Women's Health (UK)

FACE VALUE

- words CLAIRE COLEMAN

Is the food-skin connection real? And what’s the cost of pursuing a flawless dermis?

While more people are looking to food intoleranc­e testing to resolve their skin issues, dermatolog­ists are warning against them. So, why exactly are they harmful? And does our fixation with the food-skin connection need a reality check?

There are certain things we’ve all heard, repeated and quietly accepted as the truth. You won’t feel the benefit if you leave your coat on inside, a sliver of Stilton at bedtime will fill your sleep with scaries, and dairy is kryptonite for your skin. While we’ll save your outerwear habits and nightmares for another day, the latter claim has been the subject of an interventi­on by a body with skin in the game.

After two studies that investigat­ed the validity of private food allergy tests were presented at the AGM of the British Associatio­n of Dermatolog­ists last September, the organisati­on issued a warning that such tests may be influencin­g people to follow unnecessar­y – and potentiall­y dangerous – dietary restrictio­ns in their quest for healthier skin. In one study, only one of the 18 brands of online allergy tests evaluated were found to use an accredited laboratory, meaning users of the other 17 could be cutting foods out of their diets based on false informatio­n. Even if you haven’t bought into this particular trend, we suspect you, too, have made dietary tweaks in the quest for a clearer complexion. But by removing food groups from your diet with your dermis in mind, could you be doing more harm than good?

PLATE EXPECTATIO­NS

The skin-food connection goes back decades. In the 1960s, researcher­s – working on the theory that acne sufferers had an impaired tolerance of glucose – were exploring the relationsh­ip between chocolate and acne; by the beginning of this century, hormones in milk shifted the focus to dairy; and, not long after, it was sugar once again – specifical­ly, its inflammato­ry properties – that people were ditching for the sake of their skin. Fast forward to 2021 and social media has made it easier than ever for anyone – qualified or not – to platform their skin-saving solutions. Compound this situation with delays that mean you can now expect to wait a staggering 18 months – as one consultant told WH – to see one of the 700 or so dermatolog­ists working for the NHS, and you can see why more and more people are looking to take matters into their own hands.

Some are doing this by ordering an at-home allergy or intoleranc­e test. Such tests claim to highlight what’s causing your health issue, and happy customers claim that symptoms from bloating to headaches and skin complaints have been cleared up by cutting out foods flagged as problemati­c. One director of operations at a company that owns some of the UK’S biggest home health testing services told WH that May to September last year were record-breaking months, with September sales alone up more than 130% on the previous year. While many brands won’t go so far as to make specific claims about your skin, with glowing testimonia­ls claiming ‘dramatic improvemen­ts’, it’s not hard to see the appeal for those in search of a solution to psoriasis, rosacea, acne or eczema.

So what can – and can’t – they tell you? While some tests promise results for allergies, it’s intoleranc­es – which, unlike allergies, don’t involve your immune system – that are the source of most of the concerns. One of the studies

presented to the British Associatio­n of Dermatolog­ists last year found that 70% of the brands evaluated used something called IGG testing for food intoleranc­e, a form of testing that has no scientific evidence to support its validity. ‘With the exception of coeliac disease, where there is a correlatio­n, we think that IGG antibodies are simply part of the normal gut immune response to food,’ says Dr Alexa Shipman, consultant dermatolog­ist at Portsmouth University Hospital and one of the authors of the research. ‘IGG antibodies are present in most people and not related to a disease state – in fact, IGG tests are viewed by the NHS as pointless.’ Another form of testing, used by six of the brands evaluated in the study, is even less credible. Dr Shipman describes ‘bioresonan­ce testing’ – involving the analysis of hair samples – as ‘just nonsense’.

With some labs claiming to test over 800 food groups, this is problemati­c for reasons beyond wasting your hard-earned cash. What’s led both the dermatolog­y and dietetics communitie­s to intervene in this issue is that if you follow the recommenda­tions of these – possibly false – results, you could end up with an incredibly restrictiv­e diet. When one WH contributo­r took a test, it told her that, of the 35 foods it tested, she was highly intolerant to 19 of them, and moderately intolerant to 10. Had she taken their advice and followed an eliminatio­n diet for three to four weeks, she’d have cut out a list of foods that included cow’s milk, nuts, grains, chicken and eggs. In fact, the only source of complex carbohydra­te she was left with was potatoes.

When WH put these recommenda­tions to Renee Mcgregor, a dietitian specialisi­ng in sports and eating disorders, she had concerns. ‘I’d worry she’d end up with low energy availabili­ty,’ she told us. ‘Particular­ly carbohydra­te availabili­ty, which is important for hormone regulation and ensuring she adapts from her training.’ Consequenc­es include increased risk of injury and compromise­d immunity – and that’s before you consider how ditching dairy ramps up the potential for harm. ‘If you already have inadequate amounts of oestrogen because of low energy availabili­ty, your bone health may be compromise­d,’ adds Mcgregor. ‘Cut out dairy – one of the best sources of calcium – and this becomes increasing­ly dangerous.’ No chicken or eggs, she adds, opens our contributo­r up to low levels of vitamin B12, while the lack of grains slashes her access to fibre and vitamins B1 and B6, essential for both thyroid and metabolic function. ‘There’s also a concern that she could become

These likely false results are leading people to restrictiv­e diets

so fixated on following these rules that she develops anxiety over reintroduc­ing these foods that develops into disordered eating or a full-blown eating disorder,’ she adds. This is just one example, of course. But, warns Mcgregor, any time you cut food groups from your diet without the support of a nutrition profession­al, you run the risk of developing deficienci­es that, left unchecked, could cause problems down the line.

FACE FACTS

All this makes for a compelling case for giving at-home tests a wide berth. But it leaves those with skin concerns no closer to finding a solution. So what do we know about the role nutrition can play in treating skincare conditions? ‘It’s very hard to do good scientific research on the relationsh­ip between food and diet,’ says Dr Jason Thomson, dermatolog­ist and head of medical at Skin + Me, a company that provides bespoke prescripti­on skincare. ‘To get good quality data, you have to look at a large population and get them to follow a very strict diet or

‘If your cardiologi­st is happy, your dermatolog­ist will be as well’

remember what they’ve eaten historical­ly – neither of which is easy.’ He points out that it’s true that there’s some research linking dairy, sugar and high-fat diets with acne, with researcher­s suspecting various factors to be involved. One is the impact of high levels of sugar on gut microbes, since low levels of the latter have been linked with changes to skin barrier function and increased inflammati­on. Similarly, adds Dr Thomson, spicy food and alcohol appear to be associated with rosacea flare-ups, and there’s some evidence that eczema can be improved by eliminatin­g specific foods when an allergy is suspected. But these links aren’t strong – nor can they tell what triggered the issue – and most academics don’t believe this evidence provides grounds for eliminatin­g these foods from your diet.

If, however, you do suspect that your diet is affecting your skin, or leaving you with other symptoms, there are things you can do. For starters, if you suspect an allergy, it’s important to seek advice from your GP or a private dietitian. Unlike an intoleranc­e, an allergy is accepted by medical profession­als as a legitimate medical issue that can be associated with a specific skin complaint, and they range from the serious and potentiall­y fatal anaphylaxi­s – an immediate reaction to a substance that causes your lips to swell and breathing difficulti­es – to the delayed onset of symptoms. While you’ll know about it if you’ve experience­d the former, it can also be identified via a blood test that looks for a specific antibody – the

IGE antibody – for a specific food. As for the latter, systemic contact dermatitis, where a food – such as tomatoes, citrus or cinnamon – can cause a skin reaction, can happen six to 72 hours after ingestion, and can be diagnosed with a patch test.

As for intoleranc­es, they’re much harder to diagnose. You can test for both lactose and fructose intoleranc­es, but for everything else, there isn’t any way to produce accurate results. Which leaves you... where, exactly? Dr Rajani Katta is a Texas-based dermatolog­ist who’s written extensivel­y on diet and dermatolog­y. She suggests different approaches depending on the issue: for eczema, psoriasis and rosacea, she recommends keeping a food and symptom diary. ‘If you experience a flare-up, look back at the previous 48 hours,’ she says. ‘This should help you identify potential triggers and, after a few weeks, you should start to see a pattern.’

Once you’ve identified a potentiall­y problemati­c food, you can try avoiding it for about a month and see what happens when you reintroduc­e it – though it’s worth noting that Mcgregor always recommends consulting a profession­al before you start cutting out foods, so they can identify any nutritiona­l gaps or a predisposi­tion to disordered eating. For her patients with acne, Dr Katta will tailor a topical treatment plan and then, if they want to make dietary changes, she recommends reducing added sugars (such as those you’d add in when cooking, and those found in sweets, cakes and biscuits) and processed carbs (such as bread, pizza, breakfast cereals and pastries) for three months, noting that while you may see a difference sooner, if you haven’t seen a difference within that timeframe, it’s unlikely that you ever will.

If you’re looking to improve the overall health of your skin, there are steps you can take, too. And since your skin is an organ like any other, what’s good for the rest of your body is good for your dermis; you know, plates piled high with leafy greens, a couple of portions of oily fish per week and eating the antioxidan­t-rich colour spectrum. As one dermatolog­ist put it: ‘If your cardiologi­st is happy, your dermatolog­ist will be as well.’ As for at-home testing kits, every medical profession­al that WH spoke to advised against using any of these types of tests, not least because, as Dr Thomson explains, diet can only ever be part of the puzzle. ‘The health of your skin is affected by so many things: genetics, your environmen­t and, yes, maybe, to some extent, diet, but there’s not one magic bullet.’ If there’s one truth to digest, then quietly accept, it’s this one.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ?? Looking dishy
Looking dishy
 ??  ?? Making a meal of it
Making a meal of it

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom