Range for B12d : Just wondering if I am... - Pernicious Anaemi...

Pernicious Anaemia Society

32,672 members24,065 posts

Range for B12d

3rdNettydoon profile image
7 Replies

Just wondering if I am misunderstanding the use of the the range for B12.My local health centre has a set range of 150 - 1000. 0.

How does this work?

If someone's level is, say, 155, is this believed to mean that this person is considered to be as well, in B12 terms, as another person who's B12 level is 999?

Simplistic, but I'm genuinely wondering about this.

Written by
3rdNettydoon profile image
3rdNettydoon
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Read more about...
7 Replies
jade_s profile image
jade_s

Simplistically, yes, and no, it doesn't work 😂

The typical way they(*) make ranges is to test a number of healthy people, maybe 200, 500, or a 1000, and see what the distribution is (how many people are at a certain level). They do screen out people with health issues, so it really is supposed to be "healthy" people.

Then they look at that distribution, drop the values/people at either extreme (2.5% of them at either end to be precise), and everything that remains is considered the "normal range."

[This is a bit simplified because they can do some data transformations first if the values are not gaussian distributed, but this is the general idea]

(*) They = The manufacturer of the testing machine/setup will do this, but the blood testing labs themselves can also set their own ranges too - using the same procedure as above - that's why you'll see so many similar but different B12 ranges in the UK.

Here is some info: testing.com/articles/labora...

The trick here is that this is a POPULATION normal range, not YOUR normal range. If we could all have baseline blood tests performed when we're in our early 20s, then we might have a better idea what is actually "normal" for us. This might be more meaningful for autoimmune/other diseases that tend to hit us when we're older... Anyway, "normal" is not "optimal".

FlipperTD will I'm sure give better input if he sees this post - being someone that comes from a lab and all :)

Nackapan profile image
Nackapan in reply tojade_s

I agree if we were tested when well and you d we'd have our personal baseline of b12 level. My first one wax at 57 . Ridiculous when over 50 deemed in at 'at risk 'group.

Not tested at 50+ health check ??

Why???

jade_s profile image
jade_s in reply toNackapan

Why indeed 😥

mickeymouse42 profile image
mickeymouse42 in reply tojade_s

The screening of the population is the key issue. There's no way that the NHS can do effective screening as there's no central patient records system. B12 ranges will include people who take drugs (e.g. PPI) or have conditions (typically gut conditions or undiagnosed PA)that distort the scale at the bottom of the range, while at the top of the range there might be people who have B12 injections but are not diagnosed with PA because IFAB is inaccurate.

Given this problem the word "normal" should be used cautiously; if someone has low B12 (or Vit D) it should be investigated as low vitamins are typically a sign of ill health.

Testing every person routinely every few years would make sense. The problem is that every test requires a £40 GP appointment to get the test authorised. Until we get routine testing determined by chatGPT where the £40 cost is eliminated, this coupled with statistical misuse of normal distribution will remain a huge problem.

Mixteca profile image
Mixteca in reply tojade_s

I would also add to jades excellent points that this is geared towards big Pharma also and keeping the range low is desired -they treat fewer people and it's 'cheaper' for them in the short term. Let's not go into the consequences of that policy and the financial burden placed elsewhere as people get ill. Not cheaper at all in fact!

3rdNettydoon profile image
3rdNettydoon

Thank you for this. It's not crystal clear yet but it gives me an idea of the how and why. Very interesting tho.

Cornwaller profile image
Cornwaller

I think your sceptical understanding / questioning is quite right. 155 is low and should result in a careful exploration of signs and symptoms to consider whether deficiency is present whereas 990 , assuming no supplements are being taken, indicates that no deficiency is present. Ranges are useful if interpreted with nuance.

Not what you're looking for?

You may also like...

Below range b12 - advice needed

Hello all, I'm posting on behalf of my brother who had some private blood tests done to look at...
foxrabbit profile image

Tests for B12d?

Are there any reliable tests available to prove (or otherwise) that someone is B12 deficient? In...
Beattie-75 profile image

B12d, periods & clomid

Just wondering if anyone has experienced any of the following and can maybe help? I have b12...

Why no consistency when diagnosing B12D

Back in 2004 I tested low for B12 and had 6 loading doses, no follow up treatment. Then in 2018...
Sailing63 profile image

RDW Range B12

Another GP described, As my RDW is 13.1 Range 11-14.50 you would have noticed a rise in the...
Advice1 profile image

Moderation team

See all
Gambit62 profile image
Gambit62Administrator
Foggyme profile image
FoggymeAdministrator
taka profile image
takaAdministrator

Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.

Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.