Iodide

[andyville]

I am a university student and I remember reading a book by Bertrand Russell a while back, in which he wrote something like "a deficiency in iodine makes a bright man slow".

I sometimes experience a hard time concentrating on school work, and would like to make sure that I get enough of iodine. Do you have any suggestions on what a good and safe solution would be? Table salt with added iodine is not a good option for me as I am not a big fan of salt. What do you think about kelp pills? I do eat raw egg yolks but stay away from seafood.

Thanks a bunch,
Andy.

[RRM]

If you dont want to eat seafood, particularly egg yolk, bananas and mango provide you with iodide.
If you are not susceptible to acne, seaweed is also an option (very tasty in a salad),
though may contain way too much.

Iodide in mcg / 100 g.
250,000 kelp
1,600 nori
330 mullet
243 haddock
200 saithe / coalfish
170 cod
99 red fish / ocean perch
58 oysters
52 halibut
50 mackerel
50 tuna
48 horse mackerel / jack mackerel
34 salmon
12 egg yolk
7 beef
3 banana
2 mango
Orange juice contains about 10 mcg per L

[Kasper]

Just found an article about benifits of high-iodide intakes.

Japanese women, who are eating lots of seaweed, have the highest iodine intake (13.8 mg. daily) of women anywhere in the world. They also have the lowest incidence of breast cancer in the world. Japan has one of the lowest worldwide rates of every type of cancer with the exception of stomach cancer. In addition Japan has one of the lowest incidences of iodine deficiency, goiter (enlarged thyroid gland), and hypothyroidism. Iceland, another high iodine intake country, has low rates of goiter and breast cancer. Two countries with low iodine intakes (Thailand, Mexico) have high rates of breast cancer and goiter.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james37.htm

What do you here think about this theory ?

[RRM]

Statistically, the number of countries mentioned are totally insignificant (relative to the total number of countries).
If the stats would show us a definite correlation between iodide intake and cancer incidence, then they would have a case.
The japanese also eat more sushi and sashimi ... (raw fish containing no cancerous HCA)
Also, there are correlations between anti-oxidant intakes and cancer rates, and many other factors.

[Kasper]

Statistically, the number of countries mentioned are totally insignificant (relative to the total number of countries).
If the stats would show us a definite correlation between iodide intake and cancer incidence, then they would have a case.

I would say that if these were the only countries they have investigated then they would definitely have a point.
If they just don't mention the other countries because they show the opposite, (low iodine intake low breast cancer, or high iodine intake high breast cancer), then I would say you are totally right.
An other scenario is that they don't mention other countries because they have average iodine intake and average breast cancer, which would make there point still valid.

But I don't what is the case, didn't really studied this topic. Just out of interest, do you found a definite correlation between high-calcium diets and osteopeorosis?

Still I'm quite shocked that they eat on avarage 13,8 mg iodine in Japan, on avarage! This means that some eat way more. While 13,8 mg is already 100 times the RDA.
The upper limit of the RDA is 1,3 mg if I mentioned correctly.
This raises by me the question what would be the optimal intake of iodine? I mean width 50 mcg you can already prevent goiter, but maybe iodine plays a part in other parts of our body. There is good chance that our body evolved on a high iodine diet.
As we are not able to produce omega 3 by ourself. This suggest at least that our body evolved on high omega 3 --> high omega 3 diets are most likely diets width much fish --> much fish means coastal regions. If we evolved on these coastal regions, than it's quite possible that our ancestors evolved on a high iodine diet.

[RRM]

Statistically, the number of countries mentioned are totally insignificant (relative to the total number of countries).
If the stats would show us a definite correlation between iodide intake and cancer incidence, then they would have a case.

I would say that if these were the only countries they have investigated then they would definitely have a point.

Statistically, that would not mean anything.
Suppose you flip a coin with your left hand, twice, and both times the result is the opposite of when you flip the coin with your right hand (also twice),
do you think that this means there is a correlation between flipping a coin and what hand you use?

If they just don't mention the other countries because they show the opposite, (low iodine intake low breast cancer, or high iodine intake high breast cancer), then I would say you are totally right.
An other scenario is that they don't mention other countries because they have average iodine intake and average breast cancer, which would make there point still valid.

What if the other data is inconclusive? (varying results)
It might mean that the influence of iodide intake on cancer rates is not that big, or even non-existent.
As a matter of fact, iodine intake (and cancer rates) in the US is high as well... as here iodine is added to salt and bread.
In Germany, iodine intake is 5 to 10 fold lower, but cancer rates are not higher.

do you found a definite correlation between high-calcium diets and osteopeorosis?

Yes.
In all countries with high milk intakes, osteoporosis incidence is high too.
In all countries with low milk intakes, osteoporosis incidence is low too.

There is good chance that our body evolved on a high iodine diet.
As we are not able to produce omega 3 by ourself.

Omega 3 LNA is also provided by fruits and nuts.
Our capacity to convert LNA to other omega 3s is limited though (particularly in men).

[Kasper]

Statistically, that would not mean anything.
Suppose you flip a coin with your left hand, twice, and both times the result is the opposite of when you flip the coin with your right hand (also twice),
do you think that this means there is a correlation between flipping a coin and what hand you use?

Well this is not a good example. Because Japan has the lowest cancer rates of all the countries in the world. And also the highest avarage iodine intake of all the countries in the world. That's like you throw a dice width 300 numbers width 300 different hands. And it turns out that the biggest hand throws number 1.

I do agree that this isn't more than an indication that there could be a correlation between iodine intake and cancer.
Also, this is not the only argument those doctors who lead which they call, the iodine revival.

Japanese researchers have found that
iodine suppresses tumor growth in experimental animals
and they have demonstrated that seaweed, that is high
in iodine, induces apoptosis in human breast cancer cells
(Funahashi, H., Imaj, T., Tanaka, Y., et al, Suppressive Effect of
Iodine on DMBA-Induced Breast Tumor Growth in the Rat,
Journal of Surgical Oncology, 61:209-213, 1996, Funahashi,

they use more arguments, but I didn't studied it really

What if the other data is inconclusive? (varying results)
It might mean that the influence of iodide intake on cancer rates is not that big, or even non-existent.
As a matter of fact, iodine intake (and cancer rates) in the US is high as well... as here iodine is added to salt and bread.
In Germany, iodine intake is 5 to 10 fold lower, but cancer rates are not higher.

Those doctors say that because of the high chloride content of salt, we cannot absorb the iodine very good, only 10 % of the total iodine content. This is because different halogens (F, Cl, I, Br) use the same receptors in the body. So this might look the iodine intake of the US higher than it actually is.

Omega 3 LNA is also provided by fruits and nuts.
Our capacity to convert LNA to other omega 3s is limited though (particularly in men).

That our capacity to convert LNA to other omega 3s is limited is an other argument that we are adopted to fish.
Besides this, I only know of hemp seed to have an omega 3/omega 6 ratio our body seems to need.
The rest has an omega 3/omega 6 ratio which is much too low.
Only fish seems to has a proper omega3/6 ratio. Which leads to my points that we humans are probably evolved in coastal regions.

Those doctors which lead the iodine revival seem to think the optimal intake of iodine/iodide is around 13 mg. To become iodine sufficient, they prescribe dosages of more than 100 mg for monts.
I'm not going to list the arguments they have for this standpoint, but this number isn't coming out of nothing, they have there arguments, and they have tested this at more than 3000 patients, so I find this quite intresting, it's a big movement.

RRM, in which regions do you think is the optimal iodine intake ?

[RRM]

Statistically, that would not mean anything.
Suppose you flip a coin with your left hand, ...

Well this is not a good example. Because Japan has the lowest cancer rates...

Its about the statistic relevance of using such a small number of countries.
Only if you would flip a coin often enough, you would get a clear indication whether it makes a difference what hand you use.
So, only if the number of countries used in the comparison is great enough, can it reveal something.

That's like you throw a dice width 300 numbers width 300 different hands. And it turns out that the biggest hand throws number 1.

If you do that only once, the result does not mean a thing.
Statistically its absolutely nothing.

Japanese researchers have found that
iodine suppresses tumor growth

So, iodine may be effective in the treatment of cancer.
That does not at all mean that healthy people need more iodine.

As a matter of fact, iodine intake (and cancer rates) in the US is high as well... as here iodine is added to salt and bread.
In Germany, iodine intake is 5 to 10 fold lower, but cancer rates are not higher.

Those doctors say that because of the high chloride content of salt, we cannot absorb the iodine very good

Its also added to bread.
Even if US intake is only twice as high, at least the higher iodide has no positive effects here, regarding cancer rates.
Thats not good for their statistics.

Besides this, I only know of hemp seed to have an omega 3/omega 6 ratio our body seems to need.

No, thats only LNA, so that the omega 3 ratio would get out of balance.

Those doctors which lead the iodine revival seem to think the optimal intake of iodine/iodide is around 13 mg.
... this number isn't coming out of nothing,

Its Linus Pauling all over again.
For every nutrient, there are proponents who think we need it in megadoses.
Try to look at what the body wants; try to look at the absorption rates.
If the absorption rates are much lower at a 13 mg intake than at 150 mcg and, say 1 mg intake,
its an indication that the body prefers to absorb less.

they have there arguments, and they have tested this at more than 3000 patients

Cancer patients?
or normal healthy people?

RRM, in which regions do you think is the optimal iodine intake ?

A little more than required to eliminate deficiency symptoms.
The RDA seems more than adequate to me.
The body is about balance.
Increasing the intake of some vitamin or mineral will always affect the effects of others,
as the effects of all nutrients are intertwined.

[Kasper]

Cancer patients?
or normal healthy people?

Cancer patients? Yes. Normal healthy people? That depends on your definition of a normal healthy people. These doctors prescribe iodine for everyone they test as iodine insufficient. Which is 95% of humans according to their definition of iodine sufficient.

For every nutrient, there are proponents who think we need it in megadoses.
Try to look at what the body wants; try to look at the absorption rates.
If the absorption rates are much lower at a 13 mg intake than at 150 mcg and, say 1 mg intake,
its an indication that the body prefers to absorb less.

Well at this point you are using the same logic as these doctors.

Orthoiodosupplementation is the daily amount of the essential element iodine needed for whole body sufficiency (1). Whole body sufficiency for iodine is assessed by an iodine/iodide loading test (2). The test consists of ingesting 4 tablets of a solid dosage form of Lugol (Iodoral®), containing a total of 50 mg iodine/iodide. Then urinary iodide levels are measured in the following 24 hr collection. The iodine/iodide loading test is based on the concept that the normally functioning human body has a mechanism to retain ingested iodine until whole body sufficiency for iodine is achieved. During orthoiodosupplementation, a negative feedback mechanism is triggered that progressively adjusts the excretion of iodine to balance the intake. As the body iodine content increases, the percent of the iodine load retained decreases with a concomitant increase in the amount of iodide excreted in the 24 hr urine collection. When whole body sufficiency for iodine is achieved, the absorbed iodine/iodide is quantitatively excreted as iodide in the urine (1- 3). In the U.S. population, the percent of iodine load excreted in the 24 hr urine collection prior to orthoiodosupplementation averages 40% in more than 7,000 loading tests performed at the FFP Laboratories.
After 3 months of supplementation with 50 mg iodine/iodide/day, (4 tablets of Iodoral®) most non-obese subjects not exposed to excess goitrogens achieved whole body iodine sufficiency, arbitrarily defined as 90% or more of the iodine load excreted in the 24 hr urine collections (2,4). Adult subjects retained approximately 1.5 gm of iodine when they reach sufficiency (3). A repeat loading test following 3 months on orthoiodosupplementation is recommended. The goal of orthoiodosupplementation is not the treatment of disease, but the supply of optimal amounts of an essential nutrient for whole body sufficiency and for optimal mental and physical performances. Whole body sufficiency for iodine correlates well with overall wellbeing, and some subjects could tell when they achieved sufficiency even before knowing the results of the test. Iodine sufficiency was associated with a sense of overall wellbeing, lifting of a brain fog, feeling warmer in cold environments, increased energy, needing less sleep, achieving more in less time, experiencing regular bowel movements and improved skin complexion (2). Whole body iodine deficiency, based on the concept of orthoiodosupplementation, may play an important role in several clinical conditions (5). Hundreds of physicians and other health care providers are now using the loading test and implementing orthoiodosupplementation in their practice, using a tablet form of Lugol (Iodoral®). A very good correlation between the results of the loading test and clinical response of their patients to iodine supplementation was reported (6,7). For consistency and reproducibility of results, the same Lugol tablets are used in the loading test and in the orthoiodosupplementation program.

http://www.optimox.com/pics/Iodine/loadTest.htm

So 60% of 50 mg iodine/iodine percent is absorbed on avarage in 7000 patients, before threatment.
After 3 months treatment most patients only 10 % is absorbed of this 50 mg.

What do you think about these numbers?

A little more than required to eliminate deficiency symptoms.
The RDA seems more than adequate to me.

The RDA is only based on preventing goiter, not about those defiency symptoms these doctors are talking about. (or better sufficiency symptoms)

[RRM]

These doctors prescribe iodine for everyone they test as iodine insufficient. Which is 95% of humans according to their definition of iodine sufficient.

And what were the proven positive results?

If the absorption rates are much lower at a 13 mg intake than at 150 mcg and, say 1 mg intake,
its an indication that the body prefers to absorb less.

So 60% of 50 mg iodine/iodine percent is absorbed on avarage in 7000 patients, before threatment.
After 3 months treatment most patients only 10 % is absorbed of this 50 mg.

It proves my point; the body desperately tries to minimize the uptake of extra iodide.

Iodine sufficiency was associated with a sense of overall wellbeing, lifting of a brain fog, feeling warmer in cold environments, increased energy, needing less sleep, achieving more in less time, experiencing regular bowel movements and improved skin complexion (2).

Not one of these parameters can be adequately measured.
Did they actually find something that can be verified objectively?

The body is about balance.
Increasing the intake of some vitamin or mineral will always affect the effects of others,
as the effects of all nutrients are intertwined.

True, the question is what is the right balance.

Thats up to your body.
If it decreases the uptake ratio in response to a higher intake, it tries to tell you that it may not need any extra.

[Kasper]

1. If your iodine intake is low in a specific version of this diet, would you think that it is wise to eat table salt with added iodine ?
2. What would be too much iodine ?

So 60% of 50 mg iodine/iodine percent is absorbed on avarage in 7000 patients, before threatment.
After 3 months treatment most patients only 10 % is absorbed of this 50 mg.

It proves my point; the body desperately tries to minimize the uptake of extra iodide.

No, this doesn't prove that at all. This is all speculation from your side which I don't find very convincing. I would say that the body wouldn't absorb 5 mg (10% of 50 mg) of iodine if the body wants to get rid of iodine. I would say it would be far more logical to find more iodine in the urine then consumed (instead of 50 mg consumed and 45 mg in urine).

[RRM]

1. If your iodine intake is low in a specific version of this diet, would you think that it is wise to eat table salt with added iodine ?

I think it would be wiser to include some high iodine foods in your diet.

2. What would be too much iodine ?

Thats individually different.
I think by eating natural foods, including iodine-rich foods, you are not likely to ingest too much,
whereas by consuming iodine-enriched salt, you might ingest more, more readily.

So 60% of 50 mg iodine/iodine percent is absorbed on avarage in 7000 patients, before threatment.
After 3 months treatment most patients only 10 % is absorbed of this 50 mg.

It proves my point; the body desperately tries to minimize the uptake of extra iodide.

No, this doesn't prove that at all. This is all speculation from your side which I don't find very convincing. I would say that the body wouldn't absorb 5 mg (10% of 50 mg) of iodine if the body wants to get rid of iodine. I would say it would be far more logical to find more iodine in the urine then consumed (instead of 50 mg consumed and 45 mg in urine).

Just take a look at what i wrote: "tries to minimize the uptake of extra iodide"
and what you wrote: "wants to get rid of iodine"
Do you see the essential difference?

[Kasper]

I think by eating natural foods, including iodine-rich foods, you are not likely to ingest too much,
whereas by consuming iodine-enriched salt, you might ingest more, more readily.

What about eating seaweed in the numbers they do in japan ?
From wikipedia: "In Japan, consumption is much higher, ranging between 5,280 μg/day to 13,800 μg/day, this owing to the frequent consumption of seaweed or kombu kelp.[36]"
Would this be healthy ?

To make this point clear, I don't want to say that we all need to take drastically extra iodine/iodide.
But I do find the research I posted worth to a look on, and I find the defense of RRM to weak to take the conclusion that it is all bs.

The opinions about iodine/iodide range from "health miracle", to "extremely toxic".
Also if you look at curezone and other health forums, many people report success with it, and others report the opposite.
This mean to me that it is worth studying the truth about this topic.

Just take a look at what i wrote: "tries to minimize the uptake of extra iodide"
and what you wrote: "wants to get rid of iodine"
Do you see the essential difference?

Those numbers were about how much iodide/iodine was found in the urine after consuming 50 mg of iodine/iodide.
Your theory doesn't make any sense. So the body desperately tries to minimize the uptake of extra iodide, but still takes up 5 mg ?
Why would the body not excrete this unwanted extra iodide/iodine ? It is able to excrete 45 mg of iodine in the urine, why would it not get rid of more ?

[RRM]

What about eating seaweed in the numbers they do in japan ?

That seems high to me.

The opinions about iodine/iodide range from "health miracle", to "extremely toxic".

Usually, the truth is something between the propagated extremes.
Moderation might be the best approach.

Also if you look at curezone and other health forums, many people report success with it, and others report the opposite.
This mean to me that it is worth studying the truth about this topic.

People report succes and the opposite regarding any possible treatment/remedy,
regardless whether that treatment seems reasonable/logic or simply ridiculous.

Just take a look at what i wrote: "tries to minimize the uptake of extra iodide"
and what you wrote: "wants to get rid of iodine"
Do you see the essential difference?

Your theory doesn't make any sense. So the body desperately tries to minimize the uptake of extra iodide, but still takes up 5 mg ?

You didnt respond to my question, so i just hope that you do see the difference.
Let me explain.
The body can minimize - maximize the fractional uptake, but to a limited extend. It cannot take up 0% or 100%.
You will see that in any study regarding the fractional uptake of whatever mineral / metal / trace element.
The body will try to optimally adjust the absorption rate in accordance with its needs.
Before the treatment, the total supply of iodine/iodide was lower than 50 mg, closer to its actual needs.
So that when the treatment begins, initially, the body still tries to take up a substantial fraction (60%), as that was always appropriate to meet its needs.
But as the overload of iodine continues, the body will try to lower this absorption rate and increase the excretion rate as much as it can,
to avoid excess. The 10% on average likely reflects the smallest possible uptake ratio for iodine.

Why would the body not excrete this unwanted extra iodide/iodine ? It is able to excrete 45 mg of iodine in the urine, why would it not get rid of more ?

Because the excess iodine does not freely float around in the blood, because that might evoke toxic effects.
That excess iodine is buffered, by salts, protein or similar, or maybe stored in some tissue, such as adipose fat or bone tissue.
As the iodine keeps coming in, the buffered iodine cannot be released for excretion, as that might cause toxic effects.
So, the body has to wait until the level of free iodine in the blood has been sufficiently lowered,
to be able to deport any excess iodine.
A similar thing happens with calcium; excess calcium is temporarily stored in bone tissue, prior to excretion.

[Kasper]

Urinary iodine reflects dietary iodine intake directly because people excrete more than 90% of dietary iodine in the urine [4].
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iodine ... fessional/

If you consume around 150 mcg the body excretes over 90% of dietary iodine.
It is thought that if you consume less (around 50 mcg for example) the body lowers excretion rate.
But the body excretes still to much, because consuming around 50-100mcg is shown to be not enough.

This researcher Dr. Guy Abraham thinks that the body is iodine sufficient if you excrete 90% of this 50 mg.
But his tests shows that some excrete only 60%. Therefore he concludes those people are iodine deficient...
This study shows that this conclusion may be wrong:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Evaluatio ... 0314256060

This article shows much different opinions about iodine:
http://www.westonaprice.org/metabolic-d ... ine-debate