I’ve just watched a very interesting feature on food intolerance tests on the UK consumer program Watchdog. Basically the perfectly healthy reporter just picked three kinds of tests to see if he’d get the same results from all of them. Needless to say – he didn’t. Here’s what happened.
Vega test
The patient holds an electrode, which apparently lets the therapist record the body’s energy levels, which in turn can be used to diagnose food intolerances. It’s available in branches of Holland and Barrett, a respected healthfood store, which in itself is a bit worrying.
The Watchdog reporter took two separate Vega tests in two different shops, and he got very different results. This was also the case when two other reporters from the BBC tried the test out for a programme called Inside Out a while back. The Inside Out reports showed similarly confusing results – they never agreed on which foods to cut out, and often reported wildly different intolerances.
Verdict: To my mind, this is pretty conclusive proof that Vega tests don’t work. If the test can’t even agree with its own results then it’s clearly useless.
Perhaps the most startling thing about the Inside Out report was that the chairman of the Vega company agreed that the test is useless – or at least that it only works 70% of the time, and that the “science” of the test “does stretch the imagination”.
Wow. I’m not sure what you’re supposed to do if you happen to try the test on one of its 30% days off – I guess you’re just meant to cut out a whole load of completely irrelevant foods and pay the Vega people for the privilege. What a service!
Bionetics hair analysis
The patient sends off a hair sample and the Bionetics company analyse it somehow (I can’t be bothered to find out how, tell you why in a minute). The Watchdog reporter got another completely different list of intolerant foods for this one, including such gems as elderberry and paw paw. I don’t know about you but I’d be very disgruntled if I had to give up my daily paw paw and elderberry fix.
Verdict: The reason I can’t be bothered to even explain this one properly is that hair tests are rubbish science. I’ve never seen a shred of evidence to suggest that you can test food intolerances based on hair samples. And what the hell is paw paw?
ELISA blood tests
The patient does a pinprick test at home to get a small sample of blood. This is sent to a lab, where they check it for levels of IGg antibodies to various foods. The theory is that the higher the levels of antibody, the more intolerant you are to that food.
The Watchdog reporter used the York company, but this kind of test is also available from Cambridge Nutritional Science, and in fact I was tested myself using this method last year.
The reporter sent off two samples, both his own blood, under two different names. One sample showed no intolerances at all, and one sample showed slight reactions to cow’s milk, lemon, lime, orange and grapefruit.
Verdict: The ELISA test came out of this report with the most credit – the two tests nearly matched, and there weren’t any major reactions to any foods. There has also been a clinical trial of the York method which gave some good results, although not as conclusive as the York spokesman was trying to suggest on the program.
So – what do you do if you want to get tested for food intolerances? My views after watching this program are pretty much what I would have said beforehand (although it’s made me even more cautious of the Vega test).
Basically, hair tests don’t work because you just can’t get that much info from a strand of hair, so that’s no good. The Vega test comes up with different results depending on which machine you use, and the director of the company says that there’s a 30% chance that it will fail miserably, so that’s no good either.
And that leaves the ELISA blood test, which isn’t perfect either, but at least it has some decent science behind it (the IGg antibodies stuff) and also a clinical trial which showed some decent, if not entirely conclusive, results.
The reporter on the program rather innocently suggested that people should forego all of these tests and just see their GP, when of course the reason why lots of us turn to these tests in the first place is that our GP won’t help us with our diet or we can’t get a referral to a dietician.
But if you do have some cash to splash and you’re looking at these tests, it is worth remembering that it might be better just to see a private dietician or nutritionist who specialises in IBS. They might suggest an exclusion diet, a way to isolate trigger foods without taking any tests, and they can also advise on what foods might actually help your IBS, not just tell you about the ones that might harm it.
Plus, of course, they can make sure that you’re not doing yourself more harm than good by cutting out whole food groups.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Pinky Princess // Jan 11, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Hey Sophie, I can’t believe I missed this program!! I find this so interesting. I took the York test a year and a half ago, and then cut out the foods suggested. I then took the Cambridge test more recently, and it showed very similar results, with a few more foods at a lower level of reaction but basically saying not to touch milk with a barge pole, which is the same as the York. The foods I’d successfully eliminated over the year did not show as being problematic the following year. But the things I’d still had a bit of (corn is nigh on impossible to avoid) showed up still, and the egg intolerance had got worse as I hadn’t been able to cut them out either.
I totally believe that the tests have helped me at least with guidelines of what to avoid. They may not be perfect but I was desperate and they were a good place to start.
The doctors were less than useless and the dietician at the hospital knew less about nutrition than I did. And I’m not being big headed!! Just to present a balanced view, Patrick Holford defends the York test with this information:
BBC Watchdog’s Dirty Allergy Trick
In case you watched Tuesday (9th Jan 2007) night’s Watchdog on BBC1 you might have spotted a slight of hand. A healthy volunteer had three allergy tests – a vega test (twice), a hair test, and Yorktest’s IgG Food Intolerance test, in which the volunteer sent two blood samples.
The first two came up with a lot of foods, and the vega tests each had different results. Yorktest’s test identified no reactions in the first test, and two foods on the lowest possible level of sensitivity.
You can have a +4, +3, +2, +1 or ‘rotate’ reaction. Rotate means don’t eat every day. If I have a patient who has 2 ‘rotate’ foods only they are, in essence, not allergic. In other words the two tests were almost identical in result. Thumbs up for Yorktest you’d expect.
But no. Watchdog not only implied the results were ‘very’ different, but they also said that the test had shown five reactions! They did this not by reading the actual result – one of the allergens was ‘citrus mix’ – but by saying the test had shown they were allergic to oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruit and so on. For a BBC Watchdog programme that’s pretty underhand.
But it got worse. The expert they used to pass judgement said that there had been only one study on IgG as a basis for allergy! That is plain deception. If you go into Medline, the on-line database of published research and put in IgG you’ll find 139,473 referenced studies. If you narrow down to IgG + food intolerance it list 85 studies. I referenced 115 studies in my book Hidden Food Allergies (Piatkus).
The evidence for IgG antibody reactions as a basis for food intolerances continues to grow, including well designed randomised controlled trials, however, some health professionals just haven’t kept up to date. Perhaps it’s because a ‘home test’ takes the power away from the professional and puts it in your hands. Patrick Holford
2 Sophie Lee // Jan 12, 2007 at 12:52 am
Hi Jo – that’s interesting that you had two tests done as well, and the results were similar. I do think the ELISA test is the one that shows real promise for IBS sufferers, and although it didn’t seem to help me I’ve heard from a number of other people who have used it with good results.
I think Mr Holford is being a little unfair himself though in some of his comments…fair enough on the ‘citrus mix’ issue, although calling the reporter “underhand” is going a bit far, that was probably just how he interpreted the results.
But when he says that it was a deception to say there’s only been one study on IGg allergy – well, there has only been one placebo-controlled double blind study as far as I know which actually looked at whether patients improved when they followed the ELISA results. This is the one you can find on the Yorktest website and was published in the journal called “Gut”. I’m pretty darn sure that if York had more than one of these things they’d put them all on their website.
The 85 studies of IGg and food intolerance he cites on Medline include one study on rats which has absolutely nothing to do with IGg intolerance, others on things like ‘nasal polyposis’, and quite a large number of other studies which actually do look at food intolerance and IGg and conclude that there is little or no value in testing for IGg antibodies.
His 139,473 figure is even more silly, because these 139,473 studies include a vast number that have exactly nothing to do with food intolerance. One of the first studies you see is called “Hepatitis C virus infection combined with systemic lupus erythematosus.” Not really evidence in favour of ELISA blood tests for food intolerance.
Anyway, despite his slightly OTT defence, he obviously believes the tests work, and there is some evidence to suggest that he’s right. Just not enough to be entirely convinced, in my humble opinion. (You can check the studies done on IGG and food intolerance on Pubmed) Thanks for this Jo, it’s interesting reading.
3 Ellie // Jan 13, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Hi to all. I can’t believe I missed this program also, especially I am in the group of people where the ELISA test has actually made a big difference to their life.
Aa people have probably read from my previous posts, my life has been completely changed by the test – both positve and negative though. Positive in that by avoiding all the foods they highlighted I do not suffer from my IBS symptoms. Negative in that the group of foods they came back with (14 in total) makes shopping and eating an absolute nightmare – some of them, like Jo said, are near on impossible to avoid.
No doubt Watchdog being the type of programme it is has managed to put people off having the test altogether. Is this a good or bad thing? I have spoken to other people and the test didn’t work for them, yet for me it did. Yorktest do say it is only successful in 70% of cases for IBS sufferers and how much of the success of the test is then based on how well you eliminate the foods?
I think if you can afford it, it is definitely worth seeking the advice of a nutritionist/dietician. Perhaps do this inconjunction with the test? This is certainly something I would advise anyone taking the test now. Ellie
4 Avrilas // Jan 20, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Hello, I’d like to add to this one!! I consulted with a nutritionist and he recommended I did the ELISA test at Cambridge Nutritional Sciences. I did it and I think it is the best available. I had a VEGA test done some years ago and it registered practically everything!!! I had to cut out all sorts of foods and found a little relief to be fair, but only for my symptoms to return later and on such a harsh diet, it was extremely difficult to stick to.
Now however, I have conclusive proof of my allergies and a huge problem with Candida in the gut so I’m taking measures to get rid of that too!! It’s not easy with allergies too; it kinda cuts down my menu possibilities but with a little careful planning and reading up on alternative recipe sites, I’m managing my condition much better.
By the way, has anyone been watching ‘the spa of embarrassing illnesses’ on UK Style? It’s finished now (sorry!) but they had people with IBS on it and they had really positive results from alternative treatments. One of which is a DIY coffee enema!! Has anyone tried this at home?? I’m going to see if I can buy one – it looked brilliant!! Good Luck all, Avril
5 waz // Feb 5, 2007 at 11:33 pm
About a year and a half ago I took the food allergy/intolerance test available at Holland and Barrets. I think it was the VEGA test , the one where they poke your finger with a matal rod type thing whilst the machine takes readings. The reason I decided to take this test was because I felt Holland and Barrets was a reputable company. At first I was sceptical, I was told there was a reaction to wheat and dairy. As this is common in IBS sufferers and he was aware of my condition I felt maybe it was an educated guess. He then went on to say I was intolerant to yeast, sugar(possibly due to the yeast), alcohol and white grapes. The white grapes caught my attention because I remeber a few days before the test I was eating some lovely juicy grapes at work whilst sitting at my desk. Everytime I ate one I felt a gurgling and crampy feeling in my belly so Im guessing he was right in saying I had an intolerance to white grapes. Maybe I took the test on one of its good days or maybe it was purely coincidence- Im not sure.
Anyway, I drastically changed my diet (this was actually done before I took the test because I went to see a colonic hydrotherapist who suggested I do so). I cut out wheat, dairy, caffeine, potatoes, citrus fruit, all kinds of processed or sugary food. A typical day consisted of half litre of warm water follwed by soya milk porridge with a tiny bit of honey, then two hours later another half litre of warm water then a tuna or chicken salad (no dressing) and so on.
Immediately after the colonic I felt empty! I hadn’t felt empty for a good 4 years- my main symptom was constipation. I followed the diet religiously for about 5 months. As well as the diet I took valerian and cramp bark to help relax my intestinal muscles and dried fennel combined with other herbs to soften my stools. I eventually got to the stage where I’d have one bowel movement in the morning after breakfast but I was still quite constipated. If I didnt take the fennel herbs I couldnt manage a bowel movement. Eventually after several months my progress halted then it slowly seemed to reverse back to my old ways. So I thought why torture myself on this diet and deprive myself of so many foods when my belly has decided to go against me yet again, so I began to eat chocolate and slowly slowly other foods.
Now although I try to stick to a wheat free and dairy free diet I so usually have at least one portion of wheat a day and plenty of caffeine! I must admit I felt much better on th ediet but it ws near impossible to stick to. The main downside is that now after cutting out so many foods for so long my reactions to them are now much more severe.
I would like to be able to go back onto the diet but with my work, my long distance relationship and my general greediness I do not think its possible. Out of all the millions of things I have tried- fibre, aloe vera, herbs etc nothing worked quiet like the exclusion diet and fennel herbs. I am now trying reflexology- I dont think I have seen any difference in my IBS although it is early days and the therapist says she has treated others with this condition and seen improvements. I have to say even if it does not improve my IBS it is very relaxing and worth a try for that alone.
6 emma // Jun 26, 2007 at 8:11 am
I saw this programme and have to say that i didn’t personally agree with the findings. I had the test myself several years ago and not only did my energy levels go sky high, but i could jump out of bed, i lost weight and looked healthy. It may sound like a lot to cut out but this is only for the first time as after that if you begin to notice you may be suffering from symptoms again of not feeling good then you just do the diet again but for a shorter period and you’ll soon be feeling 100per cent again.
7 dave // Jan 13, 2009 at 9:55 am
paw paw = papaya (fruit)
Leave a Comment