Not All Food Sensitivity Tests Are Equal — Here Is What to Look For
The market for food sensitivity testing has grown considerably in recent years, and with it, a wide range of testing methods — many of which have no credible scientific basis. Understanding the difference between a clinically valid test and a commercial gimmick matters, both for the accuracy of your results and for your long-term health decisions.
Methods that lack scientific validity
Several popular, widely marketed testing approaches have been repeatedly shown in controlled studies to produce unreliable, irreproducible results with no meaningful correlation with actual immune function. These include:
-
Hair analysis — Hair carries no immunological information. It contains no antibodies, no immune cells, and no mechanism for identifying food reactivity. There is currently no peer-reviewed scientific evidence supporting hair-based food sensitivity testing, and results from these tests have been found inconsistent even when the same sample is tested twice by the same laboratory. Despite low costs and attractive marketing, hair-based food testing provides no clinically useful data.
-
Applied kinesiology (muscle testing) — This approach claims to identify food sensitivities through changes in muscle strength during exposure to foods or vials. Blinded controlled studies have found no reproducibility in these results — meaning the same person tested under the same conditions does not produce consistent outcomes. It has no plausible biological mechanism for detecting immune reactivity.
-
Electrodermal testing (Vega testing) — This method measures skin electrical conductivity and claims to detect food reactivity. Blinded, controlled research has demonstrated that results are not reproducible and do not correlate with objectively measured immune markers.
-
ALCAT (cell size method) — This test measures changes in white blood cell size after food exposure. Independent reproducibility testing found consistent results in only 34% of foods tested when split samples were sent to the same laboratory — a failure rate that makes clinical interpretation unreliable.
The common thread across all of these approaches is the same: they either measure nothing related to immune function at all, or they measure a signal that cannot be reliably reproduced and does not correlate with clinical symptoms.
Why does this test use IgG-ELISA methodology
The KBMO Food Inflammation Test (FIT) uses enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) — a standardised, quantitative laboratory technique that has been validated across thousands of published studies and used in clinical immunology for over 30 years. When independent split-sample reproducibility testing compared the ELISA method to the cell-size method, ELISA produced consistent results in 95% of foods tested, compared to 34% for its alternative.
The test measures your blood's IgG antibody response to foods — a real and measurable immune signal. Elevated IgG reactivity to specific foods does not constitute a classical allergy (which involves a different antibody, IgE), but rather reflects delayed immune reactivity that may contribute to chronic, low-grade inflammation in susceptible individuals, particularly when gut barrier integrity is compromised.
Importantly, the KBMO FIT also measures Zonulin — a validated biomarker of intestinal permeability (leaky gut) — alongside IgG reactivity, providing meaningful clinical context that no hair or kinesiology test could ever offer.
How to use these results
Results from this test are best understood as a clinical starting point, not a verdict. Elevated IgG reactivity to a food indicates an immune response worth investigating through a guided elimination and reintroduction protocol — a process best undertaken with practitioner support to ensure nutritional adequacy, accurate symptom tracking, and appropriate interpretation.
If you have questions about whether this test is right for you or would like guidance before ordering, please visit stephenroigard.com to book a consultation.
Functional Medical Tests – Costs, Terms & Timeframes
All functional test kits incur only minimal administrative costs and include a pre-paid courier bag with full instructions for self-collection and submission. Kits are dispatched to one of our New Zealand distributors — FxMed or Nutriscript — who consolidate and forward samples via weekly shipments to accredited laboratories in the United States or Australia.
The standard turnaround time for results is 3–5 weeks from the date of sample submission. If you have not received your results within 5 weeks, please contact us so we can follow up on your behalf.
Please note: Occasional delays may occur due to customs clearance, international courier disruptions, or laboratory backlogs. These are outside our control, but we will assist in tracking and resolving any extended delays.
Once results are available, we receive them directly from the distributor and forward them to you on the same day. Laboratory reports typically include detailed interpretations, reference ranges, and explanatory notes.
We strongly recommend booking a follow-up consultation — either online or in person — to contextualise your results within your broader health strategy. This ensures accurate interpretation and integration into your personalised care plan.
Consultation fees are additional to the cost of the test kit.
