Life Extension article on iodine

17. November 2009 William Davis (25)
Here's a link to my recent article in Life Extension Magazine on iodine:

Halt on Salt Sparks Iodine Deficiency

Iodized salt, a concept introduced into the U.S. by the FDA in 1924, slowly eliminated goiter (enlarged thyroid glands), along with an enormous amount of thyroid disease, heart attack, mental impairment, and death. The simple addition of iodine to salt ensured that salt-using Americans obtained enough iodine sufficient to not have a goiter.

Now that the FDA, goiters long forgotten from their memories, urges Americans to reduce salt, what has happened to our iodine?

I talk at length about this issue in the Life Extension article.
Tags :

Comments (25) -

  • Michael

    11/17/2009 1:08:06 PM |

    The link provided is based on the Life Extension search tool and seems broken.  This link works Halt on Salt, Oct 2009.

  • Terry H

    11/17/2009 1:20:13 PM |

    Dr D,

    The link does not work for me. Sends me to a www page that appears unrelated to your post and certainly not the the article you recommend.

  • Jim Purdy

    11/17/2009 1:22:21 PM |

    I don't think that link goes to the magazine article. It seems to go to a product advertisement instead. Did I do something wrong?

  • Daniel

    11/17/2009 3:28:09 PM |

    LE must have changed the link - it sends me to a page where I can purchase pure IGF, which, by the way, I'm surprised people want to take.

  • Anonymous

    11/17/2009 3:29:06 PM |

    I think you want this link

    http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/oct2009_Halt-on-Salt-Sparks-Iodine-Deficiency_01.htm

  • ciphen

    11/17/2009 4:06:49 PM |

    The link you posted doesn't go to your article. Might want to update that.

    Question: what is the best way to test for Iodine levels? I've been taking 400mg kelp iodine for a while, and want to make sure I'm not overdoing it (I'm 28).

  • Sara

    11/17/2009 4:15:05 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Clicking the link in the article takes me to the page to buy iodine supplements, not the article itself; I had to search to find the actual article. I think it's because you're linking to search results, and when someone else puts in the same URL without having given it the same inputs, it hiccups. This link should be to the actual article: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/oct2009_Halt-on-Salt-Sparks-Iodine-Deficiency_01.htm

  • Anonymous

    11/17/2009 4:31:03 PM |

    http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/oct2009_Halt-on-Salt-Sparks-Iodine-Deficiency_01.htm

  • Anonymous

    11/17/2009 4:49:33 PM |

    The article appears to be at this link:

    http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/oct2009_Halt-on-Salt-Sparks-Iodine-Deficiency_01.htm

    Tom

  • Catherine

    11/17/2009 5:59:27 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    Great article on Iodine (had to use LEF search to get it--link doesn't work).
    I am the perfect example of the healthy-diet person who developed thyroid disease and fibrocystic breasts due to salt and dairy food avoidance.
    I also have that abnormal reaction to iodine now. Iodine causes a hashi flare-up, and as you've stated I have become hyper-sensitive to it now.  But you also stated that in your experience it is a "temporary" reaction which makes me want to try it again--maybe more slowly, very low doses at first?
    Any tips from your experience with this hyper-sensitivity?
    Thanks for addressing this iodine problem with thyroid---many thyroid books and articles say if you have Hashimoto's to just avoid iodine completely so as not to create a flare-up, but that is not healthy for the rest of the body either.
    Warm regards,  
    Catherine

  • jack

    11/17/2009 6:03:53 PM |

    Hi -

    The link to the LEF article pulls up an
    ad for one of their Human Growth Factor
    pills.

    Punching Iodine into their search engine
    did'nt find it - Perhaps I missed it...

  • Jack

    11/17/2009 6:08:15 PM |

    Here it is...

    http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1490&query=iodine%20deficiency%20salt&hiword=DEFICIENCIES%20DEFICIENCYIN%20DEFICIENCYIS%20DEFICIENCYS%20DEFICIENT%20IODINATION%20IODINES%20SALTED%20SALTER%20SALTI%20SALTIN%20SALTING%20SALTMAN%20SALTO%20SALTS%20SALTY%20deficiency%20iodine%20salt%20

  • Anonymous

    11/17/2009 6:40:31 PM |

    It is rather interesting for me to read that post. Thanx for it. I like such themes and anything connected to them. I would like to read a bit more soon.

  • Anonymous

    11/17/2009 7:01:46 PM |

    Good point. I'll make sure to eat spoonfuls of salt Wink But seriously, very important point and people should take their supplements.

    Off-topic: Can you share your thoughts on the virtually zero-fat diet described in the book by Dr. Esselstyn. Thanks.

  • Kevin

    11/17/2009 10:54:45 PM |

    My blood pressure is lower than the average so I ingest a lot of iodized salt.  Also I run a lot of marathons during the summer.  When I need more salt during races I can pour it in my mouth.  If I'm low on sodium it tastes great.  If I'm not in need of salt it just about makes vomit.  

    kevin

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/17/2009 11:14:48 PM |

    Thanks, all, for noting the broken link. I'm not sure what happened.

    It should be corrected.

  • Electronic Medical Records

    11/18/2009 2:58:10 AM |

    I completely agree to the post.Sea salt or rock salt is very good for health but definitely in measures.

  • Future Primitive

    11/18/2009 6:15:12 AM |

    I'm trying to understand what an appropriate dose is.  It seems like iodine dosage in relation to TSH follows a "U" shaped response, where too little iodine results in high TSH and too much iodine can likewise result in high TSH.  There's evidently a sweet spot, BUT it also seems to depend very much on whatever the thyroid is adapted to in terms of the ambient, dietary iodine intake prior to the beginning of supplementation.  That is, a mid-Westerner with a chronically low iodine intake is going to respond quite differently to a 1000 mcg iodine dose than, say, a person who grew up on the Northern coast of Japan... On an immediately related topic, I'm curious to know more about the apparent adaptive down-regulation of T3 in response to caloric restriction and likewise (similarly, it would seem), carbohydrate restriction.  Any thoughts?

  • Runner2009

    11/18/2009 5:42:23 PM |

    Dr Davis:

    My question is on a bit of a tangent to this topic, but on the related issue of what seems to be a situation where maintaining what was considered a "healthy" level now is possibly dangerous:

    "Low triglycerides are risk factor for hemorrhagic stroke"

    http://www.lipidsonline.org/news/article.cfm?aid=8578

    Do you have any insight into this study ? I have been diligently keeping my lipid levels in check .I lowered my triglycerides from a fairly low level of 75mg/dL down to 50 mg/dL. Now I am concerned. (My LDL is 95 mg/dL and HDL is 64 mg/dL). I don't take any drugs , just lots of exercise and diet (Krill oil, almonds, Beta Glucan fiber)

    Thanks

    Thanks

  • Runner2009

    11/18/2009 5:44:22 PM |

    Sorry, forgot the link:

    http://www.lipidsonline.org/news/article.cfm?aid=8578

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/18/2009 10:55:25 PM |

    Hi, Future--

    That is the frustration with iodine: insufficient data on what represents an ideal level of intake. And it may vary from region to region, individual to individual.

    The T3 issue is indeed fascinating, a topic that will be explored more fully in the blog and in the Track Your Plaque website.

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/18/2009 11:18:27 PM |

    Hi, Runner--

    I'm skeptical that this is an important effect that warrants action.

    Primitive cultures typically have triglycerides in very low ranges, since they avoid processed foods. I'd be shocked if achieving physiologic normal levels is the sole explanation behind increased stroke.

  • Anonymous

    12/12/2009 1:29:24 AM |

    mm... good  post

Add comment

Loading
Chicken Little

Chicken Little

11. August 2007 William Davis (1)
Clinical studies can be designed in a number of ways. The ease and cost of these studies differ dramatically, as does the confidence of the findings.

The most confident way to design a clinical study is to tell neither the participants nor the investigator(s) what treatment is being offered, then to administer treatment or placebo. Neither the people doing the research nor the participants know what they are receiving. Of course, there needs to be some way to find out what was given at the end of the study in order to analyze the outcome.

This is called a “double-blind, placebo-controlled” clinical study. While not perfect since it tends to examine a treatment phenomenon in isolation (e.g., the effects of a single drug in a select group of people), it is the best sort of study design that is most likely to yield confident results, both negative and positive. This sort of design is followed, for instance, for most prescription drugs.

There are pitfalls in such studies, of course, and some have made headlines lately. For instance, beyond tending to examine single conditions in a select group of participants, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study can also fail to uncover rare effects. If a study contains 5000 participants, for instance, but a rare complication develops in 1 person out of 20,000, then it’s unlikely such an ill-effect will be observed until larger numbers of people are exposed to the agent.

Another pitfall (though not so much of study design, but of human greed) is that study outcomes that are not favorable can be suppressed by simply failing to publish the results. This has undoubtedly happened numerous times over the years. For this reason, a registry has been created for all human clinical trials as a means to enforce publication of outcomes, both favorable and unfavorable.

Despite its weaknesses, the double-blind, placebo-controlled study design remains the most confident way to show whether or not some treatment does indeed yield some effect. It is less prone to bias from either the participant or the investigator. Human nature being what it is, we tend to influence results just to suit our particular agenda or interests. An investigator who knows what you are given, drug or placebo, but owns lots of stock in the company, or is hoping for special favors from the pharmaceutical company sponsor, for instance, is likely to perceive events in a light favorable to the outcome of the study.

Now, most studies are not double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. These are notoriously difficult studies to engineer; raise lots of ethical questions (can you not treat a person with an aggressive cancer, for instance, and administer a placebo?); often require substantial numbers of participants (thousands), many of whom may insist on payment for devoting their time, bodies, and perhaps even encountering some risk; and are tremendously expensive, costing many tens of millions of dollars.

For this reason, many other study designs are often followed. They are cheaper, quicker, may not even require the active knowledge or participation of the group being studied. That’s not to say that the participants are being tricked. It may simply be something like trying to determine if there are more heart attacks in people who live in cities compared to rural areas by comparing death rates from heart attack from public records and population demographic data. Or, a nutritional study could be performed by asking people how many eggs they eat each week and then contacting them every month for 5 years to see if they’ve had a heart attack or other heart event. No treatment is introduced, no danger is added to a person’s established habits. Many epidemiologic studies are performed this way.

The problem is that these other sorts of study designs, because they generate less confident results, are not generally regarded as proof of anything. They can only suggest the possibility of an association, an hypothesis. For real proof to occur, a double-blind, placebo-controlled may need to follow. Alternatively, if an association suggested by a study of lesser design might, by reasons of a very powerful effect, be sufficient. But this is rare. Thalidomide and catastrophic birth defects are an example of an association between a drug and fetal limb malformation that was so clear-cut that no further investigation was required to establish a causative association. Of course, no one in their right mind would even suggest a blinded study.

Where am I going with this tedious rambling? Lately, the media has been making a big to-do about several studies, none of which are double-blind, placebo-controlled, but were cross-sectional sorts of observations, the sorts of studies which can only suggest an effect. This happened with Dr. Steve Nissen’s study of Avandia (rosiglitazone) for pre-diabetes and risk for heart attack and the recent study suggesting that cancer incidence is increased when LDL cholesterol is low. Both were observations that suggested such associations.

Now, those of you following the Heart Scan Blog or the www.cureality.com website know that we do not defend drug companies nor their drugs. In fact, we’ve openly and repeatedly criticized the drug industry for many of its practices. Drugs are, in my opinion, miserably overused and abused.

But, as always, I am in the pursuit of truth. Neither of these studies, in my view, justified the sort of media attention they received. They are hypothesis-generating efforts—that’s it. You might argue that the questions raised are so crucial that any incremental risk of a drug is simply not worth it.

Despite the over-reaction to these studies, good will come of the fuss. I do believe that heightened scrutiny of the drug industry will result. Many people will seek to avoid prescription drugs and opt for healthy changes in lifestyle, thus reducing exposure to costs and side-effects.

But beware of the media, acting as our Chicken Little, reporting on studies that prove nothing but only raise questions.
Tags :

Comments (1) -

  • jpatti

    9/11/2007 10:26:00 AM |

    There's another issue with double-blind studies, for things other than drugs or supplements, they're impossible.  

    Your example of the number of eggs in a person's diet is a good example; there's no "placebo" for eggs.  Similarly, if I increase my level of exercise, I notice that - it can't be blinded.  For diet and other lifestyle changes, we will never be able to gain the amount of evidence as for drug trials.

    I think this is why many doctors don't think so much about prescribing these types of things, except for a cursory instruction to "eat better, lose weight and exercise," they're just not as strongly convinced of the benefit of these changes because they can't be proven as strongly.  But... not being able to prove something doesn't mean it's not important to health!  

    As a diabetic, I measure my bg multiple times a day and make changes to my food intake, exercise and medication dosage to hit established bg goals.  While I think tightly-controlling bg is probably the number one thing I can do for my heart health, it can never be proven in a double-blind study.

Add comment

Loading