I have been running vitamin K2 for a year and the honest summary is that the effect is smaller than the internet suggests and real.
Mechanism is not outcome, and a plausible pathway is the most expensive kind of evidence there is.
Loose evidence is not the same as no evidence and people overcorrect in both directions.
Curious whether the popular dose has any basis or is just the convenient one.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison.
Log dose, time and sleep. Ten seconds a day and it turns the anecdote into something you can look at.
Is a baseline blood test really necessary before starting something like this? Currently on vitamin K2 myself.
If it needs three other compounds to notice, you have not tested the first one.
Where does the human data stop and the extrapolation begin? That is the whole thread.
Reconstitution arithmetic is only half the problem. The other half is what was in the vial.
Underdosing and tolerance are indistinguishable from the inside, and everyone picks the flattering explanation.
Log dose, time and sleep. Ten seconds a day and it turns the anecdote into something you can look at. Currently on vitamin K2 myself.
Cold storage, light protection, date on the vial. Boring, removes half the variables. Same for me with vitamin K2, unfortunately.
Log dose, time and sleep. Ten seconds a day and it turns the anecdote into something you can look at.
Same here.
A year in on vitamin K2 and it lines up.
How long before you can reasonably say something is or is not doing anything?
Narrow conclusion, briefly right. Broad conclusion, interestingly wrong. I know which I keep choosing.
This board overrates bloodwork. A number moving is not the outcome you wanted.