As usual, I see things differently. Regarding the instant question by the original poster, my reply is: "What is normal ?" and, do you really want to be considered "normal" ?? Remember, the data generated by the pharmacomedical publishing houses is all conducted on subjects who are severely deficient in iodine, vit. C, potassium, inter alia. Also, as an example, when I was tested for blood, the results were always that I am something called "anemic" Regardless of their half-witted attempts to label me with a fancy term, I feel fine, have felt fine and will likely feel fine for quite a while more in my "anemic" state. Being "normal" in terms of what the pharmacomedical quackeroos is meaningless to me, I'd be more concerned if I were within the realm of normalcy of a medical system which itself is far from normal, with all the crap they push and the high levels of iatrogenicity, ja ? Reject normalcy, strive for being superiorily outside the "norm" One can be average, below average, or above average. Which do you choose ?