Vitamin k2 - I had a viewer, Richard Dixon. He asked about vitamin K2.
Here's his - he gave us his experience. He had a good experience with
it. "Hey doc, have you heard about vitamin k2?
Combine it with vitamin D3. Check it out. Enough said."
You know, I thought I had done one on K2. We've heard it quite a bit in
the (PrevMed) community. I've done a little bit on it. Actually I went back and looked and
it's one of those that's in the queue. So I moved it up in the queue - because again
because of the interest in the community. Richard goes on to say, " Look,six years
ago I had a knee replacement surgery on my right knee. The pre-op exam showed a
lot of calcification in the arteries and vessels around my heart. My knee surgeon
put me on k2 - MK 7." (and you'll see what that is in just a minute). " I've never
heard of it but it seems it's really good for clearing up plaque in just a
few months. Just a few months ago -six years later I had the left knee replaced.
The cardiologist showed me my chest x-ray - which showed no calcium
deposits at all." You hear a lot about it. You you don't see it in a lot
of standard recommendations. What is it. Why are you not seeing a lot of it?
Let's talk about it. It's a vitamin. K2 But first, a brief introduction - my name
is Ford Brewer F-O-R-D B-R-E-W-ER. PrevMed. I've been doing preventative medicine for over
30 years. I started off as an ER doc. I got tired of seeing things that need to be
prevented (like early heart attack & stroke). So I went to Johns Hopkins for training. I ended up running the program.
Again, I'm still doing prevention. It doesn't pay very well. But that's my legacy. I want to
prevent disease rather than then then cure it. Let's talk about
Vitamins k1 and k2 .Vitamin V1 has the chemical name called phylloquinone.
Vitamin k2 is menaquinone. Both are fat soluble. Menaquinone has subtypes. I
quote a study - I go through a randomized clinical trial a little bit later - at the
end of this survey. Iit's using m4 through m7, menaquinone m4 through m7.
That gets back to Richard Dixon's comments about m7 - which is what he was
given by his orthopedist. Now what are the sources ? Green leafy vegetables for
vitamin k1 - very different meats eggs and cheeses for vitamin k2. What does vitamin
k1 do in the body? It's a cofactor -( gamma glutamyl carboxylation) well vitamin
k2 is the same thing - ( and don't get too wrapped up in that. I know that you
know sometimes get medical geeky terms.) Basically these are the types of enzymes.
They assist in the body's processes. Here's the difference though- vitamin k1
is involved with coagulation process - with FACTORS 7, 9, AND 10.
Vitamin k2,however is involved in tissue calcification processes -
especially in tissue calcification, in bony tissue and artery
walls. So again - the dietary source is very, very
different - green leafy vegetables for k1 and meats, cheeses & eggs for k2. Of
course you could get either one as a supplement.
What's the literature (scientific evidence) been on K 2 and K 1?
Results from lab animals and human studies were recording vitamin K in
general and cardiovascular risk have been inconsistent. How much of this
inconsistency is due to the fact that there's been a failure in most
research to differentiate between K 1 and K 2? The Nurses Health Study - I
think about forty thousand nurses. They did see some moderate decrease in risk. But
they were looking at K1. It looked like the health professionals follow-up
study - again tens of thousands of people - no change. The Rotterdam study with some change.
There was follow-up. They did both K 1 and K 2 - no change with K 1 but some
decrease in cardiovascular risk with K 2. As I mentioned I I pulled up one of the
studies that created a lot of the the questions and focus around this area.
It's still an old study - 2009. Its ATHEROSCLEROSIS Journal 2009 volume 2
203 issue number 2 pages 489-493.The
author was Buelens and associates. They saw something five
hundred and sixty four women - postmenopausal. They did a food
questionnaire and then estimates of k1 and k2 from the food questionnaire.
62% of the women or 360 of them had positive
coronary artery calcium scores. One of my other viewers asked me to do a video
about that (CACS) (I'll be doing that soon - we've done a few - and are now on a series on CACS) But let's go back to vitamin K 2.
coronary artery calcium score,by the way, is calcification
in the walls of the artery of the heart it's indicative of past inflammation in
the walls of the artery of the heart and inflammation. As we've said many times in
many other videos inflammation is the major risk factor for heart attack and stroke. I
personally have some. I had coronary artery calcium score about two weeks ago.
I had a score of I think it was 81 put me in about a 57% risk for my age. This
is an age-related risk. And again I'll do other videos. And I have done other
videos regarding my own risk. I have some significant genetic challenges which
I've overcome fairly well. (Anyway I said I wasn't going to talk about coronary
artery calcium score - sorry). Vitamin k1 - in the Buelens study they looked at the
probability of calcification. Tthey saw an N of 1.17 - oops - I mean a relative risk
of 1.17 - with a p-value for 95% of 0.96 to 1.42. So what does that mean? Let me
go through some epidemiology. It's actually pretty simple:
if your relative risk is 1 - there's no change. If your relative risk
is 1.17 that means you've got a little more risk - 17% more risk. What are
these numbers? That's for taking vitamin k. But what are these numbers
over here well when you do a study.
You're only looking at the probability of a random event. so then you
develop parameters on either side - so what they said was this, "Given the
statistics - the high number of people in this study and a 95 percent probability -
the relative risk is 95 percent probability
between point nine six and one point four. In other words it could be 1. So
the way we would interpret this study for vitamin k1 is that vitamin k1 really
has no relative risk. It does not decrease risk &it does not increase risk
significantly for cardio vascular calcification - or coronary artery calcium
score. Vitamin k2 however came up with a point eight and the probability 95%
probability parameters for 0.65 and 0.98 So basically what this says is -
with 95% probability - with vitamin k2 you tended to get a lower coronary artery
calcium score. Now this was positive - but not really earth-shaking. What have you
seen since then ? I couldn't find a lot more in the literature since then. I also
had some question about the the mechanism - because we know from following
coronary or arterial inflammation - if you have it in the
coronaries you have it everywhere else. We actually usually look for it using a
CIMT in the neck because there's no easy to get (to the coronary arteries.) It's very very accurate
and reliable and we can follow it on a serial basis(meaning time and again to follow the progression.) What we find on a
serial basis is this once you get calcification in a certain plaque - that
plaque has tended to stabilize. So we WANT to take a soft plaque and calcify
it (Calcification of plaque happens when the plaque is stabilizing.). So one of my questions is this, - even if you're able to calcify or to remove
calcium from calcified plaque - what does that really accomplish the stabilization
of the plaque? Isn't removing the calcium from hardening
plaque removing the stabiity?- (Calfication is )getting rid of the soft plaque. Again as we follow patients
-as we're getting appropriate treatment for them and decreasing their risk - we
will see a progression from soft plaque (with no calcium) to (stable plaque with) calcification.
So again vitamin k2 may work in terms of pulling calcium out it may or may not
actually decrease risk. even if it does. I'd love to hear what you've seen. Especially
if there is any further research in this area. Thank you!