OK here is a question... I have noticed that a couple of members have mentioned that although an item was OK on the MRT testing that they still cannot tolerate that food. The question is why?
My interpretation of this is MRT testing looks at systemic reactions for a food item that occurs in the blood, is there a difference in those reactions and the ones that happen locally in the GI tract?
I am trying to see how I should approach the MRT results, for instance the MRT tests say that wheat is OK... I KNOW that it is not
--Joe
MRT / LEAP & MC
Moderators: Rosie, JFR, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh, mbeezie
-
Joefnh
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 2478
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:25 pm
- Location: Southern New Hampshire
MRT / LEAP & MC
Joe
Joe,
Your dietician should be able to answer those questions for you. I cannot tolerate wheat but MRT said it was ok. There were several items this way. Mary Beth was able to be my dietician because we both live in Texas and she said that she wouid take into acount all of my testing: Enterolab, fructose malabsorption, and MRT. The literature that came with the results said that if you know you react to something even though MRT says it is ok don't eat it. You say you don't react to rice but you are taking Imuran and it may be suppressing your imune system so much that you don't notice the reaction. Talk with your dietician and she/he will guide you.
Pat
Your dietician should be able to answer those questions for you. I cannot tolerate wheat but MRT said it was ok. There were several items this way. Mary Beth was able to be my dietician because we both live in Texas and she said that she wouid take into acount all of my testing: Enterolab, fructose malabsorption, and MRT. The literature that came with the results said that if you know you react to something even though MRT says it is ok don't eat it. You say you don't react to rice but you are taking Imuran and it may be suppressing your imune system so much that you don't notice the reaction. Talk with your dietician and she/he will guide you.
Pat
Joe,
I believe the explanation lies in the fact that MRT doesn't actually measure any antibody levels. None at all. Instead, it "indirectly" measures mediator release, by allegedly precisely measuring changes to a liquid/solids ratio of a blood sample, after whole blood has been incubated with an individual food, additive, or chemical. Get the picture? The process is very simple - introduce the test item to whole blood, allow it to incubate for a while, then measure a liquid/solids ratio, and compare it with the equivalent ratio of control blood. Changes supposedly relate to reactions, on a quantitative basis.
However, I would assume that not all types of reactions proceed similarly, and in fact, some might lead to a contrary result, (as far as a liquid/solids effect is concerned), so that I can envision situations where the results of one type of reaction might counteract other reactions, so that the combined result is neutral.
Remember, they only measure the overall result, and they measure it indirectly, totally disregarding all the myriad discreet reactions that might actually be involved. This is sort of the chemical equivalent of an "second hand" epidemiological study. They know that something happened, (as evidenced by changes in a liquid/solids ratio), but they don't have the foggiest idea what actually did happen, nor do they know why. According to the theory of the process, all that other information is irrelevant. (Of course, in reality, in many cases it is relevant, IMO, and the glaring exceptions that we keep finding in the test results, are clear evidence of this). Frankly, I don't see how they can claim such a high accuracy level, (what is it - 93%, or somewhere in that area?) The results seen by the members here, who have had the testing, certainly don't seem to fit the claimed accuracy.
Don't get me wrong, the overall results of the test generally seem to be quite helpful, to most people, but due to the indirect, (to put it mildly), way that they measure the reactions, it would be very unrealistic to expect that wild errors will not occur, and occur frequently. And frankly, IMO, their claimed accuracy level is a figment of the imagination of their advertising copywriters. Still, it appears to be a very useful tool, for ferreting out elusive food or chemical sensitivities. One just has to use a lot of common sense, and some careful testing, to get around the problems inherent with the system.
At least that's how I see it.
Tex
I believe the explanation lies in the fact that MRT doesn't actually measure any antibody levels. None at all. Instead, it "indirectly" measures mediator release, by allegedly precisely measuring changes to a liquid/solids ratio of a blood sample, after whole blood has been incubated with an individual food, additive, or chemical. Get the picture? The process is very simple - introduce the test item to whole blood, allow it to incubate for a while, then measure a liquid/solids ratio, and compare it with the equivalent ratio of control blood. Changes supposedly relate to reactions, on a quantitative basis.
However, I would assume that not all types of reactions proceed similarly, and in fact, some might lead to a contrary result, (as far as a liquid/solids effect is concerned), so that I can envision situations where the results of one type of reaction might counteract other reactions, so that the combined result is neutral.
Remember, they only measure the overall result, and they measure it indirectly, totally disregarding all the myriad discreet reactions that might actually be involved. This is sort of the chemical equivalent of an "second hand" epidemiological study. They know that something happened, (as evidenced by changes in a liquid/solids ratio), but they don't have the foggiest idea what actually did happen, nor do they know why. According to the theory of the process, all that other information is irrelevant. (Of course, in reality, in many cases it is relevant, IMO, and the glaring exceptions that we keep finding in the test results, are clear evidence of this). Frankly, I don't see how they can claim such a high accuracy level, (what is it - 93%, or somewhere in that area?) The results seen by the members here, who have had the testing, certainly don't seem to fit the claimed accuracy.
Don't get me wrong, the overall results of the test generally seem to be quite helpful, to most people, but due to the indirect, (to put it mildly), way that they measure the reactions, it would be very unrealistic to expect that wild errors will not occur, and occur frequently. And frankly, IMO, their claimed accuracy level is a figment of the imagination of their advertising copywriters. Still, it appears to be a very useful tool, for ferreting out elusive food or chemical sensitivities. One just has to use a lot of common sense, and some careful testing, to get around the problems inherent with the system.
At least that's how I see it.
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.
Joe,
I pretty much agree with Tex. I keep stressing that the MRT test results seem to be accurate for the reactive foods identified, but I don't think any conclusion can be drawn about the foods that test non-reactive. They need to be tested on an individual basis, similar to any other food. I believe Mary Beth concurs.
The value of the test is that it helps determine additional foods to eliminate. I don't believe it has a lot of value in telling us which foods are safe. It narrows the field a little more.
I discovered most of my problematic foods on my own, but the MRT testing revealed some intolerances that I assumed were safe and might never have discovered. Even after following the LEAP diet, I found several additional intolerances amongst the "non-reactive" foods. Those foods should be looked at very skeptically, IMHO.
The real problem for me was that the Phase 1, 2, 3, and 4 diets begin with the client eating the lowest-reactive foods first. That's based upon the assumption that those foods are the safest, but for me they were not, and they exacerbated my symptoms. I tried to tell the dietician, but she wanted to stick to the plan. She even called her supervisor and the supervisor was pretty adament that those foods (mostly fish) should be safe for me because of the test results. Fish is a high-histamine food and I can't handle it, plus I don't really like it. In fairness, my dietician didn't know anything about MC, mast cells, or mastocytic enterocolitis.
Gloria
I pretty much agree with Tex. I keep stressing that the MRT test results seem to be accurate for the reactive foods identified, but I don't think any conclusion can be drawn about the foods that test non-reactive. They need to be tested on an individual basis, similar to any other food. I believe Mary Beth concurs.
The value of the test is that it helps determine additional foods to eliminate. I don't believe it has a lot of value in telling us which foods are safe. It narrows the field a little more.
I discovered most of my problematic foods on my own, but the MRT testing revealed some intolerances that I assumed were safe and might never have discovered. Even after following the LEAP diet, I found several additional intolerances amongst the "non-reactive" foods. Those foods should be looked at very skeptically, IMHO.
The real problem for me was that the Phase 1, 2, 3, and 4 diets begin with the client eating the lowest-reactive foods first. That's based upon the assumption that those foods are the safest, but for me they were not, and they exacerbated my symptoms. I tried to tell the dietician, but she wanted to stick to the plan. She even called her supervisor and the supervisor was pretty adament that those foods (mostly fish) should be safe for me because of the test results. Fish is a high-histamine food and I can't handle it, plus I don't really like it. In fairness, my dietician didn't know anything about MC, mast cells, or mastocytic enterocolitis.
Gloria
You never know what you can do until you have to do it.
Joe,
There are various types of reactions to foods and no one tests picks up all types of sensitivities. MRT is the blood test but LEAP is the process. I stress that because when you work with a dietitian he/she will add their clinical judgement to the process. We have to considert the diseae state and develop an elimination diet accordingly. MRT was never intended to be used at face value, hence the big price cut when you work with a dietitian.
Mary Beth
There are various types of reactions to foods and no one tests picks up all types of sensitivities. MRT is the blood test but LEAP is the process. I stress that because when you work with a dietitian he/she will add their clinical judgement to the process. We have to considert the diseae state and develop an elimination diet accordingly. MRT was never intended to be used at face value, hence the big price cut when you work with a dietitian.
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