Iron: an underrated factor in aging

#366

Recent lab results

Ferritin: 40
Iron: 77 (38-169)
TIBC: 412 (250-450)
UIBC: 335 (111-345)
Sat %: 19 (15-55)

For whatever reason, my body seems to be depleting iron slowly. I began a course of 100mg iron bisglycinate daily to improve my iron stores just a smidge to optimize them.

I absolutely do not believe in having an iron deficiency being a good thing like some people have suggested in here. I am not exactly iron deficient, but I am close. Improving the numbers slightly is in my best interest.

3 Likes
#367

OK. But Iā€™m having a slightly anemic reaction to this study (ahem! apologies, couldnā€™t resist). To me the most relevant quote from the study was this:

ā€œAnemia was defined according to World Health Organization criteria.ā€

And what is that? Itā€™s hemoglobin below 12.0 g/dL for women and 13.0 for men.

If someone has such numbers, this is notable. Hardly anyone does (on this list).

Meanwhile, the relationship between iron status and anemia is a huuuuuge can of worms, as seen in this thread. Many of us have what might be seen as below range iron levels, but absolutely donā€™t have anemia according to WHO criteria.

As an example my numbers from my most recent LabCorp test:

TIBC - 405 ug/dL (ref. 250-450)

UIBC - 330 ug/dL (ref. 111-343)

Iron - 75 ug/dL (ref. 38-169)

Iron Saturation - 19% (ref. 15-55)

Ferritin - 20 ng/mL (ref. 30-400) flagged as Low by LabCorp.

And in the same test, my hemoglobin was 15.4 g/dL (ref. 13.0-17.7).

So, I certainly seem to be on the low side of iron status, but pretty robust hemoglobin number far from WHO anemia. As Iā€™ve reported I donā€™t experience any of the typical anemia symptoms and my energy levels are fine.

How useful is this connection (anemia/AD) to most of those of us on this list who struggle with their iron status? I donā€™t know.

Also, if you dig into this study, it becomes ever more equivocal, with a variety of factors (BMI included, nutrition status etc.) and after adjustments barely on the border of significance. Like I said: anemic.

The signal may be there, but we need much stronger results, especially those which might allow us to define optimal iron biomarkers (which was not even the focus of this study).

#368

17767540383146693823285780319916
17767540383146693823285780319916810Ɨ300 47.9 KB

17767540678577211851795843268884
17767540678577211851795843268884810Ɨ812 120 KB

Even though they used a low cut off to define anemia, higher hemoglobin might still be better for those AD biomarkers. Itā€™s a pity they didnā€™t report ferritin and other iron biomarkers.

As you said, itā€™s a big can of wormsā€¦

2 Likes
#369

There is an interesting question as to how the body prioritises Iron usage when iron stores are low. We have identified two key requirements - Haemoglobin and Dopamine although Iron is needed for other reasons. Hb is easy to measure. Neurologists say ferritin should be 70 for Dopamine adequacy. I donā€™t know what the studies are on this.

There are many other uses for Iron, but we also know higher iron levels (possibly over ferritin 100 without inflammation) are detrimental.

#370

Very similar to my latest numbers. Your ferritin is slightly lower though.

#371

ā€œA study in Sweden found that older people with anemia (i.e., hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL in women and 13 g/dL in men) were 66% more likely to develop Alzheimerā€™s disease and have higher levels of biomarkers for Alzheimerā€™s than those who were not anemic (Valletta, JAMA 2026). However, this association does not prove cause-and-effect and there appeared to be little or no additional benefit to having much higher than adequate hemoglobin levels.ā€

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2847873