I saw this article and thought I’d pass it along. NextAvenue is a newsletter from Minnesota Public Radio so I think it is a reliable source. If you take any vitamins and supplements like we do, you might give it a look.
4 Likes
This is something from the article that I have looked over in the past. It is unknown with limited mostly inconclusive studies.
Yet this presentation states “facts”. They are not facts.
- Vitamin K and Vitamin D: These vitamins are essential for strong bones, among other functions, Wood says. “Vitamin D is crucial for bone health because it supports calcium absorption and vitamin K helps calcium find its way into your bones,” she says.
Oh they mostly certainly are….and in the case of Vit D, with robust evidence stretching back almost a century. K took a bit longer. Whilst I generally wouldn’t get my information from articles such as this (and I’ve only given it a cursory glance in case there’s some context to this statement that I missed), you’ve glommed onto one combo that most definitely shouldn’t be ignored.
For a bit more scholarly background to the history of vit d discovery……
History of the discovery of vitamin D and its active metabolites - PMC History of the discovery of vitamin D and its active metabolites - PMC
P.S……I’ve always thought that The English Disease referred to Syphilis, not rickets. I guess that’s just the French, though.
VeeEnn,
There is research; it is worthless stuff.
The power of suggestion. Make believe that all is officially known. Not true in the least.
Agreed. Vit D3 and K2, as I recall, are a powerful combo. I did some research a few years ago, and there were actual studies.
But I do agree that supplements make lots of claims that can’t be supported, and there is a dearth of legitimate research on them. And, to my annoyance, they don’t require FDA approval. They’re making medical claims, so why doesn’t the FDA require them to be approved (i.e. prove it)?
I treat supplements with great skepticism. Unless bloodwork shows I have a deficiency, I tend not to take them.
That is not how that works. All studies particularly on vit k are nonsense. Yes, they are formal studies. Worthless stuff. My PCP, a prior PCP, and my BIL a top researcher…“not much of anything, we don’t know from those studies”.
The general public thinks “studies” matter. Generally, they do not matter or are wrong.
In reality, vitamin K is next to unstudied so far. No one with a merited study has looked into it. There is no claim worth a damn. You might call it a pile of guesses.
The problem how do you have research for better or for worse, quality and mixed quality, without making powerful suggestions to people who can not decide the true value of the predicates in the study.
At the end of the day we are reading ideas that become suggestions usually without any merit.
My bestie an engineer over diner on Thursday asked if I believe in aliens? Then he suggested the moon was fabricated. He’s been dipping into sci fi used as “research”. Simply ideas to play around with. He lets himself believe the suggestions. I see that in these discussions.
2 Likes
Well, halle-ding-dong-diddly-lujah. I was going to express this sentiment but whenever I say something like this I always feel like it’ll be my last post. At least discussions like this are a chance to give my pacemaker a few hours off
1 Like
It is hard.
Do you let people be happy? People see results? Sort of, but that could be anything from the suggestion that makes them happy to their luck they healed. People do not know.
But the studies are not useful much of the time.
It is hard.
I am not enjoying saying these things, but it levels the playing field for people reading the predicates turned suggestions.
1 Like
Based on what I see here, I would seriously consider taking a combination of vitamin d and k if I were a post menopausal woman: The Synergistic Interplay between Vitamins D and K for Bone and Cardiovascular Health: A Narrative Review - PMC
The law does not permit any claims that a supplement will cure any specific medical condition. The FDA will issue warnings and then shut them down.
If you read supplement labels you will see carefully-worded claims that do not make references to any specific illness.
For example, collagen supplements say, “Support better joint health and flexibility.” That’s non-specific and it’s allowed. They are NOT allowed to say, “Heals Posterior Tibial Tendon Disorder” (a painful tearing of the tendon that supports the arch of the foot) because that is a specific medical condition. But I doubled my usual intake and noticed healing within 3 months.
Evidence-based medicine (three-stage clinical trials) is very, very expensive. Many medical treatments used by doctors (drugs, surgeries, devices) have never been tested and fail when they are subjected to large, multi-centric, double-blinded trials. (cf, the book “Ending Medical Reversals.) There is a web site that classifies them – https://thennt.com/
I follow Dr. Peter Attia, who is prevention-oriented and skeptical. I also use common sense. I will try activities and supplements and keep them if they work for me. For example, I started lifting weights at age 20 and continued even though I was the only woman in the gym doing so. I recognized the importance of aerobic exercise and sleep decades before this was propounded by health authorities. I do Zumba because I’m convinced that doing complex changing footwork will benefit my nervous system. I take Vitamin D and measure my blood level to stay within recommended levels.
We all make decisions for ourselves. Some METARs are healthy and wouldn’t benefit by supplements. I’m not trying to convince anyone.
Wendy
2 Likes
Why? There is no known biological reason to do so. There are studies straddling good and neutral results. But zero idea why it would work. There are unsupported ideas. Even the idea that it works and does something is a guess.
Not all studies observed synergistic effects of vitamin D and K supplementation. A small study among adults with Crohn’s disease in Ireland showed generally no effect of combined vitamin D and K supplementation versus placebo on bone mass after 1 year, except a modest increase in bone mass of the total radius [52]. Among healthy women, 1 year of vitamin D and calcium + vitamin K supplementation either by phylloquinone or menaquinone-4 supplementation had no effect on BMD compared to calcium and vitamin D alone [53]. This study does not support a combined role for vitamin D + K supplementation in osteoporosis prevention; however, the relatively short study duration and the inclusion of healthy women could explain the null finding. It is however questionable if BMD can be improved in 12 months since changes in BMD usually require at least 1 year of follow-up time.
Among healthy older men and women, no difference was observed between multivitamin and calcium and vitamin D compared with the addition of vitamin K on BMD after 3 years [19]. An additive effect was noticeable for decreased percentage of uncarboxylated osteocalcin, which indicates an improved vitamin K status in the treatment group.
The ECKO trial among postmenopausal women with osteopenia showed no beneficial effect of vitamin D and calcium + vitamin K supplementation versus vitamin D and calcium alone after 2 years of follow-up in vitamin D-sufficient women [54]. However, the risk of fractures—a clinically more meaningful endpoint—was lower in the vitamin D and calcium + vitamin K groups: hazard ratio 0.41 (95 CI 0.1, 1.18) at 2 years and 0.45 (95% CI 0.20, 0.98) after 4 years of follow-up. This result on fracture risk indicates that bone quality rather than quantity is more important as not all trials showed synergistic effects of vitamin D and K supplementation on bone mineral density.
The protective effect of vitamin D with K on prednisolone-induced loss of BMD in patients with chronic glomerulonephritis after 8 weeks of treatment was similar in the vitamin D-only group [55], meaning that the addition of vitamin K had no synergistic effect. The elevation in serum calcium concentrations in the vitamin D group was, however, attenuated in the vitamin D + K group.
Taken together the evidence for combined vitamin D and K supplementation, the majority of the studies found beneficial effects for BMD among postmenopausal women.
Agreed. For me, I value solid metrics. If I have a deficiency, a supplement is appropriate. Sometimes it can be just food (e.g. I’m a bit low on sodium, so a handful of chips or peanuts seems to have put it in the normal range). Mostly, supplements just make expensive urine. Your body will only take what it needs, and dispense with the rest. If you don’t need it, it comes out in your urine (generally).
1poorlady tested as high in B12, but low in B6. So a B-complex wouldn’t have been appropriate. That’s an example of why testing is important, IMHO.
Studies are sparse, but there are some if you look in the correct places.
It is true that they can’t/don’t make specific claims. But even making the claim “support better joint health” without evidence, IMHO, is deceitful. It may do so, but to claim that they should have to have data.
Data is not the first thing I want.
I want to know how they work in the body. What the side effects are of taking them. They are not clear of side effects.
Then some data would be nice.
Right now we have data. Don’t trust it. Data is studies of large populations without knowledge of how it works.
More stuff from National Public Radio that is unverified. I hate NPR for all the unverified reporting.
NPR channels need to come clean about not verifying their materials. Admit they have ultra low standards.
Beats me how folk can opine that there are no studies on Vit K. If that’s the case, I wonder how come the structure, the mechanism of action in blood clotting or bone metabolism is understood as it is.
I’ll go with Wikipedia for starters ..
Vitamin K - Wikipedia Vitamin K - Wikipedia
Vitamin K: the effect on health beyond coagulation – an overview - PMC Vitamin K: the effect on health beyond coagulation – an overview - PMC
Vitamin K and bone health - ScienceDirect Vitamin K and bone health - ScienceDirect
It’s enough to make a person wonder if folk don’t actually scrutinize the appropriate literature in a meaningful way 
5 Likes
@WendyBG….one of the problems with interventional strategies (including, but not limited to judicious use of supplements) is that, for a good many conditions, the lead up time to the “condition“ manifesting itself (whichever condition) can be years or decades along the continuum away from healthy homeostasis. Bearing this in mind, it’s tremendously difficult to actually generate the sort of solid data that, say, a chemist, physicist or any of the other “hard” sciences demands and expects as a minimum.
As a consequence much of what we have to go on is inferential….sometimes based on plausible, known mechanisms but sometimes not much more than an educated guess. With personal decision making what does one do whilst waiting for the world to change?
4 Likes
People are saying there are no quality studies.
People can easily say you have no idea how it would work to make the claims made.
People who say they have results are basing that on guesses. The power of suggestion. You read a bunch of ideas presented to you, and those ideas become suggestions. The actual studies are weak. The predicates are direct statements.
@VeeEnn I have a number of health conditions that I lived with stoically for years before finally deciding to treat them. Some are treatable with conventional medicine. Others may be treatable with alternatives, whether supplements, exercise, sleep, etc.
I try them out and see what happens. Sometimes it doesn’t work for me, as when I tried Vitamin K (two different brands) but felt ill as a result. Other times it works, as when I reasoned that pumping my arm muscles with light dumb-bells would prevent lymphedema after my bilateral mastectomy.
I keep an open mind but I also read research with a skeptical statistician’s eye. If I see a study with, say, fewer than 30 participants and a scattered, small result, I ignore it even if it’s “statistically significant.” If I see a study with tens of thousands of participants and a dramatic result I often share it on METAR.
But if I see a recommendation by a doctor who has observed an effect on patients (such as using d-ribose to increase energy in cardiac patients) I will try it if it’s harmless and I have the problem. If it doesn’t work I can stop, no harm no foul.
Wendy (data set of one)
Wendy,
I have an CAC of something like 163. I had a prior result of something like 156 two years earlier .
I have tried Vit K on my friends suggestion. Then I realized what if the calcium is not placed in only the bones? Or the artery walls instead?
We do not know. The studies are for the snakeoil salesmen to make money.
Yes honest Ph.D. candidates study these things. It is still half behinded attempts on their part. It is dishonest to assign the Ph.D title to this sort of messing around.
BTW when the money gets cut for research, which happens in the political cycles, those Ph.Ds are cut first. They do not rejoin the academic world. They are SOL because they blank and always did blank.
For me, one of the supplements I’m fairly committed to is a high quality whey protein isolate (with addition of creatine and collagen). I calculate my requirements at quite a bit more than that standard recommendation of .8gms/kg (I shoot for approx 100-120 gms for a bodyweight toggling around 130-135 lbs) …and a decent rationale for this.
The protein powder to make a breakfast smoothie is really the only way I can make anywhere near that goal given my dietary preferences and my No Fat Arse energy budget for a day.
Less commitment to but still reasonably diligent with a multivitamin (impossible not to consume Vit D or K), Vit D (nice and sunny here but super fair skinned and with one squamous and one basal cell carcinoma on my docket…..not to mention what I can’t call freckles any longer…I treat the sun with the respect a vampire would) Fish oil/omega 3, CoQ10 to accompany my other “supplement" liptor. I think that’s it.