7 replies to this topic

[quixote]

Hi all,

 

I would greatly appreciate your insights on the following issue. I'm thinking of getting quite a few supplements to address my cardiovascular issues, specifically LEF's "Super K", "Pomegranate Complete", "Endothelial Defense" containing Glisodin, and "Arterial Protect" containing pycnogenol. I realised earlier today that the amounts of K2 (be it MK-4 or MK-7) in LEF's Super K appear to be a fraction of the amounts in the products of some other brands (it's like 1 mg in Super K vs. 15 mg or even 25 mg for MK-4 in some other products). It is my understanding that it is MK-4 in particular that you want (for plaque, anyway). Would it actually make sense to take such comparatively small amounts of K2 or should I get a product with 15 or even 25 mg of KG in each capsule instead? I've read that taking up to 45 mg of K2 daily is generally safe, would that be correct?

 

A few more questions if I may:

 

2) Do I need to buy a product containing both K1 and K2 or would K2 (MK-4 and/or MK-7) be enough?

 

3| Does the presence of tocotrienols (Nutricology), Astaxhanthin (Koncentrated K) or Calcium and D3 (Osteo K) make any difference?

 

4) The half-life of MK-4 is different from that of MK-7, so how does a product that combines both MK-4 and MK-7 "address" that difference?

 

5) Any safety concerns? The products aren't routinely checked for what they actually contain, right?

 

Thank you.

 

                                                                                                   K1        MK-4       MK-7

 

Koncentrated K (1 capsule)                                                          5 mg     25 mg      0.5 mg

 

LEF Super K (1 capsule)                                                             1.5 mg    1 mg        0.2 mg

 

Relentless Improvement's Vitamin K2 MK4 MK7 (1 capsule)        N/A       15 mg     0.06 mg

 

Relentless Improvement's Vitamin K2 MK4 (1 capsule)                N/A       15 mg     N/A

 

Thorne Research Liquid MK-4 (15 drops)                                     N/A       15 mg     N/A

 

Nutricology Full Spectrum Vitamin K (1 softgel)                         1 mg      3 mg        0.05 mg

 

Osteo K (3 capsules)                                                                   N/A        22.5 mg   N/A

 

Ultra K2 by Vitamin Research Products (1 capsule)                     N/A       15 mg      N/A

 

Attached Files

•  vit K supps.jpg   138.25KB   4 downloads

[Richard McGee]

Nice rundown on K2 products, thanks.

 

This trial of human subjects finds menaquinone-4 to have zero bioavailability, at least at low doses (420 μg). "MK-4 was not detectable in the serum of all subjects at any time point." MK7, by contrast was well-absorbed and detected in serum levels.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/23140417

 

Just one study, of course. Perhaps to supplement with both, until more information is known.

[quixote]

Well, as you certainly know yourself, @Richard, it is by no means an exhaustive list of vit K supplements, so there may well be better products out there.

 

Thank you for the link. I don't get it, why is there so much excitement about MK-4 then if its bioavailability is, plain and simple, zero? It shouldn't really matter whether it's 420 micrograms or, say, 25 miligrams, should it? It should come out in the bloodwork anyway, I suppose. If that line of reasoning is correct, I might want to stock up on a pure MK-7 supplement instead, of which there are also aplenty. However, as far as I know, there is still no evidence that MK-7 (or MK-4 for that matter) unclogs arteries in humans. Please anybody do correct me if I'm wrong though! I'm not exactly well-versed in this area.

[pamojja]

I don't get it, why is there so much excitement about MK-4 then if its bioavailability is, plain and simple, zero? It shouldn't really matter whether it's 420 micrograms or, say, 25 miligrams, should it? It should come out in the bloodwork anyway, I suppose.

 

One substitute blood marker for vitamin K2 is undercarboxylated Osteocalcin. Should be as low as possible.

 

One hypothetical reason why K2-mk2 has such a short half-life could be, because it's needed and used up so fast.
 

Above study doesn't say it's not bioavailable, but that 420 μg of K2-mk4 is too little to make a difference.

Edited by pamojja, 13 November 2016 - 02:18 PM.

[Richard McGee]

The full study is available here. 

 

"Blood (2 ml) was taken to prepare serum before the administration of vitamin K at baseline (t=0), and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 24, 48, and 72 h after administration."

 

There were two parts to this study, the first involving a single administration of  K and the second involving a 7 day course.

 

For the first part " Baseline serum levels of MK-4 and MK-7 were not detected. Single intake of MK-7 increased serum MK-7 in all subjects, which reached maximum levels at 6 h after administration. MK-7 was detected 48 h after administration (Figure  1). On the contrary, serum MK-4 was not detected at any time point (Figure  1)."

 

For the second part (7 day course): "Serum vitamin K2 levels were compared after consecutive administration of MK-4 and MK-7 (60 μg/day) for 7 days. Baseline serum level of MK-4 was 2.2 ng/ml ± 0.38 and that of MK-7 was less than detection limit. After subtracting the baseline serum levels from all values, MK-4 levels were 0.00 ng/ml ± 0.77 and 0.03 ng/ml ± 0.27 in the MK-4 and MK-7-treated groups, respectively. While MK-4 intake did not increase MK-4 administered group, serum MK-7 increased significantly in MK-7-administered-subjects."

 

This leaves open the question of whether a 15 or 25 mg dose of MK-4 would have a different outcome in the human body. Is it possible that MK-4 is "used up" before the first 2 hour serum measurement? I have no idea.

Edited by Richard McGee, 13 November 2016 - 05:39 PM.

[Richard McGee]

Here is what I am considering:

 

1) Baseline carotid doppler scan. This is safe and relatively cheap. (~$50 US)

2) Six month course of Koncentrated K (1 capsule/day). ($135)

3) End of course carotid doppler scan.

 

The total cost over 6 months, including tests is $235, or about $40/month.

[Mr Spock]

Regarding Doppler ultrasound scan, how accurate is it in diagnosis, compared to say CAT calcium scoring

[Richard McGee]

It is not terribly accurate, according to my understanding. It is more of use as a general indicator of risk, and a guide that further action may be necessary. I would hesitate to have two CAT scans in a year, however. Calcium scoring might be more appropriate for a longer-term strategy, with scans every year or every other year.