350 replies to this topic

[stephen_b]

I've been thinking of posting the exact same question. The effects are quite noticeable. I was just at the dentist - I go every three months for cleaning because of huge plaque build up on bottom front teeth. Even after only three months I have quite a bit. This time she said, "ummmm, there's nothing to clean."

Which K2 and at what dose?

[spacetime]

Bump... I can't decide on a good dose. 50 of 100 mcg, every day? Every other day?

I see people using it at 100 or 90mcg every 3 days. Given it's apparently long half life people seem to think every 3 or even every other day should suffice.


As an aside, I've taken k7 for at least several months now on a every 3 day approach and have noticed no reduction in tooth plaque, not that there's much to begin with. I'm thinking of switch of at least adding mk4 for a couple months to see what occurs. What dosing are people using?

[nameless]

I'm going with one Jarrow Mk-7 every other day + Mk-4 from multi. Comes out to Mk-7 (45mcg), Mk-4 (40mcg) daily, averaged out.

I think that dosage is reasonable and similar to someone who obtains K2 from diet (cheeses, natto, etc) so hopefully there wouldn't be any health risks or nasty things like that.

Edited by nameless, 27 April 2009 - 05:00 AM.

[ajnast4r]

decided to go with a 45mcg daily dose of menaq7 brand mk-7

good presentation on the benefits of k2: www.vitamink2.org

Edited by ajnast4r, 27 April 2009 - 06:15 AM.

[katzenjammer]

I've been thinking of posting the exact same question. The effects are quite noticeable. I was just at the dentist - I go every three months for cleaning because of huge plaque build up on bottom front teeth. Even after only three months I have quite a bit. This time she said, "ummmm, there's nothing to clean."

Which K2 and at what dose?

I've been taking Jarrow's MK7 (90 mcg) nearly every day; and MK-4 every day (3 X 15 mg) by relentless. I'll prolly start taking the MK-7 less often.

[stephen_b]

Great. So far then we don't have any reports of softer skin and reduction of tartar buildup with the MK7 form.

Stephen

[imarobot]

Great. So far then we don't have any reports of softer skin and reduction of tartar buildup with the MK7 form.

Stephen

I'm taking almost one a day of Life Extension's Super K with Advanced K2 Complex. That's 100 mcg of MK7. No change in skin or tartar. Although skin was already soft (someone recently told my wife I look like a 25-yr-old Tom Cruise [I'm 40] -- me for the crazy, Scientology win!) and not much tartar on teeth, possibly because I've been using xylitol for a while.

Edited by imarobot, 27 April 2009 - 04:29 PM.

[VespeneGas]

I've definitely noted softer skin since starting 90 mcg/day MK7. No change in teeth noted, but didn't really have problems before.

[wolfeye]

I found this article on natto intake in japanese post-menopausal women:

"For post-menopausal women, intake of more than four packs of natto per week (each pack weighs 40 gram and provides 350 mcg MK-7) was associated with reduced bone density loss at both femoral neck and distal third of the radius, compared to women who didn't consume any natto."

http://www.naturligk...n...in K 12.pdf


I've just started taking TwinLab 90 mcg MK7. What would be the optimal daily dosage?
200 mcg each day seems beneficial and safe for japanese post-menopausal women.

Edited by Wolf-Eye, 07 May 2009 - 02:59 PM.

[kismet]

MK-4 vs MK-7? Vs Phylloquinone? The data for mega-doses of phylloquinone is getting better by the day. Doesn't mean we should abandon vitamin K2 supplements for obvious reasons (and Mk-7 studies are forthcoming). However, it proves that we're on to something: a revolution in CVD prevention.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Apr 22. [Epub ahead of print]
Vitamin K supplementation and progression of coronary artery calcium in older men and women.
Shea MK, O'Donnell CJ, Hoffmann U, Dallal GE, Dawson-Hughes B, Ordovas JM, Price PA, Williamson MK, Booth SL.
"...CAC was measured at baseline and after 3 y of follow-up in 388 healthy men and postmenopausal women; 200 received a multivitamin with 500 mug/d phylloquinone (treatment) and 188 received a multivitamin alone (control). RESULTS: In an intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in CAC progression between the phylloquinone group and the control group; the mean (+/-SEM) changes in Agatston scores were 27 +/- 6 and 37 +/- 7, respectively. In a subgroup analysis of participants who were >/=85% adherent to supplementation (n = 367), there was less CAC progression in the phylloquinone group than in the control group (P = 0.03). Of those with preexisting CAC (Agatston score > 10), those who received phylloquinone supplements had 6% less progression than did those who received the multivitamin alone (P = 0.04)...."

[nameless]

MK-4 vs MK-7? Vs Phylloquinone? The data for mega-doses of phylloquinone is getting better by the day. Doesn't mean we should abandon vitamin K2 supplements for obvious reasons (and Mk-7 studies are forthcoming). However, it proves that we're on to something: a revolution in CVD prevention.

Is there another mechanism for Phylloquinone slowing plaque progression other than it converting to K2? Curious if there would be any reason to supplement with it, instead of just taking K2 directly.

Any concerns regarding menadione or other high-dose K1 issues Krillin mentioned in this thread?

[pycnogenol]

I've switched to 45 mcg strength per day of K2. I was taking the excellent Jarrow MK-7 every other day.

This is the brand I currently take:

Life Extension, Vitamin K2, Low-Dose, 45 mcg, 90 Softgels

http://www.iherb.com...gels/15291?at=1

Edited by pycnogenol, 09 May 2009 - 11:26 PM.

[nameless]

I've switched to 45 mcg strength per day of K2. I was taking the excellent Jarrow MK-7 every other day.

This is the brand I currently take:

Life Extension, Vitamin K2, Low-Dose, 45 mcg, 90 Softgels

http://www.iherb.com...gels/15291?at=1

I considered switching to that product too, but it's still more cost effective with the Jarrow every other day. Is there any real benefit to taking it daily, instead of alternate days, due to its long half-life?

[kismet]

Is there another mechanism for Phylloquinone slowing plaque progression other than it converting to K2? Curious if there would be any reason to supplement with it, instead of just taking K2 directly.

Any concerns regarding menadione or other high-dose K1 issues Krillin mentioned in this thread?

None that I know of. Furthermore I think there are rodent studies showing that endogenous conversion to MK-4 (via menadione) is responsible for the benefits. If I find some interesting papers I'll report back.

[pycnogenol]

I considered switching to that product too, but it's still more
cost effective with the Jarrow every other day. Is there any real benefit to taking it daily, instead of alternate days, due to its long
half-life?

Beats me. The Jarrow product is slightly more cost effective by about $12 per year.

[Dmitri]

The fear of using soy products has subsided and I am now taking Jarrow Formulas 90 mcg MK-7 soft gels. I take one and skip two days and take it again; if it stays in the body for several days taking it daily is does not seem necessary.

Anyway, the Vitamink2.org website has a list of various studies on Vitamin K2

Here's a link: http://www.vitamink2...tion=references

[jiggy]

So there is a consensus that vitamin k2 and k7 can reduce plaque deposits?

[rwac]

So there is a consensus that vitamin k2 and k7 can reduce plaque deposits?

I take 5mg mk-4 daily and my mouth stays clean of plaque.
I believe nobody here has reported this effect with mk7 yet. You can tell us if it works.

(I'm assuming k7=mk7)

[FunkOdyssey]

I think he meant arterial plaque

[rwac]

I think he meant arterial plaque

I guessed that, right after he posted a new topic.

[stephen_b]

I find that 2mg of MK4 isn't enough for me to have smooth teeth. Seems I have my own personal MK4 measurement device.

[rwac]

I find that 2mg of MK4 isn't enough for me to have smooth teeth. Seems I have my own personal MK4 measurement device.

If you take enough MK4 you'll start forgetting to brush in the morning, because your mouth will feel fine.

[katzenjammer]

I find that 2mg of MK4 isn't enough for me to have smooth teeth. Seems I have my own personal MK4 measurement device.

If you take enough MK4 you'll start forgetting to brush in the morning, because your mouth will feel fine.

2 mg? wow, maybe I'm taking too much. 15 mg 3 x daily for me. Feel great though. Look at my teeth >>

[rwac]

15 mg 3 x daily for me. Feel great though. Look at my teeth >>

Any other effects ?

It's possible an infection might be responsible for your flush like reaction to MK4.

Do you still get the same reaction ?

[davidd]

Would it be possible for someone to condense what was decided on MK-4 vs MK-7? I know there were several studies discussed, but my brain isn't up for the challenge today.

Does the human body make use of MK-4 better than MK-7?

Lastly, as far as doses go... I've seen people reporting taking 15 mg of MK-4 and others discussing 45 mg. Are there any particular studies to support one dose vs the other vs a different, lower/higher dose?

Thanks,
David

Edited by davidd, 21 July 2009 - 06:33 PM.

[Jay]

Would it be possible for someone to condense what was decided on MK-4 vs MK-7? I know there were several studies discussed, but my brain isn't up for the challenge today.

Does the human body make use of MK-4 better than MK-7?

Lastly, as far as doses go... I've seen people reporting taking 15 mg of MK-4 and others discussing 45 mg. Are there any particular studies to support one dose vs the other vs a different, lower/higher dose?

Thanks,
David

15mg is a high dose. 45mg is even higher.

It's hard to get more than 0.5% of those amounts per day from food. http://www.westonapr...in-k2.html#fig4.

What is your interest in K2? If you're healthy generally and just want to prevent arterial calcification from developing, I would opt for dosing more in line with the dietary amounts - at least in order of magnitude. That said, there are some studies that have been done with the higher doses you mention, which is why your purpose is relevant.

[kismet]

What is your interest in K2? If you're healthy generally and just want to prevent arterial calcification from developing, I would opt for dosing more in line with the dietary amounts - at least in order of magnitude.

Personally I believe (but only IIRC, I still haven't had the time for a full review) the epidemiologic data hardly shows benefits from MK-4*, including the oft-(mis-)quoted Rotterdam study. The best cardiovascular epidemiologic, mechanistic and animal data is on MK-7. The best interventional CVD data is on mega doses of K1 and all other great studies were done with super-mega doses of MK-4 (osteoporosis, HCC, etc).

*mechanistically speaking this only makes sense: content in food is minimal and pharmacokinetics are almost one magnitude worse than MK-7...

Edited by kismet, 21 July 2009 - 07:06 PM.

[davidd]

15mg is a high dose. 45mg is even higher.

It's hard to get more than 0.5% of those amounts per day from food. http://www.westonapr...in-k2.html#fig4.

What is your interest in K2? If you're healthy generally and just want to prevent arterial calcification from developing, I would opt for dosing more in line with the dietary amounts - at least in order of magnitude. That said, there are some studies that have been done with the higher doses you mention, which is why your purpose is relevant.

Thanks Jay. You bring up a good point. I guess my question was probably just about general good health. However, I'm curious if higher doses have shown benefits that lower doses do not and, as importantly, whether higher doses have shown detrimental effects that lower doses have not.

Part of my interest in K2 is that I'm hoping it can buffer possible negative side effects of excess vitamin D as well as maximize the positive side effects. Just for the sake of this discussion, assume that is true, even though it may not be. If so, then would there be any problems with taking a huge amount of K2 as an insurance policy, or have large amounts of K2 been shown in studies to be detrimental?

Thanks,
David

Edited by davidd, 21 July 2009 - 08:53 PM.

[Jay]

Personally I believe (but only IIRC, I still haven't had the time for a full review) the epidemiologic data hardly shows benefits from MK-4*, including the oft-(mis-)quoted Rotterdam study. The best cardiovascular epidemiologic, mechanistic and animal data is on MK-7. The best interventional CVD data is on mega doses of K1 and all other great studies were done with super-mega doses of MK-4 (osteoporosis, HCC, etc).

*mechanistically speaking this only makes sense: content in food is minimal and pharmacokinetics are almost one magnitude worse than MK-7...

Since there is such limited data, I think it would be more prudent to use K2 in the amounts that we are capable of getting from food sources. Since K2 is in butter, eggs, liver (all mk-4) AND bacterial fermentation (mk-7 or other), both forms seem reasonable (perhaps a low-dose combination is best).

That said, it does seem like a lot of the vitamin K2 craze was based on either epidemiological studies (which are suspect since most people in the cohorts had very little K2) or high-dose interventions (human or rat). If the epidemiological studies are dismissible, there may be little data supporting long-term low-dose supplementation.

However, if you accept the premise that the diets we evolved eating are less likely to kill us than the ones we invented recently, I suspect that early humans likely would have had higher levels of k2 than most do today, supporting notion that long-term low-dose supplementation may be healthy. Combining that reasoning with the good data from short-term interventions (at high doses) and mechanistic studies, produces a decent rationale for long-term low-dose supplementation.

Regarding long-term HIGH-dose supplementation, I just don't see why a healthy person would risk having so much more of a substance than we are capable of getting from food without better data.

Edited by Jay, 21 July 2009 - 09:50 PM.

[stephen_b]

That said, it does seem like a lot of the vitamin K2 craze was based on either epidemiological studies (which are suspect since most people in the cohorts had very little K2) or high-dose interventions (human or rat). If the epidemiological studies are dismissible, there may be little data supporting long-term low-dose supplementation.

However, if you accept the premise that the diets we evolved eating are less likely to kill us than the ones we invented recently, I suspect that early humans likely would have had higher levels of k2 than most do today, supporting notion that long-term low-dose supplementation may be healthy.

There is more vitamin k in parts of the animal that fewer people eat today, like bone marrow and organs. That is the MK4 form. I'd like to get some numbers for content.

The full text of the Japanese study using 45mg of K2-MK4 daily for three years is available here.

Even in the very high doses used in our study, adverse side effects of MK-4 were minor and not different from the placebo group.

StephenB

Edited by stephen_b, 22 July 2009 - 10:15 AM.