4.7 Review

Myths and Facts about Food Intolerance: A Narrative Review

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 15, Issue 23, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu15234969

Keywords

FODMAP diet; food intolerance; fructose intolerance; sucrase-isomaltase complex; wheat hypersensitivity; lactose intolerance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Most adverse reactions to food are self-reported by patients and not validated by tests. Our study aims to clarify the myths and reality of common food intolerances, providing clinicians with guidance for diagnosis and treatment. The review finds that many food intolerances lack sufficient evidence and lead to unnecessary dietary restrictions for patients.
Most adverse reactions to food are patient self-reported and not based on validated tests but nevertheless lead to dietary restrictions, with patients believing that these restrictions will improve their symptoms and quality of life. We aimed to clarify the myths and reality of common food intolerances, giving clinicians a guide on diagnosing and treating these cases. We performed a narrative review of the latest evidence on the widespread food intolerances reported by our patients, giving indications on the clinical presentations, possible tests, and dietary suggestions, and underlining the myths and reality. While lactose intolerance and hereditary fructose intolerance are based on well-defined mechanisms and have validated diagnostic tests, non-coeliac gluten sensitivity and fermentable oligosaccharide, disaccharide, monosaccharide, and polyol (FODMAP) intolerance are mainly based on patients' reports. Others, like non-hereditary fructose, sorbitol, and histamine intolerance, still need more evidence and often cause unnecessary dietary restrictions. Finally, the main outcome of the present review is that the medical community should work to reduce the spread of unvalidated tests, the leading cause of the problematic management of our patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available