I've heard others talk of iodine allergies -- however, it's not really possible to be "allergic" to an element that's essential for life; at least not in the traditional meaning of the word. Real allergies are usually an immune system reaction to proteins, such as those in fish or nuts.
Having said that, iodine can definitely be an irritant, and initial supplementation can cause the body to release bromine, fluorine and certain metals, which are also irritants. The result can be a skin rash or possibly lung irritation. It might look and feel like an allergy, but more often it's probably a toxic reaction of some type.
If you apply iodine to the skin, you can help minimize the irritation effect by avoiding areas with skin creases, such as your inner elbows or inner knees. Maximizing air exposure seems to help dilute any potential toxic effects.
Regarding dyes, keep in mind that they usually contain much more than just elemental or ionic iodine. Although some people seem to be more sensitive to iodine than others, systemic reactions to radiological dyes are usually also toxic reactions, caused by things like overloading the kidneys.
Here's a link to a page with one MDs opinion about iodine dyes and related allergies:
http://www.wdxcyber.com/ngen22.htm
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Monday, 23 November 2009
Iodized salt and other sources of iodine
The issue with iodized salt is that you may get enough iodine that way to prevent goiter, but there are some good studies now that show most people can benefit from doses 100 times more than that. Whole-body sufficiency is associated with much lower rates of breast, endometrial and prostate cancers, and can reduce brain fog, muscle pain, and a host of other ailments.
[[MORE]]One problem I have with iodized salt actually has nothing to do with its iodine content. I’m also not anti-salt as many docs and medical writers seem to be these days. What I do object to, though, is pure, refined sodium chloride. I much prefer sea salt. One of the things I’ve learned about long-term health maintenance is the importance of obtaining adequate amounts of micronutrients—many of which are available in high-quality sea salt, but are not present in the refined stuff.
If you’ve never tasted it, the difference is dramatic. It reminds me of honey: there’s the usual store-bought stuff that’s familiar and bland, and there’s the gourmet and very tasty stuff. In the case of salt, the good stuff comes from places like Baja California or Spain (I prefer the “macrobiotic” brands myself).
I also think kelp can be a good source of iodine. One part of a theory I’ve heard about how the Japanese stay thin and healthy is their relatively high intake of kelp, which of course includes iodine. Inland Japanese ingest about 13mg/day of iodine, which is 100x the RDA (and about 100x more than most Americans or Europeans get). They even use seaweed as fertilizer. If you’re looking for a source of seaweed:
http://www.alcasoft.com/seaweed/
While we’re at it, there are a few more things you might like to know about iodine: Initial high doses can displace bromine and fluorine from the body, which can cause rashes and other temporary problems. Iodine can also help to eliminate toxic metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury, and can be a good alternative to chelation for those metals.
Here’s a link to a page with a number of interesting papers along these lines:
http://optimox.com/pics/Iodine/opt_Research_I.shtml
If you do supplement to correct a deficiency, you might want to follow-up with a quantitative iodine loading test to assess your status:
http://www.optimox.com/pics/Iodine/loadTest.htm
You might also enjoy Dr Brownstein’s book: Iodine, why you need it, why you can’t live without it:
https://www.drbrownstein.com/bookstore_Iodine.php
High doses of iodine are also a key component of some successful alternative cancer treatment programs, such as Gerson. Here’s a link to a very interesting paper that talks about Gerson's cancer treatment, including his use of iodine:
http://gerson-research.org/docs/GersonM-1978-1/
The less iodine you have, the harder your thyroid gland has to work; the harder it works, the more inflamed it can become. I had a thyroid nodule myself years ago; it went away after a year or so of targeted supplementation (including thyroid hormone).
Iodine deficiency has also been implicated in fibrocystic breast disease.
Here's an interesting fact about iodine deficiency and vegetarians:
If you do need to supplement iodine for a while to correct a deficiency, one good source is a product called Iodoral.
[[MORE]]One problem I have with iodized salt actually has nothing to do with its iodine content. I’m also not anti-salt as many docs and medical writers seem to be these days. What I do object to, though, is pure, refined sodium chloride. I much prefer sea salt. One of the things I’ve learned about long-term health maintenance is the importance of obtaining adequate amounts of micronutrients—many of which are available in high-quality sea salt, but are not present in the refined stuff.
If you’ve never tasted it, the difference is dramatic. It reminds me of honey: there’s the usual store-bought stuff that’s familiar and bland, and there’s the gourmet and very tasty stuff. In the case of salt, the good stuff comes from places like Baja California or Spain (I prefer the “macrobiotic” brands myself).
I also think kelp can be a good source of iodine. One part of a theory I’ve heard about how the Japanese stay thin and healthy is their relatively high intake of kelp, which of course includes iodine. Inland Japanese ingest about 13mg/day of iodine, which is 100x the RDA (and about 100x more than most Americans or Europeans get). They even use seaweed as fertilizer. If you’re looking for a source of seaweed:
http://www.alcasoft.com/seaweed/
While we’re at it, there are a few more things you might like to know about iodine: Initial high doses can displace bromine and fluorine from the body, which can cause rashes and other temporary problems. Iodine can also help to eliminate toxic metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury, and can be a good alternative to chelation for those metals.
Here’s a link to a page with a number of interesting papers along these lines:
http://optimox.com/pics/Iodine/opt_Research_I.shtml
If you do supplement to correct a deficiency, you might want to follow-up with a quantitative iodine loading test to assess your status:
http://www.optimox.com/pics/Iodine/loadTest.htm
You might also enjoy Dr Brownstein’s book: Iodine, why you need it, why you can’t live without it:
https://www.drbrownstein.com/bookstore_Iodine.php
High doses of iodine are also a key component of some successful alternative cancer treatment programs, such as Gerson. Here’s a link to a very interesting paper that talks about Gerson's cancer treatment, including his use of iodine:
http://gerson-research.org/docs/GersonM-1978-1/
The less iodine you have, the harder your thyroid gland has to work; the harder it works, the more inflamed it can become. I had a thyroid nodule myself years ago; it went away after a year or so of targeted supplementation (including thyroid hormone).
Iodine deficiency has also been implicated in fibrocystic breast disease.
Here's an interesting fact about iodine deficiency and vegetarians:
"Vegetarians also have substantially greater likelihood of iodine deficiency than carnivorous people, since foods of plant origin are less rich in iodine than animal-derived foods. One study demonstrated iodine deficiency in 25% of vegetarians and an incredible 80% of vegans, compared with only 9% of those consuming a mixed diet that contained meat."
If you do need to supplement iodine for a while to correct a deficiency, one good source is a product called Iodoral.
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Paleo Snacks
Since switching to the Paleo diet, I find I don’t get hungry very often; I tend to eat only 1 or 2 “traditional” meals a day. However, I also enjoy snacks, partly as a social thing, and partly for a change of pace. Unfortunately, my portfolio of Paleo-compatible snacks isn’t very large. If you have any ideas, I would very much like to hear them.
[[MORE]]To get things started, here’s one for chocolate lovers:
30 grams coarsely-chopped 85% Lindt chocolate (3 squares or 3 level tablespoons)
12 grams baking cocoa powder (3 level teaspoons)
2 oz heavy cream (about enough to cover the dry ingredients)
8 oz whole milk
Mix in a large mug, stir, and eat with a teaspoon (I like to pretend it’s ice cream, rather than chocolate milk).
According to FitDay, the result is 73% fat, 11% protein, 16% carbs (22 gr total) and 555 calories. I sometimes use more like 4 oz of cream, which brings it up to 80% fat.
[[MORE]]To get things started, here’s one for chocolate lovers:
30 grams coarsely-chopped 85% Lindt chocolate (3 squares or 3 level tablespoons)
12 grams baking cocoa powder (3 level teaspoons)
2 oz heavy cream (about enough to cover the dry ingredients)
8 oz whole milk
Mix in a large mug, stir, and eat with a teaspoon (I like to pretend it’s ice cream, rather than chocolate milk).
According to FitDay, the result is 73% fat, 11% protein, 16% carbs (22 gr total) and 555 calories. I sometimes use more like 4 oz of cream, which brings it up to 80% fat.
Sunday, 8 November 2009
Longevity and Side Pork
Years ago, someone did a Gallup Poll where they asked centenarians about their diet. The goal was to see if they had anything in common. It turns out there was only one food that had a statistically-relevant commonality: side pork. Side pork is the same cut as bacon (taken from the loin after the spareribs are removed), although it’s fresh and not cured.
[[MORE]]I heard this information maybe 30+ years ago from my father (who enjoyed repeating it often), so I don’t have any documentation. However, taking it at face value today makes me wonder if the apparent benefit wasn’t so much from the side pork itself as it was an indication that the centenarians didn’t skimp on meat or animal fat.
I also have some anecdotal counter-evidence: My maternal grandmother lived to be 101, and she was a vegetarian most of her life (though she did eat eggs and dairy).
[[MORE]]I heard this information maybe 30+ years ago from my father (who enjoyed repeating it often), so I don’t have any documentation. However, taking it at face value today makes me wonder if the apparent benefit wasn’t so much from the side pork itself as it was an indication that the centenarians didn’t skimp on meat or animal fat.
I also have some anecdotal counter-evidence: My maternal grandmother lived to be 101, and she was a vegetarian most of her life (though she did eat eggs and dairy).
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Nutrient Density
For some time now, I’ve been following claims that optimizing nutrient density is a good thing. The arguments I’m familiar with flow from the caloric restriction studies, where minimizing caloric intake while maintaining enough nutrient density to support life ends up extending maximum lifespan.
One aspect of the logic behind this approach is that it minimizes the work your body has to do, particularly when it comes to handling biochemical byproducts and waste.
[[MORE]]The thing about vegetables (and I do enjoy mine!), is that they also contain a bunch of things that aren’t necessary for human health, including carbs. For example, Vit B-12 isn’t readily available in plant form (small amounts in seaweeds and BG algae), but it’s very available in animal products. B-12 deficiency in some ways mirrors Vit D; it’s widespread, and has been implicated in a number of conditions, including heart disease and mental illness. Plus, following the same thinking from above about minimizing the load on the body’s support systems, many plants also contain toxins that have to be detoxified – gluten from grains is a big offender in that area.
I’ve found that many people are still stuck in the calories-in vs. calories-expended trap. Maximizing nutrient density doesn’t have to mean minimizing calories. Particularly when you’re eating low-carb, some foods just don’t “stick.” It’s like a type 1 diabetic who isn’t taking insulin: no matter how much they eat, they won’t gain weight. When you’re eating low-carb, and therefore have a low insulin level, some foods are simply excreted, without being fully absorbed; with minimal biochemical process involved, the resulting load on the body must be very low.
A related issue is how absorbable the nutrients are: They may be present in plants, but unless you spend 12 hours a day chewing (like a cow does), then odds are they won’t be fully available to you, so you will need to eat more calories to get adequate quantities. Nutrients in animal products are much more absorbable.
Finally, another important point is that eating Paleo / low-carb seems to have many of the same physical and biochemical side-effects as a calorie restriction – but without the torture.
One aspect of the logic behind this approach is that it minimizes the work your body has to do, particularly when it comes to handling biochemical byproducts and waste.
[[MORE]]The thing about vegetables (and I do enjoy mine!), is that they also contain a bunch of things that aren’t necessary for human health, including carbs. For example, Vit B-12 isn’t readily available in plant form (small amounts in seaweeds and BG algae), but it’s very available in animal products. B-12 deficiency in some ways mirrors Vit D; it’s widespread, and has been implicated in a number of conditions, including heart disease and mental illness. Plus, following the same thinking from above about minimizing the load on the body’s support systems, many plants also contain toxins that have to be detoxified – gluten from grains is a big offender in that area.
I’ve found that many people are still stuck in the calories-in vs. calories-expended trap. Maximizing nutrient density doesn’t have to mean minimizing calories. Particularly when you’re eating low-carb, some foods just don’t “stick.” It’s like a type 1 diabetic who isn’t taking insulin: no matter how much they eat, they won’t gain weight. When you’re eating low-carb, and therefore have a low insulin level, some foods are simply excreted, without being fully absorbed; with minimal biochemical process involved, the resulting load on the body must be very low.
A related issue is how absorbable the nutrients are: They may be present in plants, but unless you spend 12 hours a day chewing (like a cow does), then odds are they won’t be fully available to you, so you will need to eat more calories to get adequate quantities. Nutrients in animal products are much more absorbable.
Finally, another important point is that eating Paleo / low-carb seems to have many of the same physical and biochemical side-effects as a calorie restriction – but without the torture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)