vitamin k

[Johnwen]

Can't find the specific one I'll keep looking. Forgot where I put it, here's one that gives you an Idea of the effects of vdn.


http://ajprenal.physiology.org/cgi/repr ... 2008v1.pdf

[Daniel D]

From that studi (if it has any realworld bearing) it seems, that vitamin D³ and nicotine aren`t antagonistic but additive in their calcification action.
If vitamin D would adsorb the nicotine, then both would have been neutralised. Or the newly generated complex has it`s own pharmakolgic action.
I think, that it is more plausible that the narrowing (regarding blodd vessels) effekt of nicotine and the calcifying effeckt of Vitamin D³ are the explanation of the VDn treatment.

[aariel]

That's quite confusing:

Levy 3-9 mg
Sinatra 180-360 mcg
Pauling 150 mcg
Schurgers 146 mcg
Swansons 100mcg

K1 is part of chlorophyll which is why it's in green leafy veggies. It is converted into K2 in two ways. The first way is in the intestines, but this process is not very efficient. The other is that many tissues in the body can do the conversion in cell.

K2 comes in many forms, but the two most common are MK-7 found in plants based foods like natto (which isn't cheese, it's just fermented soy beans like tempeh and the MK-7 comes from the bacteria doing the fermentation like in our guts) and MK-4 which comes from animal foods like goose liver.

Thus supplementing with K1 is of little value since the body has to convert to K2 and consuming K2 is the only way to get more than your body can produce (consuming more than your body can produce is normal). Choosing between MK-7 and MK-4 is really more of a religious question than a scientific one at this point with advocates in both camps. There is still much more research that needs to be done. We have a good idea about some of the differences. MK-7 appears has a much longer half-life. But we still don't really understand the significance of the differences.

In a traditional diet the vast majority is MK-4 since MK-7 containing foods are few and far between where as MK-4 containing foods are common place.

Here is a good article explaining all of the above:

http://westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamin-k2.html

As a side note it's interesting to watch the progression of scientific knowledge on vitamin labels. First calcium was touted as important, then they started adding D to calcium because they realized you could take all the calcium you want and it never gets into your blood without D. Then, recently, they started adding K2 to a few calcium supplements because they realized that you can't get the calcium out of your blood without K2. Many people now know that vitamin D is important for calcium supplementation, but most still have no idea about K2. I've heard it said it takes 20 years for knowledge to transfer from the lab bench to common knowledge. I think this is true.

[Ralph Lotz]

From a cardiovascular perspective MK-7 supplements provide more bang for the buck and at a much lower dosage, mcg vs mg than MK-4.
I have been using MK-7, 100 micrograms per day for a couple of years.