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.
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.
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.
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.
Virtually all forms of iodine in food/supplements, including iodate, are converted to iodide in the gut.
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.
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.
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