I have been reading through quite a few posts where people say that their results from Enterolab for the 11 Antigenic Foods (rice, corn, nuts, ets) are 3+ or 1+, etc.
My results just said "most immunologic activity, intermediate activity and no activity."
Has the interpretation of these results changed? I had a very hard time with my results because my score was 12 (less than 10 was normal) and this is what it said....
"Interpretation of Mean Value 11 Antigenic Foods: Overall, there was only a modest amount of immunological reactivity detected to these antigenic foods in terms of fecal IgA production."
I would have preferred to know HOW allergic to chicken, oats, walnuts, etc, that I am. It seems that the results people have been posting are more specific, but I am not sure if something has changed? Thanks to all, Susie
Clarification of Enterolab Antigenic Foods Results
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Hi Susie,
Yes, they made the results slightly more definitive on later test reports. I would assume that foods ranked as 3+ could safely be considered to rate as having "most immunologic activity", foods ranked as 2+ are equivalent to foods rated as having "intermediate immunologic activity", and foods ranked as 1+ would be equivalent to foods rated as having "slight immunologic activity".
With an overall score of only 12, IMO foods ranked as having "most immunologic activity should be considered to be moderately risky, and those ranked as "intermediate" should be diet tested to see if they actually cause problems, and/or they could probably be rotated without causing significant problems.
In each ranking category, the food listed first on the report should be the considered to be likely to be the most troublesome. I hope I haven't just confused the issue.
Tex
Yes, they made the results slightly more definitive on later test reports. I would assume that foods ranked as 3+ could safely be considered to rate as having "most immunologic activity", foods ranked as 2+ are equivalent to foods rated as having "intermediate immunologic activity", and foods ranked as 1+ would be equivalent to foods rated as having "slight immunologic activity".
With an overall score of only 12, IMO foods ranked as having "most immunologic activity should be considered to be moderately risky, and those ranked as "intermediate" should be diet tested to see if they actually cause problems, and/or they could probably be rotated without causing significant problems.
In each ranking category, the food listed first on the report should be the considered to be likely to be the most troublesome. I hope I haven't just confused the issue.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Maybe you simply didn't have any foods that were rated in the "slight" category, so they didn't bother to list that one.Susie wrote:so either the none changed to slight, or they added one.
You're most welcome,
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.