Jump to content

Talk:Vitamin K2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Great floors (talk | contribs) at 12:54, 14 January 2017 (→I'm going to delete some stuff: found EFSA paper, but it's still just a draft). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comment

Good article, but tbere is too much about Vitamin K1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.158 (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Health effects - Bone density' section begins like this: It has been suggested that vitamin K2 may play an important role in maintaining healthy levels of bone mineral density (BMD). However, data on the subject is inconclusive - some clinical trials show no improvement of BMD after vitamin K supplementation. First indications came from patients with femoral neck fractures, who demonstrated an extremely low level of circulating vitamin K. The strong association between vitamin K2 deficiency and impaired bone health was later proved by both laboratory and clinical studies.

This is confusing. "... data on the subject is inconclusive..." and "... strong association ... later proved...". One of these statements should be changed to remove the inconsistency. Woodlawn bill (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sourcing

Much of this article is sourced to non-WP:MEDRS. A major cleanup is needed. Alexbrn (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does reducing arterial calcification actually reduce all-cause mortality?

Does reducing arterial calcification actually reduce risk? Intriguing prevention information but the dangerous plaque in the blood vessels is the unstable form that has not yet calcified. If you reduce the calcification, are you left with unstable plaques? I haven't found the studies, if they exist, showing that reducing existing calcification results in reduced all-cause mortality. If and when that study is done please include it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 02:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

new age version of K2

site is going to have trouble very non-sci

You know it would have gone much better for you if you discussed this calmly, like an adult, instead of throwing a tantrum. And "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License" is not a license compatible with Wikipedia. --NeilN talk to me 11:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

This article needs clean-up. The two sections on dietary intake should be combined. The Japanese dish, natto, is discussed several times, and is of limited application anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:8D5E:AA2B:98B8:FE58 (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to delete some stuff

Seeing flaws in the article and unanswered questions on the Talk page, I've gone ahead and deleted some stuff. Here's the version before my edits:

In particular, we should improve the bits about about daily requirements. Are there any RDA's? Or are there just "Adequate Intakes"? And do these mention K2 or just K in general? And where are the studies which were used as the basis for these values? (E.g. When the EU's EFSA sets a value it publishes a really cool overview of the existing studies, which is a secondary source, which is the perfect sort of reference for medical topics on WP.) Great floors (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found an EFSA opinion paper on vitamin K, reviewing the existing literature, but it's still in draft form. It seems they hope to publish it in 2017. I guess we can't use it as a source in the article, but it can be used as a guide for finding sources we can use:
Great floors (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vitamin_K2&oldid=760013788"