Since beginning to document our experiments with the Glacier Peak Holistics Alternate Allergy and Sensitivity Assessment kit, we’ve had some inquiries about how it compares to NutriScan®.
NutriScan is another allergy assessment kit designed to be an alternative to traditional allergy testing. There are a few significant differences between the two. Depending on your needs, and budget, one may be a better fit than the other.
Different trigger identification methods are used for each test
The Glacier Peak Holistics (GPH) test uses biofeedback to identify potential sensitivities and triggers. NutriScan tests for the presence of specific antibodies in saliva to identify two dozen potential food allergens.
The GPH test reports on both food and environmental triggers, while NutriScan is limited to the 24 most commonly ingested foods.
I’ve found the GPH test results a bit easier to read and use as a reference. The report is color coded, with potential triggers highlighted in Red.
The NutriScan report is also simple to read, but appears as a list with a numerical value for each potential allergen.
I do like the added detail of NutriScan’s number assignment to each potential trigger. This gives you a clearer picture of how much weight to place on each particular ingredient. With GPH, a slight sensitivity and a definite allergy will be equally reflected as Red.
Both tests offer a road map which can be used to formulate your plan
Although you get more detail with the numerical values in the NutriScan results, it lacks the environmental info contained in the GPH report. Depending on what your situation demands, either test can help guide your choices.
If you’re certain that your pet’s problems are the result of food sensitivities, NutriScan may offer a more detailed path, provided those triggers are included in the 24 ingredients tested. It’s nice to see how much of a problem an individual ingredient is in relation to the others.
On the other hand, without taking potential environmental sensitivities into consideration, your approach may be incomplete.
The additional triggers in the GPH test offer more information
I found myself wondering just how much of an issue each of the highlighted triggers were when looking at the GPH results. Is it best to start with identified food or environmental triggers?
To be safe, the best course of action is to eliminate ALL of these when using the GPH test as a guide. The test results make this simple to accomplish. If you’re not quite ready to eliminate all the food ingredients immediately, you can begin with environmental triggers.
From my perspective, the inclusion of environmental triggers allows a more holistic approach to your pet’s issues. It gives you yet another layer of information to consider when making changes.
So which test is for you?
Both the GPH test and NutriScan have a good track record. If you’re just beginning this journey on your own, I’d suggest the GPH test because of its affordability and larger testing range.
I feel the environmental component is critical for developing a better perspective of the range of issues to address. It’s possible that the issues your pet faces are a combination of environmental and food. Addressing one without the other may not lead to the desired result. This has been proven with clients who have used the GPH test.
If you’ve already narrowed your triggers down and are attempting to hone in on specific food triggers, NutriScan will give more targeted results. Just be sure the ingredients you suspect are among the 24 included in the test panel.
Since the GPH test can be had at about 1/3 the cost of NutriScan, it seems to be a good place to begin. You can always move on to the other if you do not get acceptable results and are convinced your problems are solely food related.
Have you used one or both of these tests?
If so, feel free to share your experience. Good or bad, we can all benefit from your experience!
Ready to try the Glacier Peak Holistics test? Get it here!
Hello! I am doing some research and trying to get feedback on the Glacier Peak Allergy Assessment for my dog who has had ongoing itchiness and licking issues and I came across this article. It appears the assessment used to be available on Amazon.com and someone left the following negative review saying this is a scam as this type of testing is not scientifically feasible. Do you have any thoughts or feedback in response to this review? The information on their website on how this works seemed to be limited. I’m not familiar enough with allergy testing to know what is or is not possible but ironically I will also be visiting a dermatologist soon to undergo allergy testing for myself since I have suffered with Exzema and would like to determine the cause. I suppose I can pick his brain a bit as well! Once again I do not have an opinion either way, I am simply trying to see if someone else’s research may have found further information to support or reject her claim.
AMAZON REVIEW:
This is a scam. 100%. No questions. My fiance bought this under the stress and concern for our dog who had been itching constantly, losing hair, general allergy signs and symptoms. I have a PhD in Biomedical science and upon finding out what the kit came with I initially laughed at the joke of pseudoscience they are selling you here, then I got angry. They have you take hair samples and an oral swab of the dog, package it up, fill out a form (in which you tell them the breed, age, other details) and then ship it back. This is all done to make you fell as if some scientific inquiry has been done, and it’s “off to the lab.”
Know this: unless they have created a ground breaking technology they are keeping to themselves and the diagnosis of dogs on amazon, there is no means of allergy diagnosis that can be done with hair samples and oral swabs. AT BEST: they could genotype your dog (get its breed) and tell you the likely allergens that are common within that breed. They don’t even need to do that as you already told them the breed in the form.
The way to test for allergic reactions is to test for each one as you would do in a REAL VET or Hospital: specific pure allergen exposure, usually skin tests. Alternatively you could take a fresh blood sample, spin out the plasma and screen for circulating antibodies in and ELISA, but that is expensive enough for all the allergens they claim to test for it to be impossible. That’s it. No hair, no swab, no survey.
The kicker is they dare to “expedite” the processing for a fee, again, playing on your desperation to help your pet. What you do get eventually, expedited or not is a readout telling you that your dog is allergic everything including EMF. That’s radio waves. No study to date has demonstrated that self diagnosed humans are able to discern between real radio waves and a control (no radio wave scenario). Icing on the cake. Your dog is now allergic to the TV. This is a scam, and should not be bought.
Hi Heather-
Thanks very much for your inquiry about this. I applaud your skepticism and am happy to respond from my perspective.
First and foremost, the GPH product is an alternate sensitivity test, not an allergy test. The terms allergy and sensitivity are often used interchangeably, but this is not technically correct. The GPH product does not return results using the same type of medically and scientifically accepted methods that traditional allergy testing does. Nor does it cost hundreds of dollars as traditional allergy testing does.
The GPH test is intended to give pet owners information that can be used as a guide for adjusting diet and environment triggers. It is not, nor does it pretend to be, a definitive diagnosis that will result in the elimination of all symptoms. In some cases, this can be the result. In others, not. And in still others, the end result falls somewhere in between.
If you’ve not read through our short series of evaluating the test, you can find it here.
The GPH test uses biofeedback to generate its results. Another alternative test uses DNA. Depending on your beliefs, either or both of these methods can be fraudulent.
If you believe, as I do, that biofeedback and kinesiology are valid diagnostic tools, you’re well aware that many dismiss these methods for lack of scientific validation. For me, that does not negate their effectiveness since I have seen it in action. For an individual approaching this from a strictly scientific perspective I can certainly understand their doubt.
I have absolutely no interest in selling a product like this without satisfying myself that there is validity to its claims. I’ve used it personally and have had clients use it with good results. On the basis of that, my own research, and speaking with the company, we decided to offer it to clients.
The results I’ve seen are comparable to what I saw from the traditional allergy testing used on my dog many years ago. After just under a year, more than $1000 in testing and shots, I discontinued that approach. If money were no object, perhaps I would have continued. But if the GPH product had been available then, I would have certainly opted for that approach.
My partner had a different experience. Her dog responded well to traditional allergy testing and shots. What we’re seeing now using the GPH test as a guide falls a bit short of that result. But having gotten the additional knowledge from the test and made adjustments, there’s not doubt we’re seeing significant improvements.
The reviewer on Amazon appears to be evaluating the GPH test from an educated perspective. S/he is quick to dismiss the value of the underlying methodology (biofeedback) behind the test, and implies that radio waves (EMF) cannot be a source of sensitivity.
I beg to differ. Personal experience has repeatedly shown the value of biofeedback and there is no shortage of research showing the effect EMF can have on mammals. Indeed, entire industries have been built to minimize EMF effects.
The GPH test is obviously not the right choice for that particular reviewer. But for those who are willing to consider exploring therapies outside the norm, this is one attractive option to consider. By comparison, many of us would similarly dismiss the value of herbal therapy, acupuncture or homeopathic remedies. These, like the GPH test attempt to address the root cause of a problem rather than simply managing its symptoms.
Others disagree and prefer to first reach for antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals to manage symptoms. There are competing philosophies at play, and once you’ve considered each it will be easier to make a decision.
Just as I would not argue climate change with a climate change denier, there is enough evidence of the effectiveness of the GPH test that I fully support it.
Is it right for you? I’d encourage you to speak with others, contact the company, explore your options and then make a decision. Don’t take my word, or the anonymous reviewer’s word, as gospel. At some point you’ll have enough information to make your own decision. only then will you feel comfortable and committed enough to follow-thru with the path you’ve chosen.
I believe the GPH test is a path worth following. Whether you agree or not is your decision to make. And, whatever you decide, best of luck with managing your allergies!
Wow, thank you so much for your reply! I really appreciate hearing your perspective and definitely think its worth a shot!
Glad to hear this was useful. If you do decide to give GPH a try, please let us know what you think.
Whether your experience is god, bad or somewhere in between, the information is bound to be useful for us all!
I have had both the glasier peaks test , and the Nutri scan test done , my problem is they conflict on the protien sensitivities . Now I’m really confused. The Nutri Scan test says my dog is highly sensitive to every protien except for lamb and beef, the Glasier Peaks says only food sensitivities to chicken , goat , lamb.now I’m not sure what to do
I can see why you’re confused. You’ve done something I’ve been curious about by doing both tests. Did you do them both at roughly the same time? If not, it would make more sense that the results differ, since sensitivities can shift depending on time of year and circumstance.
My next step would be to contact each company and ask this question. You should learn more this way, and can also use their responses to determione whether they’ll be helpful for you in the long-term or not. If not, it would be good to know early on. If so, that may prove a valuable resource going forward, particularly if you choose to use more of their products.
Armed with this additional info, you’ll have two options to consider:
1. Look at the overall results of both tests. Are there any commonalities you can use to begin making adjustments? If so, start there and monitor your results. If you don’t see any changes within a few weeks, move to option 2.
2. Look at the overall results of both tests. Choose one set of results to use as a guideline. Make your adjustments based on that and monitor your results. If you don’t get the results you’re after a period of time- at least 6 weeks- try using the other set of results as your guideline and repeat the process.
Good luck and I hope this helps. Please feel free to share any followup info- it will certainly help others!
I too am trying to decide which test to use for my dog who recently has thinning hair and flaky skin eruptions on her skin after using a holistic ” nontoxic. Flea repellant shampoo. (FleaHex) and now appears to possibly have flea allergy dermatitis and numerous skin eruptions. What about adding this sensitivity test to the sensitivity test comparison : Dr Peter Dobias Hair
Info about. Dr Dobias test :
HairQ Test
Minerals and heavy metal hair test to find out if anything is missing in your dog’s diet. No veterinary exam or blood sample needed.
– See more at: http://old.peterdobias.com/community/products/hairqtest/#sthash.UKoVPopX.dpuf
Thanks for this information, Judy.
I look at the HairQ test as more of a complement to the other two options, rather than an alternative. While it can help you adjust your pet’s supplements, it is based solely on mineral analysis, making it more narrowly focused and highly targeted.
I really like the idea of a test for heavy metals and mineral deficiency. I don’t think the results of this would initially be as useful as one of the other tests when attempting to address sensitivities. It could be an excellent next step.
Hi Smiley, I contacted Glacier Peak Holistics in regard to this test and they don’t have any information available regarding the assessment reliability. So I sent in a control sample. By that I mean I sent in a sample without any saliva or hair from my dog. Instead I prepared the sample in a pet free home. I shredded one end of one of the cotton swabs and sent that in as my “hair” and then moistened the swabs with sterile IV fluid. The report came back and reported my sterile “Iv fluid as having 63 food sensitivities, 29 environmental sensitivities and 9 of the 12 probable concerns. Based on these results I have to conclude the assessment is completely invalid.
Wow, that’s surprising to read. It will be very interesting to hear how that gets explained by the company.
My experience, that of our clients, and others I’ve spoken with, has been quite different. We’ve been able to use the test results as a guide with noticeable improvement.
Looks like there needs to be a followup to this series of articles after another conversation…
Hi Smiley,
Traci from customer service put forth the idea that I had “bad intent” when I sent the sample in which “energetically speaking” lead to an inaccurate result. She said that “The biofeedback machine will create a readout on anything that is run through it, but again it won’t be an accurate reading if there was false information provided.”
This is very puzzling response as previously Glacier Peak Holistics assured me that the biofeedback machine was very specific and would only recognize an energy imprint attached to DNA of the species that it was currently programmed to recognize.
I replied that there was no “bad intent” I was simply trying to validate the test in an objective manner and that all information sent with the control sample was truthful. The company has not responded back.
It was interesting to me that when I compared my report to six others that I found posted on line that there are a lot of similarities between reports. The grains highlighted in all 6 reports as they were in my control except for one report in which Amaranth wasn’t highlighted. Chicken and eggs were always highlighted and both potatoes and sweet potatoes were highlighted in 5 of the 6 reports as was soy, turkey and gluten just as were all highlighted in my control sample. I even checked what would be an uncommon exposure… leek. Leek was highlighted in my control sample and it was also highlighted in 4 of the 6 reports I found on line.
Because my control sample came up with very similar results as all the actual samples I have to wonder if there is something in the materials ( plastic bag, cotton swabs, labels or inks) that is causing similar readouts. I can’t explain it and so far Glacier Peak Holistics hasn’t either.
Based on the data the only reasonable conclusion I can make is that the test isn’t valid. This doesn’t mean that the test doesn’t appear to “work”, as everything appears to work to some extent. There were lots of testimonials that power band bracelets worked, yet controlled studies revealed that they have no effect.
I think you raise some valid concerns, but I can’t agree with your conclusion that the test is invalid.
Perhaps the test could be improved by returning an error or some sort of inconclusive message when presented with inappropriate material. However, that is asking the system to do something it is not currently designed to do. While this may be construed as a flaw, it certainly does not invalidate results when appropriate material is presented for analysis.
If I enter French words into an English spell checker, I’ll get inaccurate results. It doesn’t mean the spellchecker is invalid- it wasn’t designed to handle that language.
Years ago a major pet food company formulated a “food” that met the Guaranteed Analysis standards set by AAFCO. The “food” consisted of motor oil, sawdust and shoe leather. The process didn’t balk when analyzing the faux food, but that didn’t invalidate the GA testing when actual food was processed.
In both of these cases the system performed as expected. It ran its process as instructed, but was not provided appropriate material to evaluate. The same can be said of the samples in your experiment with Glacier Peak Holistics (GPH).
After a bit of research into how biofeedback is evaluated in both animate and inanimate objects, the results you received make a certain amount of sense. This was further confirmed after speaking again with GPH. I don’t pretend to understand the science behind how biofeedback works, but I do accept the theory. In this case, as in the above examples, it supports the concept of “garbage in, garbage out.”
I don’t find it suspect that there are similarities in the test results of multiple pets. I would find that to be unusual if each of these pets had been eating very different, high quality fresh diets and living in unique environments. We don’t know the background of these subjects. Perhaps a better way to evaluate the accuracy of these results would be to see how effective (or ineffective) eliminating the triggers were for each pet.
Perhaps a more advanced generation of biofeedback machinery would protest and refuse to analyze an inappropriate sample. The machine used for the GPH test is calibrated to return results for specific types of material. If its test is run on a different material, the results understandably will be askew.
I applaud your skepticism, although I don’t agree that the experiment you ran was a “fair” indication of the efficacy of the test. The samples submitted were not what were needed for an accurate test, so I don’t believe you can reasonably expect a rational result.
My initial skepticism was put to rest after seeing concrete proof of improvements using the test results as a guide. Will this be the result in every case? Perhaps not. It is however, a viable and inexpensive option to consider when evaluating the choices available to address sensitivity/ allergy issues.
I just came across. Another test called ImmuneIQ that seems to test for both environmental AND food allergy/sensitivities via both saliva AND hair samples. And is MUCH more affordable at about 1/3 the cost (or less with promo). Since I )am soon to purchase NutriScan. (which will be a HUGE strain on my extremely modest fixed income. Since the $280 cost is recently to increase even higher, I wonder if anyone has evaluated or compared ImmuneIQ to Nutria can and Glacier Peaks, and wonder if you could take a look at it, since I value your opinion, Smiley Dog. I will post the link to ImmuneIQ once I post this question and go back to find link to ImmuneIQ thanks for checking this test out if you can and evaluating what your opinion would be as alternative to the much more expensive option. If the more expensive Nutria can is more valuable to assess my dogs recent skin problems, I would rather pay more for more helpful assessment, but if there is an equally valuable option at less cost,I would like to be able to spend less money since as earn very little, but my dogs health is more important than money. Thanks for any advice on this
Hi Judy-
If cost is your primary concern, you can certainly take a closer look at ImmuneIQ. They periodically run delas with Groupon or Living Social that brings their price down even more.
I don’t consider this test to be in the same class as the other two for the following reasons:
1. They are not forthcoming with specifics of what the test(s) cover
2. They offer only email support, not phone support
3. I’ve yet to see a representative of their company or this product at any industry Trade Show in the past 23 years
4. Their add-on tests may (or may not) cover some of the same items which are already included in the GPH or NutriScan tests. Without details, there’s no way to know.
It may be a personal bias, but I feel strongly that a product like this should be backed with phone support. Email is nice for quick, non-detailed questions, but is not a good substitute for a detailed conversation.
If you do a search for the product, you’ll be able to read others’ experience with it. Some have been good, others bad. We will not sell anything that we can’t stand behind, and we don’t feel comfortable recommending this product.
I haven’t done any others except Nutriscan but Nutriscan has proved to definitely have positive effects upon chronic inflammatory responses as my 4 yr old intact female golden retriever, Brandy 2 has had unwarranted panting as I always felt the one month of access, playing with silica sand and the board certified radiology report interpreting of bronchial interstitial pulmonary changes most likely from chronic inflammation of the lungs has had and still am worried about this occurrence 3 yrs ago when I knew nothing of the dangers of silicosis in humans, long term exposure w/of proper respiratory equipment and dogs would esp at one year old would practically ingest lots of it through their respiratory passages, and as I was feeding and all raw, grass fed, balanced beef blend from Raw Dog Hawaii, she’doesn’t pant unwarranted, I mean lying down, no physical exertion. I’don’t always get scared and was even going to seek a Chinese herbalist because my research found kombucha and Chinese herbal kombucha and some other herbals…sprayed into rats’ lungs would seem to clear free silica and it’s even in pubmed.govarious. of this treatment. There’s no cure for silica induced, silicosis that’s lung(s) cancer. But following Dr. Jean Dodds directions have been great with no unwarranted panting anymore or much significant results as inflammation or flare ups of foods listed as high for reaction in Nutriscan’s test results have gave me significant relief…..thankyou, Hemopet, hemolife diagnostics and the staff with Dr. Jean Dodds.
Thanks for your comments , Gary-
Glad to hear Nutriscan put you on the right track. Food sensitivities ae not the only things that these tests can suggest. The triggers our pets react to come from many different sources, and these tests can often help direct our attention in the right direction.
I had the Nutriscan done for a second time this January,, this time my dog tested positive for 23 out of 24 proteins, the first time it was all 24 proteins, the recommendation was for a vegan diet. I recently did the Glacier Peak and the only protein that was allowed on Nutriscan was a no no on GPH, but the interesting thing on GPH i that all the potatoes and squashes,, all the raw dog food ive been feeding my dog has those 3 items.. so with my new found knowledge I am off to find raw without starches for my allergic dog with systemic yeast issues as well
Wow, Karen, that’s quite a challenging list to guide your choice of food.
Did the GPH scan “allow” any of the protein sources that the NutriScan nixed? If so, that may be another experiment to try. I’d love to know what you come up with if you find something that works!
I have read everyones comments, all are very interesting and very valuable.. I did nutria scan twice,,they recommended my dog go on a vegan diet,, tha was about it,, glacier peaks however pointed out that my dog had allergies to other items rather than just proteins.. I switched her to novel proteins,, raw,, and got the herbs from GPH andd I must say my little Frenchie has improved 100 %. I have also followed Teds Protocol and between the 2 my little Frenchie is better than she ever has been,, and I have to say she was bad,, smelly, greasy,, black on the under belly.. she now has a wonderful coat,, chews her feet,, but I have to say GPH worked along side Teds protocol ,, contact me for more info if you need to,,, karen@kabi.ca
Karen, thanks very much for your feedback. I’m glad to hear you found an approach that finally worked!
I’m not familiar with Teds Protocol. When you have a moment, could you post a link to that info so other folks can take a look and evaluate for themselves?
My dog was tested and some results confuse me. Hes allergic to pine trees but not pine nuts. Hes also allergic to the pollen alfalfa but not the grass alfalfa. Alot of dog food has dehydrated alfalfa meal. Please clarify. Thank you.
I would suggest you contact Glacier Peak directly by phone or email for a better explanation of your results. They will be in a much better position to explain the results and suggest a course of action. They may recommend some of their supplements, but you may want to consider adjusting your dog’s diet based on the results prior to adding supplements.
Our local rescue group has used GPH Wellness scan with good results. I can definitely advocate for their anti-inflammatory, Inflapotion. My lab, who has injured all 4 legs through accident/injury (including two dog attacks) was to the point she could barely walk at 6 years of age. Inflapotion took her back to being able to walk; she even started playful puppy behavior again. She’s now 9. I’ll NEVER be without Inflapotion in our household. This site seems to be a great source of info…thanks!
Thanks for sharing your experience with the Scan and GPH herbal remedies.
Glad to hear they have worked well for you!