Jochen wrote:
> So, thereīs a study in England, they ask people for their allergies, and
nearly 20%
> of the people told the scientists to have one or more food allergies.
> The scientists test it and gave the people these foodstuffs, that release
the reactions.
> But they mix these stuffs under the normal food, so people canīt see it
and identify.
> What happens?
> Only 2 % of the patients have shown real symptoms, the other none.
> How can this be interpreted...?
>
I have a number of food allergies. How do I know? Because I have gotten off
those offending foods for a few days. Then reintroduced them. The first day
is okay, but the second or third day on the same offending foods causes me
very real problems, objective symptoms.
It seems I can irritate my body to a certain threshold occasionally with no
problem. Exceed the threshold for too long, and WHAMMO! The symptoms appear.
Once the symptoms flare up, it takes 3 or 4 days of respecting my body's
allergies for the symptoms to disappear.
So I would say that "real symptoms" may only appear upon repeated exposures,
over a certain threshold. When I eat a small amount of the offending foods,
nothing happens much. And the repeated exposures is key too.
I call these "food intolerances" because allergy is such a loaded word, but
they are to me allergies, and the symptoms include classical allergy
symptoms (inflammation of various body parts, wheezing, sneezing, mucus,
joint pain, etc.)
All anecdotal, but others who have what they believe to be food allergies
can perhaps say whether this is true of them.
--Richard
|
