Jump to content

Recommended Posts

...The most northern is Sardinia, Italy and even there one can get good sun exposure much of the year, suggesting high vitamin D levels could be an essential factor in longevity.

 

Yes, Sardinia, even though not a southerly region, tend to be sun-scorched

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Btw, do you  recall what Rhonda recommends in regards to K2 supplementation ?  

 

 

Sibiriak, I found the relevant transcript from the Tim Ferris podcast, although strictly it refers to Rhonda's personal regime. I don't know why she takes MK4, presently there are mixed Mk4 + MK7 supplements. If I remember well, MK4 has a short life in the system.

 

 

Another supplement that I take every other day is vitamin K2 which is found in fermented foods particularly natto but also in organ meat. This is thought to be a good one to take with vitamin D since both are involved in calcium homeostasis. I usually take 100 micrograms in the form of menaquinone otherwise known as MK4.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like levels much over 40-50 ng/mL increase risk, based on what I am reading nowadays.

See also this:

Levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in familial longevity: the Leiden Longevity Study

Compared with controls, the offspring of nonagenarians who had at least one nonagenarian sibling had a reduced frequency of a common variant in the CYP2R1 gene, which predisposes people to high vitamin D levels; they also had lower levels of vitamin D that persisted over the 2 most prevalent genotypes. These results cast doubt on the causal nature of previously reported associations between low levels of vitamin D and age-related diseases and mortality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, that's a very old study in the world of vitamin D research (2012). Lots has come out since then.

There remains disagreement about the exact optimal level. Many knowledgeable doctors & researchers quote 40-60ng/ml. Few to no people advocate 30ng/ml as better than 40ng/ml though some claim that 40 should be the upper end of the optimal range, but most of the uncertainty and debate is about where the upper end of optimal range is. As the reverse-J-shaped curve Michael R posted on the 1st or 2nd page of this thread in 2016-2017 showed, the steepness of the all-cause mortality graph is lower in the higher blood level direction than the lower level, so it makes sense there is more debate about the upper end of the optimal range. And there may be tradeoffs such as increases in some kinds of mortality vs decreases in others.

But it's also important to note that there is ample evidence that low vitamin D levels worsen COVID-19 and in fact lots of evidence that vitamin D supplements directly help against this virus (more than others) and good mechanism arguments as well (including direct action against the virus particles). For a review, see my review http://agingbiotech.info/vitamindcovid19/ or its 1-pager summary: http://agingbiotech.info/vitamindcovid19facts/

So here in the year 2020 the optimal blood vitamin D (25OHD) range has probably temporarily shifted to a higher range than the previous optimal due to a higher short-term risk from COVID-19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By thefind Rhonda Patrick 

On 6/9/2017 at 4:30 PM, Sibiriak said:

Thanks mccoy!

I was able to trace Rhonda's supplement, it is Thorne vitamin D/K2, ordered one bottle and it is very convenient, comes in drops. Pretty expensive but supposedly good quality studd.

image.png.1aabec5bcaa0ffc0521fcc6c64e99616.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mccoy,

 
Serving Size: Two Drops
Servings Per Container: 600
  Two Drops Contain: %Daily Value
Vitamin D (as Vitamin D3) (1,000 IU) 25 mcg 125%
Vitamin K (as Vitamin K2 (Menatetrenone))† 200 mcg 167%

Daily Value (DV)
†MK4

Other Ingredients

Medium chain triglyceride oil, mixed tocopherols.

I see that the Thorne product uses the MK4 form of K2.  There's been good deal of discussion about the distinct bioactivities,  bioavailability  and relative merits of MK7 vs MK4 which I'm sure you are familiar with,  so I won't go into that. 

There does seem to be agreement  that standard MK4 dosages need to be much greater than equivalent MK7 dosages  which suggests that the 200mcg MK4 dosage is quite low and perhaps completely ineffective.   (Many studies use MK7 dosages of 180-360 mcg/day,  while major MK4 studies have used 45 mg/day.)

Personally,  I  prefer to have my Vit. D and K2 supplements separate  so I can adjust levels individually.   Currently, I'm taking MK7  and a vegan form of D3 (more expensive!).   I've considered an MK7/MK4 combination or "full spectrum" K2 supplement, but haven't gone that route so far.

 I base my Vit D  supplementation on blood tests,  aiming for ~ 40ng/ml.   I don't get to much sun, so I definitely must supplement.

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the MK4 form is probably less desirable than the MK7 form but my suspicion (gathered after some research) is that the importance of the K2 vitamin may be overestimated and that the body may be using MK1, phylloquinone = simple K vitamin to manufacture MK7.

The above being said, I still take MK7 pills, but saw no noticeable differences from my previous amounts, much smaller than the accepted minimum requirement of about 80 ug/d.

The precautionary principle rulez...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 11:25 AM, kpfleger said:

Ron, that's a very old study in the world of vitamin D research (2012). Lots has come out since then.

There remains disagreement about the exact optimal level. Many knowledgeable doctors & researchers quote 40-60ng/ml. Few to no people advocate 30ng/ml as better than 40ng/ml though some claim that 40 should be the upper end of the optimal range, but most of the uncertainty and debate is about where the upper end of optimal range is.

I agree with much of what you wrote and my personal doctor subscribes to 30-40 (I've been generally hovering around 30 but lately upped my intake of D and now I am at 46, so I am reducing it a bit).

But I read the study I posted a bit differently.  It seems to indicate to me that there are long-lived people who are naturally predisposed to low levels of vitamin D.  Wheather these people live longer because of the lower vitamin D levels or despite of it, is a different question.  It may simply be the case that people with the common variant in CYP2R1 who have low vitamin D levels are adversely affected by such lower levels, while those with reduced frequency are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×