Mega Dosing Iodine = Bad, Destroys Thyroid Tissue Permanently

[tankasnowgod]

I find it interesting, that in nature, pro-nutrients and anti-nutrients usually balance themselves. I still want to learn more about the effects of Iodine on PUFA's. I plan to read some of the articles many of you have linked here, over the weekend when I have time.

Ray peat seems to think this reaction is bad ("Equivalent to anti-thyroid effects").

Jack kruse seems to think this reaction is good ("Protective on the PUFA, makes the PUFA a beneficial fat, by avoiding oxidation damage").

I am not sure who is correct. I can't see how in-activating a PUFA can be a bad thing though?

My remembrance of chemistry is limited. From what I do recall, some of the bonds in PUFA are somewhat weak, and thus can be oxidized (oxygen forming a bond with the fat), which is the definition of oxidation right? As such, if Iodine has a chance to form a bond with the fat first, wouldn't this "block" oxidation (block oxygen from having a chance to form a bond) and thus avoid the damaging effects of PUFA? Or does RP think that this Iodine bonded PUFA is just as damaging (or even more) than oxidated PUFA?

Could it be - that once again, both people who say PUFA are bad and people who say PUFA are good are BOTH correct? Aka, "door number three"? I don't think we can ignore the fact that the latest study seemed to have shown that african americans had, what was it, 77% reduced incidence of heart attacks or something due to fish oil intake? We must keep an open mind if we truly want to learn how to live optimally.

PUFA is bad IF : Overall body fat is high, SFA is low, Iodine is low (most americans) - most people, thus PUFA damages most people. Because most people fall under this camp, I could see how RP would be whole-heartedly against PUFA. I could probably agree that someone healthy may not need more than a few mg of Iodine to maintain. And even if you're healthy, I could agree that you don't need or want a lot of PUFA in your diet, simply because there are better options (SFA's). Any PUFA's you may "need" for your "brain health" would be very small and probably could be achieved with one or two simple servings of fish now and then, and many discussions on these forums have showed that you have to try very hard to get true "EFA deficiency" anyway if there is indeed a PUFA "requirement".

PUFA is neutral or even good IF : SFA is high, Iodine is high (not many people) - not many people, thus only select research shows PUFA is "good". This could also explain how some studies may show whole fish can be healthy like say trout or salmon, but the fish oil from a supplement is detrimental. Fish oil from a supplement wouldn't have any of the vitamin E or iodine you get from the whole fish, thus all you get is an oil which is easily oxidated and damaging. BTW for what its worth, usually when I eat trout and heavily salt and butter it... I feel really good after, and generally raises my body temp a lot especially if it is coupled with a starch like sweet potato that is also heavily salted / buttered. I think the key is to have PUFA's with some SFA and salt at the very least (and ideally also sugar). It could be that one of the biggest advantages of getting "Iodine Saturated" is to make your body basically invincible to PUFA's. You would have so much Iodine in the body, that any PUFA that you happened to ingest would instantly bond with the plethora of Iodine floating around and not have a chance to get oxidized. This could be one of the reasons why just about every one of Dr. Brown's patients feels better when they become iodine saturated, not just because of better thyroid function. Regardless, PUFA may be best avoided until you lose your body fat, at which time occasional PUFA intake from fish may be beneficial. Hard to say for sure if the net benefit from fish (if indeed there is one) is worth the risk until you've lost your bodyfat (excess PUFA) stores.

I am thinking that people not only iodine deficient, but bromine toxic, and heavy in PUFA (again, most people) would have a much higher need of iodine than someone who is not overweight, not toxic with bromines, and has an okay iodine level. We have to keep in mind too, that not only nowadays are we exposed to more bromine than any generation before us, we are also exposed to more EMF than any generation before us. I think EMF's are not talked about enough. I have reason to suspect that higher levels of EMF exposure also require more Iodine, though the exact mechanism behind it I'm not 100% sure of yet other than you probably need to ensure apoptosis of the EMF poisoned cells otherwise they may form cancerous tumors over time.

I believe I recall an older post by Haidut that basically said, unhealthy people tend to have higher Iodine in the bloodstream than healthy people. He tried to extrapolate this to suggest that to be healthier, you want lower levels of Iodine. I personally believe this to be a fallacy, much like how people in the medical industry say - unhealthy people have high sodium in the blood, high cholesterol, therefore to make them healthy we should remove the sodium and the cholesterol. It is in fact the high sodium, the high cholesterol (and potentially high iodine) that is keeping things from going further down hill in their health, and lowering sodium, cholesterol, and, I believe, Iodine, would serve to deteriorate their health further. This may also be one of the reasons why unhealthy people often tend to be hypothyroid. Maybe the body steals Iodine from the thyroid gland, and uses it for "damage control" (neutralizing the PUFA's). Because the body stole all the Iodine from the thyroid gland, you could have a situation where the body is "saturated in Iodine", and yet the thyroid gland is empty - thus hypothyroid. You could take this train of thought further to say hey look, Iodine causes hypothyroid - because the body is saturated in Iodine, you're intaking a healthy amount of Iodine (1 mg), and yet, still hypothyroid. But, if all of this Iodine is being used for damage control (inactivating PUFA's) and not for the thyroid, this could begin to explain why low-dose Iodine may "cause Hypothyroid" while mega-doses on the order of 50-100 mg may "cure hypothyroid".

I admit I pose a lot of ranting / hypothesis / conjecture but I'm trying to think how to answer all the unanswered questions here.

Do you realize your argument is basically that PUFA is bad when it's PUFA, but neutral or good when it is chemically altered into something that isn't PUFA?

 

[Cirion]

Do you realize your argument is basically that PUFA is bad when it's PUFA, but neutral or good when it is chemically altered into something that isn't PUFA?

Lol, kinda I suppose.

More accurately, PUFA is dangerous if it is allowed to oxidize, but neutral or possibly beneficial if it is able to bond to Iodine (as previously discussed, it becomes Iodostearic acid). In either case it is technically not "PUFA" anymore. When I think of the word PUFA I think of the oil before it has either oxidized or bonded to Iodine.

Iodostearic acid could (I need to read the papers on it) provide some benefit that regular stearic acid does not such as "brain health" (the proposed benefits from Omega-3 oils that people claim).

It's something I don't pretend to be even close to knowledgeable about. Just kinda thinking out loud.

I just thought of another reason PUFA could be bad. We all know how Bromine, Flourine, and Chlorine can bond to the thyroid gland by now right?

What if Bromine, Flourine, or Chlorine bonds to PUFA???

Do we get Bromostearic acid or something, possibly something that is highly toxic to the body?? It would be like a "trojan horse" in your body, because regular stearic acid is good, but this bromostearic acid would be really deadly much like a deranged T4/T3 generated from bromine would be.

So perhaps being bromine toxic plus iodine deficient plus PUFA heavy could be even more disasterous than I thought. Maybe this is one of many reasons why the body is quick to store bromine in your body fat to get it out of the bloodstream? It realizes that bromine is heavily toxic. It's probably why you get the "bromine poisoning" symptoms, because the bromine is reacting with your PUFA's. Perhaps bromine poisoned PUFA is even more dangerous than oxidized PUFA? Who knows. Lots of questions. Not enough answers lol

 

[Amazoniac]

I forgot to include this from chapter 26:

"[..]a recent study of several sexual factors related to prostate cancer showed that a reduced ejaculatory output in otherwise normal males is associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, especially if this commences in early adulthood (Giles et al., 2003). Again, in this gland the increase in life span and the modern lifestyle that delay sexual activity could account for the increase in cancer. All of these findings agree with recent data from our group that adult prostate tissue expresses deiodinase type 1, which may generate high concentrations of T3 and free iodine, and that this enzyme is stimulated by sex hormones and prolactin (Figure 26.2), as well as by thyroid hormones (Anguiano et al., 2006). In addition, preliminary data suggests that this activity almost disappears in old animals, but if sexual activity continues deiodinase type I activity remains at levels characteristic of young males (López-Juárez et al., 2004)."​

I know there are fapstronauts that take things too far and are then proud of abstaining from ejaculation for years, it's possible that they're subliming impotence to a virtue.

 

[Cirion]

I do think there is merit to nofap especially for those who are recovering from a low metabolism. I myself practice it because I'm not 100% yet. Every time I slip up, I immediately experience hypothyroid symptoms like lack of motivation, fatigue, less energy. These symptoms can last upwards of a week after just one encounter. In fact I experience benefits indefinitely. Like many #nofap people, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, etc I continue to feel better. If it were so unhealthy I wouldn't continue to feel better. Sometimes we get stuck in scientific/mental masturbation and forget the most important part - simply feeling better. I love getting into the science like everyone one else, but at the end of the day, feeling better is what matters right?

I will grant you that these symptoms are probably not quite normal and would be dramatically less or even zero in someone with a healthy endocrine system, but it's always easy for someone who has a healthy endocrine system to not understand what happens in the metabolism of someone who does not (Not pointing fingers at you specifically, but I see it a lot).

I don't buy that quote based upon my own experiences. If it were true, and T3 and Iodine were released after every encounter, I'd feel better not worse. BTW, the body can't make Iodine, or at least that's what I thought. Perhaps it's true in someone who has a healthy endocrine system. Again, the devil is in the details.

I think the more likely answer is this:

Someone who has a deranged endocrine system is less healthy and therefore more likely to get cancer. Said unhealthy person probably has less libido and therefore less intercourse and probably less ejaculate volume as well.

Conversely, someone healthy, obviously will be less likely to get cancer. Said healthy person probably has higher libido and more intercourse and more ejaculate volume.

Like many medical studies, it is unfair to confuse correlation with causation. I don't think there is a connection, and in my experience, if there is one, if anything this connection has a negative feedback loop not a positive one.

What I WILL say though is this. (I'm not advocating this kind of lifestyle, just FYI) but I recall reading a story about some guy who was super promiscuous with many different people for a while and doubled his testosterone levels and felt like superman. Again I'm not gonna say this is moral or not or whatever just putting that thought out there though. I think doing the act with the same scenario / person repeatedly is not endocrine system promoting like mixing it up would be. But I have no science to prove that, just some anecdotal stories.

All that being said, I wouldn't necessarily call it a "virtue" as you imply, but I feel like in most cases, it is "optimal" at least for someone recovering. So it's up to someone to decide for themselves if they want to do it based upon their current state of health and goals etc.

 

[baccheion]

I find it interesting, that in nature, pro-nutrients and anti-nutrients usually balance themselves. I still want to learn more about the effects of Iodine on PUFA's. I plan to read some of the articles many of you have linked here, over the weekend when I have time.

Ray peat seems to think this reaction is bad ("Equivalent to anti-thyroid effects").

Jack kruse seems to think this reaction is good ("Protective on the PUFA, makes the PUFA a beneficial fat, by avoiding oxidation damage").

I am not sure who is correct. I can't see how in-activating a PUFA can be a bad thing though?

My remembrance of chemistry is limited. From what I do recall, some of the bonds in PUFA are somewhat weak, and thus can be oxidized (oxygen forming a bond with the fat), which is the definition of oxidation right? As such, if Iodine has a chance to form a bond with the fat first, wouldn't this "block" oxidation (block oxygen from having a chance to form a bond) and thus avoid the damaging effects of PUFA? Or does RP think that this Iodine bonded PUFA is just as damaging (or even more) than oxidated PUFA?

Could it be - that once again, both people who say PUFA are bad and people who say PUFA are good are BOTH correct? Aka, "door number three"? I don't think we can ignore the fact that the latest study seemed to have shown that african americans had, what was it, 77% reduced incidence of heart attacks or something due to fish oil intake? We must keep an open mind if we truly want to learn how to live optimally.

PUFA is bad IF : Overall body fat is high, SFA is low, Iodine is low (most americans) - most people, thus PUFA damages most people. Because most people fall under this camp, I could see how RP would be whole-heartedly against PUFA. I could probably agree that someone healthy may not need more than a few mg of Iodine to maintain. And even if you're healthy, I could agree that you don't need or want a lot of PUFA in your diet, simply because there are better options (SFA's). Any PUFA's you may "need" for your "brain health" would be very small and probably could be achieved with one or two simple servings of fish now and then, and many discussions on these forums have showed that you have to try very hard to get true "EFA deficiency" anyway if there is indeed a PUFA "requirement".

PUFA is neutral or even good IF : SFA is high, Iodine is high (not many people) - not many people, thus only select research shows PUFA is "good". This could also explain how some studies may show whole fish can be healthy like say trout or salmon, but the fish oil from a supplement is detrimental. Fish oil from a supplement wouldn't have any of the vitamin E or iodine you get from the whole fish, thus all you get is an oil which is easily oxidated and damaging. BTW for what its worth, usually when I eat trout and heavily salt and butter it... I feel really good after, and generally raises my body temp a lot especially if it is coupled with a starch like sweet potato that is also heavily salted / buttered. I think the key is to have PUFA's with some SFA and salt at the very least (and ideally also sugar). It could be that one of the biggest advantages of getting "Iodine Saturated" is to make your body basically invincible to PUFA's. You would have so much Iodine in the body, that any PUFA that you happened to ingest would instantly bond with the plethora of Iodine floating around and not have a chance to get oxidized. This could be one of the reasons why just about every one of Dr. Brown's patients feels better when they become iodine saturated, not just because of better thyroid function. Regardless, PUFA may be best avoided until you lose your body fat, at which time occasional PUFA intake from fish may be beneficial. Hard to say for sure if the net benefit from fish (if indeed there is one) is worth the risk until you've lost your bodyfat (excess PUFA) stores.

I am thinking that people not only iodine deficient, but bromine toxic, and heavy in PUFA (again, most people) would have a much higher need of iodine than someone who is not overweight, not toxic with bromines, and has an okay iodine level. We have to keep in mind too, that not only nowadays are we exposed to more bromine than any generation before us, we are also exposed to more EMF than any generation before us. I think EMF's are not talked about enough. I have reason to suspect that higher levels of EMF exposure also require more Iodine, though the exact mechanism behind it I'm not 100% sure of yet other than you probably need to ensure apoptosis of the EMF poisoned cells otherwise they may form cancerous tumors over time.

I believe I recall an older post by Haidut that basically said, unhealthy people tend to have higher Iodine in the bloodstream than healthy people. He tried to extrapolate this to suggest that to be healthier, you want lower levels of Iodine. I personally believe this to be a fallacy, much like how people in the medical industry say - unhealthy people have high sodium in the blood, high cholesterol, therefore to make them healthy we should remove the sodium and the cholesterol. It is in fact the high sodium, the high cholesterol (and potentially high iodine) that is keeping things from going further down hill in their health, and lowering sodium, cholesterol, and, I believe, Iodine, would serve to deteriorate their health further. This may also be one of the reasons why unhealthy people often tend to be hypothyroid. Maybe the body steals Iodine from the thyroid gland, and uses it for "damage control" (neutralizing the PUFA's). Because the body stole all the Iodine from the thyroid gland, you could have a situation where the body is "saturated in Iodine", and yet the thyroid gland is empty - thus hypothyroid. You could take this train of thought further to say hey look, Iodine causes hypothyroid - because the body is saturated in Iodine, you're intaking a healthy amount of Iodine (1 mg), and yet, still hypothyroid. But, if all of this Iodine is being used for damage control (inactivating PUFA's) and not for the thyroid, this could begin to explain why low-dose Iodine may "cause Hypothyroid" while mega-doses on the order of 50-100 mg may "cure hypothyroid".

I admit I pose a lot of ranting / hypothesis / conjecture but I'm trying to think how to answer all the unanswered questions here.

The problem is it takes 2 grams iodine to bind with double bonds in 1 gram DHA.

 

[Captain_Coconut]

The problem is it takes 2 grams iodine to bind with double bonds in 1 gram DHA.

Yes, the amount of iodine it would take to effectively saturate all the PUFA in ones body would be an insane amount... But perhaps the antioxidant value of iodine can be recycled, or helps with the generation of other anti oxidant species and therefore it takes a lot less to offset potential PUFA damage... I think the true mechanism behind iodine’s health supporting benefits has yet to be discovered.

 

[Cirion]

A good point for sure. Not sure the answer to that, unless something other than Iodine is also used in this process. And yeah, I do believe Nathan Hatch says in his book that Iodine is recycled to a degree. To how much of a degree, I don't know.

 

[baccheion]

Yes, the amount of iodine it would take to effectively saturate all the PUFA in ones body would be an insane amount... But perhaps the antioxidant value of iodine can be recycled, or helps with the generation of other anti oxidant species and therefore it takes a lot less to offset potential PUFA damage... I think the true mechanism behind iodine’s health supporting benefits has yet to be discovered.

Yes, maybe. 200 mg iodide (from potassium iodide) is said to be the best lipid free radical scavenger. Better than vitamin E.

 

[Amazoniac]

Chapter 18: Retention of Iodine in the Body: Biological Half-Life of Iodine in the Human Body

"The Human Monitoring Laboratory (HML) has measured the retention of 131I in patients who had received the radioiodine diagnostically. These measurements provided sufficient information so that the biological half-life of iodine could be calculated. The average biological half-life of 131I ☢ in 26 euthyroid (normal) subjects was found to be 66.1 ± 6.3 days, which may be statistically significantly lower than the International Commission on Radiological Protection’s (ICRP) recommended value of 80 days[*]. Nine hyperthyroid (overactive) patients had a mean biological half-life of 38.2 ± 8.6 days, and in three hypothyroid (underactive) patients the corresponding value was 29.3 ± 8.8 days. Thyroid uptake of iodine was measured as 0.14 ± 0.01, 0.31 ± 0.03, and 0.04 ± 0.01 of the administered dose in euthyroid, hyperthyroid, and hypothyroid patients, respectively. The euthyroid range in Ottawa and Canada (0.06–0.22 of uptake) was significantly lower than the ICRP’s value of 0.3. The radioiodine retention in athyreotic (no thyroid gland) subjects followed a two-compartment model with biological half-lives of 1.0 ± 0.2 and 18.4 ± 1.1 days."

* "Most organic iodine that enters the blood from the thyroid is metabolized in tissues and returned to the plasma as inorganic iodine, which is then recycled. About 20% of the iodine released from the thyroid goes to fecal excretion in an organic form, the biological half-lives are: blood, 0.25 days; thyroid, 80 days; rest of the body, 12 days (see Figure 18.1)."​

Quite creepy:

"The low-background counting chamber that houses HML’s whole-body/thyroid counter was constructed in 1959 by the Dominion Bridge Company using material supplied by the Steel Company of Canada. Prior to construction, samples of steel were sent to the Physics Department of the University of Toronto to test for radioactive contamination. Evidence of some contamination (mostly 137Cs and 60Co) was found that was attributed to radioactive fallout from atomic bomb testing in the 1940s and 1950s. The chamber was installed in the Radiation Protection Bureau in 1960, and has since been used in the Health Canada’s Human Monitoring Program.

The thickness of the chamber wall, floor, and ceiling is 0.2 m, and the approximate weight of the chamber is 51 metric tons. The wall thickness is sufficient to reduce the gamma rays from naturally occurring radioactivity in the surrounding building materials by a factor of about 1000, and the cosmic rays to about 60% of their unshielded intensity. The inner surfaces of the room are covered by 6.3 mm of lead, which reduces the background, below 0.1 MeV, by a factor of two. The inside dimensions of the chamber are 1.52 x 2.13 x 2.13 m. The chamber is equipped with double doors operated by electric motors controlled from the laboratory. There is a second control in the chamber, which can be used to open the doors from inside in case of emergency. An intercom is also provided for communication between subject and operator, as well as to provide music to relieve the tedium of lengthy counting periods. Subjects may also be viewed through a large water-filled window 0.3 x 0.46 x 0.6 m wide."​

 

[Amazoniac]

I do think there is merit to nofap especially for those who are recovering from a low metabolism. I myself practice it because I'm not 100% yet. Every time I slip up, I immediately experience hypothyroid symptoms like lack of motivation, fatigue, less energy. These symptoms can last upwards of a week after just one encounter. In fact I experience benefits indefinitely. Like many #nofap people, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, etc I continue to feel better. If it were so unhealthy I wouldn't continue to feel better. Sometimes we get stuck in scientific/mental masturbation and forget the most important part - simply feeling better. I love getting into the science like everyone one else, but at the end of the day, feeling better is what matters right?

I will grant you that these symptoms are probably not quite normal and would be dramatically less or even zero in someone with a healthy endocrine system, but it's always easy for someone who has a healthy endocrine system to not understand what happens in the metabolism of someone who does not (Not pointing fingers at you specifically, but I see it a lot).

I don't buy that quote based upon my own experiences. If it were true, and T3 and Iodine were released after every encounter, I'd feel better not worse. BTW, the body can't make Iodine, or at least that's what I thought. Perhaps it's true in someone who has a healthy endocrine system. Again, the devil is in the details.

I think the more likely answer is this:

Someone who has a deranged endocrine system is less healthy and therefore more likely to get cancer. Said unhealthy person probably has less libido and therefore less intercourse and probably less ejaculate volume as well.

Conversely, someone healthy, obviously will be less likely to get cancer. Said healthy person probably has higher libido and more intercourse and more ejaculate volume.

Like many medical studies, it is unfair to confuse correlation with causation. I don't think there is a connection, and in my experience, if there is one, if anything this connection has a negative feedback loop not a positive one.

What I WILL say though is this. (I'm not advocating this kind of lifestyle, just FYI) but I recall reading a story about some guy who was super promiscuous with many different people for a while and doubled his testosterone levels and felt like superman. Again I'm not gonna say this is moral or not or whatever just putting that thought out there though. I think doing the act with the same scenario / person repeatedly is not endocrine system promoting like mixing it up would be. But I have no science to prove that, just some anecdotal stories.

All that being said, I wouldn't necessarily call it a "virtue" as you imply, but I feel like in most cases, it is "optimal" at least for someone recovering. So it's up to someone to decide for themselves if they want to do it based upon their current state of health and goals etc.

Yes, it should be beneficial for everyone, but it must be possible to take it too far:
- One such difference is known to everybody:... | Ray Peat Forum
- Life supports life, function builds structure,... | Ray Peat Forum

 

[Cirion]

To be clear, I don't believe in pure abstinence (where's the fun in that??) but I do believe it's a waste of your energy to use it outside of a partner (my opinion). And I probably plan to practice karezza, personally. Even in the last relationship I was in, I did not enjoy the feeling of torpor afterwards, karezza seems like a fair trade (and btw, even in karezza it's not taboo to climax, it's just that in karezza, that's not the goal or intent). Plus, karezza has some nice hidden benefits... ahem... longer and more frequent sessions :P And certainly if you want to try for kids, that is going to require a bit of compromising obviously for a certain amount of time. I don't believe in really forcing my ideas on anyone though. Everyone is free to choose how they want to go about it.

 

[paymanz]

how much iodine is the real minimum requirement per day? without dairy and seafood you cant hit the 150 mcg RDA. or am i wrong?

 

[Alpha]

how much iodine is the real minimum requirement per day? without dairy and seafood you cant hit the 150 mcg RDA. or am i wrong?

Greatly variable, for those deficient, as much as a couple of grams.

 

[Cirion]

Please keep in mind the following is not endorsed by Ray Peat (just to make sure that's clear)

To be quite honest, no one truly knows. Dr. Brown and Abraham etc., I believe have made the only serious effort (imo) to try to quantify said requirement, for them I believe the 90% saturation number came about for several reasons, not the least of which though is merely "how does their patient feel". And they found anything short of 90%, patients would usually feel at least somewhat "off". That may admittedly be somewhat subjective, but I think "feeling good" is something that is a lost art in the medical industry. So my answer to your question is, whatever dosage can help you achieve that. For a lucky few it may only be 5-10 mg but for most people living in a world full of poisons, it is usually a pretty high dosage. Dr. Brown himself actually posted his own story, and he has to maintain on I believe it was 75 mg of Iodine a day because he has a problem with chronic Bromine toxicity (just about everyone does really), this keeps that under control.

I was shocked when he said something like TWO THIRDS of american women suffer from fibrocystic breasts. That's basically the pre-cursor to breast cancer, but even fibrocystism results in very painful problems. Brown says that women in particular are susceptible to severe Iodine deficiency (They need upwards of twice as much as men, and even more when pregnant). He shows studies that indicate pregnant women who have higher Iodine levels produce more intelligent offspring (and is why severe Iodine deficiency can cause Autism and other problems, which he proposes is why Autism is rising at epidemic rates because there is a direct correlation). Iodine is a major problem for men, but it is a MASSIVE problem for women. They need double, even triple the iodine we do potentially, so if men are deficient, well, for women it's a massive problem.

My personal gripe with the medical community is there is no definition of OPTIMAL of ANY nutrient. Just about all the RDA's that have been developed, are BARE MINIMUMS. In many cases, the RDA's are merely enough to keep you alive, and many cases, still won't prevent chronic diseases (RDA of Iodine won't even prevent goiter, if you have other problems like halide toxicity). We see that with hormones too. Example - reference range of testosterone is very wide. At the low end usually is problematic but a Dr. doesn't care, he'll shoo you out of the room once he tells you "your T levels are fine".

Ray Peat thinks it is silly to "saturate the body" with Iodine so there is definitely a fundamental disagreement there with Brown, Abraham. If you read Brown's book you'll note that a lot of the patient success stories he brings up... nearly all of his patients who come to him complaining of hypothyroid symptoms, just about all of them were under 90% saturation and just about all of them felt better boosting it up. Generally it seems (based upon my observations reading his book so far) that you can get very crippling hypothyroid symptoms while being as high as 50-60% saturation based upon patients he saw so certainly, even 50% saturation is definitely not enough.

I myself am planning to do an iodine/bromine test very soon and very interested to see what results i'll get from it. I expect to see a fairly low iodine level and high bromine toxicity (like many of Brown's patients do), and if I get it done I'll post the results here for anyone else interested.

Dr. Jack Kruse, who some of you here may know as he is one of Ray Peat's "opposition", also is a fan of Iodine. He recommends ample seafood/fish because he likes Omega 3's. Plus, seafood and fish usually has Iodine. So as you said, without seafood in particular, it's probably not possible to achieve much of any Iodine in your diet.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Is anybody aware what role seafood/fish plays in the evolution of hominides and Homo Sapiens S. in particular? Was it a prevalent source of Protein? Would hunter/gatherers dwell near the shore preferably?
I‘ve read recently a publication claiming early hominides were also scavengers and ate the inner bone marrow of corpses because being very much the bottom of the chain when it came to scavenging corpses of animals. Bone marrow is high in oleic acid and the author attributed development of further hominides to that fatty acid.
Maybe a similar factor could later be attributed to fish consumption and thus, iodolipids and lactones

 

[paymanz]

Greatly variable, for those deficient, as much as a couple of grams.

For healthy human without deficiency.

My point is without dairy and seafood you cant hit those numbers often mentioned as minimum required intake. Im wondering how other primates may attain that much iodine, hmmmmm maybe geophagy!

 

[Alpha]

For healthy human without deficiency.

My point is without dairy and seafood you cant hit those numbers often mentioned as minimum required intake. Im wondering how other primates may attain that much iodine, hmmmmm maybe geophagy!

Natural soil has much higher concentrations of minerals, and primates eat more mass of food to their bodyweight than we do. It still is a problem in low iodine soil regions far from shores and oceans.

Iodine in milk would not naturally exist if they didn't ingest it in the first place.

 

[Captain_Coconut]

For healthy human without deficiency.

My point is without dairy and seafood you cant hit those numbers often mentioned as minimum required intake. Im wondering how other primates may attain that much iodine, hmmmmm maybe geophagy!

Potatoes can be very high in iodine.
Cranberries are very high.
Various beans can also have a decent amount.
I agree there are probably many foods that would be high in iodine if grown in rich soil, or better yet - fertilized with fish (this used to be a common practice).

 

[Amazoniac]

Potatoes can be very high in iodine.

I guess most are not:
- Iodine content of food groups
- Estimation of losses of iodine during different cooking procedures

 

[Captain_Coconut]

I guess most are not:
- Iodine content of food groups
- Estimation of losses of iodine during different cooking procedures

Linus Pauling:
Iodine

Potato with peel, baked 1 medium 60 mcg

I have seen higher figures listed on other less reputable sites... I’m guessing the peel contains most of the iodine.