My IgA, and IgG came back normal
IgA Result 187 Ref Range 68-378
IgG Result 803 Ref Range 768-1632
This means that my low test scores with enterolab were correct. But I still can't figure out why I react to gluten even though enterolab says I do not show an intolerance to it. And why I do not react to casein and yeast even though the enterolab says I should. Strange.
Always a mystery
Well the mystery continues, got my IgA Scores
Moderators: Rosie, JFR, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
-
IDreamInColor
- Adélie Penguin
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:20 pm
- Location: Ohio
-
Gabes-Apg
- Emperor Penguin
- Posts: 8332
- Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:12 pm
- Location: Hunter Valley NSW Australia
I know you are seeking the 'concrete' answers to what is going on, my advice is, listen to your body, it will tell you what works for you and what doesnt.
it has been discussed previously on this site that some of the ranges for tests and how they are conducted are not a true true indication of what is going, it is only one element.
I havent dont enterlab testing i have figured out what ingredients work and dont work via elimination diet, it takes time and patience but it works......
other health issues play their part, meds we are taking for other conditions play their part, it is all very individual.
take care
it has been discussed previously on this site that some of the ranges for tests and how they are conducted are not a true true indication of what is going, it is only one element.
I havent dont enterlab testing i have figured out what ingredients work and dont work via elimination diet, it takes time and patience but it works......
other health issues play their part, meds we are taking for other conditions play their part, it is all very individual.
take care
Gabes Ryan
"Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned"
Dalai Lama
"Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned"
Dalai Lama
You may find the answer to your question in the webinar on this thread.
There are many versions of Gliadin and I am not sure that Enterolab tests for all of them (someone correct me if I am wrong).
http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/viewt ... highlight=
best, Ant
There are many versions of Gliadin and I am not sure that Enterolab tests for all of them (someone correct me if I am wrong).
http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/viewt ... highlight=
best, Ant
Dream,
I felt the same way at one time. I wanted to know WHY and I chased after a diagnosis for a long time. It is possible that you do have some overactive mast cells. In sensitive individuals, like myself, lectins cause mast cell degranulation and that can lead to D. I suspect that scenario is more common than most realize. There is not test to measure that, not even secretory IgA. The bottom line is that a GF diet was effective. I gave up trying to get answers and shifted my focus to what works. I realized there were many unanswered questions where gluten was concerned and in the long run it didn't matter much. Despite what any lab test tells you, if you are sensitive to gluten then you should avoid it. The answer may come in time, but the most important thing is focus on what you know works for you.
Take care,
Mary Beth
I felt the same way at one time. I wanted to know WHY and I chased after a diagnosis for a long time. It is possible that you do have some overactive mast cells. In sensitive individuals, like myself, lectins cause mast cell degranulation and that can lead to D. I suspect that scenario is more common than most realize. There is not test to measure that, not even secretory IgA. The bottom line is that a GF diet was effective. I gave up trying to get answers and shifted my focus to what works. I realized there were many unanswered questions where gluten was concerned and in the long run it didn't matter much. Despite what any lab test tells you, if you are sensitive to gluten then you should avoid it. The answer may come in time, but the most important thing is focus on what you know works for you.
Take care,
Mary Beth
"If you believe it will work out, you'll see opportunities. If you believe it won't you will see obstacles." - Dr. Wayne Dyer
Hi IDream,
As we all know, we don't live in a perfect world, and that means that it is impossible to design a perfect test. Like everything else in life, lab tests involve trade offs, and they are limited by the laws of physics and mathematics. One of the vulnerablities for tests based on IgA antibody detection is IgA deficiency, which you just ruled out, in your case. The possibility still exists that you may be sensitive to protein fractions that are not tested for, (since the tests are by necessity, very restrictive). Another possibility, though, is that you are one of the few individuals who happen to get caught by the necessary statistical restrictions imposed by the mathematics involved in determining the cutoff point for a positive test result. Due to the mathematics involved, it's possible that your test result should have been positive, even though it falls below the stated cutoff point. IOW, maybe the cutoff point is too high for your particular case.
It turns out that one of our members has a lot of experience working with tests of this type, and she is very familiar with the statistical analyses involved in making the hard choices necessary for setting the operating parameters for such tests. Rosie brought this to my attention, and I am grateful for her expertise, and her insight into the problem, since it provides us with another possible explanation, and a reason for questioning "suspicious" negative test results.
According to her analysis, statistically, there is only a slim chance of receiving a false positive test result, so for test results above the cutoff point, there is no reason to doubt the result. Due to the way that the statistical analysis works, though, because of the wide range of possible test results, the possibility of false negative results cannot be ignored. Statistically, (percentage-wise), it's not a bad risk, and it mostly applies to scores barely below the cutoff point, but the fact is, a certain percentage of test subjects are going to end up with test results below the cutoff score, even though their test result should be positive. IOW, their test result will be a false negative, meaning that their test result will show a negative response, even though they are sensitive to the antigen being tested for. This risk exists in the vicinity of the cutoff point, and the farther a test result falls, from the cutoff point, the lower the chances of a false result, obviously.
I realize that it's a disturbing thought to suggest that the 10 unit cutoff point might not be 100 % accurate for everyone, but anytime statistical analysis is necessary, in order to determine test parameters, such a risk exists. It's typically unavoidable. This doesn't change the fact that these tests are by far the most accurate means we have, for determining food sensitivities. Enterolab's stool tests will detect gluten-sensitivity several years before celiac disease has progressed to the point where the classic celiac blood tests will yield a positive result, in many/most cases. We just have to remember that for a few people, negative scores just below the cutoff point may be false negative results. For most of us, though, even a score of 9 would be an accurate negative result. This caveat only affects a chosen few, who happen to be victims of the statistical odds. The good news is that positive results, (above the cutoff point), are extremely reliable, and that's the most important part of the entire analysis, because the biggest problem with the blood tests is the fact that they are notorious for false negative results - they miss far too many cases of gluten-sensitivity. The stool tests at Enterolab don't have that problem.
Many thanks to Rosie, for devoting her time and analytical skills to checking this out for us.
Knowledge is power, and IMO, it's usually even more important to know why things sometimes go wrong, than it is to know why they usually go right. Now we know what corrective action to take, when barely negative results don't seem to be right. Of course, we already knew what to do, didn't we - Dr. Fine told us right off the bat, to adopt the GF diet, anytime a negative result seems suspicious.
Tex
As we all know, we don't live in a perfect world, and that means that it is impossible to design a perfect test. Like everything else in life, lab tests involve trade offs, and they are limited by the laws of physics and mathematics. One of the vulnerablities for tests based on IgA antibody detection is IgA deficiency, which you just ruled out, in your case. The possibility still exists that you may be sensitive to protein fractions that are not tested for, (since the tests are by necessity, very restrictive). Another possibility, though, is that you are one of the few individuals who happen to get caught by the necessary statistical restrictions imposed by the mathematics involved in determining the cutoff point for a positive test result. Due to the mathematics involved, it's possible that your test result should have been positive, even though it falls below the stated cutoff point. IOW, maybe the cutoff point is too high for your particular case.
It turns out that one of our members has a lot of experience working with tests of this type, and she is very familiar with the statistical analyses involved in making the hard choices necessary for setting the operating parameters for such tests. Rosie brought this to my attention, and I am grateful for her expertise, and her insight into the problem, since it provides us with another possible explanation, and a reason for questioning "suspicious" negative test results.
According to her analysis, statistically, there is only a slim chance of receiving a false positive test result, so for test results above the cutoff point, there is no reason to doubt the result. Due to the way that the statistical analysis works, though, because of the wide range of possible test results, the possibility of false negative results cannot be ignored. Statistically, (percentage-wise), it's not a bad risk, and it mostly applies to scores barely below the cutoff point, but the fact is, a certain percentage of test subjects are going to end up with test results below the cutoff score, even though their test result should be positive. IOW, their test result will be a false negative, meaning that their test result will show a negative response, even though they are sensitive to the antigen being tested for. This risk exists in the vicinity of the cutoff point, and the farther a test result falls, from the cutoff point, the lower the chances of a false result, obviously.
I realize that it's a disturbing thought to suggest that the 10 unit cutoff point might not be 100 % accurate for everyone, but anytime statistical analysis is necessary, in order to determine test parameters, such a risk exists. It's typically unavoidable. This doesn't change the fact that these tests are by far the most accurate means we have, for determining food sensitivities. Enterolab's stool tests will detect gluten-sensitivity several years before celiac disease has progressed to the point where the classic celiac blood tests will yield a positive result, in many/most cases. We just have to remember that for a few people, negative scores just below the cutoff point may be false negative results. For most of us, though, even a score of 9 would be an accurate negative result. This caveat only affects a chosen few, who happen to be victims of the statistical odds. The good news is that positive results, (above the cutoff point), are extremely reliable, and that's the most important part of the entire analysis, because the biggest problem with the blood tests is the fact that they are notorious for false negative results - they miss far too many cases of gluten-sensitivity. The stool tests at Enterolab don't have that problem.
Many thanks to Rosie, for devoting her time and analytical skills to checking this out for us.
Knowledge is power, and IMO, it's usually even more important to know why things sometimes go wrong, than it is to know why they usually go right. Now we know what corrective action to take, when barely negative results don't seem to be right. Of course, we already knew what to do, didn't we - Dr. Fine told us right off the bat, to adopt the GF diet, anytime a negative result seems suspicious.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.
Idream,
I get my results Tuesday and I bet they will be like yours. So I do agree that listening to our bodies is the best option. And frankly for you (and probably me), it is our only option. But I am finding out that it is a good option, nonetheless.
I have always said that I would like my doctors, family, associates, etc. to crawl inside my skin so they can feel my body. It is so hard to describe what MC makes one feel like to those who do not have it.
I have ignored, for years, what my body was screaming to me. But since joining this forum, I am starting to listen. I still don't understand everything my body is telling me, but I am hopeful I will get there.
Will share my results when I get them.
Rich
I get my results Tuesday and I bet they will be like yours. So I do agree that listening to our bodies is the best option. And frankly for you (and probably me), it is our only option. But I am finding out that it is a good option, nonetheless.
I have always said that I would like my doctors, family, associates, etc. to crawl inside my skin so they can feel my body. It is so hard to describe what MC makes one feel like to those who do not have it.
I have ignored, for years, what my body was screaming to me. But since joining this forum, I am starting to listen. I still don't understand everything my body is telling me, but I am hopeful I will get there.
Will share my results when I get them.
Rich
"It's not what I believe. It's what I can prove." - A Few Good Men