Food Allergy Blood Tests and results

[Scottie]

Here are my results:

Candida: Negative

4:
Peanuts

3:
Yellow soy
Egg yolk
Chicken egg

2:
Cow's milk
Onion
Goat's milk

1:
Leek
Carrot
Mandarin
Red cabbage
Fennel
Aspergillus niger
Sheep's cheese
Kefir (fermented milk)
Whey/rennet
Fermented milk cheese
Kale
Ricotta cheese
Lentils
Radish
Brussels sprouts
Kohlrabi
Aloe Vera
Celery
Asparagus
Horseradish
Spinach
Cooked milk

Interestingly, I ate at least 7 metric tons of peanuts per day when I was growing up. Dry roasted, mostly. I LOVED peanuts. Well, I didn't eat many of them in recent years, but I could still always tell in more recent times that peanuts were bad for me because sometimes they'd give me a bit of a wonky tummy.

Eggs never caused me any discernible problems, and I ate 2 every morning with my bacon for breakfast for years now. Not any more! Don't really miss them though, which surprised me.

The onion sensitivity surprised me.

I have no idea where the "yellow soy" came from! I avoid stuff with soy in it.

And no cow's or goat's milk, whereas I can generally tolerate dairy products (except actual milk) very well.

Also, Aspergillus niger is a fungus commonly found on onions and peanuts...

My current plan is to eliminate the 4, 3, and 2 items, and not worry so much about the 1's. I don't eat much of the stuff on my 1's list very often, anyway. The only real exception is carrots, but I'm no Bugs Bunny, so that shouldn't be such a problem.

One final note: Brussel Sprouts are a 1 for me. That's pretty funny, because I really don't like them. I call them Gremlin Heads, and I don't think I've eaten any in like 5 years or more. They're just gross! So, I'm not sure how they managed to detect that I'm sensitive to them. Maybe some chemical component in them? Who knows!

 

[shijing]

Well, I didn't mean a correlation to already established guidelines of what diet is supposed to be for blood types, but finding our own correlations.

I think this is a good idea -- FWIW, the Cs seem to have supported this line of questioning in the past. These are the relevant (edited) notes that I have from the sessions where the Blood Type diet was asked about (for context, please search the transcripts for 'Blood Type Diet'):

The Atkins diet for waistline okay, heart smart?! Naah! Atkins plan is good with two exceptions: suggest inclusion of bran fiber and liquid dairy, due to blood type, and need for elimination. This is greatly inhibited by “Atkins” plan, which is a fundamental flaw therein. [note that this was advice offered to one particular individual at one particular point in time, so shouldn't be considered universal IMO]

The author of this blood type diet [D'Adamo] didn’t really just invent stuff out of his head, but the RH factor hones it in better. The RH factor will refine what this guy says exactly. It matters what type you are, and find out. The genotype diet is a very good start. It and the blood type diet have different goals. The genotype diet is more complete in a sense because it covers more genes and the blood type does just one.

This means that as a general rule, in terms of establishing brain chemistry generally speaking, it's good for everyone to stick to the blood type diet (closer), but don't obsess...

You should investigate blood type diet differentials, there is validity there.

I actually had a conversation with my doctor about this a couple weeks ago, which started with a discussion about my history with the ketogenic diet. He said that he does think blood type and diet interact, but he's skeptical of D'Adamo's original approach (which he tried several years ago and failed on) because it's too narrow, being based primarily on lectin research. He said that Type O does the best on the ketogenic diet -- his wife is Type O and thrives on it, as do several of his Type O patients. It doesn't seem to work as well for Type A (which he is, and I am also) in his experience, and for this group he recommends more of a standard Paleo diet. He also said he's observed a difference in intermittent fasting -- Type O again seems to do really well with it, but Type A seems to need to eat more regularly (and larger portions). I didn't ask about the other types (B and AB), so I'm not sure what he would have to say about them.

My gosh I am totally shocked by these findings. What can we eat? It certainly gives another meaning to going through the labyrinth that Laura mentioned in her books. I think the only test I would trust is asking the C's what they recommend what little is left to eat.

I think it's important not to make the assumption that if one kind of food is bad for one type of person, it must be bad for everyone. If that were truly the case, we'd be on the way to becoming breatharians :P Based on the data being posted on this thread and elsewhere, it seems like an important principle is that one size doesn't fit all. There are probably some general guidelines that do apply to everyone (for example sugar, processed food, and GMOs are almost certainly never good for anyone, and gluten, dairy, and soy should probably always be treated very cautiously regardless of type). But other things seem very personal -- eggs are a big one on this thread, garlic is another that may be surprisingly variable, and so on. I think we just need to be careful about limiting assumptions and to not fall into black-and-white thinking on what seems to be a rather complex topic.

 

[Niall]

My results from the group IgG food test. I had 22 foods above their threshold. Here they are, in descending order:

4

Egg white
Chicken egg
Quail egg
Egg yolk

3

Goose egg
Almond

2

Mussel
Gluten
Cow's milk

1

Kefir (fermented milk)
Rye
Cooked milk
Ricotta cheese
Corn
Tuna
Oats
Fermented milk cheese
Whey/rennet
Khorasan wheat /Kamut

With the exception of a couple of seafoods and one nut, my results are basically positive for gluten and dairy, which I've hardly touched in years, but which I grew up on of course.

I don't think I've ever eaten a quail or goose egg!

 

[nicklebleu]

I don't think I've ever eaten a quail or goose egg!

This may be an issue of cross-reactivity between different egg types ...

Ordered the test as well, will take a little while due to logistics, but will post the results once they're in!

 

[stellar]

Oh, WOW.
I think I'm just about done with the whole diet thing. Testing, changing, swapping, replacing.....
I'm just gonna stick to paleo (dairy, wheat/grain free) cos this is just taking too much of my limited time and money. Iodine and regular fasting and detoxing is going to have to do for me for some time.

 

[RedFox]

Oh, WOW.
I think I'm just about done with the whole diet thing. Testing, changing, swapping, replacing.....

fwiw I had a moment of feeling that after reading this thread.
"But, but, but - the fat bombs!"
What the heck can you do to eat enough fat?

Laura's pointing out that no one has yet shown a sensitivity to chocolate, and the following post helped me personally:

<snip> I am of the opinion that if we can fix this exposure, we will not be reacting to these foods.

Interestingly, only four out of the eighteen that took the test showed evidence of candida.

I agree with you that a lot needs to be done on eliminating the effects of blue light exposure and EMF for optimising our health.

Well, interestingly, the ones who have the LEAST reactions seem to be among those that have the most "blue light/EM" exposure. And a few of those who are kind of OCD about eliminating EMF from their personal space for large segments of time, have the MOST sensitivities. But that's not true across the board, of course, just a statistically significant tendency.

I also noticed that among those with the highest number of sensitivities, there is a lot of musical/artistic creativity. But again, that's just statistically significant and not true across the board since one of the most creative has one of the lowest profiles.

In short, I don't think it helps to introduce the idea that blue-light/EMF stuff is the key here; it only muddies the water.

As PS noted, four of the individuals also have candida showing up in the blood, or better, antibodies to candida, suggesting a past or present condition. Three of that four also have significantly high number of sensitivities, but a fourth one is average.

I think we need to look at psycho-spiritual issues in combination with genetic structures. Since I've mentioned the creativity connection as being significant, perhaps there is a "suffering and service" connection also? But then, again, one of the ones with lowest reactions suffered an almost fatal brain cancer at a very young age.

Then, how do these results relate to the heavy metals profiles, if at all?

I tell ya, this is a puzzle to work out and with such a sample (and hopefully more from other members) maybe we'll be able to recognize some patterns?

So it can be a terrible disaster, or an opportunity to grow and learn - if you look at it as a collective problem to help solve.
The truth is always a shock, and takes some time to process.
A spirit of adventure helps here! :)

To take the black and white thinking out of it, it's possible that removing these things that trigger the immune system will allow us to eventually eat them again.

I'm already curious to know what I'm sensitive too - my best guess based on my physical/emotional reactions and past food cravings will be eggs, butter, peanuts (and probably quite a few nuts).
So that may be a big clue. The emotional attachment (craving) for certain foods.

The immune system uses a great deal of energy and resources, and the inflammation it causes if prolonged does damage as well as having a huge effect on mood (makes us emotionally reactive) and cognition. That to me seems like a really good reason to remove these things.

So to anyone struggling with the shock

 

[liam1310]

WOW, cant beleive so many are alergic to eggs I Eat 3 every morning
With lots of butter never seem to have any problems .Ill be doing the test Just have to save up the money over
the next few weeks Will be interesting to See What shows up. Will post
my results When I get them.Geez this diet thing is never ending.

 

[Pierre]

I don't think I've ever eaten a quail or goose egg!

This may be an issue of cross-reactivity between different egg types ...

Ordered the test as well, will take a little while due to logistics, but will post the results once they're in!

Yes cross-reactivity is a possibility. Since only minutes amounts are required to trigger some IGg reaction, I also wondered if contamination could explain some allergies to foods that we didn't consume. For example a pot being used to prepare quail eggs and then used to prepare something else (without washing in between).

 

[luc]

Oh, WOW.
I think I'm just about done with the whole diet thing. Testing, changing, swapping, replacing.....

So it can be a terrible disaster, or an opportunity to grow and learn - if you look at it as a collective problem to help solve.
The truth is always a shock, and takes some time to process.
A spirit of adventure helps here! :)

To take the black and white thinking out of it, it's possible that removing these things that trigger the immune system will allow us to eventually eat them again.

I'm already curious to know what I'm sensitive too - my best guess based on my physical/emotional reactions and past food cravings will be eggs, butter, peanuts (and probably quite a few nuts).
So that may be a big clue. The emotional attachment (craving) for certain foods.

The immune system uses a great deal of energy and resources, and the inflammation it causes if prolonged does damage as well as having a huge effect on mood (makes us emotionally reactive) and cognition. That to me seems like a really good reason to remove these things.

So to anyone struggling with the shock

Thanks RedFox, I have had similar thoughts.

stellar, I don't think we need to "freak out", instead we could just take these results as an inspiration to experiment, if even a little - for example by cutting out eggs for a while and seeing how it goes?

In a sense, this is liberating, because it kind of means there is no "list" or set-in-stone protocol we "need" to follow, but we have to find our way through this maze for us individually (and collectively by sharing and connecting dots). I think we must begin in earnest to listen to our body. BUT, listening to our body is an art we have to learn! For example, giving in to cravings is the wrong form of "listening to our bodies", instead, I think we should pay attention to how certain foods affect us in a negative way.

For me, this manifests in a strengthening of the predator's mind. If I eat something (or too much of something) that I don't seem to take well, shortly after my programs kick in all over the place, willpower and energy are reduced, and I'm kind of feeling miserable both physically and spiritually. While many of these foods seem to be also those that give me a "kick/dopamine rush" and that I crave for that reason, it seems this correlation is not absolute. For example, I have a mild craving for butter, but there doesn't seem to be a big negative effect in the way I described. I can even tolerate a certain amount of fructose (which I'm also craving) without problems it seems.

The info in this thread might also explain why I seem to tolerate some things rather well (like tomato in moderate amounts or buckwheat crisp bread) that are considered problematic, while reacting more strongly to certain extremely-low-carb Paleo bread for example which has eggs in it.

So this ties in to what Laura said about the spiritual dimension of all this - certain food seems to be more "in resonance" with the predator's mind, while other food resonates on a different, higher frequency? So if we want to reach this higher frequency, we need to learn how to discern good food from bad food, which seems to depend on many factors like the food itself, maybe the "history"/imprint of the specific foodstuff, genetic, level of being etc.

Yes, and it reminds us of the idea of the Wanderers - those who "came back to help" but got side-swiped by the mismatch of frequencies.

Yes, Wanderer or not, I think it is interesting that certain people seem to literally thrive on evil food - I find it baffling sometimes to see people looking totally happy, energetic and "into it" while eating the worst possible diet! Often, I think these are the people who are very well-adapted to our crazy world, and who possibly get their energy by feeding from others - the "predator's mind" is all they have or know, so the evil food suits them. Osit.

Also, this thread reminded me of Gurdjieff's exoteric and mesoteric circles:

"The third circle is called the 'exoteric,' that is, the outer, because it is the outer circle of the inner part of humanity. The people who belong to this circle possess much of that which belongs to people of the esoteric and mesoteric circles but their cosmic knowledge is of a more philosophical character, that is to say, it is more abstract than the knowledge of the mesoteric circle. A member of the mesoteric circle calculates, a member of the exoteric circle contemplates. Their understanding may not be expressed in actions. But there cannot be differences in understanding between them. What one understands all the others understand.

I seems that you guys are pushing into the mesoteric circle, where it may become possible to "calculate" our optimal diet, instead of "contemplating" about the predator's mind and so on, which I just did :)

Anyway, me too I'm a little overwhelmed by all the diet/health research, I'm still lacking a lot of knowledge in that area. So, I guess I will have to put some effort into it, little by little, to learn more and to be better able to contribute.

FWIW

 

[Pierre]

Here are my results:

Candida : negative.

3
Brazil nut

2
Red beet
Agar-agar E 406
Vanilla
Egg white
Camel milk
Chicken egg

1
Egg yolk
Red algae (nori)

I was surprised by how few items I'm allergic to (9 items total). I will remove them to see how it affects me.

I though there would be a strong correlation between the foods I crave for and the ones I'm allergic to (addiction effect). It's not really the case. Since childhood I disliked beet, Brazil nut is my least favorite nut. I don't like eggs much. However Vanilla is one of my favorite flavors.

One explanation for those low results is that due to my medical history I tried to have a very healthy diet over the past 7 years. Maybe it has led to a reduced intake of some allergic foods, hence lessening the immune reaction. Indeed there may be a correlation between how much of a certain food was absorbed and the IgG count since the lab said we had to take the food we wanted to test at least three times before the test. If it was just an on/off reaction taking the food to be tested only once should suffice.

The diet may have also healed the gut and prevented the leak of food in the bloodstream. I guess one reason why some people are allergic to so many items is not because they are allergic to those items per se but simply because they have leaky guts that allow undigested food to reach the bloodstream and trigger the immune reaction to a foreign substance that is not supposed to be here.

I also tested quite low on heavy metal. Is there a correlation between low heavy metals and low food allergy?

In any case this food allergy test only measures the activation of one allergy marker (IgG) so it's only part of the allergy picture. For example, years ago I did a prick test and I was allergic to 95% of the tested items (bed mites, dust, pollen, molds, grass,...). My nose has been running non stop for years! But the prick test doesn't measure IgG( delayed reaction) but IgE (immediate reaction). How to reconcile those two results? Maybe some individuals are more prone to immediate reactions while others have delayed reactions? Another possibility is that between the prick test (conducted years ago) and the recent food allergy test I became less allergic?

Also, immune reactions are only one manifestation of the harmful effects of food. Even if one is not allergic to dairy, casein still has the same pseudo-opïods properties. Even if someone is not allergic to gluten, gluten still has the ability to coat the gut vilii and prevent the proper absorption of nutrients. Even if someone is not allergic to honey, it is still rich in carbs and can trigger insulin spikes.

A last point that is worth considering is the emotional aspect. Comfort food can be an effective way to cope with stress. So in the end what's the best solution: eat zero evil food (good on a physiological level but not necessarily good on a emotional level since it prevents the 'comfort food effect') or allow some evil food (negative physiological effect but positive emotional effect). Well, I guess that, as for all the rest in this world, the key is to find the right balance: a healthy enough diet that allows nonetheless a reasonable amount of comfort food.

 

[Scottie]

Oh, WOW.
I think I'm just about done with the whole diet thing. Testing, changing, swapping, replacing.....
I'm just gonna stick to paleo (dairy, wheat/grain free) cos this is just taking too much of my limited time and money. Iodine and regular fasting and detoxing is going to have to do for me for some time.

Yeah, I hear ya! ;D

The thing is, the whole reason we got into this kind of, um, "intensity" with diet is because of the various long-standing health problems that many of us have been trying to deal with.

Personally, I'm pretty resistant to changes in my diet. This stems from my often grumpy and stubborn nature. Besides, I don't have lots of crazy health problems, so what's the point?

Then, after thinking awhile, I try it anyway. As with most things, I usually try it relatively "hard core" compared to others since I also tend to be a bit OCD.

Sometimes, the end result is... nothing! Other times, I notice positive changes that I didn't suspect. But for me, the general overall trend is "feeling better overall". That tends to make the whole thing worth it.

But as others have noted, these tests are highly individual. They're specific to each person, and there are most certainly MANY other factors involved, such as:

1. Past health issues
2. Current health issues
3. Past traumas
4. Environmental toxins growing up
5. Current environmental toxins
6. The insane state of the world which does affect us all in various physical and psychological ways. I mean, think about it: Is anybody gonna tell me that the Earth opening up and crazy solar activity (or lack thereof) and shifting magnetic fields and wonky sounds in the sky are NOT going to have any effect on the human organism? HA! Of course they are going to have an effect!
7. Karma / past life stuff?
8. Who knows what else!!!

Anyway, my point is that it's not really simple, and there is nothing that obligates anyone to do anything. Sometimes I think that some of us take this diet stuff way too seriously (myself included). It is, after all, an experiment. And for the majority of those who participate, some nice positive results have been achieved. But diet doesn't exist in a vacuum, and despite our "intensity", this IS kept in mind at all times.

Of course, we are looking for patterns, but that's because humans are pattern recognition machines. That's what we do!

But it's NEVER diet alone that "fixes" anything, and nothing is required of anyone. At the same time, if somebody wants to eat Big Macs and Snickers bars all day, well, that's fine - but that person shouldn't come on the forum here and expect any real sympathy. But what you are doing already is HUGE compared to most people. If it makes you feel better, stick with it, IMO.

So, ya know... It quickly becomes overwhelming - in more ways than one. Then again, that seems to be the nature of this world: struggle!

But, step by step. We're still getting info from the lab on exactly what these tests do (or do not) actually tell us. It's complicated, and the story ain't over yet. As long as we keep moving forwards and upwards instead of backwards, I think overall it's a good thing.

 

[Regulattor]

Well, just as a reminder I'm quoting Nora Gedgaudas from PBPM relating to standard blood tests for gluten sensitivity, which can explain relatively low gluten sensitivity results:

Primal Body Primal mind, p43, 2011 edition
The standard blood tests for gluten sensitivity have an accuracy rate of no more then about 30 percent (with false-negatives being the most common issue.)

Another one regarding cross reactivty:

PBPM, p42,
Cross-reactive substances can comprise other, supposedly gluten-free grains, similar enough in molecular structure or genetics to cause reactivity in those particularly sensitive. Somewhat more mysteriously, they can also include entirely unrelated compounds that may have an immunologically associative relationship to gluten, such as casein (actually, surprisingly similar molecularly to gluten) and even coffee in some people. Coffee, in fact, according to the researchers at Cyrex Labs, may be the single most cross-reactive substance of them all.

Another Gedgaudase's remark about blood tests for food sensitivities:

PBPM, p274
Blood tests for food sensitivities are typically (with the exception of those offered by Cyrex Labs) no more that 30 percent accurate. False negatives through blood tests are the rule, not the exception.

This could explain relatively low number of sensitive food results for some of you guys. But as far as discovered food sensitivities, she says that they are 100% accurate. She also recommends doing blood tests with Cyrex Labs as they have "unprecedented accuracy" comparing to other labs.
So, according to Nora's claims, there could be a huge margin of undiscovered foods that may be causing troubles but still remain hidden for most standard blood tests.

 

[seek10]

Well, it's time to test again. I did Alletess IgG ELISA comprehensive food panel twice before during early days of Gluten elimination- once in Nov 2008 and April 2009. This is years before i felt my gut healed, gluten completely eliminated and felt better. _http://foodallergy.com/tests/order-a-test-kit/

For the folks in US, any recommendation of where to do the test?. Probably, I want to stick to the old test allocation(Alletess) for comparison. It will be interesting to compare after 7 years.

With perspective of discussion, I did simple comparison from old tests(attachment). Some times increase and decrease may be related to whether one is exposed to the food during the period or not.

I remember removing some of the foods from intake that marked as category 1 and 2 and the category reduced
Some I completely eliminated , but score narrowly increased. If the score is nearer to the category limit, sensitivity category can jump incorrectly. So It looks lot more factors in it.

 

[Starshine]

Now, how about the list of foods that nobody reacted to, that MIGHT be generally thought safe? Obviously, that is a tentative statement as we only have a limited sample. Anyway, here they are:

Trout
Mackerel
Duck
Lavender
Walnut
Cod
Endive
Pine nut
Oyster mushroom
Haddock
Salmon
Swiss chard
Carob
Bass
Dandelion
Vine leaf
Quail
Radicchio
Citronella
Nutmeg
Gilthead bream
Tannin
Cocoa
Carrageenans E407
Caraway seed
Sardine
Dill
Goose
Nettle
Rosemary
Red snapper
Cloves
Cilantro
Hot pepper
Chervil
Laurel
Fonio
Oregano
Sole
Coconut
Zander
Okra
Quinoa
Venison
Rabbit
Pollock
Chili
Scallop
Basil
Rice
Rhubarb
Curcumin E100
Arrowroot
Olives
Sugar cane
Quince
Jerusalem artichoke
Hare
Mirabelle plum
Pork
Lettuce
Citronat/Grapefruit seed oil?
Turkey
Goat
Sweet Potato
Wild Boar
Carp
Swordfish
Paris mushroom
Alfalfa
Veal
Deer
Molokhia
Blueberry
Coffee
Maple syrup
Teff
Lupin
Ostrich
Lamb
Manioc

Obviously, this is a very French listing of foods tested and wherever you live, the list of foods will be adjusted to that locale.

Well, better stick to the pork chops then, it's on the list :D
Those results are quite surprising indeed, Scottie and Pierre made very good points.

Here are my results:


I though there would be a strong correlation between the foods I crave for and the ones I'm allergic to (addiction effect). It's not really the case. Since childhood I disliked beet, Brazil nut is my least favorite nut. I don't like eggs much. However Vanilla is one of my favorite flavors.

...

I also tested quite low on heavy metal. Is there a correlation between low heavy metals and low food allergy?

A last point that is worth considering is the emotional aspect. Comfort food can be an effective way to cope with stress. So in the end what's the best solution: eat zero evil food (good on a physiological level but not necessarily good on a emotional level since it prevents the 'comfort food effect') or allow some evil food (negative physiological effect but positive emotional effect). Well, I guess that, as for all the rest in this world, the key is to find the right balance: a healthy enough diet that allows nonetheless a reasonable amount of comfort food.

It would be interesting to match the test between heavy metals and food allergies.

I have to say, as Scottie, that I tend to take the diet thing way too seriously too, and as I struggled to implement the perfect diet plan, it was more stressful to not successfully doing so a 100%. A constant and useless blame back in the head.

Those recent tests bring a whole new light on what's optimal for each one of us. If they are accurate.
Anyway, the balance exits when we do our best to eat properly, listen to our bodies, understand how it functions and avoid the obvious evil.

 

[Chad]

[...]
The diet may have also healed the gut and prevented the leak of food in the bloodstream. I guess one reason why some people are allergic to so many items is not because they are allergic to those items per se]but simply because they have leaky guts that allow undigested food to reach the bloodstream and trigger the immune reaction to a foreign substance that is not supposed to be here.
[...]

Other than chocolate - which appears to be the safest thing to eat - i could give up most other foods without too much struggle. It's mainly that they were an easy and apparently reliable source of much of your required nutrition.

Leaky gut has been mentioned and it made me wonder whether the reason things like Eggs are highly reactive may be due to the fact that their protein, and perhaps energy signature, is such that the body recognises it as an invading foreign protein in a way that say a slice of meat or a piece of broccoli wouldn't. In the sense that, unlike beef meat, eggs are intended to create life (though i hear it's just a chickens time of the month) and so may 'super charged' in a way that meat isn't. Since meat seems to be well tolerated by most but eggs aren't.

It may be that eggs really are the best but with a leaky gut they're actually the worst because they're so 'powerful'. That said, and not to stray into Kruze territory, i remember he said that "fowl is fowl" - is there something to that? Did we rely on chickens when the bigger animals were scarce? I thought chickens were important during wars because they were like mobile feed machines, but obviously that proves nothing. The foreign protein issue also reminds me of sex workers who become ill for similar reasons and again reminds me of the egg issue. But i'm just thinking out loud.

Anyway, to at least incorporate some of the findings, i upped my coffee fat bomb to more lard, less butter and tomorrow i'll use just one egg yolk. And then a few days i'll just have butter-coffee. And then maybe i'll see if i can bear just lard - doubtful :P