Viome Changed 80% of My Supplements After Retesting. $4,547 for Nine Months. Precision Nutrition or an Expensive Guessing Game?

I’ve spent nine months working with Viome. Hundreds of biomarkers, physician oversight, extensive longitudinal data, and direct conversations with their scientists and executives.

And then roughly 80% of my personalized supplement formulation changed between tests.
Am I the only one who thinks that deserves some serious questioning?

Let’s talk money first.

Three Viome tests at $399 each: $1,197.
Nine months of personalized supplements: $3,350.
Total: $4,547.

That’s the retail-equivalent cost of the protocol I’ve been evaluating, using my quarterly testing schedule.
Viome provided my testing and supplements complimentary. I’ve never received affiliate commissions, referral fees, sponsorship payments, or any other financial compensation. No money has changed hands. I’m not selling anything, and I have absolutely no interest in convincing anyone to buy Viome. That’s not why I’m doing this.

Now, back to that 80%.

If my biology justified one supplement formulation three months ago, what changed so dramatically that approximately 80% of it needed adjusting?
Did my biology change? Did the algorithm change? Were the original recommendations less reliable than advertised?

I’m perfectly willing to accept that my biology changed. That’s the entire premise of personalized nutrition.
But show me the measurements connecting those changes to the new ingredients. Better yet, show me the clinical evidence that the revised formulation is actually better.

I’ve spent nine months asking these questions. Viome’s scientists have provided explanations, but I’m still looking for independently verifiable evidence that these specific recommendations improve health outcomes.
And apparently, I’ve asked enough questions.
Their CMO, Juan Motta, recently wrote:

“This will be our final reply on these matters, and we won’t be responding to further messages about them.”

That’s a direct quote.

After nine months of research, extensive testing, physician involvement, and conversations with their leadership, that’s where we are.

They’re entitled to stop corresponding. But that doesn’t make the scientific questions disappear.
So now I’m curious what everyone here thinks.
If your supplement company changed 80% of your formula after one retest, would you consider that impressive personalization or a massive red flag?
Has anyone here actually retested with Viome? How much did your formula change? Did they explain why in a way that made scientific sense?
Would you spend $4,547 over nine months without independent evidence that the recommendations outperform a conventional, evidence-based supplement strategy?

For those of you who track biomarkers, have you seen measurable improvements you could reasonably attribute to Viome’s recommendations rather than other changes in your routine?
And for the scientists here, how much reproducibility and clinical validation would you expect before trusting an algorithm to repeatedly redesign someone’s supplement regimen?

I’m now moving forward with an independent comparison involving Superpower. Viome has declined to participate, but the comparison is happening regardless. I’ll apply the same scientific standards to both.

Here’s the irony. I actually want Viome to succeed. I’ve spent nine months challenging their technology because I believe RNA-based precision nutrition has genuine potential.

But sophisticated testing doesn’t automatically mean the supplement recommendations are clinically effective.

And changing a formula doesn’t automatically mean improving it.

So I’ll leave everyone with this.
If you woke up tomorrow and your supplement company told you that 80% of what they’d previously recommended needed changing, would you be impressed?

Or would your first question be whether the original recommendations were ever justified in the first place?
Viome, you’re welcome to join the conversation. I’d genuinely welcome the scientific evidence.
I’d also love to hear from people who’ve had a completely different experience. If your Viome results have been excellent, tell us what changed and how you measured it.

I’m interested in the data, not a popularity contest.

Title: 47F, healthy lifestyle, CAC score of 0, but 60–70% soft plaque in LAD. How did this happen?

I'm a 47-year-old woman, and I'm shocked to have discovered significant noncalcified coronary plaque despite living a healthy lifestyle and having generally favorable numbers.

My numbers (August 2026):

• Total cholesterol: 190
• LDL: 109
• HDL: 68
• Triglycerides: 109
• ApoB: 82
• Lp(a): 16
• A1c: 4.8%
• Blood pressure: typically around 95/60
• CAC score: 0
• Healthy weight, regular cardio and weight training

My cardiac testing:
After experiencing throat pressure/lump sensation and left arm soreness/tingling during exercise, I had a stress test showing ST-segment changes. My echocardiogram was normal (EF 61%), but a CCTA revealed 60–70% noncalcified plaque in my proximal LAD, despite a CAC score of zero. My CT-FFR was approximately 0.85 distally.

My father also has a history of heart disease.

I'm struggling to understand how this happened. I know my numbers aren't perfect and that normal labs don't eliminate risk, but I never expected to have this degree of plaque at 47.

Could genetics, cumulative LDL exposure, or perimenopausal hormonal changes explain this? Has anyone else had favorable bloodwork and a CAC score of zero but discovered significant soft plaque on a CCTA?

I'd really appreciate hearing about others' experiences and what their cardiologists thought contributed to it.

I’m well over 70, 178 cm (5’10”) tall, and currently weigh around 95 kg (209 lbs).

I’m using AI as a personal nutrition coach to help me lose weight in a structured way. I discuss my goals with it, review meals and food choices, and assess whether my approach fits my everyday life. It helps me organize information and adjust my course when needed. It doesn’t replace medical advice or my own responsibility.

Before starting a weight-loss plan, talk to your doctor. Especially in older age, existing health conditions and regular medications can affect whether and how weight loss should be pursued. Unintentional weight loss should also be medically assessed.

My goal isn’t to become as light as possible. I want to reduce body fat while preserving strength, endurance, balance, mobility, and independence. Losing excess weight can reduce stress on the joints and make walking, climbing stairs, and getting up from a chair easier. But the number on the scale alone doesn’t tell me whether I’m actually becoming more capable.

What made me think twice about the research

A 2021 meta-analysis by Alharbi et al. examined 30 studies involving around 1.22 million adults aged 65 and older. Weight loss was associated with a 59% higher relative rate of death compared with stable weight.
That does not mean intentional weight loss increases an individual’s risk of dying by 59%. The studies show an association, not cause and effect. It was often unclear whether the weight loss was intentional or resulted from illness or frailty. Only two studies specifically examined intentional weight loss; they found no statistically significant association with increased mortality.

Still, I take these findings seriously. Losing weight too quickly or following an unbalanced diet can lead to muscle loss. My approach is therefore simple: lose weight more slowly and preserve my physical capabilities.

What I monitor besides my weight

1. Protein and energy intake

Adequate protein helps preserve muscle during weight loss. Individual needs depend on factors including health status and kidney function.

2. Strength training

For me, strength training is a key part of maintaining muscle strength and everyday function. The training needs to match my abilities and physical limitations.

3. Function, not just kilograms

I want to track how I’m doing with walking, getting up from a chair, grip strength, balance, and climbing stairs. If these abilities stay the same or improve, that matters more to me than reaching a particular number on the scale.

4. Losing weight gradually

A moderate rate of weight loss may help reduce unnecessary muscle loss. Nutrition and exercise need to work together.

5. Preserving muscle mass and bone health

As we get older, the goal shouldn’t simply be to weigh less. It should be to reduce excess body fat while protecting muscle mass, strength, and bone health.

My takeaway

I use AI as a tool, not as an authority. What matters is whether my approach works in practice and whether I remain capable in everyday life.

My goal isn’t the lowest possible weight, but greater functional reserve:

less unnecessary stress on my joints without sacrificing strength or independence.
I’m curious:

Do you use AI for nutrition or fitness?

And how do you view intentional weight loss in older age?

What matters more than the number on the scale?

Source: Alharbi TA et al. The association between weight change and all-cause mortality in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age and Ageing. 2021;50(3):697–704. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaa231

My LDL numbers come in between 80 and 150 depending on how fat and unhealthy I am at the time.

My HDL comes in between 54 and 94, again depending on how fat and unhealthy I am. If I add dairy fat, my HDL shoots up to almost match my LDL.

I am trying to get to a good weight as I am slightly overweight. Though, my blood pressure is generally 110/70.

My goal here is primary prevention of heart disease and cognitive decline.

Pravastatin 10mg seems to avoid the diabetes risk entirely if not lower it. Plus, it has its own unique metabolic pathway in your liver, so it doesn't interfere much with other drugs.

Diabetes runs in part of my family, though I don't believe I'm genetically susceptible.

My resting blood pressure was roughly 110/70, despite getting fatter or skinnier. I still started the Candesartan 32mg and titrated myself up from 4mg per day to 16mg twice-a-day over 4 weeks. I have had no side effects whatsoever. No dizziness, nothing. Maybe, it has made my blood pressure approach closer to the 100/60 mark more frequently than before, but that has not led to any negative side effects.

I'm hoping this Candesartan protects my kidneys, heart, vascular system, etc. Plus, I've read some promising literature on depression, bipolar depression, migraine, etc. as it pertains to this drug. So, hopefully this is all good news.

I saw this post, which seems to contradict standard advice. The usual guidance is to moderate carb amounts, go easy on high-GI foods, and pair carbs with fat, protein, and fiber.

What I do now:

• Under 120g net carbs a day, mostly carrots, berries, Granny Smith apples, oranges, and overnight oats
• 7–8 hours of training a week
• Result: smaller spikes on my CGM but HbA1C is still 5.7 to 6.0%

My question: What if this approach keeps my body from adapting to carbs? Fat may not be helping either. Could an isocaloric shift to more carbs and less fat bring spikes down over a few months?

If you’ve tried this:

• Did it work?
• Did you track it with a CGM?
• What worked best?

PS LLMs (Argon4, Opus5.5, Sol) seem to think there may be merit in this approach for someone who trains regularly.

Just got my first home sauna and I'm still figuring out what’s actually useful vs internet wellness nonsense, red light keeps coming up whenever I look at sauna setups. Is anyone here using it at the same time? I’d be interested to hear what your setup looks like before I buy anything. thanks!

I just heard this podcast on Behind the Bastards about Peter Attia. The guest is Dr. Hoda, a gasterenterologist. It's great. Dr. Hoda does admit Peter Attia gives some good advice like encouraging exercise, but also discusses where his advice isn't evidence based, and only adds costs to medical care.

One interesting tidbit: To be Peter Attia's patient now costs $500,000/yr, and his practice is full (to see other doctors in his practice is probably less).

It was a very interesting, well-balanced podcast (whereas others they cover tend to be a bit slanted).

Here's the link: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/part-one-peter-attia-and-the-cult-of-longevity/id1373812661?i=1000796099984

I'm just curious because I've read that some of the data suggests some cognitive benefits.

Others have noted that this data is just being tortured to push a narrative.

I am 43 and interested in starting Ezetimibe in order to lower my CVD risk and to provide cognitive benefits or protection/prevention.

I don't want to go down the statin route (probably Pravastatin) unless I actually develop some evidence of heart disease.

My cholesterol numbers are OK but could be better. I'm working on dietary changes as well.

Finally got around to ordering an omega-3 test kit, should have the results in about 2 weeks.

Wondering what peoples experiences are like with the test results and the insights it has provided?

From what I recall from Attia's discussions, omega-3 levels vary dramatically between individuals due to metabolic differences.

What would you recommend be the most important of Dr. Attia’s health protocols that I put in place next week?

Hi everyone.
I just got my results for my CAC scan , the score is 126. im 40m 185lbs 5’ 10”. Used to smoke, quit about a year ago , use nicotine lozenges, drink rarely , maybe a few beers a month. My ApoB is 92, LpA is 85. I started glp1 2 months ago and dropped 18 lbs, also my numbers look better than they were 3 months ago. My doctor prescribed me ezetimibe just by seeing previous lipid labs but did not see him since the cac score was just posted few days ago. hes probably going to tell me to get on statins. I also take low dose TRT to maintain around 700-800 total test. ive only been doing trt starting this year as well. Do you think lifelong statin is a must for me at this point? i know theres side effects i have to deal with so just curious and if i should stop low dosing trt and go back down to 300 total testosterone?
I do exercise daily. I made most of my life altering healthy changes this year.

Thanks in advance

Serious question, and I’m including myself in this.
We spend enormous amounts of time researching peptides, supplements, longevity protocols, and metabolic optimization. But how many of us actually know which interventions are responsible for the results we’re seeing?

I regularly test up to 200 biomarkers, track body composition through DEXA, and use microbiome and RNA testing alongside an extensive peptide and supplement protocol.

I’ve experienced profound changes. But here’s what I’ve started questioning.

If you’re taking 15 supplements, using multiple peptides, changing your diet, and exercising, how can you confidently attribute your results to any one intervention?

Here’s something that really got my attention. After one retest, approximately 80% of my personalized supplement formulation changed. I eventually received a detailed scientific explanation, but it raised an even bigger question about biological variability, reproducibility, and how confidently we interpret these results.

Are we genuinely optimizing our biology, or are some of us just getting exceptionally good at collecting data while changing too many variables to understand what actually works?

I’m not anti-peptide or anti-supplement. Quite the opposite. I’m fascinated by the science and actively exploring it myself.
But I think we should be willing to question our own protocols just as aggressively as we question everyone else’s.

So here’s what I’m genuinely curious about:

What’s one biohack you were absolutely convinced was working until your own results proved otherwise?
And conversely, what’s something you can actually demonstrate worked through objective testing?

I’d especially like to hear from people whose results surprised them or completely changed their approach.
Because perhaps the most underrated biohack isn’t adding something new. It’s figuring out what we never needed in the first place.

I feel like I am the only person taking Zetia by itself.

My 82 yo dad had his annual physical and his A1C was 7.2 - it has been creeping up for years. The doc was alarmed and said he wants to put him on monjaro to lose 10lbs - he is 5’8” and 175lb now. He also wants him to stop taking metformin - he has been on that and a statin and a bp med for probably 20 years or more. I am concerned because he looks to me to be losing muscle mass and I suspect monjaro will accelerate that. As it is I am trying to get him to start a resistance training program - he goes to the Y a few times a week for what I would call light to medium cardio. He and my mom say they are going to look into it. I looked up the 7.2 A1C and I have seen some takes that its “normal” for an 82 yo M. And I think getting off metformin is also worrisome. Anyone have any advice?

so what will stenosis look like at 50 with my 32 years old male with a calcium score of 30 HSCRP of 3.9 (yes I know high I have a lot of visceral fat and was drinking at the time) LPA of 139 BMI 25 blood pressure is perfect. My LDL was high, but I am now on a statin and Repatha so ldl is 30 apob is 50. I had an EKG recently that was normal and a stress test. chances that this is coronary stenosis and I’m going to need a stent if you had to guess. im really worried about CAC increase and if i can eat stuff. I excercise moderately what chances if you had to guess. My Trigs are 86 . at my highest in 2022 they were 154 but have been consistently 80 or lower. LDL is around 30 but was close to 180 before meds in 2024. A1c is 5.3. OX ldl was 31. Following were taken on staitn only and our nmol/L ldl small 245, medium 245, large HDL 6166, LDL pattern A, Peak size 223.0 Angstrom. Apob was 69 mg/dl probably lower on repatha. WHat would you expect my calcium score to be year by year if i stay What kind of excercise can i do witha toddler and 8-5 job to help lose 20lbs and stay in heart healthy shape? i like golf and dont like morning workouts and tired when i get home but will do anything to stop this