I have been running vitamin K2 for five years and the honest summary is that the effect is smaller than the internet suggests and real.
What surprised me is how much of the perceived benefit was routine and attention rather than pharmacology.
What the vitamin class does pharmacologically does not require the subjective effect to be large to be real.
Where does the human data stop and the extrapolation start?
How long before you can reasonably say something is or is not doing anything? How long have you been on vitamin K2?
Narrow conclusion, briefly right. Broad conclusion, interestingly wrong. I know which I keep choosing.
Loose evidence is not nothing, but a washout either side is the only reason to trust your own take. Currently on vitamin K2 myself.
A plausible mechanism is not an outcome, and this class is the textbook example.
Baseline first.
My rule, after years of this: if it cannot survive being written down with the numbers attached, it is marketing.
Baseline first.
If it needs three other compounds to notice, you have not tested the first one.
Read methods. Not on vitamin K2 but the pattern is familiar.
Stupid question: how do you know whether what is in the vial matches the label at all? Currently on vitamin K2 myself.
A certificate of analysis answers one question and gets quoted as though it answers four. Not on vitamin K2 but the pattern is familiar.
Same here.
Narrow conclusion. Not on vitamin K2 but the pattern is familiar.
Read methods.