found the following videos talking about the differences between IgG tests and something called MRT + LEAP protocol. I am wondering which test I should take to obtain the most accurate results.
I started a new thread regarding MRT - LEAP protocol and it might answer your question.
Unless my thread gets merged with this one, you may want to consult it here:
In regards to the last session's discussion about Diets, Raw Milk, Beef vs Pork protein, Sprouts, etc. Has anyone done an MRT food sensitivity test? MRT stands for Mediator Release Test. What was your experience in regard to that type of test? Did the elimination/reintroduction program work for...
cassiopaea.org
In the document copies I attached to my post, you can read a FAQ that explains the difference.
Is MRT accurate?
A blinded peer reviewed scientific study showed MRT to have the highest level of accuracy sensitivity blood test (94.5% sensitivity and 91.8% specificity).
What's the difference between MRT and other tests for food sensitivities?
There are a few different tests available that are intended to identify sensitive foods. They are IgG (ELISA or RAST), ALCAT, and LRA by Elisa-Act (not to be confused with ELISA IgG). Without understanding some basics, it's impossible to understand how one is superior to the others and how they compare.
The Basics:
Food sensitivities make a person feel sick because the immune system reacts to foods and causes the release of chemicals called mediators (such as histamine, prostaglandins, cytokines, etc.) from white blood cells. It's the mediators that cause the inflammation, pain, and other symptoms associated with food sensitivities. In fact, food sensitivity is a very complex reaction by our immune system. There are many different cells that have different profiles of mediators, many mechanisms that cause mediators to be released, and of course, many different mediators. The thing that makes food sensitivities complicated is that there are various ways the immune system can respond in hypersensitivity. Because there are different ways the immune system can respond, there are different approaches researchers have tried to identify reactive foods and chemicals.
ELISA IgG: This test quantifies how much IgG you are producing to a specific food, with the assumption that high levels of IgG are only a bad thing. There is a specific type of immune reaction called Type 3 Hypersensitivity that can involve IgG or another antibody called IgM. When IgG is involved in triggering mediator release, this testing will be very helpful. Unfortunately, there are three very serious limitations of IgG testing:
1. High levels of IgG can be either good (suppressing of an immune response) or bad (causing an immune response). But you cannot tell which is good IgG or which is bad IgG through this testing. So just because you have a high level, may actually be good not bad.
2. IgG only plays a minor role in IBS, migraine, and fibromyalgia. Instead, research shows that Type 4 Hypersensitivity is the primary type of reaction. Type 4 Hypersensitivity doesn't involve IgG or any other antibodies.
3. IgG testing cannot identify reactions to chemicals like food additives. It's clearly documented that food chemicals play a very important role in provoking symptoms in many conditions. If you cannot identify these reactions, you could very well be missing very important information that can impact your health.
How MRT Compares to IgG: There are a number of advantages of MRT over any form of IgG testing. MRT is an endpoint test, meaning that all the immune based adverse reactions end up causing mediator release. So MRT does this without caring about the mechanism. In fact MRT is able to take into account the actions of all mechanisms, whether they are antibodies or other, because all of them ultimately cause white blood cells to release mediators. MRT is able to account for a much wider array of reactions than the relatively simple IgG testing. In addition, MRT is able to identify reactions to chemicals. Overall, MRT is more accurate and useful clinically.
The ALCAT Test: The ALCAT Test was invented and patented by the same person who invented and patented MRT, Dr. Mark Pasula. The two technologies are similar, yet separately patented, which means there is a unique difference. The main difference between the two tests is in terms of accuracy and reliability. Side by side studies have shown MRT to be more accurate (higher sensitivity and specificity) and to have higher split sample reproducibility than ALCAT. It is a good, but older method that has been
LRA by ELISA-Act: This test is somewhat of a mystery as to what it actually measures and how that correlates with mediator release and with an involvement in IBS, migraine, fibromyalgia, or other food-sensitivity-related conditions. The company that invented it makes claims about its accuracy, reproducibility, and validity, but in fact there are no actual third party studies that confirm any of their claims. Nor have their own studies related to the same been published. In other words, there are no published studies that support their claims. In addition, the actual methodology is not described or validated in any peer reviewed publications, yet they claim that it is. Therefore it's not possible to assess and compare its strengths and weaknesses to MRT.
MRT: The main difference between MRT and ELISA-Act is that of scientific validation. There are studies published on MRT that clearly show the methodology, accuracy, ability to discriminate between healthy and sick populations, etc. They clearly tie the relationship of what MRT is measuring to the physiological basis of adverse food reactions in IBS, migraine, fibromyalgia, and other food-sensitivity-related conditions.
How does MRT work?
MRT is an indirect method of accurately measuring mediator release. MRT does this by measuring changes in the liquids to solids ratio of your blood after your blood has been exposed and incubated with the test substance. It accounts for all reactions by your immune cells. This is done as an indicator that your immune cells have released chemical mediators such as histamines and others. Significant reactions are broken into either Reactive (Red), or Moderately Reactive (Yellow) categories and insignificant reactions (Green) are placed in the Low-Reactive category. All measurements are made using the most accurate method of measurement (Ribbon technology) currently available.
How come the test shows I'm reactive to something I have never eaten?
There are 4 possible explanations as to why the test would show reactivity to an infrequently or never- consumed food:
1.Genetics. It has been shown that immune-based food reactions can have a genetic component and can be passed on from generation to generation.
2.Cross reactivity. Your immune system identifies and differentiates antigenic substances based upon their molecular structure. Foods from the same food families often share similar protein structures and can sometimes cross-react if tested. Another situation that can contribute to cross reactivity is when a reactive chemical binds with a non-reactive food and causes that food to be identified immunologically as a reactive substance.
3. Hidden source of the food. Many foods can be found as additives under different names. For example, monosodium glutamate (MSG) can be found in an ingredient list as monosodium glutamate, MSG, natural flavoring, or hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP). It is common for these items to be hidden in prepared foods. The report sections on Hidden Sources of Test Substances, and Chemicals and Additives can help reveal hidden forms of the items you need to avoid.
4.False positive test result. Even the most accurate laboratory tests can give some false readings. The overall accuracy of MRT as determined in a peer reviewed blinded study is roughly 93% leaving a small margin of potential error in the reading, that can show up as either false negatives (which means a substance is actually reactive, but the test says its non-reactive), or false positives (which means the test says its reactive, but it is really not).
