May 12, 2017 Is International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day
International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day is May 12th, 2017. Jody Smith shares some information about upcoming events and ways you can be heard ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Does Anyone Have Any Experience Of/ Knowledge About SSKI vs. Lugol's, Please?

Discussion in 'Alternative Therapies' started by Jigsaw, May 13, 2017.

  1. Jigsaw

    Jigsaw Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    412
    UK
    Hi,

    Was browsing different websites looking at iodosupplementation, and read several glowing accounts of using SSKI (saturated potassium iodide) solution instead of Lugol's, on the basis that the body's needs for iodIDE are greater than for iodINE.

    Has anyone here used SKI instead of Lugol's? Or with a reduced amount if Lugol's?


    If so, with what results and at what dosages?


    My understanding of chemistry is next to none, but I've read that the iodIDE content of the potassium iodide total is approx. 75%

    Is that right?

    I can't find a single mg per drop figure that everyone agrees on for SKKI. Can anyone here help me figure it out? - Am not sure if the discrepancies I keep seeing are due to mis-calculation of drop size (some say one drop SSKI=1/20th of 1ml, others say SSKI is more viscous and is 1/15th of a ml), or somethimg else.

    Surely a saturated solution is a saturated solution, and should measure the same, drop for drop?

    Some iodosupplementers are using Lugol's in combination with SSKI, to ensure they get enough iodINE.

    I'm still using Lugol's at the moment, but I turned the iodine content of my Lugol's into iodide yesterday by mixing ascorbic acid with it (it goes clear, the yellow/brown colour disappears), and again today, and my skin is noticeably softer and smooother, even more so than it has become since using Lugol's. The skin prefers iodide, or so I've read in a few different places, and that being so, I guess that would make sense.
     
    PatJ likes this.
  2. alicec

    alicec Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes:
    2,716
    Australia
    I haven't used SSKI so can't answer the first part of your question.

    Regarding properties and concentration of a saturated solution, the Wikipedia entry describes this well.

    A saturated solution of KI is about 1 g/ml. This is a viscous solution so the normal assumptions that 1 ml = 20 drops doesn't apply. For this solution, 1 ml = 15 drops.

    KI is 76.4% iodide by weight, so the solution contains 764 mg iodide/ml with a simplified dose of iodide per drop as 50 mg.

    A saturated solution is indeed a saturated solution and would measure the same drop for drop. I suspect some of the discrepancies you are encountering is that people don't understand that in mass concentration calculations (mass divided by volume), volume refers to volume of the solution, not to volume of the solvent. The process of dissolution can cause increases or decreases in volume.

    The solubility of KI at 20 degC is 140-148 g per 100 g water, so about 140 g can be dissolved in 100 ml water making a saturated solution. This doesn't mean the mass concentration is 1.4 g/ml, actually it is 1 g/ml because of the process of dissolution of KI.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    Jigsaw and PatJ like this.
  3. Jigsaw

    Jigsaw Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    412
    UK
    o_O

    Thanks, alicec,

    Yes, I've seen 15 dps per ml quoted because of viscosity. I have a 1ml measure, so can always check using that.

    I've also seen sites saying it's 75% iodINE. Is there any iodINE in it, or is the whole 76.4% iodIDE?


    I've seen several times that it takes 1g/ml to make a SS, and that there's a gram per ml in the end solution, but am still being dim in my understanding here. If I'm understanding correctly (which I may well not be), if 100g is the same as 100ml, you're saying it takes 140-148g KI per 100ml to fully saturate water. Why doesn't that give a 1.4g/ml solution? What happens in the process of dissolution of KI? Evaporation?


    Do you get a more saturated solution (higher concentration of KI) if you heat the water above 20 deg C? Or less if you use cooler? Or doesn't the temperature matter because it all comes to room temperature in the end, anyway?


    I'm seeing recipes saying 1kg KI per litre, 500g/500ml, etc. Is that not right? :confused:

    What would be the calculation to use in order to work out how much KI in mgs would result from how much KI in how much water? And I've seen that a true SSKI is a 1% solution, but have not a scooby what the equation is for that, either.

    Thanks, Alice. I really appreciate your help. I'm rubbish when it comes to understanding equations.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
  4. Jigsaw

    Jigsaw Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    412
    UK
    So if 764g/1000g is iodide, which is roughly 50mg per drop @15 dps/ml, the other 236g is potassium. What does that work out to per drop?

    What's the calculation?

    Truly, I am useless at all this!
     
  5. alicec

    alicec Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes:
    2,716
    Australia
    The name of the element, I, is iodine. When referring to the I part of KI, actually it is more correct to say iodine, just as we say potassium (not potassium ion).

    Iodine has several different oxidation states which are given different names - eg iodide, iodate. Calling the I part of KI iodide just helps to clarify what form the iodine takes in the salt.

    The statement you quote is just approximating the iodine content (which in this particular case exists as iodide). It means the same thing. Only the iodide form of iodine is present in a saturated solution of KI.

    Saturation depends on temperature. More will dissolve at higher temperature. When the solution cools, some will precipitate out of solution.

    You are over-complicating things. To make a saturated solution of anything there is no need to worry too much about exactly how much solid is added. You just need to add more than the solubility limit. Some solid will not go into solution but the liquid in the mixture will be saturated and can just be poured off.

    For KI, this approach is often advocated when a solution is needed urgently. No equipment is needed.

    If you have a weighing balance and/or don't want to waste the solid, you can weigh out the amount of the solubility limit, but you don't need to be precise. For KI, around 140g per 100 ml water will be fine.You then know this contains about 50 mg per drop.

    If you want to be absolutely sure you make a saturated solution, use a bit more, say 150 g and, after mixing well, pour off the liquid, leaving the solid residue behind. You don't even need to pour the liquid off - you can just let the crystals sit in the bottom of the bottle and draw off the liquid as you need it.

    You are not doing a chemistry experiment - that is as accurate as you need to be.

    The concentration of a saturated solution is inherent in the salt being used. It is not affected by how much of the salt you add, provided you add enough, ie at least the solubility limit.

    A saturated solution of KI contains 1 g/ml. This is a 100% solution (not 1%, which would be 1 g/100 ml or 0.01 g/ml). The sites you are reading seem to be increasing your confusion, not helping it.

    Volume changes upon dissolution of salts are caused by the effects the particular ions have on the structure of water. The water molecules arrange themselves differently under the influence of some ions so they take up more or less space than in pure water - the volume changes.

    There are density tables which can enable you to work this out though you don't need to know how to use them.

    KI solutions have been characterised extremely well and we know that a saturated solution contains 1g/ml. To make one, just follow my instructions above.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    Jigsaw and PatJ like this.
  6. alicec

    alicec Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes:
    2,716
    Australia
    A saturated solution of KI contains 764 mg iodide and 236 mg potassium per ml. If there are 15 drops per ml then just divide by 15 to find the amount per drop.

    So around 50 mg iodide and 15 mg potassium.
     
    Jigsaw and PatJ like this.
  7. Jigsaw

    Jigsaw Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    412
    UK
    Thanks, @alicec

    I knew that! :whistle:

    :confused: Honestly, my brain just freaks at calculations, formulae, etc. Thankyou for your patience and help!
     
  8. Jigsaw

    Jigsaw Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    412
    UK
    Thanks. Yes, the oft-recited 1% confused me. I have no knowledge of the laws and rules of chemistry, so I thought that my (logical) assumption of a saturated solution being 100% was wrong. Thanks for clarifying.

    So, I need more like 140-145-150g per 100ml, not the 100g that's widely given in recipes online. Thanks. I would have hit a problem wondering why I still wasn't getting undissolved matter at the bottom of the jar, otherwise.

    I know iodide has some differences to iodine in terms of action, tissue preference, etc, but could you explain to me what characteristics iodATE has, please? I've seen it mentioned, but don't know anything about it. Does it exert the same effects as iodine and iodide?

    Thanks, alicec :thumbsup:
     
  9. alicec

    alicec Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes:
    2,716
    Australia
    Virtually all forms of iodine in food/supplements, including iodate, are converted to iodide in the gut.

    The transporters that take iodine into cells use the iodide form. Within the cell, special enzymes convert the iodide to iodine as needed for incorporation into iodoproteins.

    I would be extremely cautious about the claims made for the different action/need for iodine as opposed to iodide in the body, particularly if they are coming from the same sites that are giving you the information on SSKI etc.

    The evidence that iodine as opposed to iodide is directly taken up into cells and has some special effect is very thin indeed. There might be something to it but it could be that a few in vitro experiments and some epidemiological observations have been misinterpreted.

    Much more evidence for this other path of iodine usage is needed before we can conclude that the claims for it reflect reality.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2017
  10. alicec

    alicec Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes:
    2,716
    Australia
    Not all saturated solutions are 100%. It turns out that KI is but there is considerable variation for other salts. The term is just a shorthand way of expressing solute concentration in g/100 ml solution.
     
    Jigsaw likes this.
  11. Jigsaw

    Jigsaw Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    412
    UK
    Thanks! :confused:
     
  12. Jigsaw

    Jigsaw Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    412
    UK
    No, it's something that Flechas, Brownstein, and Abraham say. Not something I've seen on SSKI sites, in whose interests it wouldn't be. Flechas et al report conflicting evidence about iodine converting to iodide and back again. I'll find the paper and post a link later. The did however conclude that iodine was used differently to iodide and that different tissues show a preference for one or the other, with some tissues being able to use either. My own experiements, oxidising my Lugol's with ascorbic acid, have produced quite different results from using Lugol's with the iodine component intact, which suggests the same.

    As a hypothyroid breast cancer survivor, I do need to find out if a breast-iodine deficiency was caused by an overall iodide deficiency, or an enzyme-specific iodine deficiency. A great many of my conversion and detoxification enzymes are dysfunctional.

    Is there a reference you can point me towards to look at how the NIS only transport iodide, please? Also, which enzymes and what are their components? I ask because occasionally, it is possible to reactivate "broken" enzymes by supplementing their base component, e.g., as with selenium for 5'-deiodinase. What have you seen that states NIS don't/can't use iodine?

    Again, Brownstein et al recommend a mix of iodine and iodide due to different tissues preferring /only being able to use iodine (e.g., breasts, uterus, ovaries) over iodide, which the thyroid and skin use exclusively. According to their research, different tissues have a preference for/can only use one or the other, whilst some can use either.

    What about absorption from the stomach? Is there research I can see see for this, please?

    When you say "virtually", what happens to any unconverted ingested iodine?

    I'm aware that iodide is absorbed in the duodenum. I was under the impression that iodine and iodide could be absorbed from the stomach and the gut. What have you seen that supports virtually all iodine being converted to iodide, iodide only being absorbed from the gut, and NIS only using iodide? Is it accepted physiology, or is there research to support it? - Conventional physiology states that the human body needs, stores, and uses iodine ONLY for the purposes of the thyroid gland, but more recent research demonstrates that iodine/iodide has a huge range of actions and is involved in far more extra-thyroidal activity than thyroidal. According to Brownstein et al, the human body holds c.1500mg iodine/iodide, which is why the RDA of 125/225mcg is nonsensical. Only 3.33333% of the total body iodine is stored in the thyroid gland. Skin holds 20%, muscles 32%. There are other figures floating around for other organs, but I'm still trying to ascertain those.

    - I'm not being intentionally argumentative, I simply need to clarify the processes involved and whether iodine has any place in iodosupplementation. I'm trying to protect myself against further episodes of breast cancer (it was my reaction to the "treatments" that have made me chronically sick and disabled, and if I have to go through that again I suspect it will finish me off. It very nearly did the first time round), and resolve either wholly or partially my dependence on supra-physiological T3 (100mcg/d) and hydrocortisone (80-100mg/d). I hope you can see why this is so important for me to get right, and to fully understand.

    What evidence have you seen re: iodine/iodide usage?

    Also, if, as you say, iodide is converted to iodine as necessary, then evidently iodine has a role to play. Why wouldn't iodine be used directly, if it was made available to the body? If it usually has to perform a conversion to get iodine, why wouldn't it pick up iodine if it was available? If it converts what it needs, unless it is wholly converted within the cell, it surely must use NIS to get into cells?

    There are a lot of things I can't convert, like riboflavin, pyridoxine, T4. I take FMN, P-5-P, T3 because of these conversion blocks. If you apply the same principle, why wouldn't iodine suplementation be appropriate if I'm not able to convert iodide»iodine as required?

    Have you seen any studies to suggest or prove a conversion circle? i.e., if iodine is converted to iodide, iodide to iodine, iodine back to iodide, etc.? Or is it limited?

    My responses to iodine/iodide have changed as I have altered 50% of my current dose to purely iodide. My skin has dramatically improved in texture, whilst everything else has deteriorated - pain levels, sleep, energy, staying awake, cognition, etc., and I am showing signs of contact dermatitis on my fingers, which I haven't experienced in decades. I'm going to return to my straight Lugol's and see if things change back. I had overall improvements in energy, sleep, skin, cognition, pain levels, staying awake, etc., before I started changing Lugol's to pure iodide. Obviously, this is very unscientific, but my feeling is that my body definitely uses iodine differently from iodide, because I apparently benefit more from taking both, and am not benefitting from taking a greater proportion of iodide.

    If what you say about iodine»iodide»iodine, how do you explain my poor response to decreasing my iodine and increasing my iodide? -Again, not trying to be argumentative, only looking to understand.

    Thanks, @alicec
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2017
    PatJ likes this.
  13. PatJ

    PatJ far and free I gaze

    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes:
    5,189
    Canada
    The recommendation on CureZone is to take iodine with water to 'stain the stomach lining' for better absorption. Stephanie Buist recommends taking it with food to increase absorption. Both are relying on personal experience and the experience of many members of their respective sites.

    Some people notice more severe detox/startup symptoms when taking it with water. Maybe from faster stomach absorption? Or from reduced absorption from food? Or food absorption just smooths out the body's response (giving it time to detox more slowly)?

    I'll trust my body's response before a 'scientific' study any day. Science when done well is an excellent tool, but human bodies are so complex and scientific studies so reductionist that it's easy to form conclusions that are valid and true in an experiment, related to whatever limited measures were used at a particular point in time, but don't apply otherwise.
     
    Jigsaw likes this.
  14. Jigsaw

    Jigsaw Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    412
    UK
    @alicec, re: I2 (iodine) action seperate from I~ (iodide) action.

    Not the ref I was looking for, but -


    http://iodineresearch.com/files/aceves_2005_iodine_gatekeeper_mammary_gland.pdf
    "In mammary carcinomas induced by DMBA in rats, Lugol’s solution (mixture of I− and I2) supple- mentation exerts a suppressive effect on the develop- ment and size of the neoplasias (45). This suppressive effect is enhanced when Lugol treatment is com- bined with progesterone (medroxy-progesterone ac- etate). The suppressed tumors were found to have a significantly higher mean iodine content than non- supressed tumors, with uptake apparently enhanced by progesterone (46). The enhancement of iodine uptake by progesterone has been observed in other hormone-dependent tissues, including the uterus and ovary (47). Data generated in our laboratory have shown that chronic administration of I2 exhibits a potent protective effect (70%) on mammary cancer induced by the carcinogen N-methyl-N-nitrosourea (MNU). This effect is exerted only by I2 but not by KI or T4. The suppression by I2 treatment is accom- panied by the development of latent mammary can- cers that do not progress to overt cancers, suggesting that the mechanism of action of I2 is due to a decrease in carcinogenesis at the promotion level. Moreover, this protective effect of I2 is accompanied by a sig- nificative reduction in lipoperoxidation, which is sig- nificantly higher in “normal” mammary glands from animals treated with MNU or in patent tumors (18)." pp192 Aceves et al, JMGBN, 2004
     
    PatJ likes this.
  15. Jigsaw

    Jigsaw Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    412
    UK
    I couldn't agree more! I've lost count of the times my particular body gives an entirely different response from that specified in the literature. I personally attribute this to me having various dysfunctions in my conversion and/or neutralising/detox enzymes. I don't get rid of toxic metabolites as "normals" do. Hence, I watched other pts in chemo jump up after their infusion and go back to work the same day, whilst I was destroyed and bed-ridden, and projectile vomited for Britain multiple times a day, for every single day of the 5 months.

    I also don't convert things as "normals" do. I don't convert enough T4 to T3, so have to take T3. Even tyrosine sends me toxic within 20 mins, by which I mean I develop nausea, headache, temperature, skin eruptions, and feel terrible. Most often, my face blows up like a balloon, too. It takes me three days to clear down after ingesting something my system deems toxic.

    Also, for the most part, studies tend to be performed using healthy subjects. Some of the Flechas et al studies have used type 2 diabetics, breast cancer and FBD, and some with thyroid problems. I am more prone to believing those than studies done with normal subjects whose physiological functions all fallwithin normal ranges and/or have an absence of disease.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2017
    PatJ likes this.
  16. PatJ

    PatJ far and free I gaze

    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes:
    5,189
    Canada
    That's a good point. Researchers end up studying two different systems (sick body vs. healthy), and arrive at different results but both results can be valid as long as the limits of the studies are taken into account.

    Or researchers study a range of people from a certain geographic area and come to accurate conclusions that apply to that group of people but not to humans in general. Related to this, Wired magazine had an article many years ago about how the placebo effect varies by country and how frustrating this effect is for pharmaceautical researchers.
     
    Jigsaw likes this.
  17. Jigsaw

    Jigsaw Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    412
    UK
    Re: absorption - whilst it's clear that I have zero knowledge of chemistry rules/laws etc, and equally zero knowledge of the chemical characteristics of any nutrients, personal experience (plus advice from a pharmacist in Cheam re: absorption of fats being facilitated by taking such supplements with something fatty), dictates that the impact of anything taken on an empty stomach is always greater for me than taking things with food, unless it is a fat-soluble substance, e.g., steroid hormones, oil-based vitamins.

    E.g., if I take niacin, I will only flush properly when I take it on an empty stomach. I don't flush if I take it after food. In fact, taking it with food is recommened if users dislike the fkushing effect (which I personally enjoy, and use as a marker for how much I need, which changes often).

    I imagine that it's easier for cells to absorb products that are undiluted by /bound up in other products in foods, because no breaking-down is necessary to access these substances, and also that absorption from the stomach is faster if there is nothing else in the way. Surely food, milk, anything more substantial than plain water, will effectively dilute whatever it is you're trying to put in?

    I think that all water-soluble nutrients only need water to make them available, whilst fat-soluble orals do need some fat to facilitate uptake. The only benefit I can personally see of taking water-soluble nutrients with food or after food is that of providing a protective layer in the case of potentially caustic substances. Lugol's in water at 50mg plus started to cause gastric irritation for me, so I experimented with adding it to milk and food, but didn't feel the same improvements as I did when taking it with water. That suggests to me that I'm not getting as much into my cells wit food as I do without food.

    I have many supplements that specify "with food", particularly herbals, and my oils (A, D, E, K), and I generally assume, however wrongly, that there is a reason for that instruction. I was taught that most vitamins need food for proper absorption and should be taken during "eating hours", whilst minerals need an empty stomach last thing at night. No-one has ever agreed about amino acids.

    Because ALL nutrients can be found in food, I think that it should be possible to absorb all of them taken exogenously with food, but that an empty stomach will facilitate absorption of higher concentrations.

    Just my personal view.
     
    PatJ likes this.
  18. Jigsaw

    Jigsaw Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    412
    UK
    Thanks. Yes, agreed.

    Placebo - Really? How interesting. What did they put that down to, education? Society? Belief systems?
     
  19. PatJ

    PatJ far and free I gaze

    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes:
    5,189
    Canada
    Looks like Wired has the article on their web site: "Placebos Are Getting More Effective. Drugmakers Are Desperate to Know Why.". A quick skim of the article reveals more than I remembered. The placebo effect is influenced by pill size, shape, color, geographic region, and the effect is apparently becoming stronger.

     
  20. Jigsaw

    Jigsaw Senior Member

    Messages:
    412
    Likes:
    412
    UK
    I bet they are!

    But the placebo effect is unsustainable in physical conditions, and non-existent in animals other than humans. Dogs, cats, horses, rats, mice have no idea that substance x provokes reaction y, do they?
     
    PatJ likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page