The Food Intolerance Bible: A nutritionist's plan to beat food cravings, fatigue, mood swings, bloating, headaches and IBS

This is the traditional method for identifying foods to which you have an adverse reaction. There are variations on the theme, but the most strict type is to avoid all food and go on a water fast only for three days, and then introduce lamb and pears only. You do this for a period of time, from two to four weeks, then reintroduce individual foods one by one, with a gap of a number of days (usually four) in between each reintroduction. If the avoidance of a food leads to a reduction in symptoms and its reintroduction leads to a worsening of symptoms, then you are intolerant to that food.

This approach requires time and attention – and it is recommended that you record your reactions in writing as you go.

Following this method is difficult, and there are also problems related to malnutrition and care of the individual who embarks on this process. It is also difficult to confirm results with other modes of testing. With multiple food intolerances, it may prove very difficult to identify them all, since your symptoms may not improve even if you do avoid culprit foods because other foods contributing to your symptoms have not been avoided, even in the limited exclusion diet. This is where it may be best to consider a blood test.

Additionally, if there are complicating conditions as highlighted in Part 2 (#u85a339e0-b02f-5ff3-928e-3dbc9964b13f), it may not be possible to identify whether symptoms are related to the food or to something else, such as a bacterial overgrowth or a liver detoxification problem. Lastly, this type of testing is not so suitable for unmasking delayed food intolerances as opposed to immediate reactions – which would in any case require medical attention.

A variation on this type of approach has been outlined in Chapter 1 (#u2d394278-c821-53cb-9752-53549d2962ca), and involves ‘simply’ eliminating the most obvious culprit foods from the Usual Suspects list for a period of time and then reintroducing them one by one. This is much more straightforward and produces good results without the extreme measures of the full Elimination Diet. The recipes and Resources in this book should greatly help you to implement this simpler approach.

Again, it is important to warn you that those with more serious conditions such as asthma should not undertake this approach because it is possible that reintroducing culprit foods will trigger a more severe reaction than when you were consuming it every day.

Elimination-Challenge Method Proves Useful in IBS

Over 20 years ago, the Lancet published a study which showed that food intolerance affects the symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Twenty-one patients with IBS followed a strict elimination diet (no other tests were done) which consisted of one meat, one fruit and distilled or spring water for one week. For 14 of the patients, the symptoms disappeared. Then the patients reintroduced single foods, one at a time, and recorded their reactions. The following foods evoked symptoms: wheat (9 patients), corn (5), dairy products (4), coffee (4), tea (3), citrus fruits (2). Biopsies were carried out on the nine cases of wheat intolerance and proved that they did not have coeliac disease. Their blood was analysed, and this confirmed that the symptoms were mediated at least in part by prostaglandins, but that an immunological mechanism did not seem to be involved.

Since complying with such a strict elimination diet may be very difficult for some, it makes it extremely difficult to use this type of testing method for every patient.

Skin Prick

This test is not suitable for food intolerance testing.

Vega Test

I know colleagues who use the Vega test and they have consistently good results with their patients. There is not much scientific evidence in the way of trials – but then this is true for many tests for food intolerance.

Electroacupuncture According to Voll (EAV)

Similar comments apply to this as to Kinesiology and Vega testing, although this is less commonly available than either of the other two.

Kinesiology

Muscle-testing can prove very effective as a means of testing for food intolerance.

Again, I know of practitioners who have a great deal of success with it, but there are also studies which highlight the inconsistencies of this technique.

RAST

This test is not suitable for food intolerance testing.

ELISA IgG

This method has been shown to be effective by a small number of studies that have been carried out. However, you may recall that not all food intolerances are mediated by IgG reactions, and while 80 per cent is a high figure you could miss some extremely important reactions to foods that are causing your symptoms by another means. There is much clinical evidence for this type of test, although one question with IgG testing is the source of the antigens, which could be something other than the foods you eat. This explains why one lab’s results can vary from another, even from blood drawn from the same person on the same day.

Cellular Mediators (i.e. FACT)

There is at least one study, along with much clinical evidence and practitioner support, that validate the efficacy of this test. Many find it appealing because it examines the inflammatory cascade which may be triggered by more than just one type of immunoglobulin (i.e. IgG) and which occurs in non-immune mediated reactions.

Food Allergen Cellular Test (FACT)

This is a test that measures cellular mediators released from white blood cells, such as histamine and leukotrienes (which can be 10,000 more inflammatory than histamine), when they are exposed to food allergens. It is available from a lab called Individual Wellbeing Diagnostic Laboratories (see Appendix II).

It is already known that inflammatory chemicals are responsible for a number of symptoms associated with food intolerance. ELISA technology is used in the testing procedure to measure leukotriene release very precisely. Since leukotrienes are released in the face of a number of different types of intolerance/allergic reaction, including IgE and IgG as well as other non-immune-related responses, the test is therefore thought to be capable of detecting a wide range of reactions.

This test has been the subject of a study involving 200 participants with clearly defined symptoms. On the basis of the results, each participant was given a fourday rotational diet plan which excluded those foods that had appeared positive in the FACT. They followed this diet for three months. Their symptoms had included rheumatism/joint or muscle pain, fatigue, lethargy, mood fluctuation, eczema, itchy skin, acne; migraine, headache, IBS, diarrhoea, constipation, bloating, stomach cramps; weight problems, sinus congestion, rhinitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

At the end of the three months, the participants reported on the status of their symptoms in terms of frequency and severity. The improvements across the board were noteworthy, and are shown below:

These improvements are impressive, and highlight the significant association of food intolerance and IBS, something noted in the 1982 Lancet study cited earlier. In a clinical setting, the outcome of patients who have excluded the positive foods identified by this test are similar to the impressive figures shown above. An experienced and extremely knowledgeable nutritionist, Xandria Williams, has used this test for years:

I have used a range of different food intolerance tests including IgG Elisa and Cytotoxic, but in my clinical experience the best results have been achieved when using the FACTest.

Xandria Williams, nutritional practitioner and best-selling author of Living with Allergies

In a more recent analysis of food intolerance testing and IBS, described in the Introduction, similarly encouraging results were found.

It would seem that if you have IBS you would do well to avoid the foods to which you are intolerant, and if you cannot find out which foods these are, then a test measuring either IgG or cellular mediators (e.g. the FACTest) would be advisable. The test in this instance would almost certainly save you time and effort in determining which foods to avoid.

The time factor is one of the most important advantages of having a blood test for food intolerances, certainly compared with elimination diets, which are discussed below.

The Usual Suspects

Before you find out more about lab testing, there are a number of things you can do at home to determine if you have a problem with a food intolerance. First, you can make keen observations about how you feel when you eat a certain food, and at the same time compare your intake against the Usual Suspects list in Chapter 1 (#u2d394278-c821-53cb-9752-53549d2962ca). Figure out how many of these foods you consume every day, even more than once a day. Wheat, dairy, sugar and yeast are the most common culprits.

Lab Tests

If your answers to the Food Intolerance Questionnaire indicate that a lab test should be your next step, then see Appendix II for more information.

Summary

There are a number of different methods for evaluating food intolerances. Most have some relevance and accuracy, but some do not. ELISA IgG analysis and the evaluation of chemical mediators, which also uses ELISA technology, are two of the most accurate and relevant tests.

Two different types of tests offering IgG analysis and analysis of the chemicals released in response to food antigen exposure are recommended. The details of laboratories that offer these tests are detailed in Appendix II.

Food intolerance testing is expensive, but can prove hugely useful in your mission to improve your health.

Why Do I Have a Food Intolerance? (#ulink_cd151fd7-ee10-5017-8e84-ab395c4e4118)

3 Is It What I Eat? (#ulink_981a5d69-6649-5acf-82b0-4bc595de4f7d)

Why Are Food Intolerances So Common?

This chapter will tell you about the reasons why food intolerances exist and why you may have one or more of them. You will find out how you can address your food intolerance and its underlying causes.

You have learned that at least 45 per cent of the whole population has at least one food intolerance. Other researchers believe that this figure is as high as 80 per cent. So why does this happen? Were we not designed to eat certain foods? Are more people intolerant to foods today than they were in the past?

First, let’s review the most common causes of food intolerance. These causes may well be cumulative, may well co-exist and therefore may be synergistic in the cause of your food intolerance(s). Over the next few chapters we will look in detail at each of these causes.

eating too much of the same food too often (this chapter)