Quote Originally Posted by michelem View Post

KnottedYet - I was tested for celiac several years ago, but at the time I had been following a self-imposed hiatus from gluten/wheat for a while (trying to see if it might help my eczema -- it didn't). The test came back negative, but do you think that's because I had already been avoiding the offending substances? Do you think I should get tested again? Is it something a person can contract later in life even if they haven't had it before?
Yup. If you aren't eating gluten, you won't be producing antibodies to gluten and your test will be negative.

Celiac is genetic. You always have the potential, but it shows up (or gets triggered) at any point in life. In my family, it shows up more often in adulthood. It's just family lore that at a certain age, you have to stop eating grains.

The genetic test is a couple thousand dollars. The blood antibody test is a whole lot cheaper, and usually covered by insurance. But you have to be eating gluten to be producing gluten antibodies.

I've avoided gluten (wheat, oats, barley, rye) for 7 years. If I had the blood test right now, it would be negative. But give me a taste of stir-fry made with soy sauce made with wheat (yes, there is wheat in a lot of soy sauces!) and I'll end up pretty unhappy.

It's up to you if you want to repeat the test or not. If you were gluten-free for a week or so when you had the last test, you probably had cleared your system of detectible gluten responses at that point, if you had a gluten problem. If you had been gluten free for only a couple days, it might not have mattered and it's likely the test was accurate.

Either you produce antibodies or you don't, but the offending substance (wheat, oats, barley, or rye products) has to be in your system and offending you at the time of the test.