Nascent Iodine vs. Iodoral

 

Numerous questions have been raised about the differences between Iodoral and Nascent Iodine. In early 2010, the question was posed to me about which is better. After some extensive research I will  attempt to define the clinical features of these two iodine products as I see them and their individual advantages. Personally I like both products for different reasons.

No Studies for direct comparison -

At the time of this writing, I have found no formal, or significant informal, head to head studies comparing these two products. This means that only scientific argument, clinical opinion and personal experience remain for analysis.

High dose vs. Low dose -

All high dose studies have been done using Iodoral or comparative formulations.
1)  Proponents of Nascent Iodine usually focus on low dose therapy and the claim of enhanced bioavailability. Usually the only studies referenced to are those used to establish the RDA recommendations.
2) Proponents of Lugol's solution or Iodoral usually focus on the benefits of high dose therapy and the well conducted clinical data to back the position. Please see the references listed on our site under Iodine Research. These benefits include the detoxification of halides and heavy metals. Mostly historical data is on iodine and potassium iodide.

Absorption -

Studies on Iodoral are clear. On average nearly 99% of the dose is absorbed. The absorption rate between the two products could be easily studied with existing technology, but no such studies have yet been conducted. In theory tough, they both should have near equal oral absorption rates as iodine in all its natural forms is very well absorbed orally.

Bioavailability -

Bioavailability is about how much of a nutrient is available for use after absorption compared to how much is not. I believe that the claim of increased bioavailability of Nascent Iodine does have merit, and does make sense from the scientific perspective of the molecular state of Nascent iodine. If Nascent is indeed more bioavailable, I doubt that the scale of difference between recommended doses, 2-4mg for Nascent compared to 12.5-50mg for Iodoral, bears out. Clinically, I have seen faster symptomatic responses to Nascent Iodine, but only when dosed similarly to the 50mg per day evidenced by the research done by Iodoral proponents.

Proper Dosage -

The rational for dosage of iodine therapy differs based on one's goal and Ideology.

1)    The minimum needed to sustain life and prevent goiter (ex. RDA of 1-2mg per day).
2)    What is necessary for healthy maintenance (12-12.5mg/day). This number is derived from demographical research concerning iodine related disease incidence from cultures where iodine content is high in the diet compared to cultures with low dietary iodine. Please see references.
3)    Overcoming competitive inhibition. The real issues lie in pollutants that compete for iodine's place in the body, known as competitive displacement or inhibition. Chemicals & elements such as fluoride, bromide, other halides, mercury, lead, aluminum and more can displace iodine from it's place in the body. The reverse is also true. Iodine can displace these substances if sufficient quantities are present to get ahead of the curve. To date, 50mg is to most common target dose that elicits this shift in balance and begins the dumping of these toxic elements, restoring symptomatic patients to better health. This number could change if pollution levels should rise or fall. Such instances requiring higher doses are being seen in my clinic as well as other iodine specializing clinics around the world. And upon occasion, I will see a case that requires less. On balance the 50mg target dose seems to be the appropriate dose for 98% of my clients on iodine therapy.

Tolerance & Personal Experience - 

Both products are well tolerated in most cases. Even patients with iodine allergy will on average tolerate either product well. Cases that react poorly to oral administration often benefit from transdermal supplementation without reaction. I prefer Nascent Iodine over simple iodine tincture in transdermal applications. I also prefer Nascent iodine if there is a history of iodine sensitivity, as it seems to produce less allergic reactions orally in my experience. Iodoral has become a very popular product that is well studied, and I still use it in a vast majority of my clients with great success since 2005. Its ease of administration is often a significant plus and is the gold standard in high dose iodine therapy.

Which one should you choose -

Both products have their own individual merits and selecting a product should be based on your own unique situation and preferences. You should consult with an iodine literate professional when making the decision to begin iodine therapy of any kind. Dr. Kassner is available to assist you with a phone consultation if you should desire.
        Iodoral provides a simple tablet for high dose oral administration and is very well researched. Its benefits and potential complications are well documented and iodine literate physicians have the most experience dealing with Iodoral. While Nascent is excellent in sensitive cases where transdermal or very tight dosage control is needed. Nascent may also provide a slightly faster clinical result.

Transdermal Iodine -

Transdermal application of iodine is the most inefficient method of delivery with only 1-4% of the total dose absorbed into circulation. Iodine is a volatile element subject to evaporation at typical room and body temperatures. 75-85% of transdermally applied iodine is lost to evaporation. So if you go with transdermal application, do so as a last choice. The application of a heavy cream or Vaseline over the iodine patch may slow down the evaporation and possibly increase absorption.