What specific tests does Dr. Hyman recommend to assess toxin burden?
Executive summary
Dr. Mark Hyman recommends a variety of laboratory approaches to assess “toxin burden,” including urine challenge (chelation) tests for heavy metals, targeted blood tests (e.g., whole‑blood mercury), and commercial screening panels that test for environmental chemicals such as glyphosate and volatile hydrocarbons (benzene, styrene, MTBE, acrylamide) — recommendations he describes on his podcasts and blog and which are offered via his Function Health testing platform [1] [2] [3] [4]. Critics challenge some of these approaches as unsupported or risky, especially the advocacy of chelation and other detox practices promoted in functional‑medicine circles [5].
1. Hyman’s stated toolkit: spot blood tests, urine challenge (chelation) and screening panels
Hyman says conventional care often only does a simple blood mercury test, and that to truly measure “body burden” you need more than that — specifically a chelation (challenge) test where a chelating agent is given and urine is collected to measure metals mobilized and excreted, plus targeted screening panels for a range of environmental chemicals (he cites glyphosate and panels from labs such as Great Plains that check benzene, styrene, MTBE, acrylamide and others) [2] [1].
2. Where these tests appear in Hyman’s public offerings
Hyman’s Function/Function Health platform markets broad access to hundreds of lab tests, including toxin‑load assays as part of its 100–160+ test memberships and commercial offerings. Function is described as covering “toxins” among metabolic, cardiovascular, hormone, nutrient and other panels, and Hyman positions these tests as part of proactive, preventive care [4] [6] [7] [3].
3. Specific analytes and lab vendors Hyman mentions
In discussions cited by Hyman, collaborators name glyphosate testing and a Great Plains Laboratory screening panel for hydrocarbons (benzene, styrene, MTBE), acrylamide and similar compounds; Hyman endorses the availability and usefulness of those tests in clinical evaluation [1].
4. Hyman’s rationale: hidden body burden and mobilization
Hyman argues blood measures can miss stored toxins: he says mercury stored in tissues can appear low in routine blood tests and that a chelator challenge reveals the “true” burden by mobilizing and quantifying what comes out in urine, forming the basis for a detox roadmap [2].
5. Critical perspective: mainstream toxicology and skeptics push back
Science‑based critics have warned that some functional‑medicine toxin testing and treatments can be misleading or harmful. An analysis in Science‑Based Medicine calls Hyman’s and allied ventures’ heavy‑metal messaging “fear mongering,” criticizes the use of dubious diagnostics, and cautions that recommendations like chelation, sauna use and removing amalgams can be unnecessary or dangerous when applied indiscriminately [5].
6. What sources do and do not document about clinical validity
Available sources document Hyman’s recommended tests and the commercial availability of broad toxin panels via Function and third‑party labs [1] [4] [7]. They do not, in the provided material, supply peer‑reviewed evidence proving that urine‑challenge tests reliably reflect total body burden or that broad screening panels improve long‑term health outcomes; those questions are “not found in current reporting” among the supplied sources.
7. Practical implications for patients and clinicians
Hyman frames broader testing as a way to find “hidden” contributors to ill health and to tailor detox strategies; critics argue this can create false positives, unnecessary interventions or risks from unproven therapies such as chelation or aggressive heat‑based “detox” [2] [5]. Patients should know the tests exist, understand what each measures (blood vs. provoked urine vs. environmental chemical screens), and weigh benefits and risks with a clinician who can interpret results alongside exposure history [1] [3].
8. Hidden agendas and commercial context
Hyman promotes Function Health, a paid membership that includes toxin testing among many panels, and he publishes podcast episodes and blog posts that drive consumers to lab services and supplements; critics note the overlap between promotion and practice when assessing the impetus behind recommending broad toxin testing [4] [7] [5].
If you want, I can extract a concise list of the named tests and the exact sample types (blood vs. urine/provoked urine) mentioned across Hyman’s materials and the labs he references so you can compare offerings and known critiques side‑by‑side (sourced to the items above).