Jump to content
This site uses cookies. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. More Info... ×
  • Welcome to Celiac.com!

    You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.




  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):



    Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):


  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Where Your Contribution Counts!
    eNewsletter
    Support Us!

Us Produced Malto Dextrin Is No Longer Safe


Oonagh

Recommended Posts

Oonagh Newbie

I had my first severe attack in over a year. I was sick for days, and couldn't figure out what I ate. I don't vary my diet a lot, so I was really puzzled. Then I had a brilliant idea - not eat, drink!

I had run out of Crystal light & bought Wal Mart's generic without checking the label. The ingredients were totally different, and as I did some research to see if any might have triggered such a bad attack, I read that while US maltodextrin used to be safe, but since corn is in such high demand for ethanol fuel, some manufacturers have started producing it from wheat, like many overseas producers use.

Happily, when I went to the store again, I discovered that on the newer packaging for Crystal light (they had diff flavors with new and old labels) they say Gluten Free in big letters.

I checked other Kraft products, and on a number of things with updated packaging they also had the gluten free labels (where applicable).

I noticed an older post where someone was trying to figure out if the chips she ate made her sick, maltodextrin was one of the ingredients and it may have been the culprit.

It reminded me to check labels more often, after 3 years, I got a bit lazy about it - I guess you can never relax with this lousy disease. My dad has had ulcerative colitis since the 50's and was lactose intolerant (until they removed his colon 4 years ago). I thought he had it bad, but he thinks his was a lot easier to deal with than coeliac.

BTW, if you want to travel to a gluten-free friendly place, Ireland is pretty cool. Coeliacs are a lot more common there and bread etc is readily available. The restaurants frequently have glutenfree options - staff doesn't say "huh what?" when you ask for gluten-free options. My folks local grocery stores have whole gluten-free sections. I stock up when I visit. Their bread is much better than what I have found here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



cruelshoes Enthusiast

Maltodextrin is gluten free. If maltodextrin is from a wheat source, it must be declared by law. Even if it is original sourced from wheat, maltodextrin is so highly procesed it is a gluten free ingredient.

Open Original Shared Link

Maltodextrin

Maltodextrin is gluten free. It can be made from a variety of starches, including corn, potato, rice or wheat. However the source does not matter because maltodextrin is such a highly processed ingredient that the protein is removed, rendering it gluten free. If wheat is used to make maltodextrin, "wheat" will be appear on the label. Even in this case, the maltodextrin would be gluten free.

Hope you feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oonagh Newbie
Maltodextrin is gluten free. If maltodextrin is from a wheat source, it must be declared by law. Even if it is original sourced from wheat, maltodextrin is so highly procesed it is a gluten free ingredient.

Open Original Shared Link

Hope you feel better.

the gluten-free site I was on (club celiac) said otherwise. I also quit drinking the stuff and my attack cleared up. This kind of conflicting info is why I seldom vary the foods I eat, I am so tired of trying to figure out what really is or isn't safe to eat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fiddle-Faddle Community Regular

If they derive maltodextrin from barley (which I THINK is unusual, but am not sure), they would NOT be required to list that on the label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
happygirl Collaborator

FF, you are right - it would be unusual. If it were made from barley or wheat, it wouldn't be considered maltodextrin, according to FDA rules.

Open Original Shared Link

"Maltodextrin ((C6H10O5)n, CAS Reg. No. 9050-36-6) is a nonsweet nutritive saccharide polymer that consists of D-glucose units linked primarily by [alpha]-1-4 bonds and that has a dextrose equivalent (D.E.) of less than 20. It is prepared as a white powder or concentrated solution by partial hydrolysis of corn starch, potato starch, or rice starch with safe and suitable acids and enzymes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovegrov Collaborator

Oonagh, there is no question whatsoever that wheat MUST be listed in maltodextrin. This was the law even before the allergen law took effect. The conflicting information you saw is, quite simply, wrong.

richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
psawyer Proficient

As Laura and Richard have noted, the single word "maltodextrin" on a product sold in the USA must refer to material derived from corn, rice or potato. This has been the FDA rule since at least 1983. Any source other than those three must be explicitly labeled, and that includes barley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



cruelshoes Enthusiast

I am glad you are feeling better.

the gluten-free site I was on (club celiac) said otherwise. I also quit drinking the stuff and my attack cleared up. This kind of conflicting info is why I seldom vary the foods I eat, I am so tired of trying to figure out what really is or isn't safe to eat.

The list of foods to avoid on Open Original Shared Linkis riddled with errors. Some examples include distilled vinegar (distillation removes any gluten), andpotato chips (seasonings can contain gluten, but not always). Their forum is chock full of really nasty porn, too - I think I need to go wash my brain out. :) You would be much better off using the safe/forbidden food lists on this site.

https://www.celiac.com/categories/Safe-Glut...3B-Ingredients/

If they derive maltodextrin from barley (which I THINK is unusual, but am not sure), they would NOT be required to list that on the label.

Regardless of its source, Maltodextrin is a gluten-free ingredient. Processing renders it gluten-free. If is comes from wheat, it has to be labeled as such, but it does not contain gluten.

Open Original Shared Link

Previous questionable ingredients that are now rendered to be gluten-free are the following:

Maltodextrin

Glucose Syrup

Carmel Coloring

Citric Acid

Distilled Vinegars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fiddle-Faddle Community Regular

I do see European brands of chocolate list "glucose syrup (from wheat)"--I assume (perhaps wrongly?) that there are celiacs who would react to that, even if it is supposed to be free from gluten.

They do say the same thing about wheat starch--that it is supposed to be gluten-free due to the processing, and in Europe, it is considered safe for celiacs, but aren't there celiacs who DO react to it, thereby indicating that it's not quite as gluten-free as they would like to think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cruelshoes Enthusiast
I do see European brands of chocolate list "glucose syrup (from wheat)"--I assume (perhaps wrongly?) that there are celiacs who would react to that, even if it is supposed to be free from gluten.

They do say the same thing about wheat starch--that it is supposed to be gluten-free due to the processing, and in Europe, it is considered safe for celiacs, but aren't there celiacs who DO react to it, thereby indicating that it's not quite as gluten-free as they would like to think?

Gluten is the protein element of the wheat. If we break down the chemical structure of glucose syrup, it does not contain protein.

"Open Original Shared Link" Shelley Case, author.

page: 53- "Glucose syrups are highly processed and purified in order to separate and remove the protein portion from the starch mixture. .... Although glucose syrup can be made from wheat, the processing renders it gluten free. This has been verified by scientists and research centers in Europe, Australia and other countries using the highly sensitive R5 ELISA tests."

Wheat starch is another animal entirely. It is much less processed than maltodextrin or glucose syrup. I have no doubt that many people react to that. I wouldn't touch it with a 39-1/2 foot pole. :lol:

Accuracy of "Gluten-Free" Labels

.

The legal definition of the phrase "gluten-free" varies from country to country. Current research suggests that for persons with celiac disease the maximum safe level of gluten in a finished product is probably less than 0.02% (200 parts per million) and possibly as little as 0.002% (20 parts per million).

Australian standards reserve the "gluten free" label for foods with less than 5 parts per million of gluten, as this is the smallest amount currently detectable.

.

As gluten-containing grains are processed,

more and more of the gluten is removed from them,

as shown in this simple processing flow:

.

Wheat Flour (80,000ppm) > Wheat Starch Codex (200ppm) > Dextrin > Maltodextrin > Glucose Syrup (<5ppm) > Dextrose > Caramel Color

.

Unfortunately, in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet defined the term gluten free as it appears on food labels.

Open Original Shared Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rya Newbie

I just read an article in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association that discussed the shortcomings of two types of "highly sensitive" R5 ELISA assays. I'll provide more detailed info should anyone want it, but for those who are very sensitive to gluten, I would completely avoid anything that is derived from a gluten ingredient and rendered gluten-free. Why not be safe? If you are not highly sensitive, then consuming <5-10 ppm will likely not cause a reaction.

There's no evidence to support this concern, but I wonder how much damage celiacs are doing without realizing it. I.e. is consuming 5-10 ppm every now and then an issue even without a reaction? Regardless, though, I think in reality most of us couldn't be much more strict.

Back to the assays, they are developing a new one that can address the shortcomings of the old ones. If I recall correctly, the only shortfall was the ability to measure barley accurately (which was cited to be of most concern with determing if oats are not contaminated) and the protein fraction in ingredients derived from wheat such as dextrins (not maltodextrin).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yana Newbie

I was told that maltodextrin, regardless of it's source is "Gluten Free". That Gluten is a protein, and maltodextrin is a sugar. That the reason some celiacs react to maltodextrin, specifically derived from wheat, is because many celiacs are also intolerant of other wheat products. So that, some celiacs and gluten intolerant people, are ok and others are not, it depends what else they're allergic to.

If you react to maltodextrin, the suggestion would be that unless its contaminated by something else, you may just simply be intolerant or sensitve to wheat products, as well as gluten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lisa Mentor
I was told that maltodextrin, regardless of it's source is "Gluten Free". That Gluten is a protein, and maltodextrin is a sugar. That the reason some celiacs react to maltodextrin, specifically derived from wheat, is because many celiacs are also intolerant of other wheat products. So that, some celiacs and gluten intolerant people, are ok and others are not, it depends what else they're allergic to.

If you react to maltodextrin, the suggestion would be that unless its contaminated by something else, you may just simply be intolerant or sensitve to wheat products, as well as gluten.

Open Original Shared Link

Maltodextrin can be derived from any starch. In the US, this starch is usually rice, corn or potato; elsewhere, such as in Europe, it is commonly wheat.

If it is maltodextrin is derived from wheat, it must be listed by US labeling law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...
new2glutenfree2 Newbie
I do see European brands of chocolate list "glucose syrup (from wheat)"--I assume (perhaps wrongly?) that there are celiacs who would react to that, even if it is supposed to be free from gluten.

They do say the same thing about wheat starch--that it is supposed to be gluten-free due to the processing, and in Europe, it is considered safe for celiacs, but aren't there celiacs who DO react to it, thereby indicating that it's not quite as gluten-free as they would like to think?

I HAD MY FIRST REACTION FROM ANYTHING IN A COUPLE YEARS, AFTER EATING 1 MENTOS. I WAS SOOOO SICK, IN FETAL POSITION EVEN, THEN THE D STARTED. IT WAS HORRIBLE. AFTER I STARTED FEELING SICK, I READ THE PACKAGE AND IT SAID "GLUCOSE SYRUP", DERIVED FROM WHEAT. SO WHO EVER SAYS THAT YOU WONT GET SICK FROM IT NEEDS TO TRY ONE AND SEE! DON'T EAT MENTOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kenlove Rising Star

Guess I just don

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovegrov Collaborator

Of course everybody is free to do what they will, but the fact is caramel color simply is NOT made from wheat or barley. And maltodextrin almost never is except sometimes in Europe. And no, wheat is not cheaper than corn, especially since the price of corn has plummeted.

richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
missy'smom Collaborator

Not long ago I learned that glucose syrup in Japan is sometimes drived from barley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
darlindeb25 Collaborator

Open Original Shared Link

Sept 22, 2009

CORN HIGHER THAN WHEAT; AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION IN THE GRAIN MARKET. September Options Close in New-York at 63 1-2 Cents Per Bushel, 3 3-8 Cents Higher than September Wheat -- Little Excitement, However, and the Sales Small -- Enormous Sales of Wheat -- "Shorts Running to Cover" the Explanation. CORN HIGHER THAN WHEAT

Guess I just don
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gemini Experienced
Open Original Shared Link

Sept 22, 2009

CORN HIGHER THAN WHEAT; AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION IN THE GRAIN MARKET. September Options Close in New-York at 63 1-2 Cents Per Bushel, 3 3-8 Cents Higher than September Wheat -- Little Excitement, However, and the Sales Small -- Enormous Sales of Wheat -- "Shorts Running to Cover" the Explanation. CORN HIGHER THAN WHEAT

I totally agree, and I have said all along, the laws are only as good as the policing of them.

This is the truest statement--5-10ppm is too much for some of us, and the others, are you really doing yourself a favor by still eating the gluten?

I think the medical profession has pretty much established at what level gluten will trigger an autoimmune reaction. Most of the books written by the top Celiac experts have discussed this. I will have to look the number up to make sure I have the correct information but I am sure that at 5 PPM, gluten is not a problem.

This is why most of the proposed labeling laws are zeroing in on anything less than 20 PPM as the standard. If they don't know at what level you would react and what is safe, there would be no point to labeling laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OptimisticMom42 Apprentice

I just feel safer buying foods that don't come with a label like bananas

or with simple ingredients like Natural Peanut Butter, ingredients: peanuts, salt

or Rice Cakes, ingredients: brown rice.

Maybe I'm being silly but all my parts are working and feel great for the first time in awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
missy'smom Collaborator
I think the medical profession has pretty much established at what level gluten will trigger an autoimmune reaction. Most of the books written by the top Celiac experts have discussed this. I will have to look the number up to make sure I have the correct information but I am sure that at 5 PPM, gluten is not a problem.

This is why most of the proposed labeling laws are zeroing in on anything less than 20 PPM as the standard. If they don't know at what level you would react and what is safe, there would be no point to labeling laws.

I think our immune systems are smarter than the medical professionals! ;) 5ppm is too much for many of us and clearly triggers reactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
darlindeb25 Collaborator
I think our immune systems are smarter than the medical professionals! 5ppm is too much for many of us and clearly triggers reactions.

Exactly!

I think the medical profession has pretty much established at what level gluten will trigger an autoimmune reaction. Most of the books written by the top Celiac experts have discussed this. I will have to look the number up to make sure I have the correct information but I am sure that at 5 PPM, gluten is not a problem.

It hasn't been proven..no one knows for sure, they are just guessing. They do not know enough about gluten intolerance yet to know how much is too much. Celiac disease is not the end all of gluten intolerance. We who are not diagnosed with celiac, have issues too, and we develop autoimmune diseases too...we don't want gluten in our lives at all. Damage to villi is not the only damage that gluten causes. Ask my neuro about my neuropathy, and how I got it.

At any rate, there are those of us who do know not to eat products containing gluten, and we do react to the tiniest amount. We definitely can prove any scientist wrong who thinks we can have that 20ppm, or 10ppm, or even 5ppm. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovegrov Collaborator
I think the medical profession has pretty much established at what level gluten will trigger an autoimmune reaction. Most of the books written by the top Celiac experts have discussed this. I will have to look the number up to make sure I have the correct information but I am sure that at 5 PPM, gluten is not a problem.

This is why most of the proposed labeling laws are zeroing in on anything less than 20 PPM as the standard. If they don't know at what level you would react and what is safe, there would be no point to labeling laws.

There are those out there demanding "zero" as the standard even though there's no way to measure such. Some claim they can't tolerate even, say 3 ppm, but can't tell us how that can be measured or measured at a cost that still makes food affordable.

Crickets chirping.

richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tim-n-VA Contributor
...

It hasn't been proven..no one knows for sure, they are just guessing. ...

I agree with the first two parts of that, but the third is just wrong. There have been several studies where confirmed celiacs were given controlled amounts of gluten with before and after endoscopy results compared. Of the studies I've read about, most used small samples for short periods (one had about 40 people for three months). The results show that most people in the test showed no change in their villi on small amounts of gluten but there were outliers who had significant damage on small amounts and ones who had no damage on relatively high amounts.

Just because a study hasn't resulted in definitive answers doesn't mean any generalizations are "just guessing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
darlindeb25 Collaborator
I agree with the first two parts of that, but the third is just wrong. There have been several studies where confirmed celiacs were given controlled amounts of gluten with before and after endoscopy results compared. Of the studies I've read about, most used small samples for short periods (one had about 40 people for three months). The results show that most people in the test showed no change in their villi on small amounts of gluten but there were outliers who had significant damage on small amounts and ones who had no damage on relatively high amounts

See, another study on celiac's alone, that doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. I am not celiac, or so some say, yet I am gluten intolerant, and this study means nothing to me. Maybe the little bit of gluten they eat does not bother their villi, but that same amount of gluten makes me very ill, and it effects me in different ways. Gluten also attacks the brain, not just villi, until they start testing the effects of gluten on those of us who are not celiac, then these studies are useless for us. It is "just guessing" for those of us who are super sensitive.

A friend of mine was in one of those controled studies, with Dr. Green doing the testing. This man got very ill, nearly died, and it has taken him over one year to start looking close to healthy, and he is still pastie looking...how about the ones in the study that did have problems...they don't matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      120,500
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    fine one
    Newest Member
    fine one
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      120.2k
    • Total Posts
      1m

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):





  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • SuzanneL
      It was tTG IGG that was flagged high. I'm not sure about the other stuff. I'm still eating my normal stuff. 
    • cristiana
      Thank you for your post, @Nedast, and welcome to the forum. It is interesting to read of your experiences. Although I've not had TMJ, from time to time I have had a bit of mild pain in my jaw, sharp stabbing pains and tingling in my face which appears to have been caused by issues with my trigeminal nerve.  I read that sometimes a damaged trigeminal nerve in coeliacs can heal after adopting a gluten free diet.  I try to keep out of cold winds or wear a scarf over my face when it is cold and windy, those conditions tend to be my 'trigger' but I do think that staying clear of gluten has helped.  Also, sleeping with a rolled up towel under my neck is a tip I picked up online, again, that seems to bring benefits. Thank you again for your input - living with this sort of pain can be very hard, so it is good to be able to share advice.
    • Julie Riordan
      I am going to France in two weeks and then to Portugal in May   Thanks for your reply 
    • Nedast
      I made an account just to reply to this topic. My story resembles yours in so many ways that it is truly amazing. I also suddenly became lactose intolerant, went a little under 10 years attributing all my symtoms to different body parts, never thinking it was something systemic until much later. I had the same mental problems - anxiety, depression, fatigue, etc. In fact, the only real difference in our story is that I was never formally diagnosed. When I discovered that my myriad symtoms, that had been continuous and worsening for years, all rapidly subsided upon cessation of consuming gluten, I immediately took it upon myself to cut gluten out of my diet completely. I live in America, and had lost my health insurance within the year prior to my discovery, so I could not get tested, and I will never willingly or knowingly consume gluten again, which I would have to do in order to get tested now that I have insurance again. But that is not the point of this reply. I also had extreme TMJ pain that began within months of getting my wisdom teeth out at - you guessed it - 17 years old. I was in and out of doctors for my various symptoms for about 5 years before I gave up, but during that time I had also kept getting reffered to different kinds of doctors that had their own, different solutions to my TMJ issue, an issue which I only recently discovered was related to my other symptoms. I began with physical therapy, and the physical therapist eventually broke down at me after many months, raising her voice at me and saying that there was nothing she could do for me. After that saga, I saw a plastic surgeon at the request of my GP, who he knew personally. This palstic surgeon began using botox injections to stop my spasming jaw muscles, and he managed to get it covered by my insurace in 2011, which was harder to do back then. This helped the pain tremendously, but did not solve the underlying problem, and I had to get repeat injections every three months. After a couple of years, this began to lose effectiveness, and I needed treatments more often than my insurance would cover. The surgeon did a scan on the joint and saw slight damage to the tissues. He then got approved by insurance to do a small surgery on the massseter (jaw) muscle - making an incision, and then splicing tissue into the muscle to stop the spasming. It worked amazingly, but about three months later it had stopped working. I was on the verge of seeing the top oral surgeon in our city, but instead of operating on me, he referred me to a unique group of dentists who focus on the TMJ and its biomechanical relationship to teeth occlusion (i.e. how the teeth fit together). This is what your dentist did, and what he did to you was boderline if not outright malpractice. There is a dental field that specializes in doing this kind of dental work, and it takes many years of extra schooling (and a lot of money invested into education) to be able to modify teeth occusion in this manner. Just based on the way you describe your dentist doing this, I can tell he was not qualified to do this to you. Dentists who are qualified and engage in this practice take many measurments of your head, mouth, teeth, etc., they take laboratory molds of your teeth, and they then make a complete, life-size model of your skull and teeth to help them guide their work on you. They then have a lab construct, and give you what is called a "bite splint." It looks and feels like a retainer, but its function is entirely different. This is essentially a literal splint for the TMJ that situates on the teeth. The splint is progressively modified once or twice per week, over several months, in order to slowly move the joint to its correct position. The muscles spasm less, stress is taken off the joint, as the joint slowly moves back into its proper position. The pain reduces each month, each week, sometimes even each day you go in for a visit. The joint has to be moved in this manner with the splint BEFORE the modification to the teeth begins. They then add to your tooth structure with small bits of composite, to keep the joint in its proper place after it has been sucessfully repositioned. Subtracting from your teeth, by grinding down bits of your natural tooth structure, is done very conservatively, if they have to do it at all. This process worked for me - after six months, my face, jaw, neck all felt normal, and I had no more pain - a feeling I had not had in a long time. It also made my face look better. I had not realized the true extent that the spasming muscles and the joint derangement had effected the shape of my face. The pain began to return after a few months, but nowhere near where it had been before. This immense reduction in pain lasted for a little over two years. The treatment still ultimately failed, but it is not their fault, and it is still the treatment that has given me the most relief to this day. Later on, I even went about three years with very, very good pain reduction, before the joint severely destabilized again. This field of dentistry is the last line treatment for TMJ issues before oral surgery on the TMJ. There aren't as many denists around who practice this anymore, and the practice is currently shrinking due to dentists opting for less espensive, additional educations in things like professional whitening, which have a broader marketability. Getting this treatment is also very expensive if not covered by insurance (in America at least). My first time was covered by insurance, second time was not, though the dentist took pity on me due to the nature of my case and charged like a quarter of usual pricing. Most cases seen by these dentists are complete successes, and the patient never has to come back again. But occasionally they get a case that is not a success, and I was one of those cases. A little over a year ago, I began seeing the second dentist who keeps my TMJ stable in this manner. The first dentist retired, and then died sadly. A shame too, because he was a truly amazing, knowledgable guy who really wanted to help people. The new dentist began to get suspicious when my joint failed to stay stable after I was finished with the bite splint and his modifications, so he did another scan on me. This is ten years after the first scan (remember, I said the surgeon saw "slight" damage to the tissue on the first scan). This new scan revealed that I now no longer have cartilage in the joint, on both sides - complete degeneration of the soft tissues and some damage to the bone. The dentist sat me down and had a talk with me after these results came in, and said that when he sees damage like this in cases like mine, that the damage to the joint is most likely autoimmune, and that, in his experinece, it is usually autoimmune. He has sent patients with cases like mine to Mayo Clinic. He said he will continue to see me as long as the treatment continues to offer me relief, but also said that I will probably have to see a dentist for this type of treatment for the rest of my life. He is not currently recommending surgery due to my young age and the fact that the treatment he provides manages my symptoms pretty well. I still see this dentist today, and probably will see this kind of dental specialist for the rest of my life, since they have helped with this issue the most. I did not inform him that I am 100% sure that I have celiac disease (due to my complete symptom remission upon gluten cessation). I didn't inform him because I thought it would be inappropriate due to not having a formal diagnosis. I was disappointed, because I had believed I had caught it BEFORE it had done permanent damage to my body. I had never suspected that my TMJ issues may be related to my other symptoms, and that the damage would end up complete and permanent. Luckily, I caught it about 6 months after my other joints started hurting, and they stopped hurting right after I went gluten free, and haven't hurt since. I of course did the necessary research after the results of the second scan, and found out that the TMJ is the most commonly involved joint in autoimmune disease of the intestines, and if mutliple joints are effected, it is usually the first one effected. This makes complete sense, since the TMJ is the most closely related joint to the intestines, and literally controls the opening that allows food passage into your intestines. I am here to tell you, that if anyone says there is no potential relationship between TMJ issues and celiac disease, they are absolutely wrong. Just google TMJ and Celiac disease, and read the scientific articles you find. Research on issues regarding the TMJ is relatively sparse, but you will find the association you're looking for validated.
    • trents
      Welcome to the forum, @SuzanneL! Which tTG was that? tTG-IGA? tTG-IGG? Were there other celiac antibody tests run from that blood draw? Was total IGA measured? By some chance were you already cutting back on gluten by the time the blood draw was taken or just not eating much? For the celiac antibody tests to be accurate a person needs to be eating about 10g of gluten daily which is about 4-6 pieces of bread.
×
×
  • Create New...