11 replies to this topic

[ajnast4r]

original thread

my recommendation is 50% DRI as most everyone uses at least a little iodized salt... eggs & fish also contain considerable amounts.

[shazam]

I'm going with 75-100 percent, and furthermore, repeating myself for emphasis: potassium iodide, since it's probably cleaner than kelp. Though if you manage to just extract the iodine from kelp, you might not get all the arsenic and pollutants that can come from it. But I don't think you can do that and keep it stable.

[nameless]

Vote for potassium iodide too, at RDI levels. Unless there are studies where kelp is shown to be of much greater benefit, and can guarantee it is free of pollutants, I see no reason to use it. There have been studies showing contamination with kelp supplements.

[shazam]

Vote for potassium iodide too, at RDI levels. Unless there are studies where kelp is shown to be of much greater benefit, and can guarantee it is free of pollutants, I see no reason to use it. There have been studies showing contamination with kelp supplements.

That's the main point. I think kelp is actually cheaper, so if it's just as good, then I'm all for slashing the price a little. Still, till then, potassium iodide, i say.

[lunarsolarpower]

I don't see any good reason to economize on this one. Here's a interesting article on iodine by our friend Dr. William Davis. He explains that vegetarians, vegans and those who exercise regularly are at particular risk for iodine insufficiency.

[kismet]

We're not considering economising. The problem is that there is not much evidence of benefits at higher doses, no strong evidence at any rate. I feel that 100% is going overboard, but 50% may be on the low side.

[RighteousReason]

We're not considering economising. The problem is that there is not much evidence of benefits at higher doses, no strong evidence at any rate. I feel that 100% is going overboard, but 50% may be on the low side.

Is there any problem with higher doses?

[shazam]

We're not considering economising. The problem is that there is not much evidence of benefits at higher doses, no strong evidence at any rate. I feel that 100% is going overboard, but 50% may be on the low side.

Is there any problem with higher doses?

Only ALOT higher. 100 percent DRI is fine. Maybe even low, though once again... iffy evidence either way. Sticking to the RDA is a safe bet.

In fact... maybe even MORE.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=35284

Edited by shazam, 24 November 2009 - 04:05 AM.

[Athanasios]

Does anyone have a peer reviewed article looking at the prevalence of deficiency in Americans and showing it a problem? My Pubmed skills seem lacking at the moment. This is what I have found so far:

The lowest prevalence of iodine deficiency is found in the American Region, where the proportion
of households consuming iodised salt is the highest in the world (90%), and the highest
prevalence of iodine deficiency is in the European Region

and

For the six WHO regions, the proportion of the population
with UI below 100 µg/l ranged from 10% (in the Americas) to 60% (in Europe). Noteworthy is
the correlation between household coverage of iodized salt and prevalence of low ...

[shazam]

Does anyone have a peer reviewed article looking at the prevalence of deficiency in Americans and showing it a problem? My Pubmed skills seem lacking at the moment. This is what I have found so far:

The lowest prevalence of iodine deficiency is found in the American Region, where the proportion
of households consuming iodised salt is the highest in the world (90%), and the highest
prevalence of iodine deficiency is in the European Region

and

For the six WHO regions, the proportion of the population
with UI below 100 µg/l ranged from 10% (in the Americas) to 60% (in Europe). Noteworthy is
the correlation between household coverage of iodized salt and prevalence of low ...

Once again... we are not marketing to the majority of people. There's a pretty good likelyhood that most people with a healthy diet have cut out iodized salt to a great degree. And if they haven't, they're only taking it for the iodine anyway. It's not like salt is extremely hard to meet the DVI of if you eat some beef here and there.

It is however, fairly easy to meet the DVI of iodine this way... and overshoot your DVI of sodium: iodized salt will usually contain about 46-77 ppm of the iodine compound (usually sodium iodate/ine, or potassion iodine). That means 2.4 grams (on average) of salt will contain 100 percent of the daily value. 2.4 grams of salt will also contain 960 grams of sodium, however. So, about 40 percent of your DVI. Not that going a little bit over on each catagory will likely kill you or even be a huge (hell, even minor) problem later down the line. But sodium does tend to be in abundance in foods naturally, let alone adding it.

[Athanasios]

I think I am going to go without supplementing iodine until there is better information available.

[Quasar]

original thread

my recommendation is 50% DRI as most everyone uses at least a little iodized salt... eggs & fish also contain considerable amounts.

I use powdered kelp, which I add to sauces etc. Not a great deal of it, but I reckon my daily intake is 200-300mcg which, coming from organically bound iodine, is not as dangerous (when exceeding the recommended intake) as elemental iodine.

Edited by Quasar, 18 January 2010 - 07:51 PM.