Kuinone - Liquid Vitamin K2 (MK-4)

[baccheion]

Why bother calculating and estimating if they already provided reliable numbers? There was the standard meal with 25% as fat calories and two others with 10% for low or 40% for high (compensated for calories).

The corresponding value for 14 g was made-up, wasn't it? Just like the word 'interpolate'. Searching it on Google will return: interpo-what?

Yes, but once they accomplish those jobs that they're better at than mk-4, the requirement for mk-4 must be markedly reduced. This was one of the reasons to harass Zeus so that he started selling a combination of forms. And when you consider other aspects like not dealing with osteoporosis, consuming some K in the diet, spreading out the dose, having perhaps more fat in the meals that what was used in experiments, the amount needed for an effect decreases further.

I was hypothesizing why the nominal effective amount (900 mcg or ~1 mg for a typical weight person) may be stated as 1.5 mg. Maybe there wasn't as much fat in the meal, resulting in more being required.

 

[TreasureVibe]

He was most likely trolling

It's been repeated on here some times too. The face widening isn't always a desirable effect for attractiveness. This can easily be explained by the fact that the body isn't supposed to get these vast quantities of vitamin K in the milligram dosages, in the blood at once. This will result in the overexpressive face and cheek bone widening, which can result in a distorted facial profile..

If there is a way to block this effect, maybe through vitamin A or vitamin D for example, then vitamin K will still be a viable thing to take without having to worry that you're becoming less attractive.

 

[Amazoniac]

I was hypothesizing why the nominal effective amount (900 mcg or ~1 mg for a typical weight person) may be stated as 1.5 mg. Maybe there wasn't as much fat in the meal, resulting in more being required.

In fat-soluble vitamins experiments researchers usually give them with meals for being aware of their nature and there's no reason for them to restrict their fat intake, they either try to make it as realistic as possible or attempt to make the outcomes remarkable (by doing exorbitant stuff and rarely the contrary). For example, in the 900 mcg experiment that you mention, they chosed the realistic route and it was given with the evening meal, probably a typical one that reflects the overall macronutrient intake.

There's the assumption that if more fat in the meal leads to more absorption, doing the opposite will decrease it by just as much. However! If you check out the the graph again, going from 20 g to 30 g could have increased by 70%, and conversely going from 20 g to 10 g (equivalent to a diet that's 12% fat calories), decreased by only 25%, tending not to go much lower. So how can 15 g of fat already decrease it by more than this? It shouldn't be as impacting.

Fairly low intakes of fat are enough to facilitate the absorption of vitamin E, which is probably more difficult to be adsorbed than K.

Lol well this pic is typically the shape ones face will go toward with high doses vitamin K don't you agree? There was a person on a bodybuilders forum saying his face became too wide and it was less attractive too.

You don't agree vitamin K will widen the face too much which is unattractive?

It's not something that I would expect, but it's difficult to argue if people are witnessing it happening. I remember someone posting pictures on the foro.

I suspect that mk-7 is better at using up antidote C than phylloquinone and mk-4 (in this order). lampofred's darling is often overlooked as well when consuming these.

 

[baccheion]

In fat-soluble vitamins experiments researchers usually give them with meals for being aware of their nature and there's no reason for them to restrict their fat intake, they either try to make it as realistic as possible or attempt to make the outcomes remarkable (by doing exorbitant stuff and rarely the contrary). For example, in the 900 mcg experiment that you mention, they chosed the realistic route and it was given with the evening meal, probably a typical one that reflects the overall macronutrient intake.

There's the assumption that if more fat in the meal leads to more absorption, doing the opposite will decrease it by just as much. However! If you check out the the graph again, going from 20 g to 30 g could have increased by 70%, and conversely going from 20 g to 10 g (equivalent to a diet that's 12% fat calories), decreased by only 25%, tending not to go much lower. So how can 15 g of fat already decrease it by more than this? It shouldn't be as impacting.

View attachment 14010​

Fairly low intakes of fat are enough to facilitate the absorption of vitamin E, which is probably more difficult to be adsorbed than K.

It's not something that I would expect, but it's difficult to argue if people are witnessing it happening. I remember someone posting pictures on the foro.

I suspect that mk-7 is better at using up antidote C than phylloquinone and mk-4 (in this order). lampofred's darling is often overlooked as well when consuming these.

Recommendations with vitamin D3 supplements suggest trying to get at least 14 grams of fat. The estimate of impair to absorption at 14g is a bit conservative (though close) by your measure. On the other hand, that's good as it buffers against insufficient dosing.

 

[Amazoniac]

Recommendations with vitamin D3 supplements suggest trying to get at least 14 grams of fat.

- Calcirol - Liquid Vitamin D3

The estimate of impair to absorption at 14g is a bit conservative (though close) by your measure. On the other hand, that's good as it buffers against insufficient dosing.

It leads to a great underestimation of uptake because of the presupposition that experiments were run without enough fat and that you absorb much less as the fat intake is lowered. When we're dealing with massive doses such as 70 mg, even a 10% change -- which is unfair because it's a comparison of two different amounts of fat in a meal -- that appears modest can be 7 mg more of mk-4 daily.

 

[baccheion]

- Calcirol - Liquid Vitamin D3

It leads to a great underestimation of uptake because of the presupposition that experiments were run without enough fat and that you absorb much less as the fat intake is lowered. When we're dealing with massive doses such as 70 mg, even a 10% change -- which is unfair because it's a comparison of two different amounts of fat in a meal -- that appears modest can be 7 mg more of mk-4 daily.

That's vitamin D2. D3 can be taken without fat, but it's that absorption changes can be overcome by taking more. That is, they'd adjust up dose until serum was in the desired range. It's the same as being able to take it without 3 mg boron. On the other hand, cofactors can double serum level and/or effectiveness for a particular nominal dose.

The 14 grams I mentioned had nothing to do with 1 mg/kg MK-4. I was hypothesizing regarding 1.5 mg being stated as the minimum effective dose as opposed to the 1 mg nominal amount from the study.

 

[Amazoniac]

That's vitamin D2. D3 can be taken without fat, but it's that absorption changes can be overcome by taking more. That is, they'd adjust up dose until serum was in the desired range. It's the same as being able to take it without 3 mg boron. On the other hand, cofactors can double serum level and/or effectiveness for a particular nominal dose.

This is not about ideal fat intake, it's on how much of it gets compromised when fat consumption is lower'd. It's not as much as it was supposed, therefore I don't think that the overcompensation is justified.

The 14 grams I mentioned had nothing to do with 1 mg/kg MK-4. I was hypothesizing regarding 1.5 mg being stated as the minimum effective dose as opposed to the 1 mg nominal amount from the study.

Yes, it wasn't suggested otherwise. The mk-4 dose is kept the same, what varies is the fat content of the meal, and you were comparing 9 to 14 g to claim that there isn't much difference. And even this way you can tell that there is: 15 mg giving 1.5 mg more than predicted for example.

 

[baccheion]

This is not about ideal fat intake, it's on how much of it gets compromised when fat consumption is lower'd. It's not as much as it was supposed, therefore I don't think that the overcompensation is justified.

Yes, it wasn't suggested otherwise. The mk-4 dose is kept the same, what varies is the fat content of the meal, and you were comparing 9 to 14 g to claim that there isn't much difference. And even this way you can tell that there is: 15 mg giving 1.5 mg more than predicted for example.

It's like I'm speaking in tongues. I won't continue.

 

[TreasureVibe]

It's not something that I would expect, but it's difficult to argue if people are witnessing it happening. I remember someone posting pictures on the foro.

I suspect that mk-7 is better at using up antidote C than phylloquinone and mk-4 (in this order). lampofred's darling is often overlooked as well when consuming these.

Antidote C? Lampofred's darling? What are these? Thanks.

 

[Amazoniac]

It's like I'm speaking in tongues. I won't continue.

The problem is that if it's not exemplified with your numbers, you think it's discussing something else that has no relevance.

One of your suppositions was the amounts of fat in the diet, but try to collect vitamin K experiments and count how many of them neglected this aspect compared to those that didn't, it will be a few. Just search for '"menaquinone 4" fasting/"empty stomach"/meals'. They're usually taken with hearty meals to potentiate the effect.

If you think that for some reason they prepared special dishes containing little fat, this wouldn't be as impacting as guessed due to the reasons discussed. Even less so when you consider that you only adjusted the minimum effective dose for a fixed weight in one of the experiment, but didn't do the same with the other.

They already speculated about a more likely explanation:

"Vitamin K status at baseline might affect γ-carboxylation of osteocalcin in response to supplementary vitamin K [18]; this could be one reason why our effective dose was lower than that in the report by Takeuchi et al.[13]."​

Antidote C? Lampofred's darling? What are these? Thanks.

Vit C and ✿ carbon dioxide ✿.

 

[TreasureVibe]

Vit C and ✿ carbon dioxide ✿.

What would the effect of these be in regards to vitamin K-induced face widening?

 

[Amazoniac]

What would the effect of these be in regards to vitamin K-induced face widening?

Since low doses of K2 are prioritized to its basic functions (involving carboxylation) and these ranges are enough to change appearance, not having enough of it might be compromising. Regarding C, due to its need in collagen synthesis for expansion/remodeling of bones over time, however immediate effects must be due to muscles.

 

[haidut]

Okay besides the general increase in metablism I guess... Is Insulin realease disreable in that context ?

Well, you do want a robust insulin response to food which then declines as food is digested. It is better then not releasing enough but staying elevated for much longer. That's what vitamin K does. Whether that is desirable for your case or not, it not up for me to answer.

 

[haidut]

What would the effect of these be in regards to vitamin K-induced face widening?

Not sure why would one want to negate those effects. Widening of the face is actually a positive sign and signals proper bone development.

 

[TreasureVibe]

Not sure why would one want to negate those effects. Widening of the face is actually a positive sign and signals proper bone development.

Are you sure of this? Will the face widening ever stop when using vitamin K or is there a certain genetic limit? Isn't it simply that the face widening is a pharmacodynamic effect of vitamin K, that has no limit? I've seen pictures of people from Mongolia who had excessive cheek bone widening due to vitamin K in the diet and it was not an attractive feature.

Pharmacodynamic versus. Developmental. I think that is the question here.

 

[haidut]

Are you sure of this? Will the face widening ever stop when using vitamin K or is there a certain genetic limit? Isn't it simply that the face widening is a pharmacodynamic effect of vitamin K, that has no limit? I've seen pictures of people from Mongolia who had excessive cheek bone widening due to vitamin K in the diet and it was not an attractive feature.

I don't think there is a genetic limit. Also, vitamin K seems to also widen the jaw more than anything else and that feature is considered highly attractive in both men and women. That person claiming vitamin K ruined their face conveniently neglects to mention the effects of the steroid he/she was also using.

 

[TreasureVibe]

I don't think there is a genetic limit. Also, vitamin K seems to also widen the jaw more than anything else and that feature is considered highly attractive in both men and women. That person claiming vitamin K ruined their face conveniently neglects to mention the effects of the steroid he/she was also using.

Would a high estrogen state be involved in this in regards to you mentioning steroids in those that say their face worsened with vitamin K?

 

[haidut]

Would a high estrogen state be involved in this in regards to you mentioning steroids in those that say their face worsened with vitamin K?

High cheek bones and narrow jaw are usually tried to elevated GH/estrogen. Vitamin K typically has the opposite effects on face, making it look kind of like this guy's.
https://www.macmillanspeakers.com/speaker/jockowillink/

 

[TreasureVibe]

High cheek bones and narrow jaw are usually tried to elevated GH/estrogen. Vitamin K typically has the opposite effects on face, making it look kind of like this guy's.
https://www.macmillanspeakers.com/speaker/jockowillink/

Will vitamin K have the same positive effects in an individual with already high estrogen? Or will an estrogen and GH lowering substance be required too?

 

[haidut]

Will vitamin K have the same positive effects in an individual with already high estrogen? Or will an estrogen and GH lowering substance be required too?

Vitamin K is known to lower estrogen, so my guess is yes, even without additional GH/estrogen blockade. Higher doses may be needed in such cases but I would try the lower doses first and see if they work. Sometimes, it is remarkably potent even in low doses.