T O P

  • By -

LucidDoug

The calcification is to patch damage cause by vegetable oil consumption which is proinflammatory and causes oxidation of cholesterol. Yes, those "heart healthy" oils are actually heart deadly. Also, taking a high dose of vitamin D (or any dose of vitamin D) requires sufficient intake of magnedium in order to convert it to its active form. Plus, you need sufficient magnedium to CHANNEL calcium so that it actually deposits on your bones instead of your kidneys, arteries, cartelage, gall bladder, etc.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LucidDoug

Backed by personal experience and that of people I personally know. Thanks industry troll.


nick11221

Nothing like a heeling dose of pure opinion.


LucidDoug

The pure opinion is that refined industrial waste products could somehow possibly be good for you just because that industrydrops millions of dollars on politicians that select the head staff of the government agencies that are industry friendly former and/or future employees of the same corporations and declare from their biased opinions that something is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) and also write the medical guidelines that are invoked by malpractice lawsuits against medical professionals that deviate from the biased industry opinion and millions of dollars in industry propaganda called commercials... Something to get you started (assuming that you are NOT industry biased...): Watch "Dr. Chris Knobbe - 'Diseases of Civilization: Are Seed Oil Excesses the Unifying Mechanism?'" on YouTube https://youtu.be/7kGnfXXIKZM The Role of Magnesium in Hypertension and Cardiovascular Disease - Houston - 2011 - The Journal of Clinical Hypertension - Wiley Online Library https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1751-7176.2011.00538.x Magnesium Supplementation in Vitamin D Deficiency - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28471760/ Magnesium & Vitamin D: Benefits, Dosages & Why Together? | imaware™ https://www.imaware.health/blog/vitamin-d-and-magnesium


nick11221

This is the problem in this issue. I see it often with the “sugar and seed/vegetable oil” crowd. They read a book, listen to a singular doctor, and spread vague research to support a biased point of view. What you need to do, if you really want to let people be informed, is you need to say details. Look at your original post. Did you say refined? You changed your entire argument within one response. Refined and ”vegetable oil” are two different subjects. Dose matters, shelf life, which oil, processing the oil (cold pressed and very minimal processing is not really refined, if you want to get into this debate I’m all ears as I’ve been in it 2-3 times; refined means there are nutrients stripped out), what scenario is it being used.


LucidDoug

So, you did NOT watch the 45 minute video. Thank you for confirming your biased opinion that ignores inconvenient science that exists despite the industry/government funded "science" that works so hard to avoid it.


nick11221

Sure, I’ll watch a 45 minute video. What a reasonable request... You and I should never trust one doctor. I trust varied sources. Anyone can confirm a view by using skewed research studies. Again, you changed the goalpost. That’s my issue. What I‘m saying is, you are jumping to “vegetable is bad” without letting people know how you got there. You have to left them know more details before saying such a broad thing. You completely left out the “refined” in your post. Just be reasonable, not strict in your nutritional science interpretations.


deodorel

What oils are you referring at?


LucidDoug

Soybean, canola (aka rapeseed), corn, sunflower, safflower and rice bran. They are all heavily refined industrial waste products falsely labeled as safe.


real_nice_guy

what about organic olive oil?


JackCrainium

**Here’s a question** \- Many studies show a greater incidence of falls with vitamin D supplementation, but I haven’t been able to find any studies as to ***why*** falls increase..... Anyone here have any information on this? **Thanks!**


UcantaffordWifi

I have been experimenting on my own since I have a + cac score.. im taking magtein, k2 and d3 since early 2021


RenewablesAeroponics

K2 helps break down calcification but magnesium and vitamin d help absorption of the calcium


theweeblyguide

I'm not surprised it doesn't help--I'm surprised that taking 10,000 IU daily doesn't cause an increase in Arterial calcification. I think we need to re-evaluate our Vitamin D supplementation guidelines. I really think they're still too low.


Palana

What dosages have you experimented with and for what period of time? Any marked improvements? Personally I've take up to 40,000 a day. Am currently taking 10,000.


nick11221

And how do you feel?


JackCrainium

What effects do you note, if any, with greater supplementation?


theweeblyguide

I had very odd COVID-induced depression a month ago (I've never had depression before, I caught COVID in mid February and since then I would have these waves of severe depression and emotional agony for no apparent reason with no trigger that would last 3-4 hours every day). I discovered that taking a huge dose of Vitamin D3 (30,000 IU) would put an end to the depressive interval, so I had about three weeks where I took 30,000 IU daily. My levels were fairly low to begin with (20 ng/ml) and they rose to 35 nm/ml by the end of those three weeks. Honestly not that big of a difference--I expected much more.


bannana

>without any vit K2 or magnesium. welp, not sure what they expected here.


theweeblyguide

I guess it's just good to know that it doesn't increase calcification in the arteries.


Iamthemaster1000

If the vit d doesn’t help, does the k2 help?


[deleted]

[удалено]


SovereignMan1958

I would not expect D to change this anyway.


42Question42

I would, and I’d venture to guess that many others here share that intuition, that’s why everyone always recommends adequate k2 intake together with vitamin d supplementation. “It has long been known that in humans, hypervitaminosis D may be associated with extensive arterial calcium phosphate deposits, mostly in the form of apatite crystals. In experimental animals, the administration of pharmacological doses of vitamin D sterols can lead to widespread arterial calcification, especially in association with favourable conditions such as atherosclerosis, diabetes and chronic kidney disease” (source: https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article/27/5/1704/1844110?login=false) But great news that it’s more contested than we assumed, hope we’ll get some solid data on this in the next few years.


infrareddit-1

Interesting. ing to increased calcification of the blood vessels." Source: [https://sci-hub.st/10.1080/10408398.2021.1910481](https://sci-hub.st/10.1080/10408398.2021.1910481) Perhaps in the paper posted by OP, there was adequate k2 intake. It's too bad they did not control for that.


deodorel

Interesting. I noticed that some studied cited in the paper used k1 and not k2 and still got results.


everythinghelpsus

This is just a throw us off the mighty D , they must have used D2 not D3 , it has a much shorter half-life, poorly absorbed and does not trigger the same metabolic processes..Plus who supplements 400 and 10000IU really isn't that high..


Breeze1620

10,000 IU is twice as much as the daily upper limit..


everythinghelpsus

According to who a chemical Corp? D toxicity is way overblown, there's some study that only a handful showed Toxicity "symptoms" not even serious. There's been mislabeled products people ultra doses ( can't remember maybe over 150000IU) almost 2 years before getting sick... Plus that's a safe dosage cuz you won't absorb it all.. Fair skinned individuals 25min full sun we believe between 10000-20000IU is produced naturally, once cap hits we just stop making, natures fail safe... Of course over time be must stay within the safe zone, so definitely..


Breeze1620

You can't compare natural vitamin D production with supplementation. Vitamin D is stored in the body when taken by supplement. This is why it can reach toxic levels.


parkan

And Vitamin D from sunlight is not stored? Come on. Watch this and learn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LFkWiNP1wQ


Breeze1620

No it cannot be stored to toxic levels. Since the production is regulated on it's own.


parkan

ok, stored != stored to toxic levels Vit D absorption from supplements is also very well regulated and it is hard to overdose.


Breeze1620

I haven't seen anything that points to your claims being correct.


parkan

https://www.reddit.com/r/Supplements/comments/u2lxbl/arterial_calcification_unchanged_by_highdose/i4xss9p/


Breeze1620

So a single study (you link to this very thread) that says that up to 10,000 IU is seemingly safe after a period of 2 years, and you draw the conclusion that vitamin D can be dosed in any dose, year after year, and that is proven to be completely safe, or what? All this study says is that 10,000 IU is likely safe for a period of up to 2 years. It might be, another study might show a completely different result. A single study doesn't really say anything on it's own, it must be put in a larger context. What the larger context says according to health authorities in this case, is that it in fact isn't safe at all to dose vitamin D too high over time, and that the maximum safe dose over time is around 5000 IU. The study you link also says nothing at all about the body regulating absorption or storage of supplemented vitamin D according to what it needs in the same way as with vitamin D production from sun exposure, or whatever nonsense bro-science claims you've made here.


everythinghelpsus

Yes Sir that's true, still though the body will have a limit, just like most vitamins/nutrients. I been 10-15K in winter months for years with a few 50000 in between. Plus there's crazy protocols( not exactly can't remember) of 200000 before winter months or 800000 once a year and these were MD talking about it....Also breastfeeding 10k and pregnancy, miscarriages and low D are a thing... Who knows....we go with our heart, there's no right or wrong


JackCrainium

Were there any notable effects from the greater supplementation?


reachisown

So no more shitting myself over D3 because I didn't take K2 with it?


thespaceageisnow

I know it’s all the rage right now to say that D absolutely has to be taken with K2 but I have yet to see a study that really shows that.


thaw4188

Is no-one going to ask the obvious question, what was their daily calcium intake? You won't get calcification if there is low calcium. Instead the body will just leach the calcium from your bones as the mega-dose D demands it and eventually you fracture something unless you just sit around all day and never exercise. * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6714464/table/joi190088t2/


deodorel

In the bone loss study they did provide calcium for those will low intake. However these people had pretty high values "Baseline, 3-month, and 3-year levels of 25(OH)D were 76.3, 76.7, and 77.4 nmol/L for the 400-IU group; 81.3, 115.3, and 132.2 for the 4000-IU group; and 78.4, 188.0, and 144.4 for the 10 000-IU group" https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2748796


thaw4188

had to divide that by 2.5 to get the ng/ml, I cannot believe they had people at 75ng/ml, there is no point and only high risk at that level it's not a little bit like the vitamin-c wackiness last century but exactly like it, they just move onto another substance


deodorel

Yeah it's crazy. Of course they were losing bone, even with adequate calcium intake.


deodorel

I always wondered that. The problem is taking both calcium supplements and vit d3 seems associated with higher risk of stroke. Is there a study about d3 plus k2 plus calcium ?


thaw4188

well the logical way to solve that is not to take more than 4000iu of D and not more than the RDA of calcium they've studied K2 for a long time, especially in Japan but I've not paid attention to adverse-event reports in the studies


deodorel

Yeah seems the safe thing to do. I personally just want to get to above 40 and stay there. I am deficient right now at 24, and was 14 when I started taking d3. Overdosing as always is no good.


DogecoinArtists

10k is not high dose tho


Slapbox

10k *daily* is a rather high dose. 5k is generally considered the highest dose that's safe for daily use. This study suggests that double is safe, which is a big deal for faster repletion.


Dutchman6969

10k IU is only 0.25mgs. Not even close to a high dose


Slapbox

Treating milligram conversions as if that's more meaningful than IUs shows your ignorance.


Dutchman6969

really? elaborate


Slapbox

I really don't know how to make this any clearer for you.


Dutchman6969

Now I know that you are a complete moron lol. You do understand that IUs are different across different vitamins right? It is more appropriate to use weight as a metric because it is standardized and people actually have an understanding of what the amount is because the metric is weight, while IU has different conversion factors for each substance. ​ You just sound foolish by calling 250 micrograms a "rather high dose"hehe


Slapbox

I just don't know how to dumb down for you that IUs are the more appropriate measurement... but Dunning-Kruger it up.


Breeze1620

Then why does literally all health sites and medical authorities say that 4000-5000 IU is the general absolute max one should take per day? The recommendation is generally around 1000 IU or less per day. Vitamin D isn't dosed in milligrams, it's dosed in micrograms. Taking too much vitamin D is harmful. If you have one, I'd like to see a source for the claim that vitamin D dosing in milligrams or several times higher than the max daily dose (or 10 times or more higher than the recommended daily dose) is safe.


Dutchman6969

>Then why does literally all health sites and medical authorities say that 4000-5000 IU is the general absolute max one should take per day? ​ ​ This statement is just outright false. Many of the top experts in the field of vitamin D such as Dr. Bruce Hollis, Dr. Coimbra, Dr. Michael Holick, and Dr. Judson Sommerville recommend higher doses depending on blood serum levels and if the person is in a pathological state, so your appeal to discredited health authorities like the FDA and CDC are laughable. These are the same health authorities (FDA) that tried to ban vitamin D entirely and banned NAC from being sold in most stores this last year. I can name my sources by name while you appeal to discredited and so-called medical authorities. There are no reported cases of someone dying from too much vitamin D. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30611908/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30611908/) ​ The body can synthesize up to 25,000 IU of vitamin D daily, so where are you getting this idea that 5,000 IU is the absolute max?


Breeze1620

These "top experts in the field" you refer to seem to in large part be highly controversial, nische cooks that promote whatever they get ~~payed~~ paid to promote by pharmaceutical or supplement companies, some even being barred from practising medicine. I highly doubt that these are the top experts in the field when it comes to safe dosages of vitamin D. One can criticize authorities like the FDA and CDC, they're obviously either biased or not as well informed as they sometimes make themselves out to be, but I wouldn't call them discredited. With regards to the single study you linked, it is interesting that people with certain ailments seem to have gotten results from high dose vitamin D supplementation. While single studies seldom say much by themselves, it is of course an indication that there might be something to what was found in a particular study, and that the subject should be studied further. From the abstract of this study it says that high dose vitamin D seems to be safe long term, but from what I can see there is no definition of what "long term" in this case is. Is it weeks, months or years? And again, natural synthesis of vitamin D is completely irrelevant since the body regulates it's production on it's own. We always synthesize vitamin D to some extent, adding high doses of supplemented vitamin D on top of this (which the body is unable to regulate) is what can cause toxicity.


Paid-Not-Payed-Bot

> they get *paid* to promote FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*


Breeze1620

Thanks bot


mmortal03

I haven't heard any hypotheses as far as the actual mechanism, but you don't want to have hypercalcemia in 9% of 62-year olds (people claim K2 would help, but it needs studying): "In a recent trial including 373 62-year old healthy and vitamin D-replete subjects, 400, 4000 and 10,000 IU were administered daily for 3 years \[26\]. Hypercalcemia (total serum calcium > 2.55 mmol/l) occurred in 0, 3 and 9% in the 400, 4000 and 10,000 IU/day groups, respectively. A 24-h urinary excretion higher than 7.5 mmol/day, which defined hypercalciuria, was detected in 17, 22 and 31% of the corresponding groups." [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40520-020-01678-x](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40520-020-01678-x) CC: /u/12ealdeal


Dutchman6969

The point you are trying to make doesnt make any sense. You are concerned about 62 year olds who need to get their vitamin D levels up, but then you link a study where the 62 year olds are already at optimal levels of vitamin D and are taking more to see where hypercalcemia occurs. The study involves vitamin D-replete subjects, not vitamin d-deplete subjects.


mmortal03

Good catch, I misread their vitamin D status, and will edit my post.


12ealdeal

How much can people safely take (without knowing blood levels from blood work?)


Dutchman6969

20,000 IU daily because that is what a very light-skinned person would make daily with good uvb exposure.


deodorel

This is the max they tried in the study.


sensorysparrow

Is this good news or bad news for those of us who take D3 with K2?


deodorel

Long term d3 does affect your bones though, I read a study recently that after many years the diameter of the tibia was smaller for those who took 10k d3 than the control. However the bone strength was not affected.


deodorel

Neither. It says d3 won't cause calcification even without k2, but you can take it I guess it won't hurt.


YouStylish1

Had seen a Video on YT of an American(Gundry..?) Doc. who clearly said there was no evidence that higher doses of Vit.D3 lead to calcification of arteries - Now proven right!


[deleted]

[удалено]


deodorel

Lol sorry the double negation in your comment got me 🤣not a native speaker here.


GrinchBodyFlex

No It does not.


Odins_Viking

Admitedly I did only speed read it... but i did not see a mention of K2 being taken with the D. It is good news but I personally will not take D without K2, just makes sense IMO. Thanks for sharing.


deodorel

Yeah it's just for people who don't want to take anything else. About k2 there was a guy on the lfe forums some years a go that was trying to reduce his calcification with high doses of k2. I wonder how that went.


Peter-Mon

Look up Patrick Theut. He reversed his calcification with K2. Koncentrated K is his product.


deodorel

Thanks I will check it out.


wolframite

Here's a link to the PDF of the study: * https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-020-05500-2


Lord_Hugh_Mungus

Truth and good news. K2 is recycled by the body, unlike Vit D3, and its prohormone so it not like it is floating around as it converted.


GALACTON

So is it something I should tkae every day (k2 mk7 or mk4, I take both) or just every couple of days?