14 replies to this topic

[Sillewater]

Cure for Cancer: Activator X May Be the Missing Link

Even though the clinical data for K1 is stronger. I'm still sticking to alternating MK-7/MK-4

[e Volution]

Cure for Cancer: Activator X May Be the Missing Link

Even though the clinical data for K1 is stronger. I'm still sticking to alternating MK-7/MK-4

I totally concur. The only issue is optimal [conservative] dosage. Has any M.D. blogger out there done some hard-core evolutionary theorising on it? Or do we have an estimate of paleolithic exposure dosage (from animal organs and/or fermented/rotten plant & animal foods) or something to that nature? It seems to me that would be the best starting point...

[kismet]

Alternatively, we could start with clinical data instead of speculation. Then again, maybe it's just me. I am "hardcore conservative" after all.

Edited by kismet, 17 February 2010 - 06:33 PM.

[e Volution]

Alternatively, we could start with clinical data instead of speculation. Then again, maybe it's just me. I am "hardcore conservative" after all.

kismet if you were alive in the 16th century you would have been protesting the same way about the radical heliocentric idea Copernicus was tossing around. Now thats a very tongue in cheek remark and whilst I certainly don't mean it negatively (at the time it was the scientifically correct thing to do) we all know how that turned out.

We know that Vitamin K2 MK-4 (and to a lesser extent MK-7?) played a role in our metabolic evolutionary history, and still does is many modern hunter-gatherer populations. These populations seem to have remarkably robust health and a few indications point to this being due in part to their dietary intake of K2 MK-4/MK-7 playing a beneficial role. So I guess the question is why is the clinical data for K1 stronger? My understanding is its simply better studied... So if the data for MK-4/MK-7 is less strong, then we are forced to speculate are we not? If we are speculating conservatively in terms of dosage and forms, what's wrong with that? IMO this kind of theorising can only further our understanding and help in piecing together the puzzle.

And finally, we are all starting with clinical data!!! K1 = kale, spinach, leafy greens, broccoli, lettuce, avocado = The ImmInst longevity-diet backbone! Who the hell on these forums has not already made these a staple of their diet!

Edited by icantgoforthat, 20 February 2010 - 07:03 AM.

[Tygo]

I'm still reluctant to add more vitamin K to my diet. Even though additional vitamin K seems to have some benefits, and relatively few adverse effects, the one adverse effect that it does have, worries me: (excess) blood clot formation. So additional vitamin K might prevent, or even reverse, arterial calcification, but at the same time, it might increase your chance of getting an embolism or thrombosis. Don't forget that anticoagulants like warfarin - specifically prescribed to prevent blood clots - work by inhibiting the action of vitamin K.

[maxwatt]

I'm still reluctant to add more vitamin K to my diet. Even though additional vitamin K seems to have some benefits, and relatively few adverse effects, the one adverse effect that it does have, worries me: (excess) blood clot formation. So additional vitamin K might prevent, or even reverse, arterial calcification, but at the same time, it might increase your chance of getting an embolism or thrombosis. Don't forget that anticoagulants like warfarin - specifically prescribed to prevent blood clots - work by inhibiting the action of vitamin K.

Most things have an inverted U-shaped dose/response curve. There is an optimum dose, more is not better and too much is too much. But the original quetion has not been answered: What is the ideal amount? You won't find it by speculating on some ideal paleo diet. Kismet asked "where are the studies"? That is THE question.

[Tygo]

Most things have an inverted U-shaped dose/response curve. There is an optimum dose, more is not better and too much is too much. But the original quetion has not been answered: What is the ideal amount? You won't find it by speculating on some ideal paleo diet. Kismet asked "where are the studies"? That is THE question.

Yeah, I agree. And that's precisely the reason why I'm reluctant to add more vitamin K to my diet, because we don't know yet what the ideal dose is. People are adding vitamin K2 supplements to their regimens, but we aren't sure yet if that's really safe long-term. Again, it probably prevents arterial calcification, but at the same time - and maybe I'm exaggerating - it might trigger a stroke or pulmonary embolism. Admittedly though, I am using a vitamin K supplement too (Jarrow Formulas MK-7), but just one capsule a week. Perhaps too conservative, who knows.

[kismet]

Alternatively, we could start with clinical data instead of speculation. Then again, maybe it's just me. I am "hardcore conservative" after all.

kismet if you were alive in the 16th century you would have been protesting the same way about the radical heliocentric idea Copernicus was tossing around. Now thats a very tongue in cheek remark and whilst I certainly don't mean it negatively (at the time it was the scientifically correct thing to do) we all know how that turned out.

I don't know why that should be the case. People seem to think that "the evidence-based"(*) approach has or would have failed in the past, when generally it didn't/wouldn't. (this sounds for instance similar to fredrickson(sp?) remark that this approach would have led one to jump on the antioxidant craze in the late 90s. Now, I am not really into history, so I'll preferably address the later claim: I highly doubt it. AFAIK: Most early evidence in favour of antioxidants came from epidemiology and the epidemiology was proven right -- high antioxidant intakes from fruits/vegetables lead to beneficial outcomes, whether this is causally attributable to antioxidants remains as irrelevant as ever)

Being conservative (now, that was also a tongue-in-cheek remark; I am not conservative, but would appear so to many people) in this case means to be agnostic and accepting of new hypotheses, but to differentiate between hypothesis and well-established theory. We plan our supplement regimens based on strong evidence and theories and only in rare cases based on hypotheses.

*and obviously there are more than one.

We know that Vitamin K2 MK-4 (and to a lesser extent MK-7?) played a role in our metabolic evolutionary history, and still does is many modern hunter-gatherer populations. These populations seem to have remarkably robust health and a few indications point to this being due in part to their dietary intake of K2 MK-4/MK-7 playing a beneficial role. So I guess the question is why is the clinical data for K1 stronger? My understanding is its simply better studied... So if the data for MK-4/MK-7 is less strong, then we are forced to speculate are we not? If we are speculating conservatively in terms of dosage and forms, what's wrong with that? IMO this kind of theorising can only further our understanding and help in piecing together the puzzle.

There is already some weak clinical data for K1 and cancer, at similar doses to those studied for CVD. Yes, the overall data on K1 is extremely strong, but I never implied that you cannot consume additional K2. In fact, I think you should. But, yes, I do believe that the paleolithic speculation about K2 being superior is greatly mistaken or at least premature. I have not even seen evidence indicating that our ancestors did not consume high doses of MK-7* and phylloquinone (K1).

The data for dietary MK-7 is there, the data for mega-dose MK-4 and bone health (& perhaps hepatocellular carcinoma) is fine and the data for high dose K1 and CVD is also there.

*this is in fact a form considered -not- to be really "paleo" as far as I have read. 

EDIT: minor edit for clarity

Edited by kismet, 20 February 2010 - 09:56 PM.

[TheFountain]

I'm still reluctant to add more vitamin K to my diet. Even though additional vitamin K seems to have some benefits, and relatively few adverse effects, the one adverse effect that it does have, worries me: (excess) blood clot formation. So additional vitamin K might prevent, or even reverse, arterial calcification, but at the same time, it might increase your chance of getting an embolism or thrombosis. Don't forget that anticoagulants like warfarin - specifically prescribed to prevent blood clots - work by inhibiting the action of vitamin K.

I am assuming that you would have to take whopping mega-doses of vitamin K for it to cause significant blood clotting. Otherwise people who eat alot of Kale, spinach and other leafy vegetables would be keeling over of pulmonary embolisms all the time.

[Tygo]

I am assuming that you would have to take whopping mega-doses of vitamin K for it to cause significant blood clotting. Otherwise people who eat alot of Kale, spinach and other leafy vegetables would be keeling over of pulmonary embolisms all the time.

I should have been more clear in my previous posts, it's the vitamin K2 that I'm worrying about.

[TheFountain]

I am assuming that you would have to take whopping mega-doses of vitamin K for it to cause significant blood clotting. Otherwise people who eat alot of Kale, spinach and other leafy vegetables would be keeling over of pulmonary embolisms all the time.

I should have been more clear in my previous posts, it's the vitamin K2 that I'm worrying about.

Even K2 I am assuming would require somewhat large doses at constant intervals to be causing blood clotting in a moderate period of time. Are there any studies showing it can lead to an embolism or aneurysm or any other blood clot formation that is a precondition of fatality?

Edited by TheFountain, 20 February 2010 - 04:21 PM.

[rwac]

I should have been more clear in my previous posts, it's the vitamin K2 that I'm worrying about.

There have been osteoporosis trials with 45mg/day of MK4. I believe MK4 is used in Japan for this purpose.
So there's some evidence of safety there.

[Blue]

That very low doses causes bleeding does not mean that very large doses causes clotting. Vitamin K modifies certain proteins needed for clotting so that they can function. Once every clotting protein that can be modified is modified adding more vitamin K will not have an additional effect. Even the superhigh MK4 dose of 15mgx3 used in all the Japanese MK4 osteoporosis studies did not cause clotting problems. However MK4, at that likely somewhat toxic dose, has been associated with various other relatively serious adverse effects (see the large K thread).

Edited by Blue, 20 February 2010 - 04:44 PM.

[Tygo]

My worrying stems from the fact that people with a history of blood clot formation are prescribed vitamin K antagonists like warfarin and from this anecdotal report of a bodybuilder consuming large quantities of vitamin K to prevent muscle cramps and almost dying from a pulmonary embolism . And even though the bodybuilder consumed large quantities of K1, I'm personally not so worried about vitamin K1, because it looks like vitamin K2 is more powerful and is normally not consumed in great amounts. From what I've read, K2 stays in the body for a much longer time too.

But as said before, perhaps I'm too conservative and worrying too much.

[Blue]

My worrying stems from the fact that people with a history of blood clot formation are prescribed vitamin K antagonists like warfarin and from this anecdotal report of a bodybuilder consuming large quantities of vitamin K to prevent muscle cramps and almost dying from a pulmonary embolism . And even though the bodybuilder consumed large quantities of K1, I'm personally not so worried about vitamin K1, because it looks like vitamin K2 is more powerful and is normally not consumed in great amounts. From what I've read, K2 stays in the body for a much longer time too.

But as said before, perhaps I'm too conservative and worrying too much.

Obviously if you must take warfarin, a vitamin k antagonist, in order to cause a bleeding tendency that is very dangerous if you are injured and kills a lot of people due to bleeding, then you should worry very much about vitamin k intake, both too low and high can kill you. But for normal people there is no evidence of clotting problems in studies which have used much, much higher amounts (say x100) of vitamin K than what the bodybuilder could have received from the diet.