SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 01-13-23, 02:16 PM

Indeed, I often have mentioned it. Taking Vit-D should best be understood as taking a trio of D3, K2 and Magnesium.

D3 increases the efficiency by which calcium gets extracted from the food in the guts, from the calcium in the food a bigger share gets absorbed by the body if there is a good supply with D3, than there is calcium absorbed when D3 if deficitary.

The calcium then is in the blood.

So that the calcium does not stay in the blood, where it should not be, it needs to be transported into the bones and teeth, and must be kept there. This is where K2 comes in, it is like a taxi that picks calcium guests up in the streets (blood vessels) and drives them to into their hotesl: the bones and teeth. Calcium finds that it is where it wants to be, leaves the taxi and everybody is happy.

This is however only relevant if you take really high doses of Vit-D. The common doses of 1000-5000 IU, and probably even more, are not producing that much calcium in the blood that K2 is an urgency and that you should worry about your calcium. That is pretty much a consensus amongst Vit-D experts.

Usually, magnesium is more relevant for most people, because 40% or more of Western people are Magnesium-deficient anyway, and without Magnesium Vit-D in its storage form - inside fat-tissue - cannot be activated by he body, it is like gold inside a safe for which you have no key or code. Magnesium is needed to turn the storage form of Vit-D into the metabolically active and usable form.

It is strongly assumed, and also reasonable, that osteoporosis is caused by a change in metabolism that gets either caused or at least further worstened by K2-deficiency. Then the calcium is no longer being held in the bones, where it belongs. And where should it go to from there? Can only go into the bloodstream. Calcium in blood thus goes up high. Which is the reason why many old women die of it (most osteoporis diagnoses are given to female patients). But they do not die of osteoporosis, but from arterosclerosis: calcification of blood vessels. Dont tell me that this does not make an awsome lot of sense.

Osteoproris maybe does not indicate a calcium deficit, maybe there is enough or almost enough calcium in the body - its just not situated where it belongs!

Thats why nowadays a doctor who still tells his patients with osteoporosis that they need calcium injections or evervescent tablets, in principle commits a grave medical malpractice. At least with no other, significant health issues messing up the formula. Thats why we see no advertising for calcium tablets anymore, since many years already. That has killed people in the past, that simple it is!

Vit-D's relevance for transporting calcium from the bloodstream into the bone, is misunderstood by very many doctors who claim that it is what Vit-D does. Thats not really correct, its relevance for the transportation is very minor, the transport is K2'srelevance, not Vit-Ds so much. Vit-D increases the absorbation rate of calcium from the food: thats what it predominantly does with regards to calcium.

The danger of calcium problems is used a very lot to demonise the supplementation of Vit-D and to bring peoplel away from it, not to mention: making peopel so afraid that they do not use therapeutically relevant doses.

Under ideal natural conditions, the human body, its skin, can produce 20 thousand IU of Vit-D in the skin if fully exposed to sunlight with a UV-index higher than 3 (thats a physical precondition you do not get around: no UV higher than 3: no Vit-D production worth to be mentioned, period). When that ammount per day has been reached, the production rate gets dramatically reduced by the body, very dramatically, so it seems to be a natural limit set at 20,000 IE. Thus I would conclude that it makes, for a normal and healthy person, no sense to consume higher doses than these 20,000 per day. But even 40,000 per day over many months has been shown to not be health-damaging in any perceivable way (no previously existent health issues assumed). Its just that you probably waste your money then. It biologically seems to make no sense to go this high.

I consume 2x 5000 IE Vit-D per day, plus 2x 200mcgr K2 and 2x 800mg Magnesium. My last test was in autumn lastr year, I had a level of then 82 ngr/ml. Strong! Good! But not too high!

There is a lot of fear-mongering being done by health officials and lobbyists, and many doctors simply never have been taught this when they studied.

True is, however, that pills neither can (nor should!) replace exposition to sunlight, for that has other additional health benefits as well (interferon production in mitochondria due to infrared in sunlight, for example), nor should pills repalce eating healthy. They talk of supplements, not of replacements or surrogates - and for a reason that is!

A little excercise also is part of the formula (though I must admit that I have become a sinner regarding this).

Important to understand is just this: most vitamines and minerals you can no longer get in the sufficient ammounts by natural fresh food and fresh air and sunlight anymore. Our foods, even organically risen, simply is not good enough anymore, our famrign soils are depleted, our new genetic creaitons leave to be desired, and many of us do not get the needed skin exposition to the needed UV levels anymore, even less so when using sunblockers to help against skin cancer. You need to find a workign balance there. And mind you, a good supply with Vit-D has anti-carcinogenic prophylactic effects and supports the immunity functions of your body. Myself, I use no sunblocker in summer anymore as long as I do not go on days-long bicycle tours, else I just wear thin shirts with long sleeves, thicker trousers, and a hat. I use some head-work and avoid walking too long in the sun, that simple. Sunblockers? Only very rarely, when i cannot avoid exposition over hours. Sunblockers also block your skin's Vit-D production.

edit:
You are right with your mentioning of K2-MK7, there are many chemical forms of K2, and most of them cannot be made use of by the human body, a few get absorbed by very low rate, the by far most efficient way to consume K2 is that K2 that comes in the form of "MK-7 all trans". I explained earlier in this thread what that means. You want K2, not K1 (even this gets messed up by doctors not rarely), and you want your K2 as MK7 all trans. K1 can be added, but its releavnce in the cintext discusse dhere, is very, very limited. K1 does other things better.

https://www.amazon.de/Vitamin-D-Die-...ps%2C89&sr=8-4

https://www.amazon.de/Osteoporose-Fo...ps%2C79&sr=8-4

01-13-23, 02:16 PM	#49
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,556 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	Indeed, I often have mentioned it. Taking Vit-D should best be understood as taking a trio of D3, K2 and Magnesium. D3 increases the efficiency by which calcium gets extracted from the food in the guts, from the calcium in the food a bigger share gets absorbed by the body if there is a good supply with D3, than there is calcium absorbed when D3 if deficitary. The calcium then is in the blood. So that the calcium does not stay in the blood, where it should not be, it needs to be transported into the bones and teeth, and must be kept there. This is where K2 comes in, it is like a taxi that picks calcium guests up in the streets (blood vessels) and drives them to into their hotesl: the bones and teeth. Calcium finds that it is where it wants to be, leaves the taxi and everybody is happy. This is however only relevant if you take really high doses of Vit-D. The common doses of 1000-5000 IU, and probably even more, are not producing that much calcium in the blood that K2 is an urgency and that you should worry about your calcium. That is pretty much a consensus amongst Vit-D experts. Usually, magnesium is more relevant for most people, because 40% or more of Western people are Magnesium-deficient anyway, and without Magnesium Vit-D in its storage form - inside fat-tissue - cannot be activated by he body, it is like gold inside a safe for which you have no key or code. Magnesium is needed to turn the storage form of Vit-D into the metabolically active and usable form. It is strongly assumed, and also reasonable, that osteoporosis is caused by a change in metabolism that gets either caused or at least further worstened by K2-deficiency. Then the calcium is no longer being held in the bones, where it belongs. And where should it go to from there? Can only go into the bloodstream. Calcium in blood thus goes up high. Which is the reason why many old women die of it (most osteoporis diagnoses are given to female patients). But they do not die of osteoporosis, but from arterosclerosis: calcification of blood vessels. Dont tell me that this does not make an awsome lot of sense. Osteoproris maybe does not indicate a calcium deficit, maybe there is enough or almost enough calcium in the body - its just not situated where it belongs! Thats why nowadays a doctor who still tells his patients with osteoporosis that they need calcium injections or evervescent tablets, in principle commits a grave medical malpractice. At least with no other, significant health issues messing up the formula. Thats why we see no advertising for calcium tablets anymore, since many years already. That has killed people in the past, that simple it is! Vit-D's relevance for transporting calcium from the bloodstream into the bone, is misunderstood by very many doctors who claim that it is what Vit-D does. Thats not really correct, its relevance for the transportation is very minor, the transport is K2'srelevance, not Vit-Ds so much. Vit-D increases the absorbation rate of calcium from the food: thats what it predominantly does with regards to calcium. The danger of calcium problems is used a very lot to demonise the supplementation of Vit-D and to bring peoplel away from it, not to mention: making peopel so afraid that they do not use therapeutically relevant doses. Under ideal natural conditions, the human body, its skin, can produce 20 thousand IU of Vit-D in the skin if fully exposed to sunlight with a UV-index higher than 3 (thats a physical precondition you do not get around: no UV higher than 3: no Vit-D production worth to be mentioned, period). When that ammount per day has been reached, the production rate gets dramatically reduced by the body, very dramatically, so it seems to be a natural limit set at 20,000 IE. Thus I would conclude that it makes, for a normal and healthy person, no sense to consume higher doses than these 20,000 per day. But even 40,000 per day over many months has been shown to not be health-damaging in any perceivable way (no previously existent health issues assumed). Its just that you probably waste your money then. It biologically seems to make no sense to go this high. I consume 2x 5000 IE Vit-D per day, plus 2x 200mcgr K2 and 2x 800mg Magnesium. My last test was in autumn lastr year, I had a level of then 82 ngr/ml. Strong! Good! But not too high! There is a lot of fear-mongering being done by health officials and lobbyists, and many doctors simply never have been taught this when they studied. True is, however, that pills neither can (nor should!) replace exposition to sunlight, for that has other additional health benefits as well (interferon production in mitochondria due to infrared in sunlight, for example), nor should pills repalce eating healthy. They talk of supplements, not of replacements or surrogates - and for a reason that is! A little excercise also is part of the formula (though I must admit that I have become a sinner regarding this). Important to understand is just this: most vitamines and minerals you can no longer get in the sufficient ammounts by natural fresh food and fresh air and sunlight anymore. Our foods, even organically risen, simply is not good enough anymore, our famrign soils are depleted, our new genetic creaitons leave to be desired, and many of us do not get the needed skin exposition to the needed UV levels anymore, even less so when using sunblockers to help against skin cancer. You need to find a workign balance there. And mind you, a good supply with Vit-D has anti-carcinogenic prophylactic effects and supports the immunity functions of your body. Myself, I use no sunblocker in summer anymore as long as I do not go on days-long bicycle tours, else I just wear thin shirts with long sleeves, thicker trousers, and a hat. I use some head-work and avoid walking too long in the sun, that simple. Sunblockers? Only very rarely, when i cannot avoid exposition over hours. Sunblockers also block your skin's Vit-D production. edit: You are right with your mentioning of K2-MK7, there are many chemical forms of K2, and most of them cannot be made use of by the human body, a few get absorbed by very low rate, the by far most efficient way to consume K2 is that K2 that comes in the form of "MK-7 all trans". I explained earlier in this thread what that means. You want K2, not K1 (even this gets messed up by doctors not rarely), and you want your K2 as MK7 all trans. K1 can be added, but its releavnce in the cintext discusse dhere, is very, very limited. K1 does other things better. https://www.amazon.de/Vitamin-D-Die-...ps%2C89&sr=8-4 https://www.amazon.de/Osteoporose-Fo...ps%2C79&sr=8-4 __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 01-13-23 at 02:43 PM.