Yes the recommended daily amount RDA. If you look at the label you will see percentage numbers as a % of value. When you buy a multiple vitamins most of the numbers will be less than 100% as they figure when combined with your regular daily diet will supply the rest. The problem with those figures is they are actually a minimum RDA, and does not take in to account the various stresses that can cause a great deal of wear & tear on your body from time to time. During these times of stress the need for higher blood levels of some nutrients comes into play. If you don't have adequate levels, the wear & tear takes a toll on your body that can cut into the total life you have left. So if there is not a known toxic level it can't hurt to keep higher blood levels than the minimum RDA. Those vitamins are relatively cheap so if you have to piss away the excess, so what. If you ever have need for those higher levels you will have added more hours to your total life span. One company that does a great deal of research is the Life Extension Co. Start doing your own research. What's the point of having a computer connected to the Internet if you can't make it work for you?
Question: Does anyone know much about vitamin K2? I've been seeing more Info about it being a necessary element in heart and artery health. Supposedly, it greatly aids in moving calcium into the bones where it belongs. It's been credited with correcting brittle bones in older people at risk of fractures. It has also been credited with helping to remove calcium build up in the arteries which is a major component of plaque build up in the arteries. I've seen formulas that include vitamin D3, K2, calcium & magnesium which sounds like a real good supplement combination.
I've got an elderly neighbor with a calcium-clogged valve who now regrets listening to her doctor's advice, from years back, to take calcium supplements. "Calcium supplements have been widely embraced by doctors and the public, on the grounds that they are a natural and therefore safe way of preventing osteoporotic fractures. [...] It is now becoming clear that taking this micronutrient in one or two daily [doses] is not natural, in that it does not reproduce the same metabolic effects as calcium in food." [...] Calcium supplements might increase the risk of having a heart attack, and should be "taken with caution"... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120523200752.htm I can only say that I have not died or been hospitalized yet from an over-coagulation event as the result of taking a mere 100 mcg a day dose of K2, as part of a bone-support formulation that contains no "significant" amount of calcium at all. Of course, there are some products out there that feature much larger doses of K2 (apparently the blended supplements slip under the radar of any USA "limit" for vitamin K). Who knows how reliable those studies are that featured gigantic amounts as treatment with no harmful side-effects. The so-called K2-7 variety, derived from natto, would be the rage over in Japan if you went by the pop-culture press (or at least some years ago when I last paid any attention to this).
The link below shows good info about vitamin K. The recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin K is 80 mg per day for adult males and 65 mg per day for adult females, and 5 mg/day for the newborn infant. My problem is I am on the blood thinner Warfarin which works by blocking the action of vitamin K. They were not clear about if it blocked only the clotting action alone or all actions. But I do know more vitamin K interferes with the reason I'm taking Warfarin. I'm looking for a happy medium here. http://www.vitamins-supplements.org/vitamin-K.php
The FDA recommendations for vitamin-K are supposedly based on the liver's requirements alone. Accordingly, garnering other health benefits may require a daily intake of between 200 and 500 mcg/day (for healthy or non-anticoagulant folks). Though the "Kay Pusher" source I'm looking at, via saved archive from the past, advocates acquiring it through food sources rather than supplements. The extremely high doses I referred to before were treatments that took place in Japan and involved 45-90 mg/day. Supposedly no side effects were noted even though they exceeded RDA levels by a staggering amount. Since anticoagulant users are often advised to avoid even large amounts of green leafy vegetables, you should officially be expelled from any vitamin-K game that would involve supplements. But there's this from the same archived source: "The only potential problem with high levels of vitamin K supplementation relates to interference with oral anticoagulant medications such as Warfarin and Coumadin, which are antagonists of vitamin K. Patients on oral anticoagulant treatment should not use vitamin K supplements and avoid strong fluctuations in their daily dietary vitamin K intake. However, in a systematic dose-response study of patients on oral anticoagulant therapy, it was demonstrated that the stability of anticoagulation was not significantly affected by vitamin K supplementation at doses below 150 mcg/day. Patients on anticoagulant medications should consult with their physician or healthcare practitioner regarding vitamin K." Again, however, this would only provide the liver's needs with a little excess (if you were also avoiding vitamin-K rich foods); but still better than nothing as far as trying to direct calcium to the proper places.
I have to test my blood levels of Warfarin every month and was told the good range is between 2 & 3. About a week before my next test I'm going take a 45mcg K2 supplement daily and see how it impacts my test. I'll post the results here when I get them. Next I noticed that vitamin E actually enhances the effects of the blood thinner and I'm already taking 800 I.U. per day. My last test was 2.3 up from 2.0 previously.
"Scientists have known for more than 50 years that excess vitamin E promotes bleeding by interfering with vitamin K, which is essential in blood clotting. However, they haven't been able to pinpoint how the two vitamins interact. [...] Research Traber reviewed suggests that a shared metabolic pathway in the liver causes vitamins E and K to interact. Vitamin K in the liver appears to diminish as vitamin E increases. [...] To lessen the bleeding risk, the U.S.-based Food and Nutrition Board in 2000 set the upper tolerable limit for daily vitamin E intake at 1500 I.U." http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/w-odo103008.php But given the conflicting results or increased concern over vitamin E in recent years (links at bottom), even 800 I.U. almost seems a bit risky nowadays (regarding matters other than bleeding), despite that upper limit of 1500 I.U. being set in 2000 before those developments. OTOH, only the dry or water dispersible forms of vitamin E supposedly get absorbed well on a fats and oils empty stomach. That is, most vitamin E supplement users wouldn't be absorbing anything close to the full amount they're taking, anyway, either because of the type or not eating food with their supplements. On to the aforementioned confusion, the continual flip-flopping that goes on in nutritional research (perhaps reflects the "contingent" factor in science more than any other area of the physical sciences, with the social and psychological sciences probably deserving to be tops in terms of shakiness, uncertainty, and revision): Use of vitamin E associated with increased risk of prostate cancer http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/jaaj-uov100611.php Vitamin E in diet protects against many cancers http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/ru-vei042312.php No protective effect on cancer from long-term vitamin E or vitamin C supplementation http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-11/aafc-npe111108.php Vitamin E may increase the life expectancy of restricted groups of men http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/uoh-vem012011.php Putting limits on vitamin E: The potent antioxidant may do more harm than good http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/afot-plo123009.php High blood levels of vitamin E reduces risk of Alzheimer's http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-07/ki-hbl070710.php Vitamin E may increase tuberculosis risk in male smokers with high vitamin C intake http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/uoh-vem022108.php Study reveals how one form of natural vitamin E protects brain after stroke http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-01/osu-srh011110.php Vitamin E may increase or decrease the risk of pneumonia depending on smoking and exercise http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-02/uoh-vem021711.php Scientists identify an innate function of vitamin E http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/ghsu-sia122011.php Long-term use of vitamin E may decrease COPD risk http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-05/ats-luo051010.php Vitamin E may decrease and increase mortality of male smokers with high dietary vitamin C intake http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/uoh-vem021409.php - - - - - - "One of the most compelling studies of the benefits of vitamin E is the Women's Health Study, in which 40,000 healthy women, 45 and older, took 600 IU vitamin E supplements or a placebo every other day for 10 years. Women taking the supplements had 24 percent fewer deaths from heart disease. Vitamin E's protective effect appeared even stronger in women 65 and older. Those taking the vitamin experienced a 26 percent reduction in cardiovascular events and a 49 percent reduction in cardiovascular deaths." http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-10/w-odo103008.php
C C That's quite a controversial list of links. I believe some of the most current studies have shown for people over 65 the RDA for vitamin E is way to low and that higher dose shows a significant increase in life span. The test was over 10 years and involved 28,000 over 65's. As far as my Warfarin levels go. All I can do is keep an eye on my monthly test and if I'm still between 2 and 3, I'm good, if not and I want to stay on my current supplement dosages, I can ask the doctor to adjust Warfarin dosage.
Hi melville, I noticed that you've posted that same link to the Libertyville Chiropractic Center in 7 out of your 15 posts. To me that's beginning to look like a cleaver bit of spamming on your part.
Yes that's true, but only one of those 15 posts was in this topic, and I didn't report him as a spammer. Just saying what it kind of looks like.
Keep in mind that excess intake of vitamins can be somewhat toxic to the liver. It seems odd to me that people worry about this at all. The human digestive tract is quite adaptable. Consider cultures that have relied solely on just a few food sources and are known to enjoy good health and longevity. Further, I think it's quite well known that nutritional deprivation in lab animals prolongs their lives. So for those of use who are not deprived of good nutrition, keep in mind that fasting once in a while is probably better than loading up on vitamins.
What vitamins are toxic to the liver ? Sure but this was back before industrial farming , when soil was fertilized by dung not chemical fertilizers NUTRITIONAL DEPRIVATION prolongs lives ? What was the quality of the nutrition in the first place ? Fasting has nothing to do with taking vitamins
Well I have to disagree with you a bit. It's not nutritional deprivation that helps prolong life it's caloric deprivation that helps prolong life. In every case being deficient in any required nutrient over a period of time will cause health issues. While some fasting can be good, even that can cause problems with your metabolism if you get carried away with it.
Hey there, KJ long time no see :wave: You say potaytoes I say potahtoes (actually I don't) . . . let's just say that lab animals are known to live longer by taking in less food. Fasting in some manner equivalent to that would probably be a heathy thing to do. I have looked for the article but have not found it . . . a National Geographic study of a remote village in Iran back in the 70s I believe. These people had an average life expectancy of something like 100 years. But their diet was not rich in all but a few essential vitamins. As I recall their main food sources were wheat and milk (goats I think). I'm not even sure they had any citrus, greens or high protein sources. As I recall it was very limited by our standards. I'll see if I can dig it up. I also had in mind the folks who live/lived off of whale blubber. Another group would be the native Americans of the Southwest -- in the regions where game was scarce -- who relied heavily on maize. I think if we keep digging we'll find that there plenty of examples in which people have subsisted on whatever nature provided. I guess it remains to be seen what their heath and longevity outlooks were. Never do that, for sure. Once in a while though is probably better than loading up on vitamins. The other key is to eat in moderation. "All things in moderation" seems to be the rule.
Vitamin supplements are important , and bio-availability of these vitamins or any supplements is what is essential to get the full benifit of the supplement taken Do the research Foods only supply a certain % of the DV ( daily value ) of what the body needs to be healthy Hence the importance of vitamin , mineral supplements Realise that alot of vitamins are not stored by the body , are excreted by the body everyday , vitamin C is an example
How much of this is artificial and psychological? We eat a lot of foods not available to primitive people -- cranberries don't grow near avocados, but how many time have your chased your guacamole with a cranberry enchilada? Just kidding, but you get my drift. Humans evolved to eat whatever was available. Apparently that doesn't demand a wide spectrum of foods. If we could show humans evolved somewhere where a wide spectrum of nutrients were known to be readily available, then so be it. But I seriously doubt that this is the case. Take a look at how vitamin supplements and certain foods are semi-toxic and can be disastrous to the liver. Again: all things in moderation. That's the mantra.
Sea shore , provided iodine and protein, land provided protein and carbohydrates Again what vitamins are toxic to the liver ?
