Sorry to say this, but most doctors are not well-versed nutritionally, especially about B12 levels; many are still using old, outdated levels with very low minimums that they consider to be part of the normal range.

A lot of the old lab ranges indicate values of 185-200 as bottom of normal range; I don't think anyone here would say that was adequate. (At least 500 or so would be minimal "normal" levels, and that value is used in most European ranges and in Japan. Most of us would rather see much higher levels; B12 has no known toxicity level.)

A better indicator of B12 deficiency would be results from homocysteine and methylomaic acia (MMA) testing--but many docs don't have knowledge of this, either.