If you were to supplement with iodine, what source and how much would you take?
In most cases I really prefer natural sources as close to their natural state as possible. Therefore I rely primarily on seaweeds and black walnut hull.
Yes, it is harder to determine how much we are getting exactly, but we are not talking about drugs we are talking about nutrients.
People too often put too much focus on how much of a particular nutrient they are getting. Am I getting 2g of C a day or 1.2g of calcium daily as examples.
But it is really not as easy as that. For example the body can only utilize a certain amount of vitamin C at one time. The excess is just eliminated in the urine. Although excess C can also be converted in to oxalic acid leading to kidney stones or urinary tract infections in some individuals. And in many cases natural sources of vitamin C are much stronger and more stable than the synthetic ascorbic acid. Therefore we need less vitamin C from many natural sources than we do from synthetic sources.
As for calcium the reason that such high doses are recommended is because the recommended dose is base on findings using poorly absorbed calcium carbonate. So the researchers figured that if they just load the person up with more of this poorly absorbed form of calcium that in the long run they would absorb more. More readily absorbed forms therefore, such as some food sources, are not required in such high amounts.
It is also important to note that natural nutrient sources are generally combined with synergistic compounds that synthetics and isolates will not have. For example synthetic vitamin C (ascorbic acid) does not contain the bioflavonoids that help vitamin C to work properly. Natural vitamin C sources do.
I still do not think that mankind will ever outsmart Mother Nature. Every time we try we just end up creating imbalanced substances loaded with side effects. As an example just look at all the pharmaceutical drugs made from plants or that are based on their chemistry.
although I know that Hv doesn't endorse kelp
Yes I do. I just gave a long explanation in my previous post. Kelp is a seaweed. And I use various seaweeds in my products.
a question to Hv:
since I began taking iodine, a month ago, with lugol's initially and then in natural form, I've generally felt it's doing good to me, my feet in particular don't hurt so much any more when I walk. But I'm having these monstrous pimples coming out in my face, I normally don't tend to any acne so it's the iodine. I remember in the iodine forum they used to mention something like bromine-acne? could it be that? I never had the habit of soft drinks, but I had plenty of sweeteners like aspartame or similar since young age. What can I do to help my body eliminate the bromine - or whatever it is- in another way? this way of the pimples is definitely not too convenient, but I can bear it if it's only temporary
It IS NOT from bromine, it is the iodine. We just had a thread on this recently that ended up in a debate. But the research I did verified that iodine can cause acne in some sensitive individuals. Here was the thread:
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1581532#i
And a recent thread on bromine:
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1584817#i
Try researching iodine or iodide and acne. It has nothing to do with pushing bromine out. The excess iodine is excrete through the pores where it irritates the pores leading to the acne.
As further evidence how do the people who claim the intake of iodine causes acne through bromine displacement explain this simple fact? Both chlorine and fluorine are also halogens and also displace bromine in elevated levels. So why don't people break out from drinking tap water? Or swimming in pools or showering? Why don't they break out from ingesting foods processed with fluoridated water? Or from drinking tea which is loaded with fluoride? For that matter why don't people who use spas have major acne outbreaks as spas are brominated?
They don't?
As further evidence how do the people who claim the intake of iodine causes acne through bromine displacement explain this simple fact? Both chlorine and fluorine are also halogens and also displace bromine in elevated levels. So why don't people break out from drinking tap water? Or swimming in pools or showering? Why don't they break out from ingesting foods processed with fluoridated water? Or from drinking tea which is loaded with fluoride? For that matter why don't people who use spas have major acne outbreaks as spas are brominated?
They don't?
Just because someone breaks out this does not mean it is from bromine, which is what was being discussed. I am still waiting for the people claiming this to provide some solid proof to this claim.
But the point i was getting to is that these halogens are more predominant in our society and we have much higher levels of exposure to these halogens that we do bromine. But they are making it sound like bromine is in everything so most people will have excess bromine in their system. But if this were the case then the MAJORITY of the population would have acne. But this obviously is not the case. Even when I used to drink sodas like Mountain Dew and ate tons of bread I never got acne. I never suffered brain damage either or any of the other side effects they claim can occur. And yes different people can react differently, but I find it interesting that as common as they claim bromine exposure is that we do not see more of these side effects. Are the majority of people immune to the supposed side effects of bromine, soy and the many other substances that the "sky is falling" proponents are running around warning us about? Or is it simply more hype than fact? If it were fact I would also expect there to be a lot of research backing up these claims. But again the research is seriously lacking. But they take what few studies that are available and twist them in to a scare tactic. For example the claim about bromism from excessive soda consumption. Well here is a study so let's review it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9140329
As you read the study we find out that the study is based on ONE case. Yet the people arguing with me try to make it sound like we have a widespread epidemic of bromine poisoning because they found one study about one person developing bromism. Or they read the claim from the first person who made this claim and ran with it without ever checking their facts. In fact the first line of the abstract states "Bromism is an UNUSUAL occurrence".
Then there is the statement from this review:
"Bromism, the chronic intoxication with bromide is rare and has been almost forgotten."
So where are all the cases of bromism? The fact is that just like how not all people will react to bromine the opposite is also true. Yet if you go to Medline and look this up the reported cases in humans are cases of individuals, not mass bromism.
How am I a bully? Have you any awareness of how supportive I am? I simply think H is creating an issue with which he doesn't need to contend.
How is t making an issue by pointing out that iodine can cause a side effect in SOME SENSITIVE INDIVIDUALS? So if I claim aspirin can cause death from bleeding ulcers in SOME people am I making an issue? If I say drinking too much water too quick can cause an electrolyte imbalance and cause the brain to swell am I making an issue? If I state that giving a COPD patient 100% oxygen can cause them to stop breathing am I making an issue? If I state than SOME people can have allergic reactions to antibiotics am I making an issue? NO, I am simply making statements of fact. The only ISSUE was the one that you and your buddies made when you started with the whole debate thing!!!!