Proteomes are complex—much more so than genomes or transcriptomes. Thus, simplifying their analysis does not simplify the issue. Proteomes are of proteoforms, not canonical proteins. While having a catalogue of amino acid sequences provides invaluable information, this is the Proteome-lite. To dissect biological mechanisms and identify critical biomarkers/drug targets, we must assess the myriad of proteoforms that arise at any point before, after, and between translation and transcription (e.g., isoforms, splice variants, and post-translational modifications [PTM]), as well as newly defined species. There are numerous analytical methods currently used to address proteome depth and here we critically evaluate these in terms of the current ‘state-of-the-field’. We thus discuss both pros and cons of available approaches and where improvements or refinements are needed to quantitatively characterize proteomes. To enable a next-generation approach, we suggest that advances lie in transdisciplinarity via integration of current proteomic methods to yield a unified discipline that capitalizes on the strongest qualities of each. Such a necessary (if not revolutionary) shift cannot be accomplished by a continued primary focus on proteo-genomics/-transcriptomics. We must embrace the complexity. Yes, these are the hard questions, and this will not be easy…but where is the fun in easy?

The “best of both worlds” is not often the case when it comes to implementing new health models, particularly in community settings. It is often a struggle between choosing or balancing between two components: depth of research or financial profit. This has become even more apparent with the recent shift to move away from a traditionally reactive model of medicine toward a predictive/preventative one. This has given rise to many new concepts and approaches with a variety of often overlapping aims. The purpose of this perspective is to highlight the pros and cons of the numerous ventures already implementing new concepts, to varying degrees, in community settings of quite differing scales—some successful and some falling short. Scientific wellness is a complex, multifaceted concept that requires integrated experimental/analytical designs that demand both high-quality research/healthcare and significant funding. We currently see the more likely long-term success of those ventures in which any profit is largely reinvested into research efforts and health/healthspan is the primary focus.