Get email alerts Get Celiac.com E-mail Alerts  




Celiac.com Sponsor:
Celiac.com Sponsor:




Ads by Google:






   Get email alerts  Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts

How Much Gluten, For How Long, Must You Eat Before Testing?
0

27 posts in this topic

Moderator's note:

This discussion began in a topic started by a new member with several questions. It has been split out as a generic discussion of the question. There are differing views on this. What I perceive is that there is no one answer that fits everybody. Healing rates differ for many reasons, and the most significant factor is the amount of damage to heal from. - psawyer (mod).

...

Also it is critically important that you do NOT go gluten free until after the endoscopy. Biopsies look for damage, which can heal quickly on the gluten free diet.

Really? I don't think I've seen any studies on that. (Rapid healing)

Any link?

Edited by psawyer
Added explanatory note about topic split
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ads by Google:

Here's what the Mayo Clinic says:

Usually several weeks after removal of gluten from the diet the small intestine begins to heal......

http://www.mayomedicallaboratories.com/mediax/tests/celiac/celiac-patient-brochure.pdf

How many weeks is several? I don't know. Your several and mine may vary. Two weeks is not several to me, but three weeks could be.

I don't believe the poster was referring to total healing, just healing that may affect testing results.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't read the pdf until later but does several weeks = "quickly" in this context?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't read the pdf until later but does several weeks = "quickly" in this context?

Well, in the context of taking two years to heal completely for adults, I would say that is probably "quite" quickly.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, depending on the extent of the damage, a week or two could make the difference between a positive or negative result. For instance, if the OP has only mild villous blunting, a week or two could make the villi appear normal. After all, the intestinal lining renews itself every three days. Now, if the OP has total villous atrophy, likely a week or two would make no difference. But since they have no way of knowing the extent of the damage (if any) all precautions should be taken to avoid a false negative biopsy.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




... For instance, if the OP has only mild villous blunting, a week or two could make the villi appear normal.

...

Very interesting.

I'd love to read up more on that. Remember where you saw that?

Seems at odds w/ "several weeks to begin to heal" quote from Mayo.

Here's what the Mayo Clinic says:

Usually several weeks after removal of gluten from the diet the small intestine begins to heal......

http://www.mayomedicallaboratories.com/mediax/tests/celiac/celiac-patient-brochure.pdf

...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom? Have you been glutened recently? I ask because irritability is one of MY glutening symptoms. Seems that lately you have been feeling the way I do when I get glutened.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom? Have you been glutened recently? I ask because irritability is one of MY glutening symptoms. Seems that lately you have been feeling the way I do when I get glutened.

I don't share the same impression bartfull. I, rather see it as Tom's attempt to bring proper and accurate information to this forum.

Information on a forum (any forum) has a tendency to stagnate. I suppose Tom feels passionate that the members here should be exposed to the most current research available.

You may not appreciate his approach or may challenge his facts, but as any member here, he has the right to post, free from personal criticism.

We have had many, many healthy debates here over these many years....which brought forth some wonderful information from some really great minds. I have always enjoyed them.

:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd actually really like to know more about research on the topic in the post.

As such, I was feeling Inquisitive rather than Irritated.

OT P.S. I think I'm soon buying a wider-necked guitar. Always like seeing your av.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhhh sneaky Lisa snuck one in while I slowly typed. Was expecting mine to show up immed under Barty's. Looks disjointed now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's not so much what you say, as how you say it that made me think you were irritated. I have often found myself offending people by being too blunt, when I never meant anything by it. A friend told me that if I preface what I say with, "In my opinion..." or "It seems to me..." that I could tell them what I think without seeming like I thought MY opinion was the only right one. I STILL have trouble with that sometimes, but I'm trying. (Except when I get glutened - then I don't care WHOSE feelings I hurt! :blink: )

I think you'll enjoy a wide neck. All of mine are standard width but that's because of my "delicate" :lol: female fingers. I am LOVING the baritone though, even though the longer fret spacing sure does make me stretch. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhhh sneaky Lisa snuck one in while I slowly typed. Was expecting mine to show up immed under Barty's. Looks disjointed now.

:ph34r:

"a wider neck"...don't you have to have bigger hands or THUMBS? B)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, Lisa, or Tom in particular???

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, Lisa, or Tom in particular???

:lol:

:lol:

:lol: ...either way. Hey, I just got back from Rome, remember! I've seen all I need to see for the time being, but, I'm easily amused. :P I have seen Tom's VERY large shoes... :blink:

EDIT (after Peter's post): Yes sir. :) Heading over to Psillie Land.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting.

I'd love to read up more on that. Remember where you saw that?

Seems at odds w/ "several weeks to begin to heal" quote from Mayo.

Tom,

The medical community statements on the amount of time to heal are just GUESSES. The truth is every individual is different.

The medical community made the most advancement in digestive knowledge from an accident. Dr. William Beaumont had a patient who was shot in the gut. The wound never fully healed and the man had a hole in his side made into a "window" to watch and learn digestion. Just saying it is a fascinating story, if you like to look up medical articles.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,

The medical community statements on the amount of time to heal are just GUESSES.

...

Hi mommida,

I suppose I have more belief in the scientific method than you do and in the resultant incremental advances in knowledge.

We know more today than we did 5 yrs ago & every year we'll know more than we do today.

So, I don't believe it's "just guesses", tho if you do I'd think your comment would be more appropriately aimed at the post attaching numbers to vaguely defined situations.

Tom, depending on the extent of the damage, a week or two could make the difference between a positive or negative result. For instance, if the OP has only mild villous blunting, a week or two could make the villi appear normal. After all, the intestinal lining renews itself every three days. Now, if the OP has total villous atrophy, likely a week or two would make no difference.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. I'm a little surprised there's no earlier reply. All the usual posters out having wkend fun maybe?

No, I am sure the "usual posters" are just afraid to post anymore about this topic, having been shouted down and argued with repeatedly.

Blevois,

"gluten light" is not helpful for symptom resolution.

You need to be strictly gluten free for symptoms to resolve, but

conversely, you need to be gluten heavy for about 3 months for the best diagnostic outcome on a biopsy (according to the leading celiac centers).

Someone will disagree with this, I am sure.

You have a POSITIVE celiac panel and that means you have celiac.

If your doc agrees, then welcome to the club.

GO gluten-free now.

You could stop eating gluten right now and start to get well.

HOWEVER, if you wish to have a biopsy, for a baseline reading of your villi, or because your doc requires it for a "real diagnosis", then, here is my best advice, and offered IMHO, based on the current celiac center research as we know it: if you are scheduled for a biopsy: EAT UP.

*** hopefully, I have given enough caveats and disclaimers and IMHOs and evidence for this post to be acceptable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am sure the "usual posters" are just afraid to post anymore about this topic, having been shouted down and argued with repeatedly.

...

Oh please ....

I'm not the one bolding or using allcaps in these misguided disagreements.

If someone believes 3 months challenge is "needed to have any hope of a positive dx" (despite that being imo irrelevant in this thread, given an already-positive blood test) disregarding all the contrary evidence that it *is* possible to get DX'd on less than 3 months, there are many non-controversial ways to say so.

This thread isn't really about the same topic as those where someone is trying to launch testing after having been gluten-free.

...conversely, you need to be gluten heavy for about 3 months for the best diagnostic outcome on a biopsy (according to the leading celiac centers).

Someone will disagree with this, I am sure.

Someone, as in all but one leading celiac center, is how it's been presented here by others.

And the dispute is the word "need" again.

Last study I saw had no diagnostic difference w/ lower gluten. (The key info is that once over the threshold, how high doesn't matter.)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THANK YOU IH for that MOST informative information & the link to the article!!!!!!!! This should clear up a lot of confusion on the subject.

The article's header is:

This article appeared in the Autumn 2005 edition of Celiac.coms Scott-Free Newsletter.

So, no, 7yo info shouldn't be expected to clear this up.

Did the best current celiac blood tests even exist in 2005?

We really need to use current info.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did chuckle a bit in finding that the article is from 2005.

I read this recently, for what it is worth.

"Another problem faced by gluten-free individuals who want a diagnosis is that it can take more than five years after returning to a regular gluten-containing diet before the characteristic damage of celiac disease can be seen on a biopsy (1).

Simply put, after beginning a gluten-free diet, only a positive biopsy is meaningful. A negative biopsy does not rule out celiac disease.

A variety of opinions have been offered regarding how much gluten, for how long, should result in a definitive biopsy. The reality is that no such recommendation is consistent with the medical literature (1-4).

Some people with celiac disease will experience a return of intestinal damage within a few weeks of consuming relatively small amounts of gluten. Such brief challenges are valuable for these individuals.

However, many people with celiac disease or dermatitis herpetiformis will require much larger doses of gluten, over much longer periods, to induce characteristic lesions on the intestinal wall. Unfortunately for these latter individuals, a negative biopsy after a brief gluten challenge can, and often is, misinterpreted as having ruled out celiac disease.

Blood tests can compound this problem. If, as seems likely, celiac patients who are slow to relapse are also the ones who develop milder intestinal lesions, they are the very celiac patients for whom blood tests are very unreliable (5).

Claims to have ruled out celiac disease based on brief challenges with small quantities of gluten is a mistake that could lead to serious, even deadly, consequences."

http://www.celiac.com/articles/979/1/Challenging-the-Gluten-Challenge---By-Dr-Ron-Hoggan-EdD/Page1.html

Besides it being from 2005, I don't see how much this relates to the OP's situation of already having a positive on the bloods.

And to think *I* keep hearing accusations of going OT. (Which I disagreed w/, for the record)

A lot has changed since 2005. Imho just about everyone who wrote technical articles on celiac in 2005 would write them differently in 2012.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article's header is:

This article appeared in the Autumn 2005 edition of Celiac.coms Scott-Free Newsletter.

So, no, 7yo info shouldn't be expected to clear this up.

Did the best current celiac blood tests even exist in 2005?

We really need to use current info.

Oh but Tom, it clears it up very nicely for me. It states in essence that we are all individuals & we all have varying degrees of damage or not at any given time & that depending on our individual circumstances we may or may not show villi damage over a wide range of time.

I fail to see what your statement "Did the best current celiac blood tests even exist in 2005?" has to do with the article as the article is speaking of biopsies.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did chuckle a bit in finding that the article is from 2005.

Besides it being from 2005, I don't see how much this relates to the OP's situation of already having a positive on the bloods.

And to think *I* keep hearing accusations of going OT. (Which I disagreed w/, for the record)

A lot has changed since 2005. Imho just about everyone who wrote technical articles on celiac in 2005 would write them differently in 2012.

It relates to the OP's question:

"Does anyone know if 4 weeks of eating gluten light would lead to a false negative on biopsy?"

Read that last word ------ BIOPSY.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh but Tom, it clears it up very nicely for me. It states in essence that we are all individuals & we all have varying degrees of damage or not at any given time & that depending on our individual circumstances we may or may not show villi damage over a wide range of time.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm leaning towards thinking that you & everyone else already thought that before reading this 2005 article, even those that read it way back then.

I fail to see what your statement "Did the best current celiac blood tests even exist in 2005?" has to do with the article as the article is speaking of biopsies.

The article is "Challenging the Gluten Challenge" & is in no way limited to biopsies! Are we reading the same link? He discusses - no, disussED - blood tests, antibodies, their specificity (reminder here that best current blood tests didn't exist then) & something called a 'rectal challenge'. :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It relates to the OP's question:

"Does anyone know if 4 weeks of eating gluten light would lead to a false negative on biopsy?"

Read that last word ------ BIOPSY.

I have no idea why so many are so adamantly going off on these tangents.

Several of us answered the orig Q. (The "Does anyone know" answer is "no, no one can be sure".)

The OP, Blevois, was already diagnosed by blood.

The topic of the thread is not about getting a dx by biopsy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, there is the question and it specifically asks using the explicit word, "biopsy."

Ok then, before I go out, what would YOU hypothetically want your own Dr to say w/ "very high" positive bloods and the hypothetical negative biopsy?

Didn't most of the 1st few replies comment that the OP's blood results should be enough to dx celiac? Along that path, the endoscopy is post-diagnostic. Confirms if pos, but ignored if neg isn't a dx flowchart.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
0

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      104,351
    • Total Posts
      920,500
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thankyou both! I was wondering if my high levels left much doubt on the diagnosis. I don't see the GI until the 15th Sep and I don't think I can stand to eat gluten in that time. If he tells me to I will do so after then. After 25 years of symptoms I don't think there is much chance of healing my bowel In a couple of weeks. I'm actually terrified of the damage they might find. But I think I will need the endo since there may be other things going on with me. So great they didn't put your son through the biopsy! Once I have a formal diagnosis I have my kids to worry about also. I can't even stand the thought of my daughter having a blood test. I think she would need to be sedated as she is so fearful and pain sensitive. My son is not yet 2 so I don't think they will test him. I'm feeling so off at the moment. I think I have some anxiety and reflux going on complicating things quite a bit.
    • My son's antibodies were 300. Based on his extremely high levels, his pediatric GI suggested genetic testing instead of the biopsy. Genetic testing can't diagnose celiac on its own but combined with such high levels, the gi dr was confident a positive genetic test would confidently diagnose celiac. He warned that biopsies are small snapshots of the intestine and can miss damage. He said this is an approach used very often in Europe but not as much in the US. What sold me on that approach was the ability to put my son directly on a gluten free diet instead of waiting three weeks for the biopsy, during which time he would continue to eat gluten and feel terrible. I'm not sure if this is more common with younger patients though (our son is two), based on the idea that he's had less time to inflict damage that would show in a biopsy? We are very happy that we immediately started the gluten free diet and chose the genetic testing. Our son got the proper diagnosis and his recent number shows a drop to 71 after only 4.5 months gluten free! Not sure if this helps. Good luck and I hope you feel better soon!
    • We have been off gluten for a while now, and symptoms return when I've allowed gluten full meals… so something still isn't sitting right with me.  Checking with her doc about seeing a pediactric GI although I'm not sure how long that will take since we live in small town America. I know she didn't get at least one of the recommended full panel tests but maybe two, can someone help clarify, or is she missing two? DGP for sure and possibly EMA? And if I understand what I'm reading in other posts that the DGP can be more accurate? Thanks Her blood panel results: Ttg ab iga <.5u/ml ttg igg <.8u/ml aga ab iga <.2 u/ml aga an igg <.7u/ml iga 61mg/dL  
    • I was tested for the full panel, I believe. I had normal values for t-transglutaminase (ttg) igg,t-transglutaminase (ttg) iga, deamidated gliadin abs igg, deamidated gliadin abs iga, and immunoglobulin a qn serum.  
    • Would you review this on Find Me Gluten free?  You can  use the app or just go to it on line. If the restaurant isn't listed, there is a way to suggest it.  I have done that and it works.  Many of us look at that site/ app
  • Upcoming Events

  • Blog Entries

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      61,416
    • Most Online
      1,763

    Newest Member
    djs2117
    Joined