• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Optimal Vitamin k2 dosage


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 health_nutty

  • Guest
  • 2,400 posts
  • 88
  • Location:California

Posted 23 May 2010 - 05:25 PM


Can we extrapolate what an optimal dose for MK-7 based on studies of Natto eaters? Most supplements have around 100mcg. While we are at it, what would the higher end dose of MK-4 be based on what you might get from eating organ meat regularly (certainly not the 45mg! used in bone fracture studies).

The answer from the Rotterdam study seems to be: greater than 32mcg. Are there any other data points?

"The Rotterdam Study (2004)23 shows that high dietary intake of vitamin K2 – but not vitamin K1 - has a strong protective effect on cardiovascular health. This population-based study, which took place over a 10 year period, followed 4807 initially healthy men and women >55 years of age from start. Findings from the study indicate that eating foods rich in natural vitamin K2 (at least 32 mcg per day) results in 50% reduction of arterial calcification, 50% reduction of cardiovascular death and 25% reduction of all cause mortality."
http://www.menaq7.co...vascular-health

Stephen wrote something to make me think MK-4 has a unique benefit over MK-7 for bone health (anyone have a link to the full study)
http://wholehealthso...vitamin-k2.html

"Today, I found another difference between MK-4 and MK-7. I was reading a paper about SXR-independent effects of vitamin K2 on gene expression. The investigators found that MK-4 strongly activates transcription of two specific genes in osteoblast cells. Osteoblasts are cells that create bone tissue. The genes are GDF15 and STC2 and they're involved in bone and cartilage formation. They tested K1 and MK-7, and in contrast to MK-4, they did not activate transcription of the genes in the slightest. This shows that MK-4 has effects on gene expression in bone tissue that MK-7 doesn't have. "

My current view is:
1) MK-7 seems to be superior to MK-4 for cardiovascular benefits. This is based on epidemiological studies and animal studies on how the the MK-7 effects MGP carboxylation. Both MK-7 and MK-4 do this but MK-7 does it much better.
2) MK-7 and MK-4 improve bone health, but MK-4 seems to have unique benefit for bone health

Edited by health_nutty, 23 May 2010 - 05:54 PM.


#2 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 23 May 2010 - 06:05 PM

Discussed in another thread. But too summarize.

Only laboratory evidence regarding optimal amounts is for K1. At least 1000 mcg is required for certain K dependent functions measured using certain blood proteins (not clotting ones which require much lower amounts). Not clear that this optimal for other functions or other organs.

MK4 has no, or almost no, epidemiological evidence in its favor. If looking closer all the epidemiological evidence regarding various diseases for "K2" seems to come from foods high in mk7-9. No evidence for what optimal amount of mk7 is. Natto eaters in Japan, who often eat it regularly as a breakfast meal, get around 775mcg/100g natto. Western epidemiological studies finding benefits from mk7 have found those from much, much lower amounts. K1 has evidence in some epidemiological studies, not in others, partly depending on the disease. Lacking epidemiological evidence for mk4 and partly k1 may be due to too low amounts in the foods used by the general population.

Mk7 has zero clinical studies. Mk4 in superhigh amounts for osteoporosis and not clear for liver cancer. Unknown if one could get this with much lower amounts, all the osteoporosis studies have used 45 mg (1000x normal food intake) which seems to high to me due to not all that uncommon side effects at this dose after one or a few years. K1 in very high amounts (5 mg) has some preliminary clinical evidence for osteoporosis, general cancer prevention, and general severe disease and no adverse effects at this dose in a four year study.

Edited by Blue, 23 May 2010 - 06:51 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 23 May 2010 - 06:45 PM

I think natto packs in Japan are sold in 40g doses (or so this study says) so I guess we can sort of extrapolate from that.

http://www.nutraingr...health-benefits

4x week, 350mcg/pack -- so MK-7 levels would be 1400mcg/week, or 200mcg/day. Although the study says more than 4/week, so not entirely sure how much more than 4/week they consume, or if it's typically eaten daily.

This study: http://clinicaltrial...how/NCT00483431
is the one I'd like to see the results for.

As for K1, are the benefits theorized to be from K1 itself, or K1 converting to K2? Hence why the higher dosages may be needed?

#4 health_nutty

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,400 posts
  • 88
  • Location:California

Posted 23 May 2010 - 06:54 PM

Interesting. I wonder how often Natto is eaten for breakfast. Is it every day or 2-3 times a week. I'll have to ask one of my Japanese co-workers. I'm also curious if there are benefits of Natto independent of the MK-7 (such as nattokinase). Could the epidemiological cardiovascular benefit be from the nattokinase as well as the MK-7?

#5 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 23 May 2010 - 06:55 PM

I think natto packs in Japan are sold in 40g doses (or so this study says) so I guess we can sort of extrapolate from that.

http://www.nutraingr...health-benefits

"in Japan, natto is sold in 40 gram packs, which are said to typically contain about 350 micrograms of MK-7"
Which gives 875 mcg/100 g natto.

I remembered incorrectly regarding this. Have corrected amounts in my previous post. According to this source the amount it 775 mcg/100g natto which is about the same.
http://www.springerl...wn7tprdje84hyj/

#6 health_nutty

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,400 posts
  • 88
  • Location:California

Posted 23 May 2010 - 06:56 PM

Interesting. I wonder how often Natto is eaten for breakfast. Is it every day or 2-3 times a week. I'll have to ask one of my Japanese co-workers. I'm also curious if there are benefits of Natto independent of the MK-7 (such as nattokinase). Could the epidemiological cardiovascular benefit be from the nattokinase as well as the MK-7?


I just read nameless' post. He answered some of my questions.

#7 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 23 May 2010 - 06:58 PM

Interesting. I wonder how often Natto is eaten for breakfast. Is it every day or 2-3 times a week. I'll have to ask one of my Japanese co-workers. I'm also curious if there are benefits of Natto independent of the MK-7 (such as nattokinase). Could the epidemiological cardiovascular benefit be from the nattokinase as well as the MK-7?

Not in the Western studies were natto is nonexistant.

Edited by Blue, 23 May 2010 - 06:58 PM.


#8 health_nutty

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,400 posts
  • 88
  • Location:California

Posted 23 May 2010 - 06:59 PM

I'm lucky enough to live in an area near a Japanese grocery. Maybe I just just buy Natto and have it for breakfast (i'm sure I'll get used to the taste eventually!)

Edited by health_nutty, 23 May 2010 - 07:00 PM.


#9 health_nutty

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,400 posts
  • 88
  • Location:California

Posted 23 May 2010 - 07:00 PM

Interesting. I wonder how often Natto is eaten for breakfast. Is it every day or 2-3 times a week. I'll have to ask one of my Japanese co-workers. I'm also curious if there are benefits of Natto independent of the MK-7 (such as nattokinase). Could the epidemiological cardiovascular benefit be from the nattokinase as well as the MK-7?

Not in the Western studies were natto is nonexistant.


True. Do you think nattokinase has any benefits?

#10 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 23 May 2010 - 07:04 PM

Unknown if one could get this with much lower amounts, all the osteoporosis studies have used 45 mg (1000x normal food intake) which seems to high to me due to not all that uncommon side effects at this dose after one or a few years. K1 in very high amounts (5 mg) has some preliminary clinical evidence for osteoporosis, general cancer prevention, and general severe disease and no adverse effects at this dose in a four year study.

What side-effects? Can you give an example of a study? Preferably a meta-analysis looking at side-effects vs placebo if you know of any. I am sure I could dig something up but if you have anything at hand..

As for K1, are the benefits theorized to be from K1 itself, or K1 converting to K2? Hence why the higher dosages may be needed?

If you think about it nameless, it may be the other way around. Typical, clinical doses of K1 are lower than those of MK-4. There's no data on 'physiologic' MK-4 dosing hence my dislike for the stuff (most people use and most supplements offer only supra-physiologic doses, which are likely to be mostly benign - although, perhaps they aren't as Blue said - but this completely defeats any 'paleo/physiologic intake' rationale) if you are not trying to treat osteo*.

Edited by kismet, 23 May 2010 - 07:05 PM.


#11 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 23 May 2010 - 07:05 PM

Interesting. I wonder how often Natto is eaten for breakfast. Is it every day or 2-3 times a week. I'll have to ask one of my Japanese co-workers. I'm also curious if there are benefits of Natto independent of the MK-7 (such as nattokinase). Could the epidemiological cardiovascular benefit be from the nattokinase as well as the MK-7?

Not in the Western studies were natto is nonexistant.


True. Do you think nattokinase has any benefits?

No opinion, not looked into it.

#12 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 23 May 2010 - 07:33 PM

Unknown if one could get this with much lower amounts, all the osteoporosis studies have used 45 mg (1000x normal food intake) which seems to high to me due to not all that uncommon side effects at this dose after one or a few years. K1 in very high amounts (5 mg) has some preliminary clinical evidence for osteoporosis, general cancer prevention, and general severe disease and no adverse effects at this dose in a four year study.

What side-effects? Can you give an example of a study? Preferably a meta-analysis looking at side-effects vs placebo if you know of any. I am sure I could dig something up but if you have anything at hand..

Somewhat delayed response since I almost missed this post due my last reply.

The manufacturer of the Japanese supplement/medication for 45mg mk4 states that 4.3% of users experience various adverse effects, some relatively serious, which are listed in table 11.
Also, "The OF study noted a signifcantly higher incidence of skin and skin appendage lesions in patients receiving menatetrenone (0.5 per 100 patient-years compared with 0.1 in the control group, p < 0.001). "
http://www.hta.ac.uk...ono/mon1345.pdf

#13 raptor2003

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 0

Posted 25 May 2010 - 05:54 AM

fwiw aor is in favor of mk-4; they have a publication strongly defending their views

lef is undecided, so they put both in their advanced k2 complex

at the end of the day i also want to know which is more optimal

Edited by raptor2003, 25 May 2010 - 05:55 AM.


#14 sentrysnipe

  • Guest
  • 491 posts
  • 5

Posted 07 September 2010 - 03:36 AM

So how much MK4 do you guys take? I'm kinda scared of taking 5mg MK4 daily, I want to try the every other day or less route for the mean time.

#15 Chupo

  • Guest
  • 321 posts
  • 228
  • Location:United States

Posted 31 December 2011 - 05:44 PM

So how much MK4 do you guys take? I'm kinda scared of taking 5mg MK4 daily, I want to try the every other day or less route for the mean time.


I take Life Extension, Vitamins D & K

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

#16 Godot

  • Guest
  • 198 posts
  • 35
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 29 May 2013 - 03:10 AM

I figured it would be better to revive this old thread than start a new one. Have there been any updates on k2?

Is there any reason I shouldn't start taking 5mg of mk4 daily?

#17 zorba990

  • Guest
  • 1,513 posts
  • 249

Posted 28 August 2013 - 03:51 AM

Would also like to know who is still at 5mg or more and if there are any side effects noted.

#18 balance

  • Guest
  • 449 posts
  • 12

Posted 28 August 2013 - 09:05 AM

I take 15mg of MK-4 K2 daily, have taken up to 90mg daily without side effects.
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

#19 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,273 posts
  • 398

Posted 28 August 2013 - 09:21 PM

Why would you take so much?

I take 15mg of MK-4 K2 daily, have taken up to 90mg daily without side effects.


  • Good Point x 1

#20 balance

  • Guest
  • 449 posts
  • 12

Posted 28 August 2013 - 11:19 PM

To mimic the Japanese osteoporosis studies that used 45-90mg daily.

#21 zorba990

  • Guest
  • 1,513 posts
  • 249

Posted 29 August 2013 - 01:54 AM

My personal interest is in anti-aging through reversing the calcification of soft tissues that occurs with age (or better yet preventing such), although the studies on arteriosclerosis reversal are interesting:


http://www.rejuvenat...-K2-artery.html


Vitamin K2 Reverses Artery Hardening by 40%

A high-dose vitamin K supplement reduced calcium precipitates associated with hardening of the arteries by 37 percent in rats, scientists from The Netherlands have reported.

If the results can be reproduced in humans, high-dose vitamin K could have potential clinical implications for reducing arterial calcification, which is an important independent risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). “High vitamin K intake not only prevents calcification, but even regresses arterial calcifications,” lead researcher Leon Schurgers from Maastricht University said.


http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15320745


Curr Pharm Des. 2004;10(21):2557-76.


Effects of vitamin K2 on osteoporosis.

Iwamoto J, Takeda T, Sato Y.



Source

Department of Sports Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan. jiwamoto@sc.itc.keio.ac.jp


Clinically, vitamin K2 sustains the lumbar bone mineral density (BMD) and prevents osteoporotic fractures in patients with age-related osteoporosis, prevents vertebral fractures in patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, increases the metacarpal BMD in the paralytic upper extremities of patients with cerebrovascular disease, and sustains the lumbar BMD in patients with liver-dysfunction-induced osteoporosis.



http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22169620

Am J Kidney Dis. 2012 Feb;59(2):186-95. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.10.041. Epub 2011 Dec 9.


Effect of vitamin K2 supplementation on functional vitamin K deficiency in hemodialysis patients: a randomized trial.

Westenfeld R, Krueger T, Schlieper G, Cranenburg EC, Magdeleyns EJ, Heidenreich S, Holzmann S, Vermeer C, Jahnen-Dechent W, Ketteler M, Floege J, Schurgers LJ.



Source

Division of Cardiology, Pulmonary Diseases, Vascular Medicine, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany.


This study confirms that most hemodialysis patients have a functional vitamin K deficiency. More importantly, it is the first study showing that inactive MGP levels can be decreased markedly by daily vitamin K(2) supplementation. Our study provides the rationale for intervention trials aimed at decreasing vascular

calcification

in hemodialysis patients by vitamin K supplementation.



#22 Godot

  • Guest
  • 198 posts
  • 35
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 04 November 2013 - 04:57 AM

I started taking k2 at 5mg/day 3-4 days a week several months ago, and have not noticed any side effects.

#23 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 01 May 2015 - 02:56 PM

Started taking K2 when it first hit the press. Around Dec. 2008. Took mainly MK7 for a good while then added MK4 to the mix (Vitacost brand). Had 2 cavities re-mineralize. Was very happy about this.

Some time back I switched to a formula from Vitacost that had no MK4 in it. Always had the belief that it was the MK7 doing all the magic because of it's long half life in the blood.

One of my cavities was slowly showing itself again and had tooth sensitivity. I was like WTH?????  Switched back to the combo MK7 and MK4 and slowly the cavity is filling in again.

I'm convinced MK4 is more important than many people realize. Seems from reading around here and elsewhere that teeth improvements are especially improved with MK4.

Am taking 1300mcg MK4 in the Vitacost brand. Along with 100mcg MK7.

I've read a theory that although MK4 has a short half life in the blood, that means the body is taking it up quickly and being used. I think research in the future will show just how important the MK4 is.

Best to take both forms. I think taking 5 mg is way overkill unless you already have osteoporosis issues. Might be a good idea short term for tooth issues.



#24 david ellis

  • Guest
  • 1,014 posts
  • 78
  • Location:SanDiego
  • NO

Posted 01 May 2015 - 07:09 PM

 

I've read a theory that although MK4 has a short half life in the blood, that means the body is taking it up quickly and being used. I think research in the future will show just how important the MK4 is.

 

 I am taking 50 mg of MK4 about 5-6 times a week.       My cardiologist was impressed that my cardiac calcium load was at a slow rate.  Plus the total cardiac is low too.   Visit before that, last year, he was anticipating me for stents.   I had a 70% blockage revealed by a cat scan movie.   The blockage is gone now.


  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1

#25 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 02 May 2015 - 03:51 AM

 

 

I've read a theory that although MK4 has a short half life in the blood, that means the body is taking it up quickly and being used. I think research in the future will show just how important the MK4 is.

 

 I am taking 50 mg of MK4 about 5-6 times a week.       My cardiologist was impressed that my cardiac calcium load was at a slow rate.  Plus the total cardiac is low too.   Visit before that, last year, he was anticipating me for stents.   I had a 70% blockage revealed by a cat scan movie.   The blockage is gone now.

 

 

Wow how much does that cost you? You taking the Thorne liquid drops?



#26 david ellis

  • Guest
  • 1,014 posts
  • 78
  • Location:SanDiego
  • NO

Posted 02 May 2015 - 03:39 PM

http://www.k-vitamins.com/

 


 

Wow how much does that cost you? You taking the Thorne liquid drops?

 

 

This link has prices and the science.   The seller has his story of his return to health there.



#27 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 02 May 2015 - 04:19 PM

I've seen that site before but forgot about it. So much great info. there. Really nice product. Pretty pricey. An economical route would be to take either Life Extensions K2 formula or the Vitacost one

and buy this one. http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/B000FGWDTK

I already take 4mg of Astaxanthin.

 

If I had some serious health issues going on I would surely take much higher amounts of MK4 like you are doing.



#28 david ellis

  • Guest
  • 1,014 posts
  • 78
  • Location:SanDiego
  • NO

Posted 02 May 2015 - 05:55 PM

I've seen that site before but forgot about it. So much great info. there. Really nice product. Pretty pricey. An economical route would be to take either Life Extensions K2 formula or the Vitacost one

and buy this one. http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/B000FGWDTK

I already take 4mg of Astaxanthin.

 

If I had some serious health issues going on I would surely take much higher amounts of MK4 like you are doing.

 

 

Be careful calculating costs.   Pricey changes when you go by $/gram.   I calculate Koncentrated K at $30 gram MK4. There are two vendors at about that price point.   Vitacost and Thorne are at about $100 a gram.

 

Two risks of not enough MK4.   Calcium depositing in your arteries and calcium washing from your bones.   You can monitor cardiac calcium build up with CACS scores.     It costs a $100, but you get to know exactly how healthy you are.    



#29 mustardseed41

  • Guest
  • 928 posts
  • 38
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 02 May 2015 - 06:36 PM

Seems you need to be careful calculating cost. I get the Thorne coming out to $51.58 per gram (1200 drops at 1mg per drop).

The Thorne is great for many people who do not want to take such high amounts as yourself. Plenty of research that shows much less dosages are effective but like I said

before, if I had some serious health issue like yourself, I would take much higher amounts.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#30 IWS

  • Guest
  • 25 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Uhu?
  • NO

Posted 19 November 2015 - 02:12 PM

 

 

I've read a theory that although MK4 has a short half life in the blood, that means the body is taking it up quickly and being used. I think research in the future will show just how important the MK4 is.

 

 I am taking 50 mg of MK4 about 5-6 times a week.       My cardiologist was impressed that my cardiac calcium load was at a slow rate.  Plus the total cardiac is low too.   Visit before that, last year, he was anticipating me for stents.   I had a 70% blockage revealed by a cat scan movie.   The blockage is gone now.

 

 

Have you stacked it with any other supplement (Vit. C, D, etc.) or taken alone? I'm taking the Super K by LE and thought to switch to the Koncentrated K but changing to such a great amount always worried me a bit if there could be some side effect on the long term. For how long did you take the Koncentrated K to achieve that result? Did you stop it?

Thanks


  • like x 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users