To Test Or Not To Test?

[MissKristy]

From what I understand if I take the blood test for celiac's while NOT eating gluten it will come up negative.

This means I would have to go back to eating gluten, for how long I don't know, to get a true result...is there any real benefit to an official diagnosis? Or should I just listen to my body?

I can't reconcile with purposely suffering without a good cause, it's bad enough when it's accidental, or just a mild reaction.

[tarnalberry]

There's no right answer here. You're right about needing to be eating gluten for a reasonably accurate test. (You'd need to eat the equivalent of three slices of bread a day, for three months, to have confidence the blood tests could pick up antibodies to gluten.)

For some people, it's important. They need the "officialness" of the diagnosis. They have family members that won't get tested without doctor's paperwork. They have kids whose doctors refuse to test unless there's documentation of a family member having it. There are some folks who need to file for disability.

For some people, it's not important. They are confident enough about their understanding of their body's reaction that they can go on their own investigation alone. They aren't trying to convince others to get tested (or others don't need that type of convincing).

Personally, I don't see a reason to do it, IF you trust your decisions. To me, the idea that other people won't trust YOU to know what's wrong with your body, but will trust a doctor they don't know is just silly. But that's my opinion for my situation, and isn't applicable to everyone.

Good luck deciding!