Got The Results Of My Food Panel Back

[hnybny91]

So, I got the results of my food sensitivity panel (blood) back and out of 154 foods tested I am sensitive to 36. Surprisingly, wheat and gluten were in the low range and cutting gluten out has made a HUGE impact in my health already (gluten free almost three months now.) Anyway, out of the remaing 118 foods I reacted to 50 of those - just not enough to be considered a true sensitivity I guess. My plan is to definitely eliminate all the ones I tested sensitive to (red zone), even if it was on the low scale. Would you personally avoid even the ones that you had a reaction to (black zone) but just not enough to test in the red zone? I am leaning toward doing that as much as possible but there were things on there like chicken and beef and since I reacted to a lot of seafood items that would leave me turkey and pork only.

Oh, and surprisingly enough - barley was a reaction just not a red zone reaction along with oats. Rye on the other hand had no reaction what so ever! And could someone please explain to me how I could be in the red zone for casein and in the black zone for whey but no reaction on cow's milk?

[Newtoitall]

  On 3/26/2011 at 3:47 PM, hnybny91 said:

So, I got the results of my food sensitivity panel (blood) back and out of 154 foods tested I am sensitive to 36. Surprisingly, wheat and gluten were in the low range and cutting gluten out has made a HUGE impact in my health already (gluten free almost three months now.) Anyway, out of the remaing 118 foods I reacted to 50 of those - just not enough to be considered a true sensitivity I guess. My plan is to definitely eliminate all the ones I tested sensitive to (red zone), even if it was on the low scale. Would you personally avoid even the ones that you had a reaction to (black zone) but just not enough to test in the red zone? I am leaning toward doing that as much as possible but there were things on there like chicken and beef and since I reacted to a lot of seafood items that would leave me turkey and pork only.

Oh, and surprisingly enough - barley was a reaction just not a red zone reaction along with oats. Rye on the other hand had no reaction what so ever! And could someone please explain to me how I could be in the red zone for casein and in the black zone for whey but no reaction on cow's milk?

lol I can't contribute anything helpfull here but.. could you tell me what I need to say to who to get this test done o.O?

[Jestgar]

Food allergy testing is very inaccurate. You might consider cutting out the foods you tested positive for and then adding them back one at a time to see if you have any physical reaction.

Also, you won't test positive to anything you aren't eating, this could explain why wheat/barley/rye weren't very reactive. As for the whey/casein/milk thing - the test is not very accurate....

[hnybny91]

  On 3/26/2011 at 5:23 PM, Jestgar said:

Food allergy testing is very inaccurate. You might consider cutting out the foods you tested positive for and then adding them back one at a time to see if you have any physical reaction.

Also, you won't test positive to anything you aren't eating, this could explain why wheat/barley/rye weren't very reactive. As for the whey/casein/milk thing - the test is not very accurate....

Not testing positive for something I have not been eating is not true. I had not eaten gluten in almost three months and both wheat and gluten popped up. Also, I have never eaten an oyster IN MY LIFE and it popped up pretty high, as did most seafood items and I hardly ever eat any form of seafood. I was tested for IGg levels. Natropath said that they add your blood serum into each of the 154 foods and see if your blood triggers an auto immune response.

For the person who asked about how to get this test ordered: I went to a natropath. She ordered the blood work and I went to a lab to get it drawn and then had to send it two day air to the lab. They sent my results to my natropath. I would guess that an allergist could order this too but since my insurance doesn't pay for specialists I just spent my money on the natropath.

[sb2178]

A lot of items have environmental allergens with similar proteins, so if you have a ragweed allergy, you might show up for cantalope (I think??) but not actually be allergic to cantalope. Repeated testing tends to show quite varying results.

IgG testing isn't very reliable, so definitely do elimination/challenge testing. See how you feel.

[Jestgar]

The oyster thing would be part of the "inaccurate" comment I made earlier.....

I suppose it's also possible you react to iodine, which is in most seafood.

[T.H.]

  On 3/26/2011 at 8:14 PM, hnybny91 said:

Not testing positive for something I have not been eating is not true.

Could be exposed to it in other ways, that's true, but in general, if you have not been exposed to the food in any way, then you can't be positive for it. The test involves taking the allergen, introducing your blood to it, and seeing if you have antibodies already present in your blood (because your body was already reacting to the presence of this substance) and seeing if they attach to that particular food.

If you haven't come into contact with the food, then you can't have developed antibodies to the food.

However, I know there are inaccuracies with this test. I don't remember what they all were. Whether there was enough cross-reactivity that you could have positive responses when an antibody reacts incorrectly, or if it's difficult to read the test - I just don't remember that.

  Quote

I had not eaten gluten in almost three months and both wheat and gluten popped up. Also, I have never eaten an oyster IN MY LIFE and it popped up pretty high, as did most seafood items and I hardly ever eat any form of seafood.

Depending on the allergen, as I recall, some of the antibodies can hang around in the body for quite some time. I thought milk antibodies were in there for nearly a year after a reaction.

And as for oysters and seafood? You might be surprised how easy it is to get some of that in your diet, especially if you're eating gluten free. Ocean based thickeners are getting more common for gluten-free foods, now. And fish and shell-fish are two of the allergens that they have recorded cases of people able to react to airborne particles that were released during cooking. So if you were near people cooking fish, and you are very sensitive, that would be enough. Fish emulsion is commonly used on organic produce to help the soil and typically contaminates the veggies on the ground to a minor extent. Also, calcium, glucosamine, and omega-3 supplements can be made from fish or shellfish. The latter almost always is.

As for what I would do about the results? I'd dodge the red zone ones for the moment, yeah, especially if they are IgE. I'd keep a food journal if you are going to eat any of the borderline ones, so you'll know if they are an issue. And if you are choosing things to try to add back in, I'd start with the IgG ones first, and the ones that you ate the most of.

My personal experience - which isn't everyone's, I know - was that some of my allergy ones were pretty bad. The worst was the one food that, like you with fish, I don't eat. It's coffee - I've always hated the stuff. I had two sips of my husband's morning coffee over a 6 month period, and that was enough to give me a high allergy reading. I've been away from it for quite a while now, and we found out that I can react to the stupid stuff just standing NEXT to people brewing it. So if you got a good pop on a food you don't eat and would only be getting in incidental amounts...I'd be very careful with it, you know?

Wish you good luck - it's a pain in the behind, but this type of test has been helpful for me, too. A couple of the things on my list were just fine if they were IgG, but none of the IgE ones on my list have been okay for me to eat, yet.

I believe the whole IgE/IgG controversy was this, by the way - at least, this is how it was explained to me, so we'll see if I get it right. :-) High IgE is involved in serious reactions with hives, anaphylactic shock, and such. IgG is not. However, many allergies where a person has a high level of IgE also showed high levels of IgG to that same food. But some high IgG levels have no corresponding raised IgE.

So many GI docs, and some others, are using caution when they come across a high IgG to a food - maybe it leads to the IgE allergy, maybe it doesn't, but there's a small correlation.

Most allergists think the IgG thing is stupid and useless and that we should ignore it (and I'm nearly quoting the allergist I disliked intensely, on this one. )

So I suppose we get to make up our own minds about how we want to approach it. I feel terrible after eating a few of my foods on my raised IgG list, so I tend to think that there may be something there. What it is, I don't know, but it did affect me, yeah.

[hnybny91]

Thank you so much T.H.! I really appreciate you taking the time to respond so in depth to my post. You have been a great help

[knf]

This is interesting to me as I finally did a full food panel just a few months ago. It was by far the best few hundred bucks I have spent on this journey.

I have been gluten free for 10 years, but the last couple of years that hasn't been enough. I kept getting "glutened" even when I knew the chances of exposure were minimal. I suspected other foods, but just couldn't nail anything down. But I avoided the testing since I kept hearing how unreliable it is. Even my naturopath discouraged the food panel since my diet was super clean and I was pretty good about minimizing common allergens. But we kept hitting dead ends.

The combination of a modified elimination diet with the results of the food panel have changed my life in the last few months. I went on a pretty restricted diet for a few weeks - enough to convince myself that there was in fact a missing food piece. And now I have the test results to guide me as I add foods back in. I was off the charts high in reactions to anything that had ever been near a cow (all dairy, whey, casein, cheeses, beef). Other super high foods were eggs, almonds, mushrooms -- all things I ate regularly enough and never would have suspected as my reactions are always quite delayed. Interestingly some of the foods I suspected (soy, corn especially) showed very low reactions.

Like you I had about 30 foods that showed significant reactions. My plan is to avoid all of those foods for the next year as I slowly add back in the foods that showed no reaction after the elimination process. So far it has been incredibly painless and I can't believe how good I feel. I keep asking my husband "Is this how normal people feel all the time?" If so, it sure beats the little bit of joy I got from eating dairy, eggs, almonds, wheat, etc.

I just wish I had spent this money years ago and saved a lot of frustration and crappy days.

[cahill]

I have been doing an elimination diet, super restrictive but it has lead me to believe that I have true food allergys,, most notably eggs and almonds .

I have an appointment with an allergist. My hope is that, If nothing else, I can rid my self of the concern that I may have an allergic reaction to eggs or almonds.

I will have him test me for gluten and soy but since I have been gluten/ soy free for awhile they may not pop .But honestly none , and I do mean NONE , of the other doctors I have seen have been helpful so I truly have nothing to lose(( except some cash )

I think that having the results of allergy testing would be helpful when deciding what foods to reintroduce,what foods I may need to take special care with while reintroducing , and which ones to consider possibly permanently eliminating from my diet.