My Whole Genome Test at 71: What It Actually Found

I had my whole genome sequenced, the full thing, through Human Longevity, read against 2,011 disease genes and dozens of risk models. I am 71 years old and trying to reach 200, so knowing what I am working with seemed like a reasonable place to start.

Here is what it found. Some of it is good news. Some of it is not, and I am not going to show you only the good half.

What I Am Not Publishing, and Why You Should Care

My raw genotypes, the variant IDs, my carrier status and my drug-metabolism results are staying private. Everything below is conclusions, not source data.

Three reasons, and the second one is the one nobody tells you.

Raw genetic data is permanent and identifying — you cannot unpublish a genome once it is indexed and mirrored. It says things about my children that they did not choose to make public. And the one that surprised me: the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act protects you on health insurance and employment, but life, long-term care and disability insurance are all exempt. Underwriters can legally use genetic information you have made public.

If you are thinking about publishing your own results, understand that before you post, not after. I publish nearly everything about this experiment. This is the line.

The Clean Result First

No monogenic disease variants. The screen covered 2,011 genes with established links to more than 2,000 genetic conditions — the section that finds a single broken gene causing a defined disease.

Nothing. That is the best available outcome for that section, and it is worth saying plainly, because coverage of genetic testing almost always dwells on what goes wrong.

Where My Genetic Risk Runs High

Three traits landed at or above the 90th percentile on the polygenic scores. Read the caveat at the bottom before you take these too seriously.

Rheumatoid arthritis — 96th percentile, 1.8 times average risk
Atrial fibrillation — 92nd percentile, 1.9 times average

Rheumatoid arthritis is not preventable, but early treatment changes outcomes substantially, so I now know the difference between training soreness and the thing to worry about — persistent, symmetrical swelling and stiffness in hands and feet lasting more than an hour in the morning. Atrial fibrillation I am already monitoring passively, because the ring I wear logs heart rhythm every night without me doing anything.

There is also a dementia-risk finding in my report. I am not publishing that number, for reasons I will get to. What I will say is that it changed my behavior, and that the research is clear on the part that matters: lifestyle accounts for an estimated 30 to 50 percent of Alzheimer’s risk. Genetics loads the dice. It does not finish the roll.

What I Am Doing About It

Most of this I was already doing for other reasons:

Daily cardiovascular exercise and resistance training
Sleep on a schedule, six to nine hours, dark and cold
Lipids, blood pressure, glucose and insulin sensitivity kept optimized and tested twice a year
Alcohol very low, tobacco never
Staying mentally effortful on purpose — new skills, navigating without GPS, things that demand strategy and coordination rather than passive attention

Two things the report added that I had not thought about.

A hearing test. Untreated hearing loss is one of the largest modifiable dementia risk factors, and it is exactly the sort of thing men my age ignore for a decade.

A baseline cognitive assessment now, while I have no symptoms. A baseline at 71 turns any future change into a measurement instead of an argument. I am scheduling one.

The Good Card: FOXO3

FOXO3 is the most consistently replicated longevity gene in human research. It keeps appearing in studies of people who reach very old age, across multiple populations.

I carry the favorable version at both sites tested. The report’s own language: higher likelihood of living to 90 or older.

I am aiming considerably past 90. But it is a better hand than the alternative.

Where My Genetic Risk Runs Low

This is most of the report, and it is the part that surprised me.

Age-related macular degeneration — 1st percentile
Colorectal cancer — 2nd percentile
Type 2 diabetes — 4th percentile
Melanoma — 5th percentile
Blood clots — 6th percentile
Prostate cancer — 20th percentile
Coronary artery disease — 32nd percentile

Six of the eight cancers screened came back below average risk. Every lipid marker below average. Type 2 diabetes in the bottom five percent.

The Interesting Part: Predictions Versus Measurements

This is where a genome test stops being a novelty and starts being useful, because I already publish my blood work twice a year. So I could take the genetic predictions and check them against what is actually in my blood.

The report predicted three things about my vitamins. My own panel, which you can see on my test and stats page, says:

Vitamin B12 — prediction wrong. My genetics predict reduced B12. My methylmalonic acid, the functional marker for B12 status and a better test than plain serum B12, is comfortably normal. No deficiency.
Vitamin D — prediction right, my response overshot. My genetics predict susceptibility to deficiency. My last panel came back above the reference range, which means I over-corrected with supplementation. I am cutting the dose.
Vitamin B6 — unanswered. It is not on my panel. I am adding it to my January draw and I will publish the number when I have it.

One prediction wrong, one right but overcorrected, one still open. That is a more honest picture of what genetic testing is worth than any marketing page will give you. Your genome tells you where to look. Your blood tells you what is true.

The Caveat That Belongs on All of This

Polygenic risk scores are the softest data in the report, and I would rather say so than oversell them.

They are built from large reference populations, and mine were benchmarked against participants of European descent. They shift as those databases grow. They describe groups rather than individuals. And they are explicitly correlational, not predictive — a 96th percentile score does not mean I will get rheumatoid arthritis. It means I should pay attention to symptoms I might otherwise wave off.

Genetic risk is a starting position, not a verdict. The entire premise of this project is that what you do next matters more.

If you want to see the rest, start with my protocols, then my fitness routine, then my test results and stats. It is all public and it is all free.

If you would rather do this alongside other people than alone, I am opening ten seats in The 200 Year Life Mastermind — ten people, one year, live on Zoom, starting May 2027. Applications are open now.

Stay sovereign, stay healthy,
Gary

A note from Gary: I am not a doctor, and I am definitely not your doctor. I am a 71-year-old running a 129-year experiment on himself and documenting every step. Everything here is my own data and my own reading of my own report — talk to your physician before acting on anything you see here, and especially before ordering or interpreting genetic testing of your own.