Reading a retest
A number that sat still is information, not a dead end
Before concluding that nothing worked, there are three ordinary explanations worth ruling out — and two of them are about the sample rather than the body.
Each reading averages roughly two to three months of hair growth. If two samples are taken close together, the periods they cover overlap — and an overlapping sample is partly re-measuring the same months.
That alone can produce a number that looks stubbornly unchanged. Nothing failed; the second test simply had not moved far enough past the first to show much new.
This is the first thing to check, and the cheapest. Work out the gap between the two collections before drawing any conclusion about the number itself.
Two readings can only be compared if they were taken the same way. The protocol is specific for a reason: scalp hair from multiple sites, about 250 mg, cut at the scalp, no more than 1.5 inches with the distal portion discarded.
How far that matters is best shown by the 22-inch strand cut into fourteen segments: calcium read 27 mg% at the scalp and over 200 mg% at the far end. A slightly longer sample the second time is not a small difference.
Washing matters too. Samples are analysed unwashed, because washing removes over 90% of sodium and potassium.
The interpretive weight sits on the relationships, not the individual figures. The lab literature states it plainly: determining deficiencies and excesses is important, but the relationship between the nutrients is more important.
So a calcium that barely shifted while Ca/Mg or Ca/K moved is not a stalled result. It is a result where the meaningful part changed and the headline number did not. Compare the ratios before deciding nothing happened.
Set alongside the measurement questions above, the interpretive system offers three reasons a report shows little change — and they are worth having in this order, because the last one is the one nobody guesses:
That third one is the honest answer, and it belongs on a page like this. A report is not a complete account of the body; it is an account of the elements this particular panel measures. Movement can happen somewhere the panel does not look.
Notice that the three point in quite different directions. The first is actionable, the second is a reason not to draw conclusions yet, and the third means the report is not the right instrument for the question. Deciding which applies is a conversation with the practitioner reading it, not something to settle from the page alone.
Having ruled out the overlap, the sample and the ratios, an unchanged number is worth taking seriously — as a question rather than a verdict.
There is one further possibility worth knowing about, because it is the least intuitive. A test can read as compensated — the macromineral levels and ratios sit fairly close to normal while the person is unwell. As the pattern system puts it: "as the body becomes weaker, mineral levels and ratios can move into a fairly good balance to keep life going, while problems are occurring underneath." A steady-looking report is not automatically a reassuring one.
The opposite movement has a name too. When all four macrominerals rise on a retest, that is a recognised pattern in its own right, and it is read as a favourable one rather than as things getting worse.
A hair tissue mineral analysis is a screening test. It shows a pattern; it does not explain why a pattern persisted, and it does not diagnose. That conversation belongs with the practitioner reading it, and anything medical with your own licensed provider.
If you are weighing up whether to retest at all, that is a separate question and it is covered properly on the page about why a retest matters.
The first question I ask is the date of both collections. More often than people expect, the answer explains the whole thing before we have looked at a single figure.
The second is who cut it and with what. A different pair of scissors, a different length, a different person doing the cutting — any of those makes the two reports less comparable than they look sitting side by side.
Long enough that the growth windows do not overlap. Each reading averages roughly two to three months of growth, so samples taken close together partly re-measure the same period.
Not on its own. Check the interval, check that both samples were taken the same way, and compare the ratios — the relationships often move before the individual levels do.
Yes. Sample length is the big one: calcium read 27 mg% at the scalp and over 200 mg% at the end of a 22-inch strand. Washing matters too, since it removes over 90% of sodium and potassium.
The kit carries the laboratory collection protocol, which is what makes two readings genuinely comparable.
Published 2026-08-30 · Updated 2026-08-30
By Eileen Durfee — Practitioner, NBS (Nutritional Balancing Science), NASM-CPT; wellness educator, inventor and author.
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Hair tissue mineral analysis is a screening test and is not diagnostic; anything medical belongs with your own licensed provider. Wellness Shopping Online is operated by Nuco Enterprise Solutions LLC.
