Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Vitamin K2: MK-4 versus MK-7


  • Please log in to reply
339 replies to this topic

#301 hav

  • Member
  • 942 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Cape Cod
  • no

Posted 10 September 2012 - 04:58 AM

Thanks, Luminosity. I saw your prior posts, I've already suggested to my wife that she ask her doctor about the possibility of prescribing something other than a bisphosphonate. Maybe teriparatide. But I was really looking here for thoughts on whether the K2 might have any possible negative interactions with Alendronate or possibly make matters worse in any way. I noticed that most of the osteoperosis K2 research involves MK4 at 45 mg dosages but none involved supplementing concurrently with Alendronate. The best outcome would be that adding K2 would show enough improvement in her next bone density test that it would encourage her doctor to drop prescription medication.

Howard

#302 niner

  • Member, Moderator
  • 14,618 posts
  • 3,546
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 11 September 2012 - 03:18 AM

I've already suggested to my wife that she ask her doctor about the possibility of prescribing something other than a bisphosphonate. Maybe teriparatide. But I was really looking here for thoughts on whether the K2 might have any possible negative interactions with Alendronate or possibly make matters worse in any way. I noticed that most of the osteoperosis K2 research involves MK4 at 45 mg dosages but none involved supplementing concurrently with Alendronate. The best outcome would be that adding K2 would show enough improvement in her next bone density test that it would encourage her doctor to drop prescription medication.


I've taken Risedronate (Actonel) for years after discovering that I was osteopenic. At the same time, I've mined the supplement pharmacopeia for things that would support bone health. I've taken K2 and other bone supplements for the entire time I've been on Actonel. Because of a concern over suppression of bone remodeling, I've chosen to cycle the Actonel. I've been in an off cycle for about nine months, and will start again sometime soon. I'd like to get a BMD measurement before I restart, but my insurance company will probably barf on that since I had one about a year ago.

My experience with Actonel has been great. No side effects at all. I think that the Internet Paranoia over osteonecrosis of the jaw is way overblown. It occurs almost exclusively in people who get high dose bisphosphonates i.v. for cancer therapy. The occurrence in people taking it for bone health is 1 in 100,000 patient-years, and nearly all of those are associated with invasive dental work or other bone trauma. Before being frightened away from bisphosphonates, I would take a look at the consequences of vertebral fracture: A lifetime of pain, with no good fixes. I'll take my chances with the Actonel, thanks.

Finally, have you heard the reports of significant life extension from Risedronate? This is over and above the life extension due to suppression of fractures.
  • like x 2

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#303 hav

  • Member
  • 942 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Cape Cod
  • no

Posted 11 September 2012 - 03:41 AM

Thanks so much, niner. The lit on risedronate indicates it might be a little easier going down than alendronate. I'll relate your time-out cycling which sounds like a great idea, particularly if any major dental is happening.

Howard

#304 Kevnzworld

  • Registered User
  • 762 posts
  • 254
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 14 September 2012 - 06:59 AM

The vultures, opportunists and lawyers ( all one in the same )..circle, and descend....
I don't know whether or not TA-65 extends telomeres or life. I don't know whether or not it can promote cancer after long term use.
I do believe that this ex employee that contracted prostate cancer after a year of supposed use, is full of shit. I hope this class action lawsuit fails...we all are in danger f it doesn't .

#305 Luminosity

  • Member
  • 1,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 16 September 2012 - 05:05 AM

HAV

I'm glad you saw my other posts. I'm not sure what teriparatides are but they could be just as bad as the phosphate-based medicines. I would advise a natural approach to bone regeneration. There's a pretty good chance your wife's doctor will want her to take medication that is harmful because that's all they know.

I won't keep harping on this, I just felt that I had to say this.

Edited by Luminosity, 16 September 2012 - 05:09 AM.


#306 Matt79

  • Registered User
  • 164 posts
  • 75
  • Location:Bay Area, CA

Posted 30 September 2012 - 01:59 PM

So much conflicting opinion.

Would be useful to hear what supplements people are taking with regards to K1 and K2?

I have RA, and hear MK4 was meant to good for that, but am wondering if these combo (K1, MK4, MK7) products are the way to go instead.

#307 Matt79

  • Registered User
  • 164 posts
  • 75
  • Location:Bay Area, CA

Posted 30 September 2012 - 03:23 PM

So, I decided to go with Carlson MK4 5mg.

Had a bunch of reasons, and started typing them out. But to refine them with enough precision to be satisfactorily defensible in what seems like a contentious issue, seemed too much effort. So instead it's my opinion after many hours of analysis is that MK4 alone is beneficial, and at that dose and presents no obvious risks. I want to make it quite clear, it's simply an opinion and based of the available evidence currently, which is rather minimal and hence could be updated in the light of new studies.

However it may be worth noting,
(Humans are bad at factoring risks of non-action) eg, the risk of NOT supplementing at all due to fears of over supplementing or overestimating the risk of the unknown. (eg lack of an empirical study at a given dosage)

On a side note, I recommend the excellent Ted Talk by Bruce Schneier on security, that expands on this. [http://www.ted.com/t...e_schneier.html]

Now I definitely don't want to give the impression we should just optimistically start popping any old pill, in fact the opposite, we should be conservative, but yet still take action. There seems to be a growing body of evidence that suggest the K2 is analogous in some respects to D3, with regards to it's structural importance in human nutrition.

"In an extensive review in 1995, Suttie (4) concluded that gut menaquinones do contribute to human nutrition but to a degree that is less important than previously thought. In the intervening years there has been little or no evidence to contradict this conclusion and in several human studies the importance of the diet as the major source of functionally available vitamin K has been reinforced" (Metabolism and cell biology of vitamin K. Shearer MJ et al. Thromb Haemost. (2008))


Edited by Matt79, 30 September 2012 - 03:36 PM.


#308 nowayout

  • Registered User
  • 2,548 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Earth

Posted 02 February 2013 - 10:16 PM

My local hospitals laboratory, and all labs in Norway, say 40 to 50 is the normal for HCT for men. I was always at 50, or a bit less, never above. Only after I started TESTOSTERONE TREATMENT, my HCT went up til 60 about 2 months aog. Had to quit the gel. HCT went back to 49-50. Now I've started taking Testosterone aain and HCT is back up, though only at 53 thus far.


If you want to continue having the benefits of TRT, you can control HCT via therapeutic phlebotomy or by donating blood.

#309 shifter

  • Registered User
  • 487 posts
  • 22

Posted 04 February 2013 - 02:48 AM

I really don't see this as an either/or supplement. I find the argument (and indeed some flame wars) to be quite ridiculous.

I take 5mg of the Carlson MK-4 and also 90mcg of Jarrow MK-7. per day (some days I might skip the MK-7 due to it's longer life in the body anyway).


I don't see how taking both forms could be detrimental or 'cancel each other out' resulting in nothing but a waste of money.








So, I decided to go with Carlson MK4 5mg.

Had a bunch of reasons, and started typing them out. But to refine them with enough precision to be satisfactorily defensible in what seems like a contentious issue, seemed too much effort. So instead it's my opinion after many hours of analysis is that MK4 alone is beneficial, and at that dose and presents no obvious risks. I want to make it quite clear, it's simply an opinion and based of the available evidence currently, which is rather minimal and hence could be updated in the light of new studies.

However it may be worth noting,
(Humans are bad at factoring risks of non-action) eg, the risk of NOT supplementing at all due to fears of over supplementing or overestimating the risk of the unknown. (eg lack of an empirical study at a given dosage)

On a side note, I recommend the excellent Ted Talk by Bruce Schneier on security, that expands on this. [http://www.ted.com/t...e_schneier.html]

Now I definitely don't want to give the impression we should just optimistically start popping any old pill, in fact the opposite, we should be conservative, but yet still take action. There seems to be a growing body of evidence that suggest the K2 is analogous in some respects to D3, with regards to it's structural importance in human nutrition.

"In an extensive review in 1995, Suttie (4) concluded that gut menaquinones do contribute to human nutrition but to a degree that is less important than previously thought. In the intervening years there has been little or no evidence to contradict this conclusion and in several human studies the importance of the diet as the major source of functionally available vitamin K has been reinforced" (Metabolism and cell biology of vitamin K. Shearer MJ et al. Thromb Haemost. (2008))



#310 DorianGrey

  • Registered User
  • 149 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Canada

Posted 04 July 2013 - 08:32 PM

I just read most of "Vitamin K2 And the Calcium Paradox" by Kate Rheaume-Bleue, she must be Canadian one can tell from some parts of the book.
Bottomline: K2 works synergistically with Vitamin A (often beta-Carotene is labelled as Vitamin A on food, but the conversion isn't 1:1, can be as low as 1:48) and also Vitamin D3. Another important aspect is that even with a healthy diet it's hard to get at the 45mcg/day that is seen like an RDI, most people seem to have a subclinical deficit. Hard cheese like gouda and eggs aren't bad, and fermented food like Natto is really rich in K2 but disgusting. Only grass-fed beef or milk/butter can boost K2 a bit.

She describes the difference between K1 and K2, addresses also the difference MK-7 to MK-4 and some other rare forms. Very interesting is the part why calcium supplementation without K2 is even dangerous. K2 as MK-7 has low (almost no toxicity). She also busts some myths on Vitamin D3 and vitamin A high-dose toxicity.

The book is very well written and keeps a good balance between science and just educating the reader at an appropriate level. You don't have to read all chapters to extract the key take-aways. I have to admit that I didn't verify all the papers that are referenced in the book but if only half of the statements in the book are true this is probably the most important supplement, along with Vitamin D3.

I will start 100mcg MK-7 daily.There are a multitude of benefits, artherosclerosis and osteoporosis prevention, along with that comes heart health and dental health, it's one huge bucket. Anyone that wants to expand health span should read about K2 (MK-7 is the easiest to supplement, but you can try diet or MK-4).

Edited by DorianGrey, 04 July 2013 - 08:34 PM.

  • like x 1

#311 Blankspace

  • Registered User
  • 43 posts
  • 14
  • Location:®

Posted 04 July 2013 - 11:10 PM

I'm not sure if this has already been posted, but according to this report MK-7 raises MK-4 levels better than MK-4 itself:

"Because all vitamin K homologues can be converted to MK-4 in vivo, MK-4 is considered to have specific functions other than γ-carboxylation of vitamin K-dependent proteins. However, in a previous rat study from our group, the intake of a nutritional dose of MK-4 did not increase the MK-4 levels in extrahepatic tissues, whereas MK-7 significantly increased MK-4 in extrahepatic tissues. Thus, MK-7 is a better supplier for MK-4 in vivo than MK-4 itself."
http://www.nutrition...content/11/1/93
PMID: 23140417
  • like x 1

#312 DorianGrey

  • Registered User
  • 149 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Canada

Posted 05 July 2013 - 05:16 PM

@Blankspace: I recall rats are not a good model for the human body in this case, there are differences in the PK/PD. The supplementation of MK-7 is about 100mcg/day, MK-4 is 5mg/day, so converting the tiny amount of MK-7 (has a long half-life) into MK-4 with its short half-life wouldn't help. But as I said, rats are not tiny men.

#313 joelcairo

  • Registered User
  • 239 posts
  • 101
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • no

Posted 05 July 2013 - 08:39 PM

The study posted was in healthy women. But I believe they did test equal doses of MK-4 and MK-7 to arrive at their conclusion, so that may be a valid point.

#314 hav

  • Member
  • 942 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Cape Cod
  • no

Posted 05 July 2013 - 08:43 PM

Just got my wife's bone density results and she asked me to get some feedback from you folks. By way of background, she was diagnosed with low bone density about 5 years ago, didn't get the exact numbers, but has taken bisphosphonates since then until Sept 2012. At that time she cycled off the medication for 3 months and began D3, K2, Magnesium, and Boron supplementing which continues to the present. The results of her March 2013 Hologic DXA scan are as follows:

Spine at L1, L2, L3: .860 g/cm2; T-score: -1.4 SD or 84% of young-normal controls and 100% of age-matched (60 year old) controls.
Left Hip: .631 g/cm2; T-score: -2.0 SD or 74% of young-normal controls and 90% of age-matched controls.
Left forearm 1/3 radius: .649 g/cm2; T-score: -0.8 SD of young-normal controls and 106% of age-matched controls.

The lab recommendation was to continue bisphosphonates and test again in 2 years. My impression was numbers for the hip are the only real trouble area but I don't really have any basis of comparison.

... Because of a concern over suppression of bone remodeling, I've chosen to cycle the Actonel. I've been in an off cycle for about nine months, and will start again sometime soon. ...


Also wondering if you think a bisphosphonates time-out period of 3 months might be sufficient to allow some bone remodeling. For K2, my wife has been taking one LEF Super K per day (K1: 1mg, K2-mk4: 1mg, K2-mk7: 200 mcg) plus 1 CP Medical Ultra K2 (K2-mk4: 15 mg) twice a day.

We've also been kicking around the use of icariin (aka epimedium or horny goat weed) based on this study:

Icariin Protects Against Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis In Vitro and Prevents Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteocyte Apoptosis In Vivo.

A total of 48 female Sprague-Dawley rats were used. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis was induced by daily injections of dexamethasone (0.1 mg/kg, daily, s.c.) for 60 days, whereas sham animals were injected daily with vehicle. At the end of the osteoporosis development period, osteoporotic rats were randomized to receive: vehicle (n = 8), Icariin (5,125 mg/kg, i.g.; n = 8), or alendronate (0.03 mg/kg, s.c.; n = 8) for 12 weeks. Sham animals were treated with vehicle for 12 weeks. At the beginning and at the end of treatments, animals were examined for bone mineral density. Serum bone-alkaline phosphatase and carboxy-terminal collagen cross links were measured. Primary osteocytes were isolated, and apoptosis was determined by trypan-blue assay. Interaction between Icariin and estrogen receptor and prosurvival signaling pathways activated by Icariin were also investigated. Icariin showed a comparable efficacy with alendronate in increasing bone mass. Icariin significantly increased bone-alkaline phosphatase (bone formation marker) and reduced carboxy-terminal collagen cross links (bone resorption marker). In vitro studies demonstrated that Icariin significantly prevented GC-induced apoptosis in osteocytes by activating ERK signaling via estrogen receptor. Our results suggest that Icariin might exert osteoprotective effect by maintaining osteocyte viability, thereby, regulating bone remodeling.


The only issue my wife has with trying Icariin for bone health is that she takes an anti-depressant called Bupropion which may be incompatible with Icariin which apparently has some mao effects.

Howard

Edited by hav, 05 July 2013 - 08:50 PM.


#315 Kevnzworld

  • Registered User
  • 762 posts
  • 254
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 05 July 2013 - 10:55 PM

Howard :
How has your wife's bone scan numbers changed since you began supplementation? I know the numbers would be skewed by the bisphosphonates.
I know of some people that have supplemented successfully with strontium .
" Strontium ranelate Divalent strontium ions have the capacity to substitute for calcium within bone without adversely affecting mineralization.92 Strontium ranelate (Protelos®) increases BMD and reduces the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures.93–95 The protective effect of strontium ranelate results from an uncoupling of bone formation from resorption, thereby increasing functional osteoblasts whilst simultaneously decreasing osteoclasts.96 The mechanism by which strontium has these concomitant effects is thought to involve, at least in part, the calcium sensing receptor (CaSR) (Figure 3), the receptor responsible for mediating cellular responses to extracellular calcium ions.97–99 However, there is also evidence for CaSR independent pathways.98,100"

The same article addresses the topic of a bisphosphonate holiday.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3686324/
  • like x 1

#316 Luminosity

  • Member
  • 1,925 posts
  • 147
  • Location:Gaia

Posted 07 July 2013 - 05:45 AM

I would not take prescription drugs for bone regeneration. Supplements, exercise, diet, lifestyle and Chinese medicine are better. Phosphate-based supplements actually destroy bone in the long run. Often the jaw is the first to go. Look up Fossy or Phossy jaw, an industrial disease from the past when people worked with phosphorus in factories. Their bones dissolved beginning with their jaws. You can Google for my posts on this subject on this forum if you are interested.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#317 hav

  • Member
  • 942 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Cape Cod
  • no

Posted 07 July 2013 - 02:18 PM

Howard :
How has your wife's bone scan numbers changed since you began supplementation? I know the numbers would be skewed by the bisphosphonates.
I know of some people that have supplemented successfully with strontium .
" Strontium ranelate Divalent strontium ions have the capacity to substitute for calcium within bone without adversely affecting mineralization.92 Strontium ranelate (Protelos®) increases BMD and reduces the risk of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures.93–95 The protective effect of strontium ranelate results from an uncoupling of bone formation from resorption, thereby increasing functional osteoblasts whilst simultaneously decreasing osteoclasts.96 The mechanism by which strontium has these concomitant effects is thought to involve, at least in part, the calcium sensing receptor (CaSR) (Figure 3), the receptor responsible for mediating cellular responses to extracellular calcium ions.97–99 However, there is also evidence for CaSR independent pathways.98,100"

The same article addresses the topic of a bisphosphonate holiday.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3686324/


Thanks so for that. It was very informative. Based on its indication that bone remodeling takes 4 to 6 months to complete, a 3-month Alendronate time-out was probably a little on the short side. I also noticed another paper that the article linked pointed out that the positive effects of bisphosphonates take over 2 years to wear off and suggested that a reasonable upper holiday limit to might be 1 to 2 years maximum.

Unfortunately, we don't have good before-numbers. My wife never got the actual report of her test 5 to 6 years ago. She recalls that it was done at a clinic in the Midwest with a portable peripheral unit resembling a boot that only tested her ankle. Maybe that was typical for the day. The DXA tests she recently got seem much better and if repeated in 2 years should be very informative on the supplementation recently started. Right now she's considering doing another 6-month Alendronate time-out right before her next test.

Strontium ranelate sounds interesting but seems to only be suggested, even in the EU were approved, for those having problems with bisphosphonates. But my wife seems to be tolerating Alendronate well enough.

I wish there was more research on Icariin. The limited current research found it to be just as effective as Alendronate. Unfortunately however, there is no Icariin research on comparable incidence of bisphosphonate side effects like inhibition of bone remodeling or possible osteonecrosis of the jaw. If Icariin doesn't have side effects like those it could be a good herbal alternative to bisphosphonates. Not sure my wife is willing to try it though because of its possible conflict with Bupropion. I've suggested she consider discontinuing Bupropion temporarily and trying Icariin for a month but she'll only do that if her doctor approves... she may need to find a more open-minded physician first.

Howard

#318 hav

  • Member
  • 942 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Cape Cod
  • no

Posted 07 July 2013 - 03:18 PM

I would not take prescription drugs for bone regeneration. Supplements, exercise, diet, lifestyle and Chinese medicine are better. Phosphate-based supplements actually destroy bone in the long run. Often the jaw is the first to go. Look up Fossy or Phossy jaw, an industrial disease from the past when people worked with phosphorus in factories. Their bones dissolved beginning with their jaws. You can Google for my posts on this subject on this forum if you are interested.


Thanks, Luminosity. I did in fact do some digging on that and found this very informative recent report in Pubmed:

Oral Bisphosphonate Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw: A Challenging Adverse Effect

The pathogenesis of BRONJ has not been well determined. Several risk factors such as dentoalveolar surgery, therapy duration, and concomitant steroid usage have been linked to BRONJ. Conservative and surgical methods can be preferred in the treatment. Preventative measures are of great importance for the patients at high risk.


If you have a multitude of the risk factors cited, caution in using bisphosphonates seems well founded:

5. Risk Factors

There are several risk factors for BRONJ that are categorized by AAOMS as follows.

5.1. Drug Related Risk Factors

(a) Bisphosphonate Potency. Since intravenous administration leads to a higher drug exposure than the oral route, osteonecrosis related to oral bisphosphonate therapy is less common...
(b) Duration of Therapy. As oral bisphosphonates are less bio-available than intravenous formulations, they are used for long terms. Longer duration (for more than two years) has been associated with an increased risk of oral BRONJ.

5.2. Local Risk Factors

Dentoalveolar surgical procedures such as teeth extractions, periapical surgery, dental implant placement, and periodontal surgery involving osseous injury, as well as concomitant oral disease and poor oral hygiene, are risk factors for BRONJ. Additionally, as bisphosphonates have been shown to inhibit the proliferation of keratinocytes in the oral mucosa, injury of the oral mucosa due to the poorly fitting removable dental prostheses may increase the risk of BRONJ in bisphosphonate users. BRONJ due to oral bisphosphonates may occur spontaneously or more commonly after a trauma to the bone. When there is increased necessity for bone repair following a trauma, the inhibition of remodeling due to bisphosphonate therapy makes the bone vulnerable to necrosis... Local anatomy also plays a part in the development of BRONJ. Lesions are more frequent in the mandible than maxilla and more common in bony prominences with thin mucosa.

5.3. Demographic and Systemic Factors

Increased age (older than 65 years) was found to be a risk factor for BRONJ. Additionally, oral BRONJ is more common in women than men. For instance, all of the participants of a study about oral BRONJ were women. This is not an unexpected finding, since osteoporosis—particularly the postmenopausal type—is the primary indication for oral bisphosphonates. Some systemic factors such as renal dialysis, low hemoglobin, obesity, immunosuppression, rheumatoid arthritis, smoking, and diabetes were reported to increase the risk for BRONJ... Additionally, prednisone and methotrexate used in autoimmune diseases are associated with an additional inhibition of remodeling in oral bisphosphonate cases.

5.4. Genetic Factors

Single nucleotide polymorphisms in the cytochrome P450-2C gene and IGF 1 genes may play part in the pathogenesis of BRONJ...


In my wife's instance, her only risk factors are post-menopausal status and duration of treatment. I'm not sure of the genetic factors but there has never been an incident of bone necrosis in her family.

The article does cite preventative measures that might mitigate risk factors:

Prevention strategies aim to lower the risk of BRONJ. Since the risk of oral BRONJ appears to rise in treatment periods longer than 3 years, reduction this period may be helpful in patients with comorbidities such as chronic corticosteroid use. A patient with poor dental health before starting on oral bisphosphonates should be examined by a dentist in order to optimize the oral hygiene. In case of any oral surgical treatment, strategy should be based on the duration of bisphosphonate therapy, as well as concomitant drug use. No adjustment or interruption in the premeditated oral surgery is necessary for patients who have been on oral bisphosphonates for less than 3 years and have no clinical risk factors. There is also no need to evaluate the bone turnover marker levels such as serum CTX. However, patients who underwent dental implant placement procedures should be followed up regularly. Utilizing CTX along with a drug holiday or altering the dosing can also be considered. If concomitant use of steroids is present in a patient receiving oral bisphosphonates for less than 3 years whose systemic condition persist, drug holiday for at least 3 months prior to oral surgery is recommended

Although CTX is not an ultimate predictor of BRONJ, it might be useful regarding the estimation of risk prior to a surgical procedure. Deferring the planned surgery and having a drug holiday are recommended by Marx et al. if the CTX value is less than 150Posted Imagepg/mL. However, when CTX level is 150Posted Imagepg/mL or higher, it is suggested that the patients can undergo invasive oral surgery with a minimum risk of osteonecrosis...

Following the surgery, bisphosphonates should not be prescribed till bony healing. Similarly, in cases who have been receiving oral bisphosphonate therapy for more than 3 years with or without any simultaneous prednisone or other steroid drugs, administration of oral bisphosphonates should be stopped 3 months prior to oral surgery, if systemic conditions permit... However Marx et al. do not limit oral surgery, if CTX is 150Posted Imagepg/mL or above. The bisphosphonate can be prescribed again when the osseous healing occurs. On the other hand, due to lack of evidence, stopping bisphosphonates prior to invasive dental procedures remains controversial.

In addition, the precise duration of pathological effects of bisphosphonates awaits to be elucidated as bone turnover markers remain suppressed for several years following discontinuation of bisphosphonate treatment. According to the American Dental Association, the decision of bisphosphonates' discontinuation should be based primarily upon the risk for skeletally related events such as fractures and secondary to low bone density, not the feasible risk of BRONJ. Additionally the use of serum CTX as a resorption marker is not endorsed by the American Dental Association.


I guess the number of one's risk factors should dictate the appropriate aggressiveness of preventative measures. In my wife's case, with minimal risk factors, I'd think scheduling a bisphosphonate holiday before scheduled dental surgury might be sufficient.

Interestingly, she did experience a recent bone fracture in her right forearm radius just below her wrist last October 31 after a slip and fall which was determined to be not BMD related... and it healed quite rapidly and well. Could be that the D3/K2/mineral supplementation scheme that she commenced a few months earlier helped.

Howard
  • like x 1

#319 DorianGrey

  • Registered User
  • 149 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Canada

Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:39 PM

@Howard: According to the book I've referred to previously: Biphosponate actually increases the risk of fractures. Alendronate can have those detrimental effects to the jaw as stated.

The K2 regimen looks good to me, already quite high and a mix of MK-7, MK-4, although personally I think MK-7 is good enough. Also, I am not sure that you really need any K1 supplements when you eat salad and have a normal diet.

Why is she only taking Magnesium and no Calcium at all? I don't think you need high dose Calcium, that only causes artherosclerosis, but a bit may help. It's usually part of any good multivit and when you take that, then you also get also some extra vitamin A which seems to help with D3/K2 supplementation in general. How much D3 are you supplementing?

#320 blood

  • Registered User
  • 871 posts
  • 242
  • Location:...

Posted 09 July 2013 - 01:07 PM

Icariin (5,125 mg/kg, i.g.; n = 8), or alendronate (0.03 mg/kg, s.c.; n = 8)


The icariin dose seems very high, doesn't it? What would be an appropriately scaled human dose?

Bonolive (proprietary olive leaf extract) seems to be a clinically proven herbal approach:
http://www.bonolive.com/science/
http://www.bonolive....0/MORE_INFO.pdf

Swanson's sells Bonolive in the US.

Edited by blood, 09 July 2013 - 01:15 PM.


#321 hav

  • Member
  • 942 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Cape Cod
  • no

Posted 09 July 2013 - 02:09 PM


Icariin (5,125 mg/kg, i.g.; n = 8), or alendronate (0.03 mg/kg, s.c.; n = 8)


The icariin dose seems very high, doesn't it? What would be an appropriately scaled human dose?

Bonolive (proprietary olive leaf extract) seems to be a clinically proven herbal approach:
http://www.bonolive.com/science/
http://www.bonolive....0/MORE_INFO.pdf

Swanson's sells Bonolive in the US.


I think that may be a typo in the abstract. I was able to coax up a preview of the full-text of page 1 and the section on methods indicates a dosage of 125 mg/kg daily. From this article on resveratrol dosages the adjustment from rats to humans is roughly around 1/6... I'm guessing its similar for NAC. Which is a bit higher than a human study on NAC I read a while back that used 600 mg/day split into 3 dosages.

The bonolive article makes me wonder if c60 dissolved in a high-polyphenol olive oil may have yet another benefit.

Howard

#322 DorianGrey

  • Registered User
  • 149 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Canada

Posted 09 July 2013 - 05:38 PM



Icariin (5,125 mg/kg, i.g.; n = 8), or alendronate (0.03 mg/kg, s.c.; n = 8)


The icariin dose seems very high, doesn't it? What would be an appropriately scaled human dose?

Bonolive (proprietary olive leaf extract) seems to be a clinically proven herbal approach:
http://www.bonolive.com/science/
http://www.bonolive....0/MORE_INFO.pdf

Swanson's sells Bonolive in the US.


I think that may be a typo in the abstract. I was able to coax up a preview of the full-text of page 1 and the section on methods indicates a dosage of 125 mg/kg daily. From this article on resveratrol dosages the adjustment from rats to humans is roughly around 1/6... I'm guessing its similar for NAC. Which is a bit higher than a human study on NAC I read a while back that used 600 mg/day split into 3 dosages.

The bonolive article makes me wonder if c60 dissolved in a high-polyphenol olive oil may have yet another benefit.

Howard

How do you identify high polyphenol olive oil? I only know these should have a bitter taste and OOs may even improve over their shelf-life in that regard. But most OOs don't have a lot information on the label and I think the difference cab be more than a magnitude.

There's a negative study in rats with olive leaf extracts, I recall liver or renal toxicity was a huge issue. At that point I decided against any herbal OLE supplementation for myself.

#323 hav

  • Member
  • 942 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Cape Cod
  • no

Posted 09 July 2013 - 06:57 PM

The particular compound mentioned on the bonolive site is oleuropein, which is a water soluble phenol found both in olive fruit and leaves. I got the impression they do a leaf extraction, probably with alcohol and water. In the oil, I imagine it would be predominately in suspension and be more prevalent in early harvest (green) unfiltered oil. Taste is bitter so that's an indicator too. Phenol content of olive oil also varies by olive type and region. I saw an interesting paper a few years ago (here) with regional analysis but the paper is not free anymore... wish I kept a copy of the full-text. My recollection is that that North African and Australian olive oils had the the highest phenol content but that paper didn't test California oils which I suspect are also pretty good in that department.

Howard

#324 hav

  • Member
  • 942 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Cape Cod
  • no

Posted 09 July 2013 - 07:34 PM

@Howard: According to the book I've referred to previously: Biphosponate actually increases the risk of fractures. ...


Didn't see that fact demonstrated in any of the studies I looked at. They all showed a reduced risk of fractures. Perhaps the book author only considered those users with a high risk of negative biphosponate reaction or finds any risk of negative reaction unacceptable.

... Why is she only taking Magnesium and no Calcium at all? I don't think you need high dose Calcium, that only causes artherosclerosis, but a bit may help. It's usually part of any good multivit and when you take that, then you also get also some extra vitamin A which seems to help with D3/K2 supplementation in general. How much D3 are you supplementing?


We both drink milk and have allot of yogurt in our diets so intake of calcium is probably not an issue. Right now we're both taking 2,000 iu of D3 in evoo softgels. During the winter we up it to 5,000. My wife hasn't been able to lay her hands on her own D25 OH test results yet but my levels came in at 37 ng/ml last Oct which I'm happy with.

Howard

#325 Markedjar

  • Registered User
  • 1 posts
  • 2
  • Location:sacramento
  • no

Posted 01 April 2014 - 11:26 PM

Hi!

The research on MK-4 is still very preliminary.

There are significant results with high doses of Mk-4, but these levels are not easily (if even possibly) obtained through diet. As far as bone density, MK-7 appears to be more affective at lower doses. The interesting thing, however, is that animals produce and use MK-4, which indicates that is important for health. There is still a low we don't know! My recommendation is to eat foods high in both. Personally, I supplement with a multivitamin that contains both kinds (called the Daily Multi Nutrient by Creation Based Health) and then try to eat foods that are high in all kinds of vitamin K2 (grass-fed dairy and fermented foods).

Best Regards!

Jared

Edited by Markedjar, 01 April 2014 - 11:33 PM.

  • dislike x 1

#326 timar

  • Registered User
  • 550 posts
  • 248
  • Location:Germany

Posted 02 April 2014 - 10:49 AM

Personally, I supplement with a multivitamin that contains both kinds (called the Daily Multi Nutrient by Creation Based Health)


Well, that formula actually doesn't look too bad, but: a supplement company basing its products on the concept of Creationism!?

Posted Image

Edited by timar, 02 April 2014 - 10:56 AM.

  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#327 mustardseed41

  • Registered User
  • 804 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 02 April 2014 - 03:07 PM

Yep it does look like a good multi. and priced well and the fact that it is based on the concept of Creationism is even a better reason to buy it. ;)
  • dislike x 3
  • like x 1

#328 timar

  • Registered User
  • 550 posts
  • 248
  • Location:Germany

Posted 02 April 2014 - 03:58 PM

Well, I have to say that I sort of like their website. It has a tasteful and restained design, quite the opposite of LEF & co. They don't make blue-sky claims regarding their products and they offer some sound advice on nutrition and lifestyle. I just don't get how rational people, who rely on the scientific method regarding nutrition, biochemistry and many other areas of life, can possibly buy into that Creationist BS. Why is it so hard for those folks to accept the empirical thruth about evolution? You can't swap between the scientific method and religious dogma as you fancy. You either accept the validity of the scientific method, in all areas of human inquiry, without exception, or you don't. For someone having a mature personality, intellectual integrity and some basic education there is no opposition between science and religion. Accepting the empirical reality as it is doesn't challenge your purpose in life, your moral values, nor your faith or believe in God. Just stick with the Greeks and keep physics and metaphysics separated. Can't be that hard, can it? Even the Catholic Church has no problems doing so (well, except for a little Miracle now and then).

Edited by timar, 02 April 2014 - 04:05 PM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#329 Dolph

  • Registered User
  • 328 posts
  • 137
  • Location:Germany

Posted 02 April 2014 - 05:59 PM

Don't argue with Americans about religion! It's like talking to little children...
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#330 Balmain

  • Member
  • 6 posts
  • 0
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • no

Posted 23 June 2014 - 07:44 AM

Has anyone taking mk4 experienced facial changes, like skull widening? 


Edited by Balmain, 23 June 2014 - 07:58 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users