More confusion

Posted , 6 users are following.

Hi everyone. I have just gone to order my K2 as I am running low and the previous ones I ordered are no longer available. However, I now seem to have a choice of K2 mk4 OR K2 mk7. Have no idea what one I was taking before or what I should be buying now. Further investigations show that huge amounts of mk4 are needed to make a difference but mk7 stays in the body for longer and is more benificial. Have we all been taking the wrong one? Anyone know which one they are taking as it appears they are not all the same. Just to clarify, I am only talking about K2.

0 likes, 34 replies

34 Replies

Next
  • Posted

    Hi Alison , I believe after research that Vitamin K2 M-7 is the better one. I always buy SOLGAR. Cost a bit more but hey we are talking about our health here. Holland and Barret occasionally have offers so I buy a couple jars.

    As you probably know this vitamin takes calcium from the arteries and directs it into the bone (according to research )

    My doctor prescribes ADCAL-D3 which I also take. Hope this helps.

    • Posted

      Thanks Dolly. I am familiar with this company as I have a mal absorbsion with iron so I use their gentle iron. I was not sure which K2 I was taking before but will order the M7 now. I too take cal and D3 but get this on repeat prescription. 

    • Posted

      Hi mentioned a product by the company you spoke of so I think this is why it was removed. I am familiar with this company because I have a mal-absorbition problem with iron and take their product. I also take cal and D3 on prescription from my GP. Certainly looks like it is worth taking K2Mk7. Mk 4 less so. Thanks for your imput
  • Posted

    Just for your information, I think the Japanese research on natto used mk-7, as that's the form produced in the natto.  Mk-4 is generally what we get from animals that make it (grass fed cattle and chickens) and possibly what we make in our own gut, albeit in small amounts.  I think they are probably both good for us, but as you point out the two forms seem to be metabolized differently.  The bone supplement I bought for a while contained some of both kinds, but the Vitamin K2 supplement I use now is mk-7, derived from natto.  

    • Posted

      My research shows that Mk4 is the one derived from animals and we make it in the gut but also we would need to take huge amounts of this to be benificial. I will order the Mk7 but not certain if this is what I was taking before. Everytime I think I have this sussed, something else comes to light. Thats life!!! Thanks
  • Posted

    Hi Alison

    I used 600mcg of mk7 and got palpitations so now use 200 mcg which seems fine. I do take mk4 occasionally, not sure if that conflicts or not. But I believe 200mcg of mk7 is recommended

    • Posted

      That does sound like a lot. Did you take it in one go or split it over the day?  Certainly looks like it is K2mk7 that will benefit us the most. Thanks
    • Posted

      It was the first order of k2 I got. It was 1 tablet of 600mcg. Once I did a bit more research it seemed as though 200mcg was what was recommended . I take boron, krill oil, magnesium and have recently ordered calcium prostate. Probably rattling!

    • Posted

      Rattling is definately better than cracking michele. I split my K2 so I take half in the morning and half in the evening. I also take my cal D3 at the same time, with food. Good luck with your regime
    • Posted

      I believe k2mk7 has a longer life so you don't need to split the dose. Not 100% though. Keep well Alison

    • Posted

      Thank you michele. I hope you are doing ok too. And you are correct. K2 mk7 lasts longer in our systems.
  • Posted

    In Bulgaria they recommend Swiss ultraboost k2.
    • Posted

      It's the actual name of the product.

      This is the type of vit k2 we are getting prescribed.

      Just Google it.

    • Posted

      THanks. Will do. We haven't got to the stage of getting K2 on prescription as yet and it is one of the more expensive supplements advised for our condition. But, what price on our health.

    • Posted

      Looked it up. Its the company name and they do many supplements for all sorts of things. I am trying a new brand Nu U nutrition. It claims to be a highly absorbent form and one bottle contains a years supply.
    • Posted

      Hi Alison/All

      Did your GP do a blood test to check the Calcium and Vit D your body stores naturally prior to taking supplements?

      I was surprised to find that mine were 'normal' not sure if they can also test K2 levels as well. 

    • Posted

      Sorry my responses are bitty. Have not had access to the internet lately. When I was first diagnosed, my calcium levels were ok but my D3 was low. I normally spend winter in southern Portugal and therefore should have been ok but I had been having treatment for a brain tumour and was unable to fly because of swelling on the brain. My OP diagnosis was after I had finished radiotherapy, so I am certain my D3 levels were lower than they would normally have been. I live in Scotland most of the time. Cold wet windy and about 5 hours of daylight in the winter when I am too cold to go out without gloves on, never mind exposing my forearms for 20minutes.
    • Posted

      Well, not only the cold but the angle of the sun means for about six months of the year your skin can't make D anyway. That's why we who dwell outside the tropics usually have to take supplements, not many foods have it.

    • Posted

      I am very much aware of this. UV and its effects on the skin was a subject I studied in great detail during my early years. So, although I spent a lot of time in the sun, I always protected my skin with a hat, sunglasses and covered from head to foot in Factor 50. I was paranoid about sun damage and malignant melanoma. I also feel the cold so even in June, in Scotland, when the sun is at its highest, I have been known to wear gloves. Hence the reason I have a home in the sun. I now spend 20 minutes a day, when I am in Southern Portugal, in my garden, getting my top ups without sunscreen.
    • Posted

      You know, I live in Nova Scotia, pretty much exactly same latitude as Nice in southern France, not really that much further north than Spain and Portugal, and we can't make D for six months of the year. You may not be getting as much of the right kind of sun as you think, although you will get more than we do. I believe in North America anyone north of Atlanta is at risk. If your shadow at noon is longer than you are, the sun's angle is too low.

    • Posted

      You probably get 2 months more a year than Scotland does and the South of Portugal gets about 2 months more than you. Therfore, I have about 4 months more, living in Portugal than I would have living in Scotland. The cold does play a more indirect part on sun exposure because we cover up more of our bodies and therefore have less exposure. Sitting in a car can really feel hot but the vital rays cannot pass through glass. I take D3 daily (600iu) whether I am in Scotland or Portugal. 
    • Posted

      Well I have to say I think I'd be happy with a seasonal home somewhere in southern Europe. Some of my friends are called snowbirds and spend the worst part of the year in places like Florida or Arizona. ... But they have to try not to get sick when in the USA.

Report or request deletion

Thanks for your help!

We want the community to be a useful resource for our users but it is important to remember that the community are not moderated or reviewed by doctors and so you should not rely on opinions or advice given by other users in respect of any healthcare matters. Always speak to your doctor before acting and in cases of emergency seek appropriate medical assistance immediately. Use of the community is subject to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and steps will be taken to remove posts identified as being in breach of those terms.