Who did the test? What kind of results (quantitative) did they provide?

I did this recently with Immuno Labs, and I haven't quite started testing this yet.

I reacted (+1, 2, 3) to ~36/154 foods. Reaction levels are 0 (none), 1,2,3,4 (highest)

Biggest ones:

almond (+2)

egg (+3)

milk, cows(+3)

milk, goats (+2)

brazil nut (+3)

oyster (+2)

tomato (+2)

yeast, bakers (+2)

yeast, brewers (+3)

So, they say to avoid ALL of the foods, but sheeh, I'm already avoiding dairy and am on the low GI diet -- I've lost 7-8 pounds over 6 months, but have stabilized. I'm eating avocado and fats up the WAZZOO, just to try to gain weight back!

I'm going to try yeast first, since this is big, and I'm already avoiding dairy.

My doctor who I consulted with about this said that some people really believe this works, while others, not so much.

I'd love to hear more about this, too, from anyone who has tried this already.

Thanks!

I would begin digging through raw vegan food recipes that make "omelets" out of nuts by putting them in a blender with veggies and herbs and such. I'm sure they have some delicious alternative. I'm making my own nut milks (1 cup almonds, 4 cups water, 1 banana in the blender) and I plan on making cheese alternatives with nuts. So I'm sure they'll have some omelet substitute.

What's the range, the ones I did were 1-100 and anything below 10 is probably not really worth worrying about.

Well my naturopath ordered the test from NeuroScience. According to the test guideline anything less than a 400 is insignificant, 400-600 is low, 600-1000 is moderate, and anything higher would be considered a high reaction. He told me I shouldn't worry to much about low reactions, and to continue eating the foods if I wished. He did tell me I could experiment, but its a bit hard because I am already on a gluten/dairy free diet. On another forum someone told me that IgG is just a reaction to the common foods we eat a lot of, and that everyone has them according to whatever food they consume in large amounts. How detrimental they are to health and acne, I don't know.

My doctor who I consulted with about this said that some people really believe this works, while others, not so much.

What a swamp of uncertainty and skulduggery to pick through to even try to get an accurate test of what you hope you're testing!

You should try avoiding those foods one by one and see if you feel better or get clearer skin. Even the lowest scored ones.

I had an allergy test, I'm assuming IgE since that's all most doctors are concerned about and it was before I knew better. Anyway, it found I was mildly allergic to a handful of things, rated on a scale from 1-5. One of the 1s, citrus, causes me to have severe cystic acne. I'm not aware of what the others do to me if anything, not even the 2s. I was trying to find a cause for my constant congestion. The info that came with the results specifically said the severity of antibody response didn't necessarily correspond to the severity of the reaction you experience.

Also, according to the ALCAT test people, the presence of antibodies doesn't necessarily indicate an allergy. That's why they measure some other marker that is the end result of all kinds of reactions, even in food intolerances that don't involve antibodies.

Well my naturopath ordered the test from NeuroScience. According to the test guideline anything less than a 400 is insignificant, 400-600 is low, 600-1000 is moderate, and anything higher would be considered a high reaction. He told me I shouldn't worry to much about low reactions, and to continue eating the foods if I wished. He did tell me I could experiment, but its a bit hard because I am already on a gluten/dairy free diet. On another forum someone told me that IgG is just a reaction to the common foods we eat a lot of, and that everyone has them according to whatever food they consume in large amounts. How detrimental they are to health and acne, I don't know.

I just got mine back though, and what I eat the most of (coconut, tomato, lots of veggies, chicken, beef, lamb, banana, rice, coffee) all came back low (or green) with no reactions to. I got eggs and yeast. I have already been trying to avoid them, at least eggs, as I know I always get a bad stomach reaction when eating them. I did though get moderate reactions to cows milk and I eat a bit of cheese, the rest of the stuff I don't eat much of at all yet they showed up (tuna, sesame, shellfish, chili).

So that theory that whatever I eat the most of show up as high isn't correct. I thought it would be like that too, and coconut would show up because I eat soo much coconut milk, oil, water etc everyday but nope coconut was cool.

 

Well my naturopath ordered the test from NeuroScience. According to the test guideline anything less than a 400 is insignificant, 400-600 is low, 600-1000 is moderate, and anything higher would be considered a high reaction. He told me I shouldn't worry to much about low reactions, and to continue eating the foods if I wished. He did tell me I could experiment, but its a bit hard because I am already on a gluten/dairy free diet. On another forum someone told me that IgG is just a reaction to the common foods we eat a lot of, and that everyone has them according to whatever food they consume in large amounts. How detrimental they are to health and acne, I don't know.

I just got mine back though, and what I eat the most of (coconut, tomato, lots of veggies, chicken, beef, lamb, banana, rice, coffee) all came back low (or green) with no reactions to. I got eggs and yeast. I have already been trying to avoid them, at least eggs, as I know I always get a bad stomach reaction when eating them. I did though get moderate reactions to cows milk and I eat a bit of cheese, the rest of the stuff I don't eat much of at all yet they showed up (tuna, sesame, shellfish, chili).

So that theory that whatever I eat the most of show up as high isn't correct. I thought it would be like that too, and coconut would show up because I eat soo much coconut milk, oil, water etc everyday but nope coconut was cool.

Hey, I just wanted to share some new info I got yesterday from an allergist. I'd had an IgG test done in 2011 by a holistic doctor and it showed I was allergic to yeast. I've avoided it like the plague for four years. Yesterday I saw a -real- allergist and he said I am absolutely NOT allergic to yeast. He said IgG tests are something that are never done by by allergists and even showed me that it's on the top of a list of what not to do as an allergist. I just wanted to let you know your results might be wrong and you should consider that before you start cutting out foods.

 

Well my naturopath ordered the test from NeuroScience. According to the test guideline anything less than a 400 is insignificant, 400-600 is low, 600-1000 is moderate, and anything higher would be considered a high reaction. He told me I shouldn't worry to much about low reactions, and to continue eating the foods if I wished. He did tell me I could experiment, but its a bit hard because I am already on a gluten/dairy free diet. On another forum someone told me that IgG is just a reaction to the common foods we eat a lot of, and that everyone has them according to whatever food they consume in large amounts. How detrimental they are to health and acne, I don't know.

I just got mine back though, and what I eat the most of (coconut, tomato, lots of veggies, chicken, beef, lamb, banana, rice, coffee) all came back low (or green) with no reactions to. I got eggs and yeast. I have already been trying to avoid them, at least eggs, as I know I always get a bad stomach reaction when eating them. I did though get moderate reactions to cows milk and I eat a bit of cheese, the rest of the stuff I don't eat much of at all yet they showed up (tuna, sesame, shellfish, chili).

So that theory that whatever I eat the most of show up as high isn't correct. I thought it would be like that too, and coconut would show up because I eat soo much coconut milk, oil, water etc everyday but nope coconut was cool.

Hey, I just wanted to share some new info I got yesterday from an allergist. I'd had an IgG test done in 2011 by a holistic doctor and it showed I was allergic to yeast. I've avoided it like the plague for four years. Yesterday I saw a -real- allergist and he said I am absolutely NOT allergic to yeast. He said IgG tests are something that are never done by by allergists and even showed me that it's on the top of a list of what not to do as an allergist. I just wanted to let you know your results might be wrong and you should consider that before you start cutting out foods.

Yes because an allergy and an intolerance is not the same. However, some 'real' allergists as you say actually sometimes offer IGg testing although they are not sure of its accuracy yet (this is true), so most GPs will tell you to do an elimination diet instead but that can be hard to do. Intolerances exist, and I am surprised that this person just disregarded this by what he told you. Also, being on here I would think you wouldn't just take someones word for it like that. Like diet not being a factor of acne. Also, you are not suppose to avoid it forever, just for a bit, and then try it again. Did no one explain this to you?

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/food-allergy/expert-answers/food-allergy/faq-20058538

It has helped me because I feel better, even through I didn't believe in it.

Also, I did mine at a lab with blood and not with a naturopath

I read your one of your other posts, yes naturopaths are renown for giving out 'yeast allergies' that is, they say you have a yeast overgrowth called Candida. Candida is completely normal though, and exist in all of us. Because of this 'Candida' your body is having a reaction to the protein in yeast. It sounds super stupid, and it is. Usually you have to stop sugar, fruits, carbs etc for months until you 'starve' it. Although people feel better, they are never cured. It is probably the fact that they aren't eating any sugar. I've been through some shady 'food intolerance testing' too before so I was very doubtful about this. I can't be really sure yet though.

 

Well my naturopath ordered the test from NeuroScience. According to the test guideline anything less than a 400 is insignificant, 400-600 is low, 600-1000 is moderate, and anything higher would be considered a high reaction. He told me I shouldn't worry to much about low reactions, and to continue eating the foods if I wished. He did tell me I could experiment, but its a bit hard because I am already on a gluten/dairy free diet. On another forum someone told me that IgG is just a reaction to the common foods we eat a lot of, and that everyone has them according to whatever food they consume in large amounts. How detrimental they are to health and acne, I don't know.

I just got mine back though, and what I eat the most of (coconut, tomato, lots of veggies, chicken, beef, lamb, banana, rice, coffee) all came back low (or green) with no reactions to. I got eggs and yeast. I have already been trying to avoid them, at least eggs, as I know I always get a bad stomach reaction when eating them. I did though get moderate reactions to cows milk and I eat a bit of cheese, the rest of the stuff I don't eat much of at all yet they showed up (tuna, sesame, shellfish, chili).

So that theory that whatever I eat the most of show up as high isn't correct. I thought it would be like that too, and coconut would show up because I eat soo much coconut milk, oil, water etc everyday but nope coconut was cool.

Hey, I just wanted to share some new info I got yesterday from an allergist. I'd had an IgG test done in 2011 by a holistic doctor and it showed I was allergic to yeast. I've avoided it like the plague for four years. Yesterday I saw a -real- allergist and he said I am absolutely NOT allergic to yeast. He said IgG tests are something that are never done by by allergists and even showed me that it's on the top of a list of what not to do as an allergist. I just wanted to let you know your results might be wrong and you should consider that before you start cutting out foods.

Yes because an allergy and an intolerance is not the same. However, some 'real' allergists as you say actually sometimes offer IGg testing although they are not sure of its accuracy yet (this is true), so most GPs will tell you to do an elimination diet instead but that can be hard to do. Intolerances exist, and I am surprised that this person just disregarded this by what he told you. Also, being on here I would think you wouldn't just take someones word for it like that. Like diet not being a factor of acne. Also, you are not suppose to avoid it forever, just for a bit, and then try it again. Did no one explain this to you?

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/food-allergy/expert-answers/food-allergy/faq-20058538

It has helped me because I feel better, even through I didn't believe in it.

Also, I did mine at a lab with blood and not with a naturopath

I read your one of your other posts, yes naturopaths are renown for giving out 'yeast allergies' that is, they say you have a yeast overgrowth called Candida. Candida is completely normal though, and exist in all of us. Because of this 'Candida' your body is having a reaction to the protein in yeast. It sounds super stupid, and it is. Usually you have to stop sugar, fruits, carbs etc for months until you 'starve' it. Although people feel better, they are never cured. It is probably the fact that they aren't eating any sugar. I've been through some shady 'food intolerance testing' too before so I was very doubtful about this. I can't be really sure yet though.

I never said food cannot affect acne - I know it can! I just do not think that IgG testing is an accurate way to determine which foods can't be eaten. The allergist I saw earlier this week said he's actually using the same test to determine tolerance to foods in a study at the university nearby.

I had the same test you did. It wasn't "shady 'food intolerance testing'." I went to a lab, had blood drawn, and still have the paper with the results. It showed a high intolerance to bakers yeast and brewers yeast, and a low intolerance to gluten. I cut out the necessary foods, got a little better temporarily, and then it all came back.

As it stands, I'm obviously -very- open to holistic approaches to curing acne. I'm totally on board with treating the source instead of the symptoms. But I don't the IgG testing is it. The majority of the scientific community says there is no validity to this form of testing and that it can even be showing the opposite of intolerance. I am committed to find a drug-free way to cure my skin, but I am also the kind of person who goes by evidence and the evidence is not with the IgG test. I wish I'd done more research on it before I cut out the foods I was "intolerant" to for years. I do think an elimination diet could be a good way to find the foods that affect you.

I'm not sure why you would only avoid a food temporarily though if you had a true intolerance. Ask anyone who's lactose intolerant if they only had to avoid it temporarily.

 

Well my naturopath ordered the test from NeuroScience. According to the test guideline anything less than a 400 is insignificant, 400-600 is low, 600-1000 is moderate, and anything higher would be considered a high reaction. He told me I shouldn't worry to much about low reactions, and to continue eating the foods if I wished. He did tell me I could experiment, but its a bit hard because I am already on a gluten/dairy free diet. On another forum someone told me that IgG is just a reaction to the common foods we eat a lot of, and that everyone has them according to whatever food they consume in large amounts. How detrimental they are to health and acne, I don't know.

I just got mine back though, and what I eat the most of (coconut, tomato, lots of veggies, chicken, beef, lamb, banana, rice, coffee) all came back low (or green) with no reactions to. I got eggs and yeast. I have already been trying to avoid them, at least eggs, as I know I always get a bad stomach reaction when eating them. I did though get moderate reactions to cows milk and I eat a bit of cheese, the rest of the stuff I don't eat much of at all yet they showed up (tuna, sesame, shellfish, chili).

So that theory that whatever I eat the most of show up as high isn't correct. I thought it would be like that too, and coconut would show up because I eat soo much coconut milk, oil, water etc everyday but nope coconut was cool.

Hey, I just wanted to share some new info I got yesterday from an allergist. I'd had an IgG test done in 2011 by a holistic doctor and it showed I was allergic to yeast. I've avoided it like the plague for four years. Yesterday I saw a -real- allergist and he said I am absolutely NOT allergic to yeast. He said IgG tests are something that are never done by by allergists and even showed me that it's on the top of a list of what not to do as an allergist. I just wanted to let you know your results might be wrong and you should consider that before you start cutting out foods.

Yes because an allergy and an intolerance is not the same. However, some 'real' allergists as you say actually sometimes offer IGg testing although they are not sure of its accuracy yet (this is true), so most GPs will tell you to do an elimination diet instead but that can be hard to do. Intolerances exist, and I am surprised that this person just disregarded this by what he told you. Also, being on here I would think you wouldn't just take someones word for it like that. Like diet not being a factor of acne. Also, you are not suppose to avoid it forever, just for a bit, and then try it again. Did no one explain this to you?

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/food-allergy/expert-answers/food-allergy/faq-20058538

It has helped me because I feel better, even through I didn't believe in it.

Also, I did mine at a lab with blood and not with a naturopath

I read your one of your other posts, yes naturopaths are renown for giving out 'yeast allergies' that is, they say you have a yeast overgrowth called Candida. Candida is completely normal though, and exist in all of us. Because of this 'Candida' your body is having a reaction to the protein in yeast. It sounds super stupid, and it is. Usually you have to stop sugar, fruits, carbs etc for months until you 'starve' it. Although people feel better, they are never cured. It is probably the fact that they aren't eating any sugar. I've been through some shady 'food intolerance testing' too before so I was very doubtful about this. I can't be really sure yet though.

I never said food cannot affect acne - I know it can! I just do not think that IgG testing is an accurate way to determine which foods can't be eaten. The allergist I saw earlier this week said he's actually using the same test to determine tolerance to foods in a study at the university nearby.

I had the same test you did. It wasn't "shady 'food intolerance testing'." I went to a lab, had blood drawn, and still have the paper with the results. It showed a high intolerance to bakers yeast and brewers yeast, and a low intolerance to gluten. I cut out the necessary foods, got a little better temporarily, and then it all came back.

As it stands, I'm obviously -very- open to holistic approaches to curing acne. I'm totally on board with treating the source instead of the symptoms. But I don't the IgG testing is it. The majority of the scientific community says there is no validity to this form of testing and that it can even be showing the opposite of intolerance. I am committed to find a drug-free way to cure my skin, but I am also the kind of person who goes by evidence and the evidence is not with the IgG test. I wish I'd done more research on it before I cut out the foods I was "intolerant" to for years. I do think an elimination diet could be a good way to find the foods that affect you.

I'm not sure why you would only avoid a food temporarily though if you had a true intolerance. Ask anyone who's lactose intolerant if they only had to avoid it temporarily.

I used the example of 'acne and diet connection' to try to reason why sometimes something might work even though it is not accepted in the mainstream scientific world (for either an allergist or a dermatologist). Yeah it might not have worked for you, but it might work for someone else. That is how this works. I didn't get better before I cut out eggs, and those were on my test results. I can not tell you if it works or not, in scientific words. I am a bit sceptic, as I am of everything that claims to be the reason behind 'acne.'

I don't understand why you 'cut them (food intolerances) down for years' when it clearly states that you should remove them for 3-6 months and see if you get better. If it made not difference then why continue to cut them out?

As I said above, yes 'the majority of the scientific community' might be sceptic of its validity but so are they when it comes to food and acne and you just said you believed there to be a connection? Am I right? And if so, do you only believe only part of what 'the majortity of the scientific community' says? Or, is it that you felt like it failed you, so you don't believe in it?

I find it odd that it worked at first, but when it stopped working soon thereafter you decided to keep going, for 'years' it seems. What sparked this?

Food intolerance and an lactose allergy is very different. An intolerance is when you lack the enzymes to fully digest the food, that is why people rapport having less gas after they cut out their food intolerances (undigested food gets eaten by bacteria in the colon - perfectly normal). I guess the idea is that you're body should get a break to try to repair everything. Further, if one introduces it again after a couple of months they know how they will react, and if there is no reaction it should be safe. So, either these intolerances were never there (and now they know for sure) or they were there and your body can now handle them. If they continue to react then they know they had an intolerance, and can still not handle them. I find it odd, that it didn't help you at all, so you continued to cut them out and never tried again to see what would happen.

My point is, all this is speculatory, even the 'diet connection,' so someone that clearly advocates this shouldn't be so quick to discredit other speculatory factors, such as food intolerances.

 

Well my naturopath ordered the test from NeuroScience. According to the test guideline anything less than a 400 is insignificant, 400-600 is low, 600-1000 is moderate, and anything higher would be considered a high reaction. He told me I shouldn't worry to much about low reactions, and to continue eating the foods if I wished. He did tell me I could experiment, but its a bit hard because I am already on a gluten/dairy free diet. On another forum someone told me that IgG is just a reaction to the common foods we eat a lot of, and that everyone has them according to whatever food they consume in large amounts. How detrimental they are to health and acne, I don't know.

I just got mine back though, and what I eat the most of (coconut, tomato, lots of veggies, chicken, beef, lamb, banana, rice, coffee) all came back low (or green) with no reactions to. I got eggs and yeast. I have already been trying to avoid them, at least eggs, as I know I always get a bad stomach reaction when eating them. I did though get moderate reactions to cows milk and I eat a bit of cheese, the rest of the stuff I don't eat much of at all yet they showed up (tuna, sesame, shellfish, chili).

So that theory that whatever I eat the most of show up as high isn't correct. I thought it would be like that too, and coconut would show up because I eat soo much coconut milk, oil, water etc everyday but nope coconut was cool.

Hey, I just wanted to share some new info I got yesterday from an allergist. I'd had an IgG test done in 2011 by a holistic doctor and it showed I was allergic to yeast. I've avoided it like the plague for four years. Yesterday I saw a -real- allergist and he said I am absolutely NOT allergic to yeast. He said IgG tests are something that are never done by by allergists and even showed me that it's on the top of a list of what not to do as an allergist. I just wanted to let you know your results might be wrong and you should consider that before you start cutting out foods.

Yes because an allergy and an intolerance is not the same. However, some 'real' allergists as you say actually sometimes offer IGg testing although they are not sure of its accuracy yet (this is true), so most GPs will tell you to do an elimination diet instead but that can be hard to do. Intolerances exist, and I am surprised that this person just disregarded this by what he told you. Also, being on here I would think you wouldn't just take someones word for it like that. Like diet not being a factor of acne. Also, you are not suppose to avoid it forever, just for a bit, and then try it again. Did no one explain this to you?

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/food-allergy/expert-answers/food-allergy/faq-20058538

It has helped me because I feel better, even through I didn't believe in it.

Also, I did mine at a lab with blood and not with a naturopath

I read your one of your other posts, yes naturopaths are renown for giving out 'yeast allergies' that is, they say you have a yeast overgrowth called Candida. Candida is completely normal though, and exist in all of us. Because of this 'Candida' your body is having a reaction to the protein in yeast. It sounds super stupid, and it is. Usually you have to stop sugar, fruits, carbs etc for months until you 'starve' it. Although people feel better, they are never cured. It is probably the fact that they aren't eating any sugar. I've been through some shady 'food intolerance testing' too before so I was very doubtful about this. I can't be really sure yet though.

I never said food cannot affect acne - I know it can! I just do not think that IgG testing is an accurate way to determine which foods can't be eaten. The allergist I saw earlier this week said he's actually using the same test to determine tolerance to foods in a study at the university nearby.

I had the same test you did. It wasn't "shady 'food intolerance testing'." I went to a lab, had blood drawn, and still have the paper with the results. It showed a high intolerance to bakers yeast and brewers yeast, and a low intolerance to gluten. I cut out the necessary foods, got a little better temporarily, and then it all came back.

As it stands, I'm obviously -very- open to holistic approaches to curing acne. I'm totally on board with treating the source instead of the symptoms. But I don't the IgG testing is it. The majority of the scientific community says there is no validity to this form of testing and that it can even be showing the opposite of intolerance. I am committed to find a drug-free way to cure my skin, but I am also the kind of person who goes by evidence and the evidence is not with the IgG test. I wish I'd done more research on it before I cut out the foods I was "intolerant" to for years. I do think an elimination diet could be a good way to find the foods that affect you.

I'm not sure why you would only avoid a food temporarily though if you had a true intolerance. Ask anyone who's lactose intolerant if they only had to avoid it temporarily.

I used the example of 'acne and diet connection' to try to reason why sometimes something might work even though it is not accepted in the mainstream scientific world (for either an allergist or a dermatologist). Yeah it might not have worked for you, but it might work for someone else. That is how this works. I didn't get better before I cut out eggs, and those were on my test results. I can not tell you if it works or not, in scientific words. I am a bit sceptic, as I am of everything that claims to be the reason behind 'acne.'

I don't understand why you 'cut them (food intolerances) down for years' when it clearly states that you should remove them for 3-6 months and see if you get better. If it made not difference then why continue to cut them out?

As I said above, yes 'the majority of the scientific community' might be sceptic of its validity but so are they when it comes to food and acne and you just said you believed there to be a connection? Am I right? And if so, do you only believe only part of what 'the majortity of the scientific community' says? Or, is it that you felt like it failed you, so you don't believe in it?

I find it odd that it worked at first, but when it stopped working soon thereafter you decided to keep going, for 'years' it seems. What sparked this?

Food intolerance and an lactose allergy is very different. An intolerance is when you lack the enzymes to fully digest the food, that is why people rapport having less gas after they cut out their food intolerances (undigested food gets eaten by bacteria in the colon - perfectly normal). I guess the idea is that you're body should get a break to try to repair everything. Further, if one introduces it again after a couple of months they know how they will react, and if there is no reaction it should be safe. So, either these intolerances were never there (and now they know for sure) or they were there and your body can now handle them. If they continue to react then they know they had an intolerance, and can still not handle them. I find it odd, that it didn't help you at all, so you continued to cut them out and never tried again to see what would happen.

My point is, all this is speculatory, even the 'diet connection,' so someone that clearly advocates this shouldn't be so quick to discredit other speculatory factors, such as food intolerances.

I cut them out because it did help me initially so I was scared to eat them again for fear of getting even worse. I don't have a scientific explanation for that. Not to mention, I didn't know until yesterday that the test was considered inaccurate by the scientific community.

A lactose intolerance is exactly what you described. Most people don't have a lactose allergy, they have a lactose intolerance and they avoid the food. If you cut something out for 6 months and you get better, adding it back in is probably going to put you back to square one. If you turn out to be able to handle it, then that's great! But I don't think that's the normal reaction.

I don't "believe in it" because all of the actual scientific studies point to it being highly inaccurate. I do think there's a connection between food and acne, BUT I don't think the connection can be discovered through IgG testing. Like I said, the allergist I saw this week is using the exact same test to detect tolerance to foods. I wouldn't discredit something without proof, but there seems to be overwhelming evidence that this testing doesn't work.

I think it's great that you're trying it and I hope it works for you! I just like to be aware of what the evidence says.

 

Well my naturopath ordered the test from NeuroScience. According to the test guideline anything less than a 400 is insignificant, 400-600 is low, 600-1000 is moderate, and anything higher would be considered a high reaction. He told me I shouldn't worry to much about low reactions, and to continue eating the foods if I wished. He did tell me I could experiment, but its a bit hard because I am already on a gluten/dairy free diet. On another forum someone told me that IgG is just a reaction to the common foods we eat a lot of, and that everyone has them according to whatever food they consume in large amounts. How detrimental they are to health and acne, I don't know.

I just got mine back though, and what I eat the most of (coconut, tomato, lots of veggies, chicken, beef, lamb, banana, rice, coffee) all came back low (or green) with no reactions to. I got eggs and yeast. I have already been trying to avoid them, at least eggs, as I know I always get a bad stomach reaction when eating them. I did though get moderate reactions to cows milk and I eat a bit of cheese, the rest of the stuff I don't eat much of at all yet they showed up (tuna, sesame, shellfish, chili).

So that theory that whatever I eat the most of show up as high isn't correct. I thought it would be like that too, and coconut would show up because I eat soo much coconut milk, oil, water etc everyday but nope coconut was cool.

Hey, I just wanted to share some new info I got yesterday from an allergist. I'd had an IgG test done in 2011 by a holistic doctor and it showed I was allergic to yeast. I've avoided it like the plague for four years. Yesterday I saw a -real- allergist and he said I am absolutely NOT allergic to yeast. He said IgG tests are something that are never done by by allergists and even showed me that it's on the top of a list of what not to do as an allergist. I just wanted to let you know your results might be wrong and you should consider that before you start cutting out foods.

Yes because an allergy and an intolerance is not the same. However, some 'real' allergists as you say actually sometimes offer IGg testing although they are not sure of its accuracy yet (this is true), so most GPs will tell you to do an elimination diet instead but that can be hard to do. Intolerances exist, and I am surprised that this person just disregarded this by what he told you. Also, being on here I would think you wouldn't just take someones word for it like that. Like diet not being a factor of acne. Also, you are not suppose to avoid it forever, just for a bit, and then try it again. Did no one explain this to you?

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/food-allergy/expert-answers/food-allergy/faq-20058538

It has helped me because I feel better, even through I didn't believe in it.

Also, I did mine at a lab with blood and not with a naturopath

I read your one of your other posts, yes naturopaths are renown for giving out 'yeast allergies' that is, they say you have a yeast overgrowth called Candida. Candida is completely normal though, and exist in all of us. Because of this 'Candida' your body is having a reaction to the protein in yeast. It sounds super stupid, and it is. Usually you have to stop sugar, fruits, carbs etc for months until you 'starve' it. Although people feel better, they are never cured. It is probably the fact that they aren't eating any sugar. I've been through some shady 'food intolerance testing' too before so I was very doubtful about this. I can't be really sure yet though.

I never said food cannot affect acne - I know it can! I just do not think that IgG testing is an accurate way to determine which foods can't be eaten. The allergist I saw earlier this week said he's actually using the same test to determine tolerance to foods in a study at the university nearby.

I had the same test you did. It wasn't "shady 'food intolerance testing'." I went to a lab, had blood drawn, and still have the paper with the results. It showed a high intolerance to bakers yeast and brewers yeast, and a low intolerance to gluten. I cut out the necessary foods, got a little better temporarily, and then it all came back.

As it stands, I'm obviously -very- open to holistic approaches to curing acne. I'm totally on board with treating the source instead of the symptoms. But I don't the IgG testing is it. The majority of the scientific community says there is no validity to this form of testing and that it can even be showing the opposite of intolerance. I am committed to find a drug-free way to cure my skin, but I am also the kind of person who goes by evidence and the evidence is not with the IgG test. I wish I'd done more research on it before I cut out the foods I was "intolerant" to for years. I do think an elimination diet could be a good way to find the foods that affect you.

I'm not sure why you would only avoid a food temporarily though if you had a true intolerance. Ask anyone who's lactose intolerant if they only had to avoid it temporarily.

I used the example of 'acne and diet connection' to try to reason why sometimes something might work even though it is not accepted in the mainstream scientific world (for either an allergist or a dermatologist). Yeah it might not have worked for you, but it might work for someone else. That is how this works. I didn't get better before I cut out eggs, and those were on my test results. I can not tell you if it works or not, in scientific words. I am a bit sceptic, as I am of everything that claims to be the reason behind 'acne.'

I don't understand why you 'cut them (food intolerances) down for years' when it clearly states that you should remove them for 3-6 months and see if you get better. If it made not difference then why continue to cut them out?

As I said above, yes 'the majority of the scientific community' might be sceptic of its validity but so are they when it comes to food and acne and you just said you believed there to be a connection? Am I right? And if so, do you only believe only part of what 'the majortity of the scientific community' says? Or, is it that you felt like it failed you, so you don't believe in it?

I find it odd that it worked at first, but when it stopped working soon thereafter you decided to keep going, for 'years' it seems. What sparked this?

Food intolerance and an lactose allergy is very different. An intolerance is when you lack the enzymes to fully digest the food, that is why people rapport having less gas after they cut out their food intolerances (undigested food gets eaten by bacteria in the colon - perfectly normal). I guess the idea is that you're body should get a break to try to repair everything. Further, if one introduces it again after a couple of months they know how they will react, and if there is no reaction it should be safe. So, either these intolerances were never there (and now they know for sure) or they were there and your body can now handle them. If they continue to react then they know they had an intolerance, and can still not handle them. I find it odd, that it didn't help you at all, so you continued to cut them out and never tried again to see what would happen.

My point is, all this is speculatory, even the 'diet connection,' so someone that clearly advocates this shouldn't be so quick to discredit other speculatory factors, such as food intolerances.

I cut them out because it did help me initially so I was scared to eat them again for fear of getting even worse. I don't have a scientific explanation for that. Not to mention, I didn't know until yesterday that the test was considered inaccurate by the scientific community.

A lactose intolerance is exactly what you described. Most people don't have a lactose allergy, they have a lactose intolerance and they avoid the food. If you cut something out for 6 months and you get better, adding it back in is probably going to put you back to square one. If you turn out to be able to handle it, then that's great! But I don't think that's the normal reaction.

I don't "believe in it" because all of the actual scientific studies point to it being highly inaccurate. I do think there's a connection between food and acne, BUT I don't think the connection can be discovered through IgG testing. Like I said, the allergist I saw this week is using the exact same test to detect tolerance to foods. I wouldn't discredit something without proof, but there seems to be overwhelming evidence that this testing doesn't work.

I think it's great that you're trying it and I hope it works for you! I just like to be aware of what the evidence says.

But you don't care what the scientific community has to say with regards to acne and food? So, you pick certain elements where they fit with your own opinions? That is, since food testing did not work for you the scientific evidence must be true! However, in the case of food and acne, they are wrong? The lack of evidence to back this up is inconsequential since I'm guessing your opinion is what matters?

I am aware, I'm also aware that about 10% of everything talked about has any sort of scientific evidence backing it up (if even that). People aren't even sure what Accutane really does, not truly.

I don't really know whether it works or not. But, I also know that there is so much bullshit everywhere that if you listened to every person discrediting something on these forums you would never try anything.

I know one guy here that got rid off his cystic acne with food sensitivity testing. I got rid off half my stomach problems after cutting out my red food intolerances. Who knows? You said it yourself, that it helped you in the beginning... So, it did something. I do agree with the fact that it is pseudoscience at best, but sometimes you need to try stuff anyways to get somewhere.

I just really didn't like your attitude. I get that it didn't work for you, but coming here waving a scientific flag saying that it doesn't back it up while advocating something that doesn't back it either seems hypocritical.

Lactose intolerance testing the test with a breath test, not and IGg blood test. It's not the same thing.

 

Well my naturopath ordered the test from NeuroScience. According to the test guideline anything less than a 400 is insignificant, 400-600 is low, 600-1000 is moderate, and anything higher would be considered a high reaction. He told me I shouldn't worry to much about low reactions, and to continue eating the foods if I wished. He did tell me I could experiment, but its a bit hard because I am already on a gluten/dairy free diet. On another forum someone told me that IgG is just a reaction to the common foods we eat a lot of, and that everyone has them according to whatever food they consume in large amounts. How detrimental they are to health and acne, I don't know.

I just got mine back though, and what I eat the most of (coconut, tomato, lots of veggies, chicken, beef, lamb, banana, rice, coffee) all came back low (or green) with no reactions to. I got eggs and yeast. I have already been trying to avoid them, at least eggs, as I know I always get a bad stomach reaction when eating them. I did though get moderate reactions to cows milk and I eat a bit of cheese, the rest of the stuff I don't eat much of at all yet they showed up (tuna, sesame, shellfish, chili).

So that theory that whatever I eat the most of show up as high isn't correct. I thought it would be like that too, and coconut would show up because I eat soo much coconut milk, oil, water etc everyday but nope coconut was cool.

Hey, I just wanted to share some new info I got yesterday from an allergist. I'd had an IgG test done in 2011 by a holistic doctor and it showed I was allergic to yeast. I've avoided it like the plague for four years. Yesterday I saw a -real- allergist and he said I am absolutely NOT allergic to yeast. He said IgG tests are something that are never done by by allergists and even showed me that it's on the top of a list of what not to do as an allergist. I just wanted to let you know your results might be wrong and you should consider that before you start cutting out foods.

Yes because an allergy and an intolerance is not the same. However, some 'real' allergists as you say actually sometimes offer IGg testing although they are not sure of its accuracy yet (this is true), so most GPs will tell you to do an elimination diet instead but that can be hard to do. Intolerances exist, and I am surprised that this person just disregarded this by what he told you. Also, being on here I would think you wouldn't just take someones word for it like that. Like diet not being a factor of acne. Also, you are not suppose to avoid it forever, just for a bit, and then try it again. Did no one explain this to you?

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/food-allergy/expert-answers/food-allergy/faq-20058538

It has helped me because I feel better, even through I didn't believe in it.

Also, I did mine at a lab with blood and not with a naturopath

I read your one of your other posts, yes naturopaths are renown for giving out 'yeast allergies' that is, they say you have a yeast overgrowth called Candida. Candida is completely normal though, and exist in all of us. Because of this 'Candida' your body is having a reaction to the protein in yeast. It sounds super stupid, and it is. Usually you have to stop sugar, fruits, carbs etc for months until you 'starve' it. Although people feel better, they are never cured. It is probably the fact that they aren't eating any sugar. I've been through some shady 'food intolerance testing' too before so I was very doubtful about this. I can't be really sure yet though.

I never said food cannot affect acne - I know it can! I just do not think that IgG testing is an accurate way to determine which foods can't be eaten. The allergist I saw earlier this week said he's actually using the same test to determine tolerance to foods in a study at the university nearby.

I had the same test you did. It wasn't "shady 'food intolerance testing'." I went to a lab, had blood drawn, and still have the paper with the results. It showed a high intolerance to bakers yeast and brewers yeast, and a low intolerance to gluten. I cut out the necessary foods, got a little better temporarily, and then it all came back.

As it stands, I'm obviously -very- open to holistic approaches to curing acne. I'm totally on board with treating the source instead of the symptoms. But I don't the IgG testing is it. The majority of the scientific community says there is no validity to this form of testing and that it can even be showing the opposite of intolerance. I am committed to find a drug-free way to cure my skin, but I am also the kind of person who goes by evidence and the evidence is not with the IgG test. I wish I'd done more research on it before I cut out the foods I was "intolerant" to for years. I do think an elimination diet could be a good way to find the foods that affect you.

I'm not sure why you would only avoid a food temporarily though if you had a true intolerance. Ask anyone who's lactose intolerant if they only had to avoid it temporarily.

I used the example of 'acne and diet connection' to try to reason why sometimes something might work even though it is not accepted in the mainstream scientific world (for either an allergist or a dermatologist). Yeah it might not have worked for you, but it might work for someone else. That is how this works. I didn't get better before I cut out eggs, and those were on my test results. I can not tell you if it works or not, in scientific words. I am a bit sceptic, as I am of everything that claims to be the reason behind 'acne.'

I don't understand why you 'cut them (food intolerances) down for years' when it clearly states that you should remove them for 3-6 months and see if you get better. If it made not difference then why continue to cut them out?

As I said above, yes 'the majority of the scientific community' might be sceptic of its validity but so are they when it comes to food and acne and you just said you believed there to be a connection? Am I right? And if so, do you only believe only part of what 'the majortity of the scientific community' says? Or, is it that you felt like it failed you, so you don't believe in it?

I find it odd that it worked at first, but when it stopped working soon thereafter you decided to keep going, for 'years' it seems. What sparked this?

Food intolerance and an lactose allergy is very different. An intolerance is when you lack the enzymes to fully digest the food, that is why people rapport having less gas after they cut out their food intolerances (undigested food gets eaten by bacteria in the colon - perfectly normal). I guess the idea is that you're body should get a break to try to repair everything. Further, if one introduces it again after a couple of months they know how they will react, and if there is no reaction it should be safe. So, either these intolerances were never there (and now they know for sure) or they were there and your body can now handle them. If they continue to react then they know they had an intolerance, and can still not handle them. I find it odd, that it didn't help you at all, so you continued to cut them out and never tried again to see what would happen.

My point is, all this is speculatory, even the 'diet connection,' so someone that clearly advocates this shouldn't be so quick to discredit other speculatory factors, such as food intolerances.

I cut them out because it did help me initially so I was scared to eat them again for fear of getting even worse. I don't have a scientific explanation for that. Not to mention, I didn't know until yesterday that the test was considered inaccurate by the scientific community.

A lactose intolerance is exactly what you described. Most people don't have a lactose allergy, they have a lactose intolerance and they avoid the food. If you cut something out for 6 months and you get better, adding it back in is probably going to put you back to square one. If you turn out to be able to handle it, then that's great! But I don't think that's the normal reaction.

I don't "believe in it" because all of the actual scientific studies point to it being highly inaccurate. I do think there's a connection between food and acne, BUT I don't think the connection can be discovered through IgG testing. Like I said, the allergist I saw this week is using the exact same test to detect tolerance to foods. I wouldn't discredit something without proof, but there seems to be overwhelming evidence that this testing doesn't work.

I think it's great that you're trying it and I hope it works for you! I just like to be aware of what the evidence says.

But you don't care what the scientific community has to say with regards to acne and food? So, you pick certain elements where they fit with your own opinions? That is, since food testing did not work for you the scientific evidence must be true! However, in the case of food and acne, they are wrong? The lack of evidence to back this up is inconsequential since I'm guessing your opinion is what matters?

I am aware, I'm also aware that about 10% of everything talked about has any sort of scientific evidence backing it up (if even that). People aren't even sure what Accutane really does, not truly.

I don't really know whether it works or not. But, I also know that there is so much bullshit everywhere that if you listened to every person discrediting something on these forums you would never try anything.

I know one guy here that got rid off his cystic acne with food sensitivity testing. I got rid off half my stomach problems after cutting out my red food intolerances. Who knows? You said it yourself, that it helped you in the beginning... So, it did something. I do agree with the fact that it is pseudoscience at best, but sometimes you need to try stuff anyways to get somewhere.

I just really didn't like your attitude. I get that it didn't work for you, but coming here waving a scientific flag saying that it doesn't back it up while advocating something that doesn't back it either seems hypocritical.

Lactose intolerance testing the test with a breath test, not and IGg blood test. It's not the same thing.

I'm going to be honest with you... I can't tell if you're still being serious or not. I have said more than once that I AGREE that there's a connection between food and acne. Here, let me find a couple examples for you:

"I never said food cannot affect acne - I know it can!"

"I do think an elimination diet could be a good way to find the foods that affect you."

So no. I don't pick out the things that fit with my own opinions. I pick what the evidence supports. For example, that food affects acne but IgG testing is inaccurate. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand. I'm really glad that it seems to be working for you and I hope it continues to work for you! I just don't understand how you can say on one had that "it is pseudoscience at best" and on the other hand get mad that I said scientists say it's inaccurate.

I didn't come in here "waving a scientific flag" trying to poop on your parade. I was just trying to warn anyone reading that they might want to do more research into this particular test. Honestly, if someone had told me this four years ago I may have made a different decision.

I'm sorry you didn't like my attitude. That's the way of the internet.

 

Well my naturopath ordered the test from NeuroScience. According to the test guideline anything less than a 400 is insignificant, 400-600 is low, 600-1000 is moderate, and anything higher would be considered a high reaction. He told me I shouldn't worry to much about low reactions, and to continue eating the foods if I wished. He did tell me I could experiment, but its a bit hard because I am already on a gluten/dairy free diet. On another forum someone told me that IgG is just a reaction to the common foods we eat a lot of, and that everyone has them according to whatever food they consume in large amounts. How detrimental they are to health and acne, I don't know.

I just got mine back though, and what I eat the most of (coconut, tomato, lots of veggies, chicken, beef, lamb, banana, rice, coffee) all came back low (or green) with no reactions to. I got eggs and yeast. I have already been trying to avoid them, at least eggs, as I know I always get a bad stomach reaction when eating them. I did though get moderate reactions to cows milk and I eat a bit of cheese, the rest of the stuff I don't eat much of at all yet they showed up (tuna, sesame, shellfish, chili).

So that theory that whatever I eat the most of show up as high isn't correct. I thought it would be like that too, and coconut would show up because I eat soo much coconut milk, oil, water etc everyday but nope coconut was cool.

Hey, I just wanted to share some new info I got yesterday from an allergist. I'd had an IgG test done in 2011 by a holistic doctor and it showed I was allergic to yeast. I've avoided it like the plague for four years. Yesterday I saw a -real- allergist and he said I am absolutely NOT allergic to yeast. He said IgG tests are something that are never done by by allergists and even showed me that it's on the top of a list of what not to do as an allergist. I just wanted to let you know your results might be wrong and you should consider that before you start cutting out foods.

Yes because an allergy and an intolerance is not the same. However, some 'real' allergists as you say actually sometimes offer IGg testing although they are not sure of its accuracy yet (this is true), so most GPs will tell you to do an elimination diet instead but that can be hard to do. Intolerances exist, and I am surprised that this person just disregarded this by what he told you. Also, being on here I would think you wouldn't just take someones word for it like that. Like diet not being a factor of acne. Also, you are not suppose to avoid it forever, just for a bit, and then try it again. Did no one explain this to you?

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/food-allergy/expert-answers/food-allergy/faq-20058538

It has helped me because I feel better, even through I didn't believe in it.

Also, I did mine at a lab with blood and not with a naturopath

I read your one of your other posts, yes naturopaths are renown for giving out 'yeast allergies' that is, they say you have a yeast overgrowth called Candida. Candida is completely normal though, and exist in all of us. Because of this 'Candida' your body is having a reaction to the protein in yeast. It sounds super stupid, and it is. Usually you have to stop sugar, fruits, carbs etc for months until you 'starve' it. Although people feel better, they are never cured. It is probably the fact that they aren't eating any sugar. I've been through some shady 'food intolerance testing' too before so I was very doubtful about this. I can't be really sure yet though.

I never said food cannot affect acne - I know it can! I just do not think that IgG testing is an accurate way to determine which foods can't be eaten. The allergist I saw earlier this week said he's actually using the same test to determine tolerance to foods in a study at the university nearby.

I had the same test you did. It wasn't "shady 'food intolerance testing'." I went to a lab, had blood drawn, and still have the paper with the results. It showed a high intolerance to bakers yeast and brewers yeast, and a low intolerance to gluten. I cut out the necessary foods, got a little better temporarily, and then it all came back.

As it stands, I'm obviously -very- open to holistic approaches to curing acne. I'm totally on board with treating the source instead of the symptoms. But I don't the IgG testing is it. The majority of the scientific community says there is no validity to this form of testing and that it can even be showing the opposite of intolerance. I am committed to find a drug-free way to cure my skin, but I am also the kind of person who goes by evidence and the evidence is not with the IgG test. I wish I'd done more research on it before I cut out the foods I was "intolerant" to for years. I do think an elimination diet could be a good way to find the foods that affect you.

I'm not sure why you would only avoid a food temporarily though if you had a true intolerance. Ask anyone who's lactose intolerant if they only had to avoid it temporarily.

I used the example of 'acne and diet connection' to try to reason why sometimes something might work even though it is not accepted in the mainstream scientific world (for either an allergist or a dermatologist). Yeah it might not have worked for you, but it might work for someone else. That is how this works. I didn't get better before I cut out eggs, and those were on my test results. I can not tell you if it works or not, in scientific words. I am a bit sceptic, as I am of everything that claims to be the reason behind 'acne.'

I don't understand why you 'cut them (food intolerances) down for years' when it clearly states that you should remove them for 3-6 months and see if you get better. If it made not difference then why continue to cut them out?

As I said above, yes 'the majority of the scientific community' might be sceptic of its validity but so are they when it comes to food and acne and you just said you believed there to be a connection? Am I right? And if so, do you only believe only part of what 'the majortity of the scientific community' says? Or, is it that you felt like it failed you, so you don't believe in it?

I find it odd that it worked at first, but when it stopped working soon thereafter you decided to keep going, for 'years' it seems. What sparked this?

Food intolerance and an lactose allergy is very different. An intolerance is when you lack the enzymes to fully digest the food, that is why people rapport having less gas after they cut out their food intolerances (undigested food gets eaten by bacteria in the colon - perfectly normal). I guess the idea is that you're body should get a break to try to repair everything. Further, if one introduces it again after a couple of months they know how they will react, and if there is no reaction it should be safe. So, either these intolerances were never there (and now they know for sure) or they were there and your body can now handle them. If they continue to react then they know they had an intolerance, and can still not handle them. I find it odd, that it didn't help you at all, so you continued to cut them out and never tried again to see what would happen.

My point is, all this is speculatory, even the 'diet connection,' so someone that clearly advocates this shouldn't be so quick to discredit other speculatory factors, such as food intolerances.

I cut them out because it did help me initially so I was scared to eat them again for fear of getting even worse. I don't have a scientific explanation for that. Not to mention, I didn't know until yesterday that the test was considered inaccurate by the scientific community.

A lactose intolerance is exactly what you described. Most people don't have a lactose allergy, they have a lactose intolerance and they avoid the food. If you cut something out for 6 months and you get better, adding it back in is probably going to put you back to square one. If you turn out to be able to handle it, then that's great! But I don't think that's the normal reaction.

I don't "believe in it" because all of the actual scientific studies point to it being highly inaccurate. I do think there's a connection between food and acne, BUT I don't think the connection can be discovered through IgG testing. Like I said, the allergist I saw this week is using the exact same test to detect tolerance to foods. I wouldn't discredit something without proof, but there seems to be overwhelming evidence that this testing doesn't work.

I think it's great that you're trying it and I hope it works for you! I just like to be aware of what the evidence says.

But you don't care what the scientific community has to say with regards to acne and food? So, you pick certain elements where they fit with your own opinions? That is, since food testing did not work for you the scientific evidence must be true! However, in the case of food and acne, they are wrong? The lack of evidence to back this up is inconsequential since I'm guessing your opinion is what matters?

I am aware, I'm also aware that about 10% of everything talked about has any sort of scientific evidence backing it up (if even that). People aren't even sure what Accutane really does, not truly.

I don't really know whether it works or not. But, I also know that there is so much bullshit everywhere that if you listened to every person discrediting something on these forums you would never try anything.

I know one guy here that got rid off his cystic acne with food sensitivity testing. I got rid off half my stomach problems after cutting out my red food intolerances. Who knows? You said it yourself, that it helped you in the beginning... So, it did something. I do agree with the fact that it is pseudoscience at best, but sometimes you need to try stuff anyways to get somewhere.

I just really didn't like your attitude. I get that it didn't work for you, but coming here waving a scientific flag saying that it doesn't back it up while advocating something that doesn't back it either seems hypocritical.

Lactose intolerance testing the test with a breath test, not and IGg blood test. It's not the same thing.

I'm going to be honest with you... I can't tell if you're still being serious or not. I have said more than once that I AGREE that there's a connection between food and acne. Here, let me find a couple examples for you:

"I never said food cannot affect acne - I know it can!"

"I do think an elimination diet could be a good way to find the foods that affect you."

So no. I don't pick out the things that fit with my own opinions. I pick what the evidence supports. For example, that food affects acne but IgG testing is inaccurate. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand. I'm really glad that it seems to be working for you and I hope it continues to work for you! I just don't understand how you can say on one had that "it is pseudoscience at best" and on the other hand get mad that I said scientists say it's inaccurate.

I didn't come in here "waving a scientific flag" trying to poop on your parade. I was just trying to warn anyone reading that they might want to do more research into this particular test. Honestly, if someone had told me this four years ago I may have made a different decision.

I'm sorry you didn't like my attitude. That's the way of the internet.

Yes I know you think there is a connection with food and acne, that is what I found odd! Since, you believe so strongly in scientific evidence and there is none that support this theory! Please listen to what I wrote.

There is no scientific evidence though that food causes acne, where is the evidence that you keep talking about?

The things you talk about make no sense. You think that some methods (IGg testing) is usuelss because science says so, yet you keep backing up the diet-acne connection even though there is no scientific proof of this either. Further, you go on to say that it did help you to cut out food intolerance but that it stopped working later on. You never found this odd?

Maybe food intolerance testing did not work for you, like a clean diet might not work for someone else, but coming in here and saying, when I just recently took the test, that I shouldn't even bother. I am telling you, that you are full of contradictions and it is a little annoying as well for you to just come in here yelling that whatever I just did is bullshit.

So, there are to sides to my argument here. One, is just plain irritation. The other though, is your reasoning.

I will stop here, I shouldn't even have started but as I said I got annoyed. I wish you luck.