about one in five people carries an elevated level and has no idea.[3] Before Function Health, finding out meant having the right doctor or the budget for concierge care. Now it’s a $499 membership.

Where the testing-only model stops

Function Health gives you numbers. It doesn’t give you a plan.

That’s not a knock on their execution, it’s a limit of the model. Function Health is a testing company. They draw your blood, run the panels, and show you results with reference ranges and AI-generated blurbs.

Here’s what a testing-only model can’t do:

No risk stratification. Your ApoB comes back at 115. Is that a problem? Yes, 115 is elevated. The harder question is how elevated, and relative to what. ApoB risk scales with cumulative exposure over decades, so a 35-year-old with ApoB 115 and a strong family history carries more lifetime risk than the same number at 65 with a clean family tree.[2] Your target depends on your Lp(a), your family history, your inflammatory markers, and your imaging. Function Health shows you the number with a color code. It can’t tell you whether 115 calls for diet alone, a low-dose statin, or combination therapy with ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor.

No imaging. Labs describe the particles. Imaging describes the wall. Your blood panel can look clean while coronary plaque is already present, and it can look alarming while your arteries are still pristine. A coronary artery calcium (CAC) score catches early calcified disease; a CT angiogram (CTA) adds soft plaque to the picture.[4] Function Health doesn’t order either. Without imaging, any risk estimate is incomplete.

No clinical interpretation. The dashboard explains what each biomarker is, one at a time. It doesn’t connect your ApoB to your Lp(a) to your ApoE genotype to your family history. Numbers without that context are data, not insight.

No action plan. You know your ApoB is elevated. Now what? Function Health can’t prescribe, design a dietary protocol matched to your genotype, or tell you whether to start with lifestyle or skip ahead to pharmacotherapy. No dietitian reviewing your nutrient panel. No coach following up.

No follow-through. You test in January. Results in February. Next test in July. Nobody adjusts in between. Knowing your fasting insulin is high doesn’t make it lower. Knowing your vitamin D is at 28 doesn’t fix it. Changing those numbers takes a plan, somebody to hold you to it, and a recheck to confirm it worked.

What Protocol does differently

Function Health is a blood panel with a dashboard. Protocol is the clinical team that reads the results, figures out what matters, and builds the plan.

Protocol’s Foundation Assessment runs most of the same markers, ApoB, Lp(a), fasting insulin, HOMA-IR, hsCRP, full thyroid, vitamin D, omega-3, and more, and adds ApoE genotype, DEXA body composition, and wearable setup on top.

The testing is the entry point. What happens after is the work.

Your Foundation Consultation is a sit-down with your clinician. They walk through every result in context, not one marker at a time, but the full picture: how your ApoB connects to your Lp(a), how that connects to your imaging, how all of it connects to your family history. If your ApoB is elevated, you get a risk tier (A through D) built on the 2023 AHA PREVENT equations, your Lp(a), and your imaging.[5] Tier A targets below 55 mg/dL; Tier D targets below 80. The full matrix is here.

Depending on your age and risk profile, your plan may include a CAC score or a coronary CT angiogram. CAC catches calcified plaque; CTA sees soft plaque too.[4] You can have a clean lipid panel and still have disease. You can have elevated ApoB and a zero CAC score. Both findings change what you do next.

Your Longevity Plan might include dietary changes matched to your ApoE genotype (E4 carriers respond differently to saturated fat than E3/E3 carriers[6]), an exercise prescription, supplements, pharmacotherapy, statin, ezetimibe, bempedoic acid, or a PCSK9 inhibitor, depending on how much LDL and ApoB reduction you need, or some combination. There’s a clinician who knows your file. And every intervention gets verified: if the numbers didn’t move, we adjust.

They work together for some people

Some Protocol members use both. They keep Function Health for the twice-yearly 100+ biomarker panel, which is broader and cheaper for ongoing monitoring, and use Protocol for interpretation, risk stratification, imaging orders, and follow-through.

It works. Function Health’s panel breadth is genuinely useful for tracking trends over time. Protocol adds the interpretation, imaging, and action layer that Function Health’s model was never built to include.

How to decide

Function Health is the right call if you want broad testing at a low price, you already have a clinician who can interpret the results, and you’re mostly interested in monitoring. A lot of people are in that situation and Function Health serves them well.

Protocol is the right call if you have results, from Function Health or anywhere else, and want to know what to do with them. Or if you want someone who will read your full risk picture, order the imaging that labs alone can’t replace, set specific targets, and come back to verify the plan worked.

The gap between “normal” and optimal doesn’t close once you see the numbers. It closes when somebody acts on what the tests show. Function Health gives you the tests. Protocol gives you the action.

References

  1. Function Health. Membership. https://www.functionhealth.com/membership (accessed January 2026).
  2. Ference BA, Ginsberg HN, Graham I, et al. Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical studies. A consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. European Heart Journal. 2017;38(32):2459-2472.
  3. Kronenberg F, Mora S, Stroes ESG, et al. Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: a European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement. European Heart Journal. 2022;43(39):3925-3946.
  4. Detrano R, Guerci AD, Carr JJ, et al. Coronary calcium as a predictor of coronary events in four racial or ethnic groups. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;358(13):1336-1345.
  5. Khan SS, Matsushita K, Sang Y, et al. Development and Validation of the American Heart Association’s PREVENT Equations. Circulation. 2024;149(6):430-449.
  6. Attia P. Outlive: The Science & Art of Longevity. Harmony, 2023. Chapter 7 covers ApoE genotype and dietary fat response.

Further reading

  • Peter Attia, MD. Outlive: The Science & Art of Longevity. Harmony, 2023. Chapters 6 through 8 cover ApoB, Lp(a), and imaging-based cardiovascular risk stratification.
  • Sniderman AD, Thanassoulis G, Glavinovic T, et al. Apolipoprotein B Particles and Cardiovascular Disease: A Narrative Review. JAMA Cardiology. 2019;4(12):1287-1295.

Book a discovery call

If you have Function Health results (or any recent bloodwork) and want to know what to do with them, bring them to a discovery call. Fifteen minutes, no commitment. We’ll tell you what stands out and whether Protocol’s approach fits your situation.

Book a Discovery Call →

Related Content

Cardiovascular Risk→