350 replies to this topic

[Tango2]

One of the early researchers found that Vitamin K2, an unknown factor at that time, did help to reduce bacterial loads in the saliva and improve dental health, among other benefits. While there is no specific mention of skin here, I've also noticed a reduction in skin wrinkles.

Reference: http://trit.us/basic...-k2.html#closer

This is a response to something rwac said a while back.

You mentioned that you had softer facial skin and little/no dental plaque. I've had the same experience. I'd been taking 5 mg of mk4 daily (or so) and noticed my skin was softer. (I also take a lot of fish oil) At some point I went into the dentist for a routine cleaning and my dentist told me my teeth were 'perfect' - it was so strange. They usually find plenty of things that are wrong.

For the record I've been supplementing with other things related to calcium utilization/bone growth, such as manganese, boron, zinc, copper. I've even taken nickel & silicon which I had to procure myself.

I have no idea if this is related to anything, but I thought I'd post it anyway: http://www.springerl...t29vt80ynx1eax/ summary: Plaque causing bacteria are found in the gut as well as the arteries affected by atherosclerosis.

[Lufega]

Ok, there's something else I should say. I live near several Asian grocery stores, and I bought several boxes of Natto and managed to eat 5 or 6 of them. I could feel the mk7, it sped up my thought process (in a good way). However I didn't sleep all that soundly that night. I've since purchased the Jarrow mk7 and the Carlson 5mg mk4. I took the 45 mg dose of mk4 and didn't feel anything. There is definitely a difference between mk4 and mk7.

When I took mk4 and ate natto, I noticed that the feeling from the mk7 was extended for much longer than normal.

I went to Japan last year and tried Natto for the first time. I also noticed a very intense boost in my though process as well as clarity of mind. No one would believe me. I didn't get to try it again after that first time. I wonder if the effect was due to a combination of vitamin K and serratopeptidase and all the other goodies found in Natto. Wish I could find some in Miami.

[stephen_b]

Wish I could find some in Miami.

It shouldn't be that hard to find. Any Asian grocery store should have it.

[Chupo]

I've read the entire thread but I can't promise I've retained all of it.

I take Life Extension, Vitamins D & K with sea iodine:

Vitamin D 5,000 IU
K2 MK-4 1,000 mcg
K2 MK-7 100 mcg
Iodine 1,000 mcg

I take 2 per day since I weigh 239 lbs. I have noticed my teeth feel slicker and the dental plaque at the gumline, which I could actually see before, has gone. I take that as a good sign that it's also working in my arteries. Even though there is MK-7 in it, the study regarding the efficacy of low-dose MK-4 at 1.5 mg is doubly reassuring.

I don't think I've ever really had a problem with my skin since puberty but my skin has also improved. It's neither dry nor oily. It's just right. It's smooth and "glowing" for lack of a better term. If I had to make an analogy, it'd be like running your finger across a candle. It feels slick but not oily. I'm curious to know why this is. I haven't read anything about K2 in the skin.

Price found that K2 reduced bacteria in the mouth. Could it be that it does the same with the skin?

[Su Aanee]

Is there anyone there still speaking about this topic?

[natro]

Is there anyone there still speaking about this topic?

Ya I would love more advice... In Canada it's pretty hard to find MK4 so I'm wondering if it's worth getting MK7 to help prevent osteoporosis for my mom (120mcg a day?). I eat grass fed beef (and liver) so I should get some from that.. I also eat eggs but I'm not sure about their quality ( trying to find a good provider) and as someone earlier in the thread said the quantity of K2 is quite low in them.

[smithx]

Vitamin K2 in the MK4 form is actually not that hard to find any more.

There are these 5mg capsules from Carlson.

And these 15mg capsules (which I bought) from VRP. VRP has 1/2 price sales periodically, which is when I bought 'em.

[Nekawa]

This page has not been very active for a while. I am very confused. Some are saying to take 45 mcg of MK4 or is it MK7? and some are saying you need 45 mg of either MK4 or MK7 and any thing less is not helpful for bones. There are some that are selling both in one pill but not specifically designed for people with osteoporosis and therefore in low dosages.
I don't understand which one to take and I don't know the amounts. There are many supplements selling a wide variety of all the above.
The point of taking it is for osteoporosis. I know this debate has been around for a while and maybe no one really knows... How come the info is so conflicting. Is there anyone out there who knows the truth? Please, I need some help.

[Hebbeh]

I believe the studies on osteoporosis used 45 mg of MK-4.

[Nekawa]

Might you know of the best known mix of ingredients that help with Osteoporosis. A name of a good supplement? I realize that's not the topic of the forum exactly but maybe someone will know. I've been looking at osteo-k, but they don't have magnesium and other ingredients people say is good. They do have the 45 mg. Are there others good options?

And, why is it that most Osteoporosis supplements out there only have 45 (or so) mcg... of MK7?

Edited by Nekawa, 27 February 2012 - 05:54 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

D3 supplementation if blood work calls for it, gel cap not dry powder
Quality Mag supp
Adequate calcium intake via diet
I still prefer Life Extensions Super K

[niner]

Might you know of the best known mix of ingredients that help with Osteoporosis. A name of a good supplement? I realize that's not the topic of the forum exactly but maybe someone will know. I've been looking at osteo-k, but they don't have magnesium and other ingredients people say is good. They do have the 45 mg. Are there others good options?

And, why is it that most Osteoporosis supplements out there only have 45 (or so) mcg... of MK7?

45mg of MK4 is a pharmacological dose. It's being used as a drug, not as a nutrient. The supplements that have 45 mgc of MK7 are just trying to provide a nutritional dose. Personally, I would shoot for 90mcg MK7 and 1mg MK4. As for osteoporosis/osteopenia supplements, I like Jarrow Bone Up. It offers good value for the dollar, if you care about that. I would also include a bioavailable silicon supplement (many silicon supplements are of questionable bioavailability) like BioSil or JarrowSil. Get a blood level on 25-hydroxy-vitamin D3, and supplement to attain at least 30ng/ml. Bone Up has some D, but you should get a level after being on it for a month or two. You may need to augment with an oil based D formulation. Avoid drinking colas, cut back or eliminate chocolate, and consider dropping SSRIs if you can. All of these are associated with reduced bone density. You could also consider a strontium salt, taken away from calcium compounds. Finally, I would seriously consider Actonel. Along with most of the regimen I mention here, I've used Actonel in a weekly dosage form for a number of years without incident and with steadily improving BMD measured with DEXA Scan. I'm currently in an off cycle for Actonel, to last from 6 months to a year. The off cycle is to give my bones a chance to remodel, in order to maintain bone microarchitecture. There are a lot of internet fearmongers that will try to scare you with stories of jaw necrosis (rare, limited to unusual circumstances) and bone fractures (after long term bisphosponate use, bones might be less strong than their BMD would suggest, though stronger than an osteoporotic bone.) This is the reason that I cycle the drug. What the fearmongers won't tell you is that there appears to be a longevity enhancement associated with Actonel that isn't explained by lack of fractures. Reports are that Actonel could add 5 years to your life. That's another reason it's part of my bone regimen.

[fed_machine]

I chanced upon this thread while researching effects of Vit D3 supplementation and calcification of arteries/soft tissue.


I started taking a Vitamin D3 supplement last year when my level was diagnosed at 20 ng/ml. I took about 3000 IU per day for 9 months and my level rose to 27 ng/ml.

Recently, I came across research that D3 supplementation, even in the 2000-3000 IUs a day dosage, without K2 supplementation will cause calcification of arteries and soft-tissues.

Wanted to ask the more knowledgeable in our community for input:
1) How much K2 and D3 should I take, especially to reverse calcification?
2) Is there a test to measure calcification and can it be reversed with K2 supplementation? Seems like Tango02 had success.
3) Is calcification observed in those who were taking Calcium with D3 or it can be seen even without Calcium supplementation?

Thanks in advance!

[niner]

I started taking a Vitamin D3 supplement last year when my level was diagnosed at 20 ng/ml. I took about 3000 IU per day for 9 months and my level rose to 27 ng/ml.

Recently, I came across research that D3 supplementation, even in the 2000-3000 IUs a day dosage, without K2 supplementation will cause calcification of arteries and soft-tissues.

Wanted to ask the more knowledgeable in our community for input:
1) How much K2 and D3 should I take, especially to reverse calcification?
2) Is there a test to measure calcification and can it be reversed with K2 supplementation? Seems like Tango02 had success.
3) Is calcification observed in those who were taking Calcium with D3 or it can be seen even without Calcium supplementation?

3000 IU/day is a lot of D, considering that your level only rose by 7ng/ml. Was it a dry formulation? They can have absorption problems if they aren't taken with a lot of fat. In this case, it's good that your levels didn't get super high, if you're concerned about calcification. I would use 45-90 mcg/day of K2-MK7, and/or around a milligram of K2-MK4. If your diet is good, you probably get enough calcium as well as a reasonable amount of K1. I would supplement enough D to get to 30ng/ml. The amount you'll need is variable, depending on formulation, what you take it with, sun exposure and genetics.

You could get a heart scan with a calcium score, if you were really concerned, to see if your coronary arteries are calcified. You probably don't need that unless you have a lot of CVD risk factors. William Davis' heartscan / track your plaque blog talks a lot about how to slow or reverse calcification. It can be done, but it's not necessarily easy.

You could see calcification without supplemental calcium, as it's pretty easy to get from diet. You can even see it without supplemental D.

[Logan]

Niner, what level of D do you shoot for? I thought it was pretty widely accepted now that 40 ng/ml might be optimal for most.

[smithx]

If you do get a heart scan, look for an imaging lab which has an electron beam CT machine. They are rare, but they're much better at imaging the heart and have much lower radiation than a normal CT scan.



Credit: http://www.heartscan.com/ which provides such services in the San Francisco Bay Area.

In fact, normal CT scans are such high radiation that they significantly increase your chance of getting cancer, so they're not recommended unless really necessary. I actually wouldn't get this one either unless I felt I was really at risk.

[fed_machine]

3000 IU/day is a lot of D, considering that your level only rose by 7ng/ml. Was it a dry formulation? They can have absorption problems if they aren't taken with a lot of fat. In this case, it's good that your levels didn't get super high, if you're concerned about calcification. I would use 45-90 mcg/day of K2-MK7, and/or around a milligram of K2-MK4. If your diet is good, you probably get enough calcium as well as a reasonable amount of K1. I would supplement enough D to get to 30ng/ml. The amount you'll need is variable, depending on formulation, what you take it with, sun exposure and genetics.

You could get a heart scan with a calcium score, if you were really concerned, to see if your coronary arteries are calcified. You probably don't need that unless you have a lot of CVD risk factors. William Davis' heartscan / track your plaque blog talks a lot about how to slow or reverse calcification. It can be done, but it's not necessarily easy.

You could see calcification without supplemental calcium, as it's pretty easy to get from diet. You can even see it without supplemental D.

Thanks niner for your informative post, I really appreciate it. To clarify:

1) I used a Vit D3 spray formulated with coconut oil that is sprayed under your tongue. It is "supposed" to be absorbed better. I used that spray for 9 months and since March, I've been taking 3000 IU as 3 pills of Vit D3 of Nordic Naturals brand.
2) I couldn't tell from the studies I read but is high intake of D3 or high levels of serum D3 correlated with calcification? My level never went too high.
3) I do have a family history of coronary artery disease. My dad has stents for cholesterol-based plaque. However, I'm 32 year-old male, so I'm not sure if my doctor would order the heart scan. Plus my Calcium intake is low. I don't take dairy or Calcium fortified foods. I do eat quite a bit of vegetables, especially green-leafy kinds like spinach, that have Calcium. I my diet is generally low-carb, high fat, decent amount of protein, not a lot red meat.
4) I see that a lot of Vit K2 supplements have dosages like 100 mcg MK7, 1000 mcg MK4. Are there some studies behind this common dose? I'd probably take K2 just 2-3 times a week, just to be conservative. How about if I just eat Natto for MK7 and stay away from the supplements?
5) Would you still recommend D3 along with K2? If so, what is a safe D3 dose to go with 100 mcg of MK7?

I have thrown a lot of questions at you and I thank you in advance. I am just a little overwhelmed with this topic and I'm not sure how to detect/reverse any calcification damage I may have done to myself.

[smithx]

Current opinion varies as to the optimum level of vitamin D in the blood. 30ng/ml is probably the lowest level which may be optimum, but 40ng to 50ng/ml may be the level required to remove existing calcification from the arteries.

The only way to tell how much vitamin D you should be taking is to get your blood levels tested, since there are genetic variations which cause reduced or increased absorption. At least one baseline test is needed, followed by a dosage which seems appropriate, followed by a re-testing a couple of months later, followed by an adjustment of the dose, if appropriate, followed by a re-testing.

Vitamin D doses up to 10,000IU per day are believed to be safe, however going above 50ng/ml may not be optimum, and there is evidence that above about 85ng/ml there may be issues connected with increased arrhythmias in some people.

Vitamin K is what stimulates the osteoblasts to take calcium out of the blood and put it into the bones. K2 MK4 is the most common naturally occurring active form and the form for which there have been the most studies. It's not clear what the optimum dosage is for people who may have calcification, but the Japanese government a number of years ago approved a dose of 45mg (not mcg) per day for women who have osteoporosis, which implies that doses up to that level are probably safe.

[niner]

1) I used a Vit D3 spray formulated with coconut oil that is sprayed under your tongue. It is "supposed" to be absorbed better. I used that spray for 9 months and since March, I've been taking 3000 IU as 3 pills of Vit D3 of Nordic Naturals brand.
2) I couldn't tell from the studies I read but is high intake of D3 or high levels of serum D3 correlated with calcification? My level never went too high.
3) I do have a family history of coronary artery disease. My dad has stents for cholesterol-based plaque. However, I'm 32 year-old male, so I'm not sure if my doctor would order the heart scan. Plus my Calcium intake is low. I don't take dairy or Calcium fortified foods. I do eat quite a bit of vegetables, especially green-leafy kinds like spinach, that have Calcium. I my diet is generally low-carb, high fat, decent amount of protein, not a lot red meat.
4) I see that a lot of Vit K2 supplements have dosages like 100 mcg MK7, 1000 mcg MK4. Are there some studies behind this common dose? I'd probably take K2 just 2-3 times a week, just to be conservative. How about if I just eat Natto for MK7 and stay away from the supplements?
5) Would you still recommend D3 along with K2? If so, what is a safe D3 dose to go with 100 mcg of MK7? I have thrown a lot of questions at you and I thank you in advance. I am just a little overwhelmed with this topic and I'm not sure how to detect/reverse any calcification damage I may have done to myself.

The sublingual spray is a new one on me. I would just take a small softgel of whatever dose you need. I'm assuming that Nordic Naturals doesn't make a dry formulation, and that those were oil-based softgels. If so, you seem to need a lot of D to move your blood levels.

I would think that only the blood levels matter, rather than the dose. I'm not sure where the rest of it went- if it was metabolized and/or excreted, that would be great. Otherwise, I don't know where it ends up.

Sounds like a pretty good diet. I think that red meat is overly vilified. There are reasons to believe that it's better for you than chicken, and it is certainly better than any form of processed meat. I'm not in favor of excess meat consumption, however.

The RDI for vitamin K, without any specification for the form, is 120 mcg/d for adult males. MK7 has a much longer half life than MK4. It would be hard to know how much you get from natto, and I understand that it tastes kind of gross, but I've never tried it. I would take one of those 100/1000 supplements. If you eat a lot of full-fat dairy, you might already get enough MK4.

As for D3 dose, smithx has described the best approach. If you wanted to wing it without testing, I'd take 1000 IU. If you test, then 30-50 ng/ml is a good range. You might want to be on the higher end of that, given a family history of CVD. I have a family history of prostate cancer, so I want to be on the low end.

the Japanese government a number of years ago approved a dose of 45mg (not mcg) per day for women who have osteoporosis, which implies that doses up to that level are probably safe.

I'd be cautious with pharmacologic doses. A better way to look at the safety of that dose is that it's less risky than being osteoporotic.

[smithx]

As for D3 dose, smithx has described the best approach. If you wanted to wing it without testing, I'd take 1000 IU. If you test, then 30-50 ng/ml is a good range. You might want to be on the higher end of that, given a family history of CVD. I have a family history of prostate cancer, so I want to be on the low end.

The "wing it" dose I've seen mentioned most often recently is 2000IU. From my testing, 5000IU is the minimum I need, and I am temporarily taking 10000IU a day until I get over 40ng/ml.

the Japanese government a number of years ago approved a dose of 45mg (not mcg) per day for women who have osteoporosis, which implies that doses up to that level are probably safe.

I'd be cautious with pharmacologic doses. A better way to look at the safety of that dose is that it's less risky than being osteoporotic.

That's why I take 15mg/d or every other day instead of 45mg. Do you have any reason to believe that dose could be harmful?

[balance]

I recall in those studies at 45MG per day there were some side effects like nausea and and headaches.

[niner]

As for D3 dose, smithx has described the best approach. If you wanted to wing it without testing, I'd take 1000 IU. If you test, then 30-50 ng/ml is a good range. You might want to be on the higher end of that, given a family history of CVD. I have a family history of prostate cancer, so I want to be on the low end.

The "wing it" dose I've seen mentioned most often recently is 2000IU. From my testing, 5000IU is the minimum I need, and I am temporarily taking 10000IU a day until I get over 40ng/ml.

2000IU would be great for some people, but harmful for some people. It would be harmful for people with lower vitamin D requirements due to genetically more efficient use of supplemental D, or to people who got a lot of sun, or people with inadequate vitamin K levels, or people at higher risk of prostate cancer. I would want a "wing it" level to be unlikely to harm the vast majority of people. The IOM, using similar reasoning, sets it even lower.

That's why I take 15mg/d or every other day instead of 45mg. Do you have any reason to believe that dose could be harmful?

I don't have any data on it, but I'm generally suspicious of doses that substantially exceed the levels we've been exposed to during our evolutionary history. The side effects piet3r mentions are indicative of possible dangers.

[nameless]

----
I would use 45-90 mcg/day of K2-MK7, and/or around a milligram of K2-MK4.
----

I don't have any data on it, but I'm generally suspicious of doses that substantially exceed the levels we've been exposed to during our evolutionary history. The side effects piet3r mentions are indicative of possible dangers.

Agree with that too, but wouldn't the 1mg you recommended earlier also substantially exceed those levels too? Dietary levels are something like <80 mcg MK4 (on the high end), aren't they? Even if we give some leeway,and say 200-400mcg/daily, wouldn't 1 mg still be too much?

Edited by nameless, 19 August 2012 - 05:32 PM.

[niner]

----
I would use 45-90 mcg/day of K2-MK7, and/or around a milligram of K2-MK4.
----

I don't have any data on it, but I'm generally suspicious of doses that substantially exceed the levels we've been exposed to during our evolutionary history. The side effects piet3r mentions are indicative of possible dangers.

Agree with that too, but wouldn't the 1mg you recommended earlier also substantially exceed those levels too? Dietary levels are something like <80 mcg MK4 (on the high end), aren't they? Even if we give some leeway,and say 200-400mcg/daily, wouldn't 1 mg still be too much?

Yes, technically it would be too much by that standard. It's not as extreme a megadose as 45mg, though. It's a little hard to find doses that low that are also in an oil-based formulation. Thorne has a liquid form that has D3 in the ratio 1000 IU D3 : 200 mcg K2-MK4. That's not too bad.

[nameless]

Yes, technically it would be too much by that standard. It's not as extreme a megadose as 45mg, though. It's a little hard to find doses that low that are also in an oil-based formulation. Thorne has a liquid form that has D3 in the ratio 1000 IU D3 : 200 mcg K2-MK4. That's not too bad.

That Thorne one is probably what I'll try next. Just waiting until the Fall... although it shouldn't be heat sensitive really, I feel better if it hasn't been sitting in super hot UPS trucks/warehouse for a week.

I was thinking of just using 1, maybe 2, drops, and for extra D, just take that separately. Downside is, it'll expire before I get to use it all up, but at least it's not that expensive.

[smithx]

I don't have any data on it, but I'm generally suspicious of doses that substantially exceed the levels we've been exposed to during our evolutionary history. The side effects piet3r mentions are indicative of possible dangers.

That generally makes sense, however neither our diets nor our activity levels (for most people) match what we've been exposed to during our evolutionary history either.

So one could argue that unless EVERYTHING is put back to the way it was, some changes or overcompensation in some areas may be useful for helping to fix the issues produced by differences in other areas.

[TheFountain]

Does anyone know if K2 from Natto can contain soy residue that may be enough to effect the hormones? Or is the extraction process complete enough to preclude this possibility?

[Luminosity]

I took Futurebiotics Triple Play Vitamin K. It has different kinds of vitamin K. It seemed O.K. to me. I took it along with Spectrum Naturals vitamin D3 and a meal with fat in it. I took it for about two months. My vision seem a little sharper. This is from the label:

Vitamin K Triple Play from Futurebiotics is a full spectrum complex with vitamin K-1 and two forms of vitamin K-2. Structurally similar, vitamin K is a set of fat-soluble vitamins that includes two vitamins: vitamin K-1 and vitamin K-2. While both are beneficial to the body, vitamin K-2 remains biologically active in the body longer than vitamin K-1. Vitamin K Triple Play is designed to deliver the benefits of both vitamin K-1 and vitamin K-2. It also supplies two different forms of vitamin K-2: menatetrenone-4 (MK-4) and menaquinone-7 (MK-7). Contains no added yeast, salt, soy, wheat, gluten, dairy, artificial colors or preservatives.

I believe that this vitamin was pure and assimilable. It was a gel cap that was carefully formulated. Before that I took Swanson's brand of vitamin K that had titanium dioxide and made my eyes feel funny. I never did remember to take vitamin K with stuff with minerals in it that irritated me, like mineral water that made we wake up with joint pain. Maybe it would have directed my body to utilize the minerals instead of placing them in the wrong place.

About the time I was on the vitamin K, I also started eating black (forbidden) rice. It had kind of the same effect on my eyes, making my vision clearer. It made me feel cleaner somehow.

[hav]

After reading through this thread I've started taking LE Super K about 2 weeks ago (1 mg K1, 1 mg K2-MK4, 100 mcg K2-MK7). I'm mostly after the cardiovascular benefits including prevention of calcium plaque buildups. Started with 1 a day for the 1st 5 days then went to twice a week. Fwiw, I noticed a near immediate sense that my teeth felt cleaner and think it's worth it if only for that effect alone.

My wife on the other hand is osteoporotic. She's been on Alendronate once a week for about 5 years now and in the last few years has been adding around 2,000 IU of D3 daily and has shown a slight improvement in the density tests she gets every 2 years. She decided to try the same Super K schedule as I but adds Ultra K2 made by Complementary Prescriptions (15 mg K2-MK4) 5 times a week (on days she's not taking Super K). Found the Ultra K2 on Amazon, btw. She's due for another bone density test in about a year and is hoping for better results. Anyone have any thoughts about taking K2 together with Alendronate (Fosamax)?

Howard

[Luminosity]

JESUS CHRIST, DON'T TAKE FOSAMAX.

Taking phosphorus-based bone medicines makes your bones look better temporarily by pulling material out of the bones towards the surface, which makes the tests look better. Over time the bones are depleted and degraded by this process.

Look up a disease called Phossy Jaw or Fossy Jaw caused by occupational exposure to phosphorus in the past. It's not pretty. A lesser version of that will happen to your wife.

I don't have time to write more about how to deal with osteoporosis/bone regeneration naturally at the moment but maybe you can google my posts here and find related posts I've written before.