Jump to content

Follow Us:  Twitter Facebook RSS Feed            




   arrowShare this page:
   

   Get email alerts  Subscribe to FREE Celiac.com email alerts

 
Ads by Google:
Celiac.com Sponsor:                                    


davemu

Member Since 07 Oct 2004
Offline Last Active Aug 08 2012 01:32 AM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: My Biopsy Word For Word

31 July 2012 - 10:14 PM

I dont have classical symptoms but I wonder if it warrants further investigations... The one thing I notice when trying gluten-free is that the reflux symptoms improve, my incredible thirst goes away, and my appetite normalizes without the frequent hunger pangs. It is frustrating to be thorough in investigating ones health without coming off sounding like a hypochondriac!

In Topic: My Biopsy Word For Word

31 July 2012 - 10:08 PM

Thank you gottaski. Very useful info. Other than family history my ferritin is borderline for a male that eats exceptionally well (ferritin of 50 - what's a "normal" ferritin is another discussion. I think folate and liver enzymes were normal. I have issues with sleep, anxiety, chronic nasal congestion and recurrent chest colds. Im pale but not anemic - in more recent time i have developed pronounced dark circles under my eyes, which i suspect is tied to the congestion. Perhaps more meaningful I have a pretty sensitive stomach and have even once seen a GI specialist as a child for stomach pains. Even though they have improved I eat light lunches to avoid the heaviness that often follows heavy meals. While I try to stay lean and have a healthy bmi, to some degree i display a degree of "skinny fat" and am unable to put on weight when lifting weight and upping the calories. By skinny fat I mean skinny arms and a pot belly if I don't hold it in (months of hard training can offset this pretty well, but this is my "set point")

In Topic: My Biopsy Word For Word

31 July 2012 - 09:34 PM

Troy you will find my "ultimate goal" stated in one of my first posts, if you only cared to read it. I wanted to know where you got the value of 70% sensitivity for the ttg blood test. I also clearly stated it was of personal interest because I too had a negative ttg and wanted to know how reliable this result is. Unfortunately you became too pre-occupied giving me a hard time for questioning your sources that you never responded to my original question, until your most recent post.

In Topic: My Biopsy Word For Word

31 July 2012 - 06:49 PM

... And someone has yet to post one single piece of literature that speaks to this "extraordinary, mounting evidence". I don't know why my asking is just falling on deaf ears. I'm not vehemently arguing anything, if you cared to read my previous posts you would know that I just want to know where you guys are getting your numbers from. It seems like the source is as much a mystery to you as it is to me because nobody has mentioned any source but hearsay. If you use that as your evidence then there is no point to continue this coversation.

I should add that I didn't exclusively choose those articles (they were the first hits), but I don't know of anything newer that suggests these numbers are off. Again, instead of getting emotionally worked up that I dare question any of you, stop dodging my simple request and provide an actual resource (anything) to suggest our understanding of celiac bloodwork had evolved in the last years.

In Topic: My Biopsy Word For Word

31 July 2012 - 04:25 PM

Systematic review: the use of serology to exclude or diagnose coeliac disease (a comparison of the endomysial and tissue transglutaminase antibody tests).

Authors
Lewis NR, Scott BB.

----------
Meta-analysis: deamidated gliadin peptide antibody and tissue transglutaminase antibody compared as screening tests for coeliac disease.

Authors
Lewis NR, Scott BB.
Journal
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010 Jan;31(1):73-81.

----
Old and new serological tests for celiac disease screening.

Authors
Volta U, Fabbri A, Parisi C, Piscaglia M, Caio G, Tovoli F, Fiorini E.
Journal
Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Feb;4(1):31-5.



I will concede that the reported sensitivity is closer to 93%, not 95-99 as some other studies. But it's a far cry from 70%.