How to Treat Jet Lag with Light

How to Treat Jet Lag with Light
4.38 (87.62%) 42 votes

A cheat sheet to figure out exactly when and how to treat jet lag using light exposure and light avoidance at specific times of the day, based on which direction you’re going and how many time zones you cross.

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“Jet lag is a blessing to circadian biologists, because the disruption of mental and physical well-being immediately highlights the importance of” their work, the study of “our internal ‘body clock.'” Much of the general malaise we may experience on long journeys may just be so-called ‘‘travel fatigue,’’ which can occur regardless of the time zone, leaving people feeling disorientated, generally weary, and headachy. Dehydration has been blamed. The air circulated in the cabins of commercial airlines is pretty dry. Yeah, it can make your throat, skin, and eyes feel dry. But, if you do the math, the “maximum loss of fluid” through like breath and sweat wouldn’t be more than like an extra half cup; so, it’s not like you’re in Death Valley or something. And, that “calculation assumes that the passenger would be nude,” and I’m sure they’d charge extra for that.

Of course, giving people salty pretzels doesn’t help. The vegetarian option tends to be healthier, if they’re serving meals, but you have to specify that when you book. “BYOF — Bring Your Own Fruit — is a good rule to fly by.” Or, unsalted nuts as a snack.

The cabin air isn’t just dry, but low in oxygen pressure—about what you’d get 10,000 feet above sea level, like twice as high as Denver. And that alone can make you feel not-so-great. Then, when you land, if you’ve crossed enough time zones, you can suffer from jet lag, which is the temporary disconnect between the new time at your destination, and that of your own internal body clock, which is still on home time. This is abnormal, since our internal clock is normally synced to the outside world. But, the symptoms of jet lag go away as your body becomes hip to the new time.

This usually takes, in days, “two-thirds the number of time zones crossed eastwards, compared with half the number of zones crossed westwards.” So, London is like six time zones east away from Chicago; so, flying there, it may take four days before you’re back to normal, whereas Londoners flying to Chicago should get over their jet lag in only three days. The reason it’s easier to go west, where the day is longer, than east is because our internal clock is naturally set for longer than 24 hours and has to be reset every day. That’s why they call the daily rhythm “circadian,” meaning “about a day.”

In fact, you can see this in Major League Baseball performance. Researchers churned through 40,000 games, mining 20 seasons, and found “surprisingly specific results of circadian misalignment”—jet lag, and, indeed, the problems arose most after eastward travel, with very limited effects after westward travel, consistent with the greater-than-24-hour cycle length of the human circadian clock. Okay, but how do you treat it?

First, you need to figure out if it needs treating at all. If you’re just traveling one or two time zones, you don’t have to worry about it. If you’re crossing three or more time zones, like traveling coast to coast, it then depends on how long you plan on staying. If it’s just a few days, it’s probably not worth treating it, since then you’ll have to switch back as soon as you get home. If you have control over your schedule, it’s better to “time appointments in the new time zone to coincide with daytime” back home. So, it’s pretty much common sense. If you travel east, your body will still think it should be sleeping in the morning. So, you should push stuff later, and vice versa.

But, if you are going to be gone for a while, you can adjust your body clock using behavioral methods and/or drugs, supplements, or foods. “There is only one sure fire way of avoiding jet lag altogether and that is to adapt to the new time zone before [your trip].” However, changing your home sleep schedule more than a few hours can be counterproductive by interfering with your pre-trip sleep, and you don’t want to be going into a long trip already sleep-deprived.

Before your trip, you want to maximize your sleep. In flight, the recommendation is to immediately “adjust…to [the] destination meal schedule”—easier said than done, and then, once you land, you want to try to “maintain [the] destination sleep schedule.” Try not to nap more than a few minutes, and you don’t want to be driving around when your body thinks it’s the middle of the night.

But, the key to treating jet lag is light therapy. Going east, you expose yourself to the bright light in the morning, and avoid bright light in the evening, and vice versa going west. But, it’s more complicated than that. The advice switches if you’ve traveling “through more than six time zones,” because “[y]our biological clock may then adjust in the wrong direction.” And, it’s even more complicated than that! “The effects of light acting upon the body clock” are actually only during a specific window around the time your body temperature bottoms out: usually around 4 am. You drop from 98.6 down to more like 97.6, even when you’re not sleeping—it’s just part of our circadian rhythm.

The bottom line is that here are the two cheat sheets you can take a snapshot of for future reference. So, for example, if you fly from LA to London, eight time zones east, you’d avoid light between 6 am and noon local time, and expose yourself to light between noon and 6 pm local, and the rest of the day, it doesn’t matter and won’t affect you either way. Okay, but that’s just on day one. “On subsequent days, the local times of light avoidance and exposure need to be advanced [earlier] by [one to two hours] each day, until light avoidance coincides with [when you’re sleeping].”

But, on those first few days after traveling east, you’ll note you’re going to want to be avoiding morning light, which can be difficult, if that’s when your flight gets in. One thing you can do is wear really dark glasses until you get indoors. But, if they’re too dark, you can’t really drive. So, that’s where these kinds of ugly orange lenses that block blue wavelengths can come in handy, preventing the dip in melatonin you can get just wearing regular sunglasses. Regardless, the next day, I know there’s the urge to get out and about, but that could actually make your jet lag worse, by taking you in the opposite direction.

What about if you’re flying more than eight time zones east? Then, you subtract the number from 24, and treat it as travel west. So, a ten-time zone trip to the east, like New York to Delhi, should be treated as a westward flight, requiring a delay of the body clock, across 14 time zones. In that case, it would be easy to get outside and get some sun. But if you just went four zones west, and need to get light in the middle of the night, what do you do?

A gadget company came up with like light-emitting headphones, the theory being you could bathe your brain in light directly through the ear canals. They stuck them on the heads of cadavers and did seem to get some light penetration, but you don’t know, until you…put it to the test. “This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial demonstrates that…transcranial bright light exposure via the ear canals [could] alleviate…jet lag symptoms.” Or, you could just turn on a lamp.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Nabilah Saleh via Unsplash. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“Jet lag is a blessing to circadian biologists, because the disruption of mental and physical well-being immediately highlights the importance of” their work, the study of “our internal ‘body clock.'” Much of the general malaise we may experience on long journeys may just be so-called ‘‘travel fatigue,’’ which can occur regardless of the time zone, leaving people feeling disorientated, generally weary, and headachy. Dehydration has been blamed. The air circulated in the cabins of commercial airlines is pretty dry. Yeah, it can make your throat, skin, and eyes feel dry. But, if you do the math, the “maximum loss of fluid” through like breath and sweat wouldn’t be more than like an extra half cup; so, it’s not like you’re in Death Valley or something. And, that “calculation assumes that the passenger would be nude,” and I’m sure they’d charge extra for that.

Of course, giving people salty pretzels doesn’t help. The vegetarian option tends to be healthier, if they’re serving meals, but you have to specify that when you book. “BYOF — Bring Your Own Fruit — is a good rule to fly by.” Or, unsalted nuts as a snack.

The cabin air isn’t just dry, but low in oxygen pressure—about what you’d get 10,000 feet above sea level, like twice as high as Denver. And that alone can make you feel not-so-great. Then, when you land, if you’ve crossed enough time zones, you can suffer from jet lag, which is the temporary disconnect between the new time at your destination, and that of your own internal body clock, which is still on home time. This is abnormal, since our internal clock is normally synced to the outside world. But, the symptoms of jet lag go away as your body becomes hip to the new time.

This usually takes, in days, “two-thirds the number of time zones crossed eastwards, compared with half the number of zones crossed westwards.” So, London is like six time zones east away from Chicago; so, flying there, it may take four days before you’re back to normal, whereas Londoners flying to Chicago should get over their jet lag in only three days. The reason it’s easier to go west, where the day is longer, than east is because our internal clock is naturally set for longer than 24 hours and has to be reset every day. That’s why they call the daily rhythm “circadian,” meaning “about a day.”

In fact, you can see this in Major League Baseball performance. Researchers churned through 40,000 games, mining 20 seasons, and found “surprisingly specific results of circadian misalignment”—jet lag, and, indeed, the problems arose most after eastward travel, with very limited effects after westward travel, consistent with the greater-than-24-hour cycle length of the human circadian clock. Okay, but how do you treat it?

First, you need to figure out if it needs treating at all. If you’re just traveling one or two time zones, you don’t have to worry about it. If you’re crossing three or more time zones, like traveling coast to coast, it then depends on how long you plan on staying. If it’s just a few days, it’s probably not worth treating it, since then you’ll have to switch back as soon as you get home. If you have control over your schedule, it’s better to “time appointments in the new time zone to coincide with daytime” back home. So, it’s pretty much common sense. If you travel east, your body will still think it should be sleeping in the morning. So, you should push stuff later, and vice versa.

But, if you are going to be gone for a while, you can adjust your body clock using behavioral methods and/or drugs, supplements, or foods. “There is only one sure fire way of avoiding jet lag altogether and that is to adapt to the new time zone before [your trip].” However, changing your home sleep schedule more than a few hours can be counterproductive by interfering with your pre-trip sleep, and you don’t want to be going into a long trip already sleep-deprived.

Before your trip, you want to maximize your sleep. In flight, the recommendation is to immediately “adjust…to [the] destination meal schedule”—easier said than done, and then, once you land, you want to try to “maintain [the] destination sleep schedule.” Try not to nap more than a few minutes, and you don’t want to be driving around when your body thinks it’s the middle of the night.

But, the key to treating jet lag is light therapy. Going east, you expose yourself to the bright light in the morning, and avoid bright light in the evening, and vice versa going west. But, it’s more complicated than that. The advice switches if you’ve traveling “through more than six time zones,” because “[y]our biological clock may then adjust in the wrong direction.” And, it’s even more complicated than that! “The effects of light acting upon the body clock” are actually only during a specific window around the time your body temperature bottoms out: usually around 4 am. You drop from 98.6 down to more like 97.6, even when you’re not sleeping—it’s just part of our circadian rhythm.

The bottom line is that here are the two cheat sheets you can take a snapshot of for future reference. So, for example, if you fly from LA to London, eight time zones east, you’d avoid light between 6 am and noon local time, and expose yourself to light between noon and 6 pm local, and the rest of the day, it doesn’t matter and won’t affect you either way. Okay, but that’s just on day one. “On subsequent days, the local times of light avoidance and exposure need to be advanced [earlier] by [one to two hours] each day, until light avoidance coincides with [when you’re sleeping].”

But, on those first few days after traveling east, you’ll note you’re going to want to be avoiding morning light, which can be difficult, if that’s when your flight gets in. One thing you can do is wear really dark glasses until you get indoors. But, if they’re too dark, you can’t really drive. So, that’s where these kinds of ugly orange lenses that block blue wavelengths can come in handy, preventing the dip in melatonin you can get just wearing regular sunglasses. Regardless, the next day, I know there’s the urge to get out and about, but that could actually make your jet lag worse, by taking you in the opposite direction.

What about if you’re flying more than eight time zones east? Then, you subtract the number from 24, and treat it as travel west. So, a ten-time zone trip to the east, like New York to Delhi, should be treated as a westward flight, requiring a delay of the body clock, across 14 time zones. In that case, it would be easy to get outside and get some sun. But if you just went four zones west, and need to get light in the middle of the night, what do you do?

A gadget company came up with like light-emitting headphones, the theory being you could bathe your brain in light directly through the ear canals. They stuck them on the heads of cadavers and did seem to get some light penetration, but you don’t know, until you…put it to the test. “This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial demonstrates that…transcranial bright light exposure via the ear canals [could] alleviate…jet lag symptoms.” Or, you could just turn on a lamp.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Nabilah Saleh via Unsplash. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

This is the first in a three-video series on jet lag and melatonin. Stay tuned for Are Melatonin Supplements Safe? and, finally, How to Treat Jet Lag with Melatonin-Rich Food, which explains the nutrition connection.

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

212 responses to “How to Treat Jet Lag with Light

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. This is completely off-topic but since we are all interested in nutrition and since low carb diets (keto, high protein etc) are so popular nowadays, I thought it worth noting that the European Society of Cardiology issued a press release yesterday about a new study using NHANES data.

    ‘Compared to participants with the highest carbohydrate consumption, those with the lowest intake had a 32% higher risk of all-cause death over an average 6.4-year follow-up. In addition, risks of death from coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and cancer were increased by 51%, 50%, and 35%, respectively.

    The results were confirmed in a meta-analysis of seven prospective cohort studies with 447,506 participants and an average follow-up 15.6 years, which found 15%, 13%, and 8% increased risks in total, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality with low (compared to high) carbohydrate diets
    Study author Professor Maciej Banach, of the Medical University of Lodz, Poland, said: “We found that people who consumed a low carbohydrate diet were at greater risk of premature death. Risks were also increased for individual causes of death including coronary heart disease, stroke, and cancer. These diets should be avoided.”
    https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Low-carbohydrate-diets-are-unsafe-and-should-be-avoided

    Apparently, the link was strongest in older (55+) non obese persons.

    1. Can I hitchhike the conversation into what I want to talk about instead of acknowledging what the video is about too? You complain when other people do the same.

      1. Deviation from topic is allowed and encouraged by this site. The rules of conduct section specify that. It is allowed to allow those who may hold qualification to assist others in their nutritional questions.

        I find this of particular interest, as I have heard of another keto study being done several weeks ago to the negative, and want to explore if this is the same basis or not.

        1. Of particular note there is a podcast set on the Joe Rogan site for Sept 27, between a notable Keto advocate and a plant based MD. Often this group depends on only mass media or people like JR himself, who knows not much about nutrition, for guidance in this.

          This study will come up and may be even foundational In the argument I opine.
          No I am not pushing JR, he is making more than enough with his existant base of viewers and subscribers, and needs not ,my help.
          This is a community he serves, that is a bit being left out in the WFPB informational loop.
          And as the podcast has no time limit, and often goes on for 3 hours or so, a complete discussion is in the offering.

          1. AS TG notes a bit further down on this blog, DR G has written a entire book related to low carb and it is a very valid nutritional concern.
            I expect he has not done the same on your mentioned issue nor is that a nutritional concern.

            Personally since we are way off even from a nutritional standpoint I believe a complaint against the big butt craze as opposed to the big T craze of years past is a racially biased one. Peoples of color tend BB and only recently has main stream media accepted that as a valid sign of any worth. To coincide with the rise of other color peoples allowance into main stream media. This occurred to me actually a few years back when I heard the comedian Bill Maher make the same complaint. A white guy from a almost entirely (in that day) rich community Rivervale NJ, harboring also signs of racial inequality, like segregated pools of private ownership in the immediate vicinity. That day being 1960 or so.

            So I take it as a sign of progress. It is quite unavoidable in things of sex we look upon others to a degree as objects, as sex itself is a mind objectifying issue always. That a given this is progress.

            1. Gosh, Ron…racist? Never occurred to me. I tend to look at everybody as All Part of the One; I don’t label them as to their “color.” I believe in reincarnation, so I feel I’ve been both male and female, and all nationalities. One of my favorite (linear) lifetimes was as a Native American.

              (But we’re not discussing nutrition here, are we. Oops!)

              1. I am not saying you nor Bill Maher as racist but we internalize unconsciously ideas that have their basis in racism.
                For instance for years and years the only contestants in Miss America contests were …..and then after that a few only were allowed for many more years. Till now there if variance. Were the judges racists…probably not. Beauty is a developed consideration not a sole or absolute consideration.

                Was that conscious..probably not. Making fun of big A as opposed to big T…..why one funny to us and the other not so much?
                In Bill Maher I can see it clearly…he came from a white only rich only environment that had racism overtly present as well as covertly.
                Things have changed now in those parts, Cory Booker a NJ state senator of color hails originally from a neighboring town.
                Knowing where and from what context Bill Maher comes from I simply cannot allow his humor on it nor generally other comedians as well other than those of color.
                You…my guess is you just reflect them in some part form.

                So no, my comment is not one of a personal claim on racism but internalizing of ideas that may be subsequent to racist environments.

                1. And my comment was to point out the number of deaths from this butt injection procedure. If Mother Nature gives it to us, that’s one thing, but to undergo all this ridiculous cosmetic surgery to “be” something we’re not is ridiculous IMO. In one of those Women’sWorld mags we see at the supermarket, one article claimed there have been 30 deaths in all. Not sure if that’s true, but just one death is bad enough.

                  Look at the Barbie Doll gal and starlets with the trout lips, etc. Unbelievable what people put themselves through just to look young and adorable. Or so they think.

                  (But again, this topic has nothing to do with nutrition.)

                  1. Not to belabor the point, I did not introduce this specific, but here it is…so it is responded to(I was talking about keto)…

                    The same injections were made and made with much more initial frequency to include in earlier days, to include silicone pads with numerous side effects to the upper areas.Which is still going on.

                    So why a womans mag making a to do with the lower enhancement and a not so to do with a upper enhancement?.
                    Sure it is all bad, so why not the article showing all bad, as opposed to focus on just one aspect of it?

                    Thinking to be fair and express this equally we must certainly say not this…” silly gals who think they look sexy with a humongous butt:”
                    But this….silly gals who think they look sexy with a humongous butt and/or humongous chest.
                    Which then would express fairly with no bias….. all enhancement without cause of disfigurement by accident or necessary surgery is bad.

                    If a fair consideration is wanted that is.
                    We must fairly demonize both.

                    1. This is a little bit dated 2012 data, with a UK focus but by my guess the numbers still to a extend ring true….
                      by far the greatest amount of plastic surgery involves the breast not butt….

                      https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jul/22/plastic-surgery-medicine

                      Injections to all areas of gross materials are typically done under the table by low cost low income peoples with no medical qualification.
                      The butt is not exceptional in this regard. Pads are the medical way to go. It is just things like synthol are now readily available and peoples may administer themselves by injection or have others professing competency do them.
                      But butt and chest actually any muscle may be injected. Both butt and chest are muscles surrounded or covered usually by fat.

                      Bodybuilders in fact use those injections typically on biceps and calfs. So use varies widely.

                    2. This has in a strange way turned back into nutrition as this is a substance intentionally injected into a body to produce a effect..

                      Synthol is the product most typically used and a amazon quick check had five sponsored sites.
                      The general price is 40 USD for 50 ml one bottle, which is a fair amount of volume.

                      How is this not illegal for injection…well it is. The way around, so one ventures not liability from unintended consequence and lawsuit is to offer this as posing oil not a injectable oil. But if the manufacturer specifies a sterile or close to sterile product….it is certainly intended for injectable use.
                      Like with steroids found in over the counter bodybuilding supplements(illegal) the industry always skirts the limits of legality.
                      I think it last for generally around five years. Very gradually the product erodes away.

                      Injected anywhere into muscle the site just gets bigger. The muscle interior is injected so the exterior will not appear as bloat.

                      Both butt and chest would be enhanced with little noticeable proof if done right to my opinion.
                      This is how popular it is..five sponsored sites. Very competitive as to price so by my guess very very popular.
                      If a womans mag were really concerned and not concerned with stepping on some corporations toes they probably should do a thing on this open availability of the product. Everyone in the community knows its purpose. And women are half of that community now.

                    3. This kid is probably the most obvious example of synthol abuse. https://liftn.com/delusional-russian-synthol-kid-might-really-need-arms-amputated/
                      Arms would tend to cut off circulation and be particularly bothersome. He has not much muscle at all it is all oil. But any area with muscle as base can be injected and I am certain peoples are doing this to butts and breasts. Arms are not really particularly large muscled areas comparatively in the body. So by my guess either butt or breast for a fraction of the cost of a operation and saline or silicone implant would serve comparable visual result.

                      Are there side effects…..unknown. Can’t be good and I would guess enhanced tendency to clot and stroke, but who knows.

                      Rich Piana one who did this thing to his arms(though his arms were naturally much bigger) died of what was probably a stroke a year or so ago….. but multiple steroids HGH who knows he took them all. Bigaroxia they call it. Wanting to be bigger always

    2. Tom,

      Thanks for sharing! That is so powerful!

      I am feeding that type of study information to one person at a time around me.

      Already shared it with one person before typing a comment.

      Hoping to save some lives.

    3. Thank you for this link, TG; I’ve already shared your comments on FB (I hope that’s ok). I appreciate having references to counter arguments that a high fat/high meat diet is healthy. Of course, my primary reasons for avoiding animal products are sustainability, but I am thrilled to discover that it may be healthier as well. But whole foods plant based eating is an act of social justice — yet another good reason to do it. https://environmentalnutrition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Am-J-Clin-Nutr-2014-Sabaté-476S-82S.pdf

      1. I entered veganism for personal reasons of considered morality. Seeing it wrong to cause unnecessary suffering of animals.

        But this…” The world’s demographic explosion and the increase in the appetite for animal foods render the food system unsustainable. Food security and food sustainability are on a collision course. Changing course (to avoid the collision) will require extreme downward shifts in meat and dairy consumption by large segments of the world population. Although other approaches should be pursued, they are insufficient to make the global food system sustainable, and therefore the dietary shift is an inevitable strategy.”

        Is fact. All our savings on carbon in the developed world will be devolved by the shift in diet that is occurring as the undeveloped world is becoming developed. We cannot stop that, it will develop as economic necessity demands it. But their diet approximating ours…dooms the world to increased carbon production per capita.

        We as human however seen to completely lack the ability to meet challenges that are more than a decade or so in the future.

        Thanks for providing that doc.

    4. A link to a paper would be useful, but a press release about a forthcoming conference paper is not so helpful.

      Here’s the paper:

      https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(18)30135-X/fulltext#%20

      As expected, the popular press have got completely the wrong end of the stick. The point is not that high or low carbs are good or bad themselves (obviously it depends on what they are). What matters is what was eaten instead:

      ‘…results varied by the source of macronutrients: mortality increased when carbohydrates were exchanged for animal-derived fat or protein (1·18, 1·08–1·29) and mortality decreased when the substitutions were plant-based (0·82, 0·78–0·87).’

      1. “A link to a paper would be useful, but a press release about a forthcoming conference paper is not so helpful.
        Here’s the paper:”

        I understand that the paper hasn’t been published yet which is why I didn’t provide a link. The study is about an analysis of NHANES data and the lead author is Professor Banach of Lodz University, The paper you linked to is based on the ARIC study and the most notable author is Professor Walter Willett of Harvard University. It is a very interesting link – thank you – but it is not the paperthat I or the press release were referring to.

      2. PCK, thank you for posting. I think high carb vs. low carb a useless distinction.
        The point is the source and quality of the carbs. High vegetable, fruit intake good, high junk food intake bad. As this site recommends. It’s all about whole food, plant based.
        I make a point of recommending people fill 3/4 of their plate with veggies. Beans, legumes as the other 1/4 if trying to lose weight. Fruit, or small piece of high cocoa chocolate (92% great) as only healthy dessert. Salads, vegetable soups are pretty filling. Can eat quite a bit of volume, still low healthy calorie meal.

        1. “….or small piece of high cocoa chocolate (92% great) as only healthy dessert.”
          – – – – – – –

          Marilyn, I like your chocolate suggestion for dessert, but unfortunately I can get the percentage up to no higher than 86%. Also, I can’t stop at just one “small” piece — wish I could — but then I’ve also never had a weight problem either. I manage to keep at around 3-1/2, however. :-)

          (I really gotta find me a tolerable dessert substitute one of these days….just for variety. We can be such creatures of habit!)

            1. Yeah, I know they do. I hoped to imply that I don’t LIKE anything higher than the 86% chocolate. Too bitter for my taste.

              Somebody earlier suggested dried/plumped-up figs, I think it was. But that would be too sweet! Maybe a small bowl of good ol’ trusty oatmeal with something on it, or a “health” brand of cold cereal. Such concerns

        2. I must admit that I was surprised by the reported results since I had always assumed that refined carbohydrates were just as unhealthy as high saturated fat and animal protein foodstuffs. However, the findings that

          ‘ ‘Compared to participants with the highest carbohydrate consumption, those with the lowest intake had a 32% higher risk of all-cause death over an average 6.4-year follow-up. In addition, risks of death from coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and cancer were increased by 51%, 50%, and 35%, respectively.

          The results were confirmed in a meta-analysis of seven prospective cohort studies with 447,506 participants and an average follow-up 15.6 years, which found 15%, 13%, and 8% increased risks in total, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality with low (compared to high) carbohydrate diets’

          doesn’t suggest ‘high carb vs. low carb a useless distinction’. Not to me anyway.

          It is just an association granted but it certainly caused me to pause for thought. Can’t come to any conclusions until we see the actual paper (perhaps not even then) of course but I am reluctant to dismiss it out of hand at this stage.

          Perhaps it is just that people who eat high carb eat more fruits and vegetables, and people who eat low carb consume fewer fruits and vegetables, and this is the explanation. Or high carb dieters eat less (processed) meat. Even so, the findings were striking and deserve some thought in my opinion.

          1. TG, agree, it’s an interesting report. But, I’m not about to encourage people to eat fruit loops and soda pop.
            Probably my skewed perspective dealing with patients, but I think the general population is uniformly sick. They just seem to vary by how sick, and how many meds they are on. Would like to see a study done with one group on a good WFPB diet.

            1. Yes but it has apparently never been done. As the authors of the AHA Presidential Advisory on dietary fats and cardiovascular disease state

              ‘ we note that a trial has never been conducted to test the effect on CHD outcomes of a low-fat diet that increases intake of healthful nutrient-dense carbohydrates and fiber-rich foods such as whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes that are now recommended in dietary guidelines.’
              https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510

    5. Read the same info from another source that also provided the following caveat:
      ————————————————————————————————————————————-
      While the study couldn’t prove cause-and-effect, experts said the findings spotlight the potential impact of such diets – or any “extreme” way of eating – on long-term health.

      Low-carb diets typically involve eating a lot of protein, mostly meat and dairy products, and consuming less vegetables, fruit and grains. The Atkins and Keto diets are two examples of this kind of eating regimen.

      In fact, a study published earlier this month linked both high-carb and low-carb diets to an earlier death, said Connie Diekman, a registered dietitian who was not involved in the new research.

      In that study, researchers found that Americans who typically ate a moderate amount of carbs – 50 to 55 percent of their daily calories – lived the longest, on average.

      None of those studies prove that the carb content of people’s diets was the key factor in longevity, Diekman stressed.

      1. I honestly have not read either study yet. My presumptive view is that excess carbohydrate would be a person who consists of cake candy and cokes as a mainstay in their diet with the off days having chips and fruit loops in the offing.

        Which would by my read play out in high carb and low carb(meat meat meat) leading to lower life expectancy.
        But honestly it will depend on study set up and exploration of the nuance of the thing itself, to what detail they did explore the diets.
        Just saying high or low carb covers to much ground to be usefull in my opinion.

        1. Just saying high or low carb covers to much ground to be usefull in my opinion.
          ————————————————————————————————————–
          Completely agree. Too many “studies” are generalized and are merely an average of the cohort. Granted, when hundreds of thousands are enrolled in an observational study the results have merit.

          But in my case the only study that would apply would be a case study of me. I take so many different supplements and eat and drink so different from the norm that there is just no way applying research from “average” folk would be beneficial to me.

          However, to the individuals who do not spend so many of their waking hours on research, I suppose these types of generalized findings are a good starting point.

    6. My coworker just gave me a lecture saying, “Carbs are crap for you. Avoid those carbs” which is what he says every time I eat oatmeal. He always says, “What are you eating? Cardboard again? Stuffing?”

      Yes, he and his wife are on Keto and have lost lots of weight.

      I go through this all the time. Knowing that I am right is helpful to me.

      1. Deb, your friend’s comment about eating cardboard made me laugh!! I grew up eating oatmeal during the colder months — and when was about 5, I thought it was made of little pieces of newspaper. So I decided to make my own: tear up old newspaper into little pieces, add water, stir, and taste. Well, it wasn’t oatmeal, but it didn’t seem too far off. LOL!! Now I love oatmeal — but I add nuts, seeds, and dried fruit to it. Shake on cinnamon and cocoa. Add soy milk. Much better. Not like torn-up newspaper at all!

    7. I read something similar to this study in the Lancet. The article was published August 16, 2018.

      ‘Dietary Carbohydrate Intake and Mortality: A Prospective Cohort Study and Meta-analysis’

    8. Thank you for sharing! I can show this to my paleo and Keto friends. I am 90% WFPB nutro (Dr. Fuhrman) tryingt o lose weight and bring my cholesterol down and they want me to try their diets as one get off her metformin from keto. I think long term they are very dangerous in raising IGF.

      1. Yes, the argument I have heard is that the keto diet simply masks the obvious symptoms of T2D (relieving the need for drugs like metformin) but the people on that diet still have T2D as is obvious whenever they try to eat eat normal foods.

        On the other hand if they do lose weight, that apparently can in and of itself reverse diabetes in some people. It would be interesting to see a trial of the keto and WPFB diets in people with diabetes looking at hard endpoints like death, cardiovascular disease, neuropathy, amputations, nephropathy etc.

        There is also some reason to think that keto diets themselves may promote T2D by increasing insulin resistance in the liver even if the more usual measures of insulin resistance appear acceptable. However this was a mouse study so it may not be relevant to humans. That said, I think that the long term safety of keto diets is still questionable and has not been demonstrated..
        https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1113/JP275173

        This video is also worth watching I think
        https://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-causes-insulin-resistance/

      2. Hi Sandra,

        Anytime! The study shows that those who eat meat-based diets have a higher BMI. I went plant based myself and my cholesterol went from 180 to 139. Both my parents are over 200. I could have used the genetic EXCUSE but decided not to. In addition, my triglycerides went from 90 to 66. One of my parents is 300.

    9. Tom,

      Looking at the conversations from the past few days, having it be you to get accused of hijacking topics again makes me laugh.

      You bring studies about nutrition and I like that.

      Laughing my head off that Dr. Greger actually tries to read the comments on this site.

      He is so nice to us.

      Most of us are like the guest still being in the living room after you went to bed.

      You, at least bring studies.

      It just is that you tend to be there early in the commenting and people want one or two on topic ones before the shift.

      1. Yes, I am in a very different time zone to most people and I see the new video/blog before most others (although there are always at least half a dozen comments on YouTube on Dr G’s latest video before I get there).

  2. Two thirds of six is 3.96 (2:10)? Hmmm. I got so hung up on that that I missed the next two minutes of the video – had to start it over again. I kept picturing six blueberries on top of my rolled oats in a cereal bowl and eating two thirds of them. Um…
    =]

      1. Deb, I had to listen to it twice. Both times I had to stop, rewind & play it back. And every time he said it was more complicated than that, I heaved a heavy sigh. Jet lag is a complicated subject, but I’m glad he did this video.

    1. Whoa that’s embarrassing! Original mistake was made by the video editors but totally our fault for not catching that. I’ll have them upload a corrected version. Most of all I can’t wait to hear the story about how they arrived at that! :)

      Thanks for catching that–I can’t believe we missed that in the review process.

          1. Great work Doc as usual, despite the minor glitch.
            My only complaint is that considering vacations and all, and as kids are now returning to school, I for one could have used this info better mid May than now. I expect I am not alone in this, though some like yourself, travel always.

          2. Awwww, your kids look like such sweeties in the extra videos you send.

            An assuaging hug to whoever messed up.

            It is so hard to not be perfect all the time.

            Anyway, I am going to be trying to see if I can use the jetlag light hack and if it will help not sleeping at all.

            Even if I go in the wrong direction and make it worse a few times, eventually, I should get better than I am now.

            Gotta pull out my light therapy lights.

            Pondering infrared and all the other colors I have.

  3. If an airliner can safely get me there and back again, I’ll be so grateful to have survived the whole scenario, enduring a little jet lag will be the least of my worries. I’ve put up with it before.

  4. I’m heading to Ireland in the next two weeks. Last time I went no problems going but coming back was a bitch. I basically slept for 24 hours. Headache and nausea…. uggh.. I’m dreading the post flight ordeal. Anything would be appreciated including phototherapy. I’ll give it a try..
    mitch

    1. If you are going to face it, better to have it be on the home leg of the trip.

      I used to travel quite a bit and having the return day be on a Friday with nothing planned for the next day was how I dealt with it.

      The concept of it taking 3 or 4 days to get back to normal meant that I would almost be there by Monday.

      I used to sleep for 24 hours straight back then and I didn’t understand it as Jet lag. I just had it as exhaustion.

  5. Hello everyone. Please allow me also to hijack the thread (if that’s what it is). I wanted to tell you that life for me just got way more complicated. As such, I probably won’t be commenting here for at least awhile. I have never had much profundity to add to the conversations, but for some reason, I didn’t want to just disappear. Best wishes to all.

          1. I always just wonder what causes people to suddenly shift.

            You have particularly interacted with so many people to form a community here.

            I just really am curious what is going through your head.

            1. “I just really am curious what is going through your head.”

              And I’m doubly curious to know what’s going through YOUR mind, Deb! Yer highly unusual — but you already know that.

              Lately I find myself watching people around me…on the street…at the mall….on the bus, etc. To think that we are ALL thinking, thinking, thinking every second about something or other! If we see somebody with a worried look on their face, well….what’s on THEIR mind? At times like that I zap them with a flash of Good Vibes. (Can it hurt?)

              All is well, Deb. Hell, nobody posts as often as you and that dude from New Mexico. Am I right, or am I right? :-)

    1. Scott,

      I don’t know what to say.

      I want to ask if you are okay and I also don’t want to pry.

      I am someone who just says everything, but I know most people don’t share personal things, so I pause and just open the door if you want to share.

      “Way more complicated” can mean so many things and usually it means “Mind your own business” and that is okay, too.

      I just have walked through the most ridiculously serious things all by myself and I hate letting anyone else do that.

      I guess just, I am here if you want to share a little or a lot, but I get that this isn’t a private community. It is on-line.

      I just see you pausing before leaving and you do definitely add to the community in a positive way, so I pause as you leave and say hope you come back soon.

  6. Haven’t done much jetting in recent years… a one-time zone trip to the east and back a day later is all. But I do occasionally want to adjust my sleep hours on occasion. I have a normal regimen of taking a 5htp, a saffron, a white willow bark, an ashwagandha, a magnesium, and krill oil capsule about a half hour before bedtime. I’m usually quite drowsy and go right to bed and fall asleep a half hour after administering.

    But on the rare occasion I can’t fall asleep or need to insure a quick sleep period (usually awaken fully rested after around 5 hrs) I add a few drops of melatonin in a small amount water in a glass and drink that.

    Not sure if this would work for jet lag, but if I am ever confronted with it I will try it.

  7. My dog has his 3 months vet appointment this week and I ended up reading about the steroid he is on and I found out that it can make it harder for him to fight infections and that it can cause the elevated WBC, which he has and that it can lead to Diabetes and affects how glucose is metabolised.

    It was just my first ever look at the topic, so I don’t really understand it completely, but I want to take my dog off of them.

    I already slowly transitioned from 2 pills to 1-1/2 to 1, but I am waiting for the next lab results before going down to a 1/2 pill.

    This is where the vet and I are going to bang heads.

    I don’t understand the whole glucose and maybe causing Diabetes could be a good thing with Cancer and one of the sites said not to use that type with Cancer, though the other sites said that Cancer was a good use of steroids (possibly for pain relief, but a natural site said that CBD oil, which I am giving him would help with pain relief.)

    I don’t like having him on steroids or antibiotics and the vet wants him on both for the rest of his life, but thought that was going to only be a weekend or two and now we are finishing 3 months.

    1. Without knowing what he’s on or why, or what the lab tests were it’s impossible to comment usefully. Presumably it’s prednisone or something similar.

      1. He has Hemangiosarcoma.

        Three months since diagnosis.

        He collapsed and had to be carried into the vet exactly 3 months ago.

        The vet said it was the biggest tumor he had ever seen and that it had spread throughout his body.

        He didn’t expect him to last the weekend and said that he would not last a month.

        I have done research and changed his diet and gave him the supplements, which studied to have them live longer, and he is.

        The Keto group successfully shrunk golf ball sized tumors in 120 days.

        We are not there yet, but my dog had what my vet called “a basketball sized tumor”

        I am concerned about keeping him on them forever.

        The vet is not concerned, because he doesn’t have the concept of a dog surviving it, especially at the stage my dog’s cancer was.

        He wasn’t a good candidate for surgery or chemo, so it is just diet and a few supplements.

        My monthly vet bill right now is $600 and the antibiotic and steroids are a big part of that, but more than that, it can cause Diabetes and a third of the dogs get infections and other problems with long-term use.

        I am not a medical person, it just seems like I would rather put my dog’s life in the hands of vegan WFPB maybe with the Turkey Tail mushrooms from the study and the Yunnan Baiyao as a backup in case he bleeds again.

        It is hard to make decisions.

        I am the only holistic focused person my vet or family or friends have ever met. Pretty much.

        They are trying to save my life by getting me off carbs and getting me on medicines and I am stubborn.

        1. I found an official survival median time with surgery, which he didn’t have, but we are at 90 days, so he has outlived those numbers, even without surgery.

          “The reported median survival times for dogs with splenic hemangiosarcoma treated only with surgery are 19-86 days.”

        2. I’m very sorry to hear that.

          There is a long list of differential diagnoses for hemangiosarcoma. Has he had a biopsy? Vets often jump to conclusions without doing proper testing. Has he at least identified the metastases with ultrasound or a CT scan?

          Unfortunately the prognosis is poor even with surgery. Standard chemotherapy (usually doxorubicin) doesn’t help much. The best protocol seems to be piroxicam and etoposide alternating every three weeks with cyclophosphamide. I don’t think it’s a good idea to take him off whatever he’s on at present because of worries about the long-term consequences. Turmeric + black pepper 5% would be a good idea, as would selenium.

      1. Thanks PCK.

        I had him on turmeric for the first three weeks, but it can contribute to anemia, which he had, so I only use it occasionally now.

        It is powerful enough that it is still on my list, but his Cancer is a type, which is prone to bleeding out.

        1. Turmeric can act as an anticoagulant. However, a far more serious concern is his cancer. Even with the increased risk of bleeding I would give it a go.

  8. I am curious about k2. Looked it up , but no videos listed. There have been multiple docs on YouTube claiming k2 clearing calcium plaques…and that it is found in meat eggs and cheese? What the what? Anybody know about it??

    1. The ‘documentaries’ on YouTube tend to be highly partisan puff-pieces by fervent advocates of whatever, using cherry picked evidence. They usually aren’t impartial assessments of the evidence by disinterested third parties. It’s probably not wise to rely on them to give the full picture

      You might to look at this blog post by Dr Greger instead
      https://nutritionfacts.org/questions/best-sources-of-vitamin-k/

      A more detailed and technical discussion by the Linus Pauling Institute people at Oregaon State U is here

      https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-K

      1. Michel Gregor is good at finding studies. However, he doesn’t really analyze them, but rather reads out pieces. You need to look through the papers yourself.

      2. TG, thanks for posting the oregon state review on K2. It was well done.
        Dr. Gregor’s fairly brief comments were from 2012, before much of the research on K2 became widely available.

    2. Assuming by K2 you mean synthetic cannabinoids. They are potent designer drugs associated with overdose deaths, which are rising yearly. There are no potential benefits that could outweigh the risk of death from these chemicals.

      Here is a link to Dr Greger’s summary of data on marijuana itself: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/marijuana/

      -Dr Anderson, Health Support Volunteer

  9. K2 by some study is thought to reduce the formation of plaque by increasing the bodies ability to assimilate calcium. Some say it may also then assist in bone health.
    K2 in natural form is found in Natto a Korean dish similar to sauerkraut. It is also found in other items like you mention.
    If you are vegan and don’t like natto you may find vegan source supplementation.

    Are vegans typically deficient in K2…. probably not. But I don’t think sufficient study has been done to rule that possibility out. Vegan deficiency is usually of vit b-12 or vit D.

    1. Most of the functions caused by k2 are the same as those of k1. However some study suggest k2 stays in a form of healthful effect longer than k1.
      K1 is found in a bunch of the leafy greens to include kale.
      The science is really still out on k2. There is a rda of k1.
      K2 from meat pork seems most concentrated. I think natto exceeds that though per serving. Could check that.

      1. >>Most of the functions caused by k2 are the same as those of k1.

        K1 contributes to blood clotting. K2 is used in the formation of osteocalcin and matrix GLa protein. Matrix GLa protein is the substance which inhibits vascular calcification.

            1. This references the decreased bioavailability of k1 as opposed to k2 in the body in part. It also references a low k1 status as third part of a determination of risk factor for osteoperosis in part.

              There is little doubt k2 is more effective in all regards to calcium. I would not say however there is not a similar function as partial result of conversion for k1 in healthy young peoples. Supporting my statement they serve many similar functions.
              http://www.academia.edu/25685135/Vitamin_K_the_effect_on_health_beyond_coagulation_an_overview

              1. bioavailability due to length of term of effect able to be used k-1 to clarify. k2 stays available longer in bodily process.

                1. in this specific from the paper..”Another difference between K
                  1 and MK-4 on the onehand and the long-chain menaquinones on the other
                  hand is their biological half-life time in the blood stream(5). Whereas K1
                  and MK-4 typically exhibit half-lifetimes of 1 
                  1.5 hour, long chain menaquinones such asMK-7 and MK-9 are characterized by half life times of
                  several days (4, 6). This was demonstrated in a volunteer
                  experiment in which equal amounts of K1 and MK-7
                  were ingested; it resulted that K1 had almost completely
                  disappeared after 8 hours, whereas MK-7 (almost
                  exclusively bound to LDL) remained detectable until
                  more than 4 days. Similar observations were made for
                  MK-9 (LJ Schurgers, unpublished data). It must be
                  concluded, therefore, that the long-chain menaquinones
                  remain available longer for take up by extrahepatic tissues
                  and that more constant circulating levels are generated
                  because the postprandial fluctuations are smaller than in
                  the case of K1″

                  K1 as I read it may have the first necessity of fulfilling hepatic requirements of the body and then with time of duration present for activity and excess is related to other bodily tissues bones and such.
                  K2 has the natural propensity to overfullfill these requirements in some regard by in part its quite extended duration of effective concentration in blood in other part by other mechanism.

                  So by my read it is not that k1 will not fill the requirements but that k2 is much more inclined to do so. k1 being also lesser absorbed.
                  .

              1. Well yes as mentioned in your study qualification down below, copied from that…”” Given the lower vitamin K1 bioavailability and shorter half-life compared to that of K2, it is conceivable that higher doses of vitamin K1 are needed to achieve the same results on cardiovascular endpoints than with vitamin K2.”

                It is conceivable which by my read means possible but not a proven.

          1. K2 is partly synthesized from K2, but it’s not clear how much gets converted. K2 can come from diet, but only from natto for vegans.

      1. I personally take a very low dose k2 just to be for sure, and as I have a fair amount of calcium in my diet with the fake milks and all being supplemented.
        High dose vegan supplements are way expensive. Low dose k-2 pretty cheap.

        But usually my focus on nutrition is performance rather than just longevity. So a normal person moderate to low activity level WFPB lower calcium as well..;I probably would not worry about it. B-12 is really the thing. Just my personal take.

          1. Well sure it is a balancing effect. Calcium in study as you mention is in this range by supplement, which means at one time…” Data from the Women’s Health Initiative showed that those women taking 1000 mg/day in the form of calcium supplements, ”

            mg of 1000, is considered on a caloric consumptive basis average of probably in the 2000 calorie range the RDA. I probably consume twice that of calories in the 4000 range.
            And most calcium per cup in the fake milks is in the 250 to 450 mg range, probably not all at one time. And as to RDA ,they are in relationship to usually around 2000 calories per day diet. So my RDA on comparable nutrients are probably twice the RDA strictly considered as I consume 4000..
            My K-2 vegan is 100 mcg which is considered 83% of daily value. So assuming I am getting some convertible K-1 from plant sources such as kale, I think I have a ballpark healthy amount to prevent calcification overtly if that did occur.

            To add I did consume a more potent supplement of K-2 when I first heard of this in the event I was habitually low in it. But think it excessive and not necessary.

            1. Reading your study in depth…(thanks I find it quite interesting)…
              “A study pending publication of 244 postmenopausal women who took supplements with 180 mcg of vitamin K2, as MK-7, for 3 years daily actually showed a significant improvement in cardiovascular health as measured by ultrasound and pulse-wave velocity, which are recognized as standard measurements for cardiovascular health.55–57”

              My supplementation is below that, but keep in mind the women supplementing with 1000 mg of calcium, are probably eating 2000 calories a day and to add….eating cheese milk or other dairy further increasing dietary calcium. So they were by any measure on a high calcium diet.
              My diet as per RDA for my caloric needs low to medium at best.

              But your point is valid.

              To point on the question with low calcium intake, which is most vegans, I probably would worry about something else. Or take 100mcg

              1. Reading further they seem to go with this intake as lowest effective level in the women…”If at least 32 mcg of vitamin K2 is present in the diet, then the risks for blood-vessel calcification and heart problems are significantly lowered,10 and the elasticity of the vessel wall is increased.59 Moreover, the beneficial effects of vitamins D and K on the elastic properties of the vessel wall in postmenopausal women has been seen in clinical trials.59 If less vitamin K2 is present in the diet, then cardiovascular problems may arise.”

                So for me probably twice that or 64. Real good study enjoyed reading that all.
                Vegans tend to demonize calcium I think it misplaced. Hip and other fracture rates in some study shows we are probably low in consumption in general. Excess of course is ill advised for cardio implications.

                1. I tend to skip supplements taking them not daily but several times a week. This is probably one I should not skip, so I will not, thanks.

                    1. Yes makes sense COPD by other study has been shown to be partially remediated by dietary influence.

                      Reading through your study, this one, shows this which elaborates upon my earlier point…:” Given the lower vitamin K1 bioavailability and shorter half-life compared to that of K2, it is conceivable that higher doses of vitamin K1 are needed to achieve the same results on cardiovascular endpoints than with vitamin K2.”

                      K2 being much better but not meaning k1 has no effect whatsoever.

                    1. Yes he is my role model as far as internet personalities go. ;)
                      Think I’ll get a show?

                    2. No then. Not much rain out here ;)
                      Really do like the indirect method though and probably replicate it in a unconscious fashion for the most part.
                      Find it personally entertaining, and liked the show back in the day though I rarely watched it.

                      Strange thing you may find entertaining, though of course completely deviating from topic.
                      Am a fan of one of the vampire series, the Originals, on Netflix.
                      The lead character is a guy named Klaus or Nicholas formally.
                      Someone I know had a male child and within two years it became obvious he was a spitting image of the character Nicholas, to the tee…..I mean almost exactly like him in small form. Others say the same thing.
                      She never saw the show till I mentioned it.

                      Guess what the name of the child is……?

                      He also has a strange affinity for certain music. One song I was playing on you tube totally entranced him which at that age is almost impossible. Sat motionless for the entire duration of the song and will do so whenever played…..
                      strange…

                      Peter F you just had to like the guy. Actor sure but I am certain he was a nice guy, so rare these days.:)

                1. Well that specific study would have the women at a high intake level. Average being in a western dietary amounts not being normal.
                  So yes you are correct but to add this average in this study, may not be normal. 1000 mg sypplement added to the common western diet is way above us RDA.

                  My personal assumption is quite possibly calcium intake may have a to do with this.

                  1. to clarify your first study cited.
                    Your second study is out of Rotterdam which by nation has the third highest consumption of milk only considered in the world. Far higher than ours.
                    I would naturally assume their calcium levels are also by norm in the high range.
                    So the data in those appears in relation to what may be normal in their specific, but probably high consumption compared to any global average.

                    1. >>I would naturally assume their calcium levels are also by norm in the high range.
                      Calcium has to be kept within very tight levels in the blood: the excess is excreted out, not deposited in the arteries.

                    2. >> it is conceivable that higher doses of vitamin K1 are needed to achieve the same results on cardiovascular endpoints than with vitamin K2.”

                      >>K2 being much better but not meaning k1 has no effect whatsoever.
                      No,it means that more K1 is needed because it has to be converted to K2. It doesn’t mean that they are interchangeable.

                    3. Diets high in calcium may override normal homeostatic controls…as this study mentions and attests..https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f228
                      I have already produced study that shows k1 itself has some effect upon bone strength.
                      Show me study which proves k1 itself has not any mechanism which provides a interaction with human calcium absorbtion or utilization.

                      I may suppose that may be fact but personally find it a assumption not a proven. Perhaps you may prove it. So go ahead it would be a interesting read.

                    4. The rat study is, yes, a rat study and the authors make no claim of relevance to human. Clearly they state only rat relevance.

                      It makes my heart glad they think so well of rats to devote entire studies to their health. I think however it holds little relevance to this discussion.

                    5. The study I show had a dose dependent increase of mortality at only high levels of calcium consumption. Low levels had no such correlation.
                      It is explained in this way..
                      “Calcium levels in serum are under tight homeostatic control, and calcium intake is not normally correlated with calcium serum levels. Diets that are low or very high in calcium can, however, override normal homeostatic control causing changes in blood levels of calcium or calciotropic hormones.52 Calcium enriched meals can reduce calcitriol, the active vitamin D metabolite, by inhibition of 1α hydroxylase53 and also increase serum levels of fibroblast growth factor 23.54 Higher levels of circulating fibroblast growth factor 23 are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and all cause mortality.55 56 57 In addition, fibroblast growth factor 23 downregulates calcitriol levels.58 Vitamin D suppression leads to an upregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and hypertension, higher levels of proinflammatory cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, increased carotid artery intima medial thickness, decreased endothelial function, hypertrophy of cardiac and vascular muscle cells, and a possible increase in serum triglycerides.59 Finally, high serum calcium levels can increase the risk of cardiovascular mortality60 by induction of a hypercoagulable state.61”

                      Seems pretty solid by my read.They reference weak and strong points of the document within it.

                    6. From that study this supposes various mechanisms..
                      ” Calcium supplements acutely increase serum calcium concentration by a modest amount,24 an effect that is sustained during long term treatment, as evidenced by lower levels of parathyroid hormone.15 Serum calcium concentrations are positively associated with carotid artery plaque thickness,26 aortic calcification,27 incidence of myocardial infarction,28 29 30 and mortality.31 These findings are consistent with observational data suggesting increased risk of cardiovascular events and death in primary hyperparathyroidism, a condition in which serum calcium concentration is elevated.32 33
                      The process of vascular calcification is a complex, regulated process similar to osteogenesis.34 It is possible that the increase in serum calcium concentrations from calcium supplements influences vascular calcification by altering regulators of calcification such as fetuin A, pyrophosphate, and bone morphogenic protein-7, or by directly binding to the calcium-sensing receptor that is expressed on vascular smooth muscle cells.25 Exposing cultures of vascular smooth muscle cells to increased concentrations of calcium results in increased mineralisation of the cultures.35 Supporting this hypothesis are studies of patients with renal impairment, in whom calcium supplements accelerate vascular calcification and increase mortality in both dialysis and pre-dialysis populations.36 37 38 ”

                      And on and on.
                      The prevalent thinking seems to be, overt large use of supplements may have more effect than normally found calcium in food products by providing a temporary abrupt increase in blood calcium levels.
                      Possibly it is not conclusively proven. Perhaps in the rat members amongst us this is a proven ;)

                    7. While looking for a study showing no effect whatsoever from K1 on calcium, keep this perhaps in mind from the reference study I mentioned earlier as per K1 having a moderate effect on those women with osteopenia…
                      ” Fractures
                      Daily 5 mg of vitamin K1 supplementation increased serum vitamin K1 levels (22.6 nmol/l versus 2.0 nmol/l, p < 0.0001 at 2 y) (Figure 3D), but did not increase circulating vitamin K2 (menaquinones 4 and 7) levels. Vitamin K1 supplementation decreased ucOC and percentage of ucOC (−52.8% versus −3.5%, p < 0.0001, and −21.4% versus −2.0%, p < 0.0001 at 2 y, respectively) (Figure 3C). Serum vitamin K1 and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were not related to percentage change in BMD, CTX, or fractures. There was also no relationship between these outcomes and the interaction of serum vitamin K1 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels."

                      K1 did show no effect upon osteoperosis but did have a positive result in less clinical fracture presentation.

                    8. A more positive result in a study of isolation on the femurol head and K-1 supplementation with added minerals is available here… https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14506950

                      I stand by my initial point k-1 and k-2 have similar result often in action. Wether this is due strictly to conversion of k1 to k2, study I have presented seems to not show that as any absolute determination. If you have study which shows this please present it.
                      In any event even if it was solely due to conversion(which seems unlikely) they have similar result in action.

                      This was my initial claim..”Most of the functions caused by k2 are the same as those of k1″
                      I specify functions and clearly k1 in femur study shows positive functional result related to calcium and other mineral addition.
                      Is k2 more effective..certainly. More is however not all or only.

                    9. Nowhere do I state k1 and k2 are interchangeable., I state they have a degree of functional similiarity. And have stated repeatedly this varies as per dose and mechanism of action. One is absorbed easier and one has longer maintance in the blood. AS primary mechanism one is concerned with clotting of blood and one is concerned with calcium remediation.But that does not infer that no crossovers of mechanism do exist on a dose dependent relation. By my read likely if k1 levels are saturated in a hepatic sense the excess then translates to other function. Is it as efficient in that translation as k2 probably not, again by my read.
                      Is some k1 converted by gut bacteria to k2 yes.

                      The ability of calcium supplementation to have resultant excess calcium in the blood is basically where all these studies showing increased potential of plaque formation are directed. The negative effects seem to be in the main relegated to high calcium groupings.
                      Excess calcium in blood as potential cause I have clearly shown by two examples from within the study. Similar result if found in study with those with thyroid malfunction which presents as increased calcium in the blood, they develop heart disease. Here we have those with evidence of increased calcium in the blood presenting in the absence of regulatory hormone disruption with heart disease but with high calcium ingestion.

                      Calcium was being routinely ordered by docs as a remedy of potential osteoperosis. This is now being reconsidered due in large part to the result from these studies I have presented and those of similar kind.
                      Is this remedy as simple as supplementation with k2 regardless of amount of calcium ingested and inclusive of heavy calcium supplementation…..we do not know conclusively but I opine no, not at all. Study is not present that shows that. If you have it please show it.
                      K2 also by my read likely helps to remediate calcium.Will it completely remediate excess calcium such as those found in these study groupings perhaps as high as 4000 or so units a day…..I say nothing shows it will, and I would never chance that.
                      Again show study which shows it will.

                    10. >>Diets high in calcium may override normal homeostatic controls…as this study mentions and attests..https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f228

                      But this has nothing to do with serum levels of calcium, which weren’t even measured. The most probable explanation is that the women with higher calcium intake were consuming too much dairy.

                      >>I have already produced study that shows k1 itself has some effect upon bone strength.

                      It’s bound to do this because some of it will be converted to K2 in the gut.

                      >>Show me study which proves k1 itself has not any mechanism which provides a interaction with human calcium absorbtion or utilization.

                      How would that be possible?

                    11. Of course it is not possible because it is not possible. Not because some nuance makes it impossible to study.

                      K1 and k2 weather by conversion factor or by amount consumed of k1 beyond that necessary for proper hepatic function serve the same basic functional responsibility in the body.
                      That is fact and why you can not produce study showing other…..if you can show it..pretty simple.

                      You are simply not reading or not understanding what I have used as supporting reference..
                      ” Calcium supplements acutely increase serum calcium concentration by a modest amount”
                      And this…”
                      “Calcium levels in serum are under tight homeostatic control, and calcium intake is not normally correlated with calcium serum levels. Diets that are low or very high in calcium can, however, override normal homeostatic control causing changes in blood levels of calcium or calciotropic hormones.”
                      Should I now reproduce all that I have cited and written…to what point.? Acutely increase….this is not unknown.

                      And you present a counter with what..your opinion???
                      Show the study don’t say well a study cannot be done. Or not…. say it is your personal opinion.

                    12. This makes it perfectly clear in even smaller form..”Diets that are low or very high in calcium can, however, override normal homeostatic control causing changes in blood levels of calcium or calciotropic hormones.”

                      Really what point is there in citing back my source references unless you are attempting to prove my points?

                    13. >>K1 and k2 weather by conversion factor or by amount consumed of k1 beyond that necessary for proper hepatic function serve the same basic functional responsibility in the body.

                      Anything is possible. However, supplementation of K2 in people on a normal intake of K1 reduces osteoporosis but supplementation of K1 doesn’t.

                      >>Calcium supplements acutely increase serum calcium concentration by a modest amount”

                      These people were on 400IU of vitamin D a day, which is nowhere near an optimum physiological level.

                      >>And this…”
                      “Calcium levels in serum are under tight homeostatic control, and calcium intake is not normally correlated with calcium serum levels. Diets that are low or very high in calcium can, however, override normal homeostatic control causing changes in blood levels of calcium or calciotropic hormones.”

                      Since calcium levels are regulated by vitamin D, there won’t be proper homeostatic control in people who are deficient. And obviously the levels will be too low in people who aren’t ingesting enough, regardless of vitamin D.

                      >>Show the study don’t say well a study cannot be done.

                      Given that K1 is converted into K2 in the gut it would be impossible to do this in vivo without starving the subjects and feeding them antibiotics constantly to remove any bacteria.

                    14. And increased calcium being present likely has result in other detriment which may provide for a arterial effect by depleting forms of vit D which circulate and provide benefit which this study attests…cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/6/2/383?ijkey=8a83df591aab7ac170a5ea27d850c66063085be3&keytype2=tf_ipsecsh

                      It is not only so a known…. serum calcium levels may vary as per overt overconsumption they study why it has the detrimental effect as well.
                      The regulatory effect is only viable within certain ranges very high or very low calcium consumption defy these ranges and hence produce abnormally low or high concentrates in blood.
                      These were long term studies. There is no benefit to collecting data which has no real relevance when it is already a known a thing will occur…this thing being increased calcium levels in blood subsequent to overt increased calcium consumption.

                      And with long term effect, minute increase in calcium level in blood may indeed have long term effect and result but be not overtly identifiable as grossly abnormal. Long term effect to produce cardia effect we may be talking high end of a normal range not grossly abnormal calcium blood level reading. So a blood level calcium testing would serve little benefit in what is already a known.

                      And it requires a invasive procedure which may disallow many from participating in study and on occasion may prevent study from being completed at all. All in this specific for nothing…as this is already a known.

                    15. The study I have already versed on osteopenia had a testing of k2 levels with k1 supplement administration and found no increase in k2 levels. And did produce a slight decrease in clinical fracture rate.

                      That study due to size limitation was not a good final read. So I produced another of basically the same supplement regime of k1 only, which showed a positive effect on supplementation and femur bone rebuild.

                      So no…. the bias is against your contention that this may not be studied and effect is not found with k1 only administration. If k2 were the active agent due to bioconversion certainly higher k2 levels would be found in the blood…I have already produced that quote from study…they were not.

                      Do I have to reproduce that same lot here again the study the quote and all of that?

                    16. That study did not link up well. But you can cut and paste copy and put it in search as well.

                      But here is the relevant part as per this discussion..
                      ” 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25D) showed an inverse relation with FGF23.
                      Conclusions Variation in dietary phosphate and calcium intake induces changes in FGF23 (on top of a circadian rhythm) and 1,25D blood levels as well as in urinary phosphate excretion. These changes are detectable the day after the change in the phosphate content of meals. Higher FGF23 levels are associated with phosphaturia and a decline in 1,25D levels. ”

                      Increased calcium/phosphate produced reduction in that form of vitamin D in circulation.
                      Would that be compounded by already existant low levels of vitamin D… sure.
                      But that by no means says increased calcium is not having a detrimental effect….it certainly is.
                      We can not exclude that vit D in this form may provide a beneficial effect upon arterial condition. And hence the lowering effect of the calcium was producing a negative.

                      Low circulatory vit D produced in part by increased calcium consumption. Is that in itself a cause of arterial disease of this type..no. Is it a probable as to contributor…quite probable.

                    17. >>If k2 were the active agent due to bioconversion certainly higher k2 levels would be found in the blood…I have already produced that quote from study…they were not.

                      Which paper are you referring to?

                    18. I have already produced this study and then produced a copy from the study on the section on k2 testing.

                      It is becoming apparent you are not even really reading what I produce.
                      So of course you will be left with your conclusions….so on my part what is the point?

                      Here it is again… https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050196 or
                      https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050196

                      And this again is from the study itself on the specific…
                      ” Fractures
                      Daily 5 mg of vitamin K1 supplementation increased serum vitamin K1 levels (22.6 nmol/l versus 2.0 nmol/l, p < 0.0001 at 2 y) (Figure 3D), but did not increase circulating vitamin K2 (menaquinones 4 and 7) levels. Vitamin K1 supplementation decreased ucOC and percentage of ucOC (−52.8% versus −3.5%, p < 0.0001, and −21.4% versus −2.0%, p < 0.0001 at 2 y, respectively) (Figure 3C). Serum vitamin K1 and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were not related to percentage change in BMD, CTX, or fractures. There was also no relationship between these outcomes and the interaction of serum vitamin K1 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels."

                      The key phrase being…."but did not increase circulating vitamin K2 "
                      So how many of my other points and studies will I have to repeat?
                      This is getting senseless.

                    19. I coupled that study with this one with also k1 supplementation as basis, which showed a more statistical valid result of bone reformation with a investigation of the femoral head….https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14506950

                      Same basic grouping and same supplement. The first study showed a statistical improvement in clinical fracture rate but was to small in sample to form definitive conclusion. the second study did.
                      Quite likely it is that k1 itself serves this purpose but to a lesser degree and efficiency of k2.

                    20. In any event your challenge to my statement…”>Most of the functions caused by k2 are the same as those of k1. ”
                      is proven not sustainable. Even if k1 did function in this specific by conversion factor the functional result was the same…proven bone enhancement similar to that found in k2 only study.

                      But likely it is in any event k1 itself, in higher concentration provide the same effect as noted, to a limited degree, which is why I state most, not all.
                      Your challenge fails. They are very similar which is why in fact they are both k vitamins and not different vitamins.

                    21. Which is actually Dr Gregers position which I provide from a link on Vit K which Tom has provided..

                      “So my question is: should vegetarians take supplements of vitamin k2 mk7 (created from natto)?
                      Answer:
                      Not sure what magazine you were reading, but the scientific consensus is that either one (phylloquinone or menaquinone, formerly K1 and K2) is fine for maintaining human vitamin K status. The recommended intake is about 100 mcg. A half cup of kale? >500. No need for natto; just eat your greens.”

                      I do take 100 mcg of k2. But that is a personal decision I have elaborated upon. Typically WFPB vegans I think b-12 and D are concerns. Nothing shows k2 deficiency is a thing for the WFPB peoples AS elaborated upon, k1 fills the bill most always with that crowd.

                      Others calcium overload typical in some American groupings…I think probably..But that is not probably Dr Gregers position though I think he has not addressed that particular nuance.

                    22. https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27732556

                      You will see from this that measuring serum K2 is not easy. The method used in Cheug et al’s paper is unlikely to have produced accurate results. Given that they didn’t even bother to mention the results which they did get, I think we can safely discard that as evidence that K1 doesn’t metabolize to K2 – especially since there is plenty of much better evidence showing that it does.

                    23. I never said K2 does not metabolize into k1.
                      I am starting to wonder if you are reading a thing I state. Again what is the point if you don’t read it why do I bother to write it?
                      Or is this a attempted straw man.

                      I have said about 10 times k1 changes in part into k2.

                      In that specific study, which was of older women k1, did not. At least not sufficiently enough to present as present in blood. Was it as there was no biological need since there was k1 supplementation at high levels, was their gut biome deficient in a particular bacteria…I don’t know.
                      What it known is that they received bone effect within the absence of detectable k2 in their bloodstream with k1 present and being supplemented.

                      Which you are not addressing as it confronts and defies your contention that k1 and k2 are remarkably different substances with completely differing mechanisms of action, is the fact k1 improved bone status. .A similar action to k2.

                    24. I have copied what they stated in their study and it is not that they did not report k2 status..they did…..
                      This is what they said…”but did not increase circulating vitamin K2 (menaquinones 4 and 7) levels. ”

                      Of course they tested for k2 levels. this was a test of k1 not k2, that had to be disallowed.
                      Your stating the test is difficult providing study on that shows nothing. WE can not presuppose the statements made in study are wrong or incorrect by behavior simply because we do not agree with them.

                      The correct way is to provide study which counters their result…which you cannot do.

                    25. At this point I think you are not even reading your own reference study materials..

                      You do realize they reference my exact study that I just cited in their own paper…”Moreover, supplementation of 5 mg daily phylloquinone in 440 postmenopausal women with osteopenia for 2 years in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial caused a > 50% reduction in clinical fractures vs. placebo, although no protection against the age-related decline in bone mineral density was observed [61].
                      That is theosteopenia study I just referenced and have been referencing.And that you are claiming is faulted with measurement.

                      Do you perhaps suppose if they found it faulted they may just not include it as reference source within their own paper????
                      Your position is untenable.

                      Yes that is copied from your last reference.

                    26. I actually read reference materials in support of others positions…I may learn a thing or two.

                      In this specific I have learned you have inadvertently provided substance, not to your argument, but mine.
                      Really you have to read through this stuff before you provide it as reference to support your opinion.

                    27. Here are my comments again, in case you missed them:

                      >>I never said K2 does not metabolize into k1.

                      So why are you arguing? Are you still trying to ‘prove’ that calcium isn’t regulated in the body, or that Dutchmen are all hypercalcemic? I can’t keep up!

                      >>I have said about 10 times k1 changes in part into k2.

                      No one doubts that.

                      >>In that specific study, which was of older women k1, did not.

                      What ‘did not’? I’ve explained to you why the K2 levels are a) not even quoted and b) would be wrong even if they were, based on the method they used.

                      >>At least not sufficiently enough to present as present in blood.

                      I have no idea what you are talking about. What does ‘present as present in blood’ mean?

                      >>Was it as there was no biological need since there was k1 supplementation at high levels, was their gut biome deficient in a particular bacteria…I don’t know.

                      What does ‘there way no biological need’ mean?

                      >>What it known is that they received bone effect within the absence of detectable k2 in their bloodstream with k1 present and being supplemented.

                      That’s not known, for the reasons I explained. We have no reliable information about the K2 levels.

                      >>I have copied what they stated in their study and it is not that they did not report k2 status..they did…..

                      Why don’t you read the f**ing paper rather than relying on the abstract? They didn’t give any figures for K2, and, even if they had, they would have been inaccurate.

                      >>Of course they tested for k2 levels. this was a test of k1 not k2, that had to be disallowed.
                      Why don’t you *read the paper and find out what they did* instead of guessing?

                      >>Your stating the test is difficult providing study on that shows nothing. WE can not presuppose the statements made in study are wrong or incorrect by behavior simply because we do not agree with them.

                      Maybe you can’t, because you (obviously) don’t have a scientific background.

                      >>At this point I think you are not even reading your own reference study materials..
                      You have proven that you don’t even have a copy of them.

                      >>You do realize they reference my exact study that I just cited in their own paper…

                      What is your native language, as a matter of interest?

                      >>Moreover, supplementation of 5 mg daily phylloquinone in 440 postmenopausal women with osteopenia for 2 years in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial caused a > 50% reduction in clinical fractures vs. placebo, although no protection against the age-related decline in bone mineral density was observed [61].

                      Probably because they were using K1 rather than K2, which has an entirely different function.

                      >>I actually read reference materials in support of others positions…I may learn a thing or two.

                      You didn’t read that one – you just looked at the abstract.

                    28. Now back here again are we? What is with the double space my friend…are you starting to loose it?

                      So here is my last comment from down below..

                      I go through each of these lines and this is in the majority just strawman nonsense…
                      “Are you still trying to ‘prove’ that calcium isn’t regulated in the body, or that Dutchmen are all hypercalcemic? I can’t keep up”
                      The dutch study was on peoples who have high calcium intake that is inevitable as they come from the third largest milk consumer per capita in the world, their nation. I no where state they are in a condition of hypercalcemia.
                      I have proven multiple times by study now, how high calcium intakes do provide calcium blood levels which are above the norms found with normal calcium consumption.
                      I no where state calcium is not regulated by the body….
                      So what else did I not state, that you will proceed to knock down…
                      What other nonsense will you be providing?

  10. My husband and I fly international once or twice a year from the east coast. We flew to SE Asia and then on to the Maldives which is one or two hours behind. We have also gone to Israel and going to India(10 time zones) in February. While I love Dr. G’ video’s this was hard to wrap my head around not only to understand but apply -LOL. We just try our best to acclimate to the new time zone and if need be take melatonin. I have the hardest time on long haul flights on the plane because of the pressurized cabin and dryness, so I try to eat very little. I ate too much going to Asia and it wasn’t a pretty sick on the plane. What sometimes helps on the plane and believe it or not with jet leg is hydration salts like OARS.

    1. I looked up the ORS and found it, but also found things, which are labeled to help with jet lag.

      https://www.amazon.com/1Above-Flight-Tablets-Prevention-Fatigue/dp/B00XKDQC24?th=1 “The key active ingredient Pycnogenol®, a natural bark extract, is proven to reduce the length of jet lag by 53.8% and the severity by 61.5% (1).”

      https://www.amazon.com/No-Jet-Lag-Homeopathic-Prevention-Long-Haul/dp/B002TV5ZVW/ref=pd_lpo_vtph_121_tr_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=ZMCKV12976GE0DP614XY “Arnica Montana (Leopard’s Bane) is used to alleviate tension and mental strain. Bellis Perennis (Daisy) is used to alleviate muscle soreness. Chamomilla (Wild Chamomile) is used to alleviate emotional and mental stress. Ipecacuanha (Ipecac) is used to alleviate dehydration. Lycopodium (Clubmoss) is used to alleviate anxiety.”

      This one interests me:

      https://www.amazon.com/Thrombosis-International-Circulation-Cardiovascular-Compression/dp/B071YPTL3L/ref=pd_sbs_121_6?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B071YPTL3L&pd_rd_r=482dd932-ac08-11e8-a8ea-092258445276&pd_rd_w=h08QL&pd_rd_wg=5b9fd&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=0bb14103-7f67-4c21-9b0b-31f42dc047e7&pf_rd_r=30XYAYVAW45ZRB16K2R4&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=30XYAYVAW45ZRB16K2R4 “Flight Armour is the only travel supplement to address the 3 hazards of flying: Clotting, Jet Lag, and Radiation.”

      1. Flight Armour uses the combination of Pine Bark and Nattokinase. A study by the Journal of Translational Medicine showed passengers on a NYC-to-London flight taking the Combination of both Pine Bine and Nattokinase, had zero clots while 7 (placebo) passengers suffered a DVT.

        Elite athletes, such as marathoners, encompass one of the most at risk groups for deep vein thrombosis. A study involving 2009 Boston Marathon Runners suggested that “the combination of air travel and marathon running induces a serious hyper-coaguable state.

  11. Oh my. I hit the “Save my name…” button by mistake, & my inbox exploded. I unchecked the box & hit unsubscribe several times but it doesn’t seem to do anything. Any suggestions? Anybody?

  12. Off-topic: Plastic — tiny particles of it are everywhere. In our drinking water, in beer, in salt. That’s just for starters. Quotes from the linked article:

    “They’re in our food, they’re in our water, they’re in our air. There’s no way anybody living on the planet today is not ingesting plastics. That’s reality,”

    One of the highest counts was in the Genesee River near downtown Rochester.

    They also concluded that the southern shore of Lake Ontario, from which more than a half-million New Yorkers get their drinking water, is among the most plastic-riddled areas in the Great Lakes system.

    Water from plastic bottles tended to contain microparticles of the plastic used to make the container, those researchers said. Water from glass bottles had different plastics and more particles overall, suggesting the material was getting in the water during bottling.

    Most of the tiny fibers that wind up in drinking water and beer have a different source: residential and industrial washing machines that launder polyester shirts and pants and those popular “polar fleece” jackets, vests, robes and blankets.

    “I don’t think there’s a body of water on the planet that doesn’t have plastics. It’s just everywhere.”

    https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2018/08/28/plastic-study-finds-tiny-synthetic-bits-great-lakes-tap-water-and-beer/971888002/

    I wonder how these affect our health.

  13. >>In any event your challenge to my statement…”>Most of the functions caused by k2 are the same as those of k1. ”

    There isn’t a scrap of evidence that ‘most of the functions caused by K2 are the same as those of K1’, and a great deal of evidence to suggest that they are not. They are different compounds and their functions are understood quite well at this stage. Having said that, these functions are complex and very hard to disentangle in human studies. Since you have decided that studies in rats or studies on Dutch people aren’t good enough evidence, and it so happens that much of the work has been done in the Netherlands, we are stuck. If you have some ‘point’ that you feel I have missed please share it with us, but write it out coherently and put in a link to the study you are referring to.

    1. Your particular study on rats you state was in reference to decreased levels of calcium not increased. So it simply is not relevant.
      ARe you stating now it is concerned with higher levels of calcium?

      The neatherland study you claimed was composed of normal levels of calcium present. Since this is the third highest milk consuming country in the world far higher than the US, of course it also was a study of high not normal calcium consumption.

      K2 persists in the body that is a established fact. K1 does not.

      I have already shown prior that study on osteopenia is being used in the paper you produced that is intended in your eyes to refute their statements.
      If it did that then why do they cite it as reference? Clearly they consider it a valid study or they would not use it as reference source.
      It my prior comment I copy and pasted the reference.

      The scrap of evidence is clearly present in the two studies I mention which includes the osteopenia study which you have inadvertently included within your own soruce.You really have to read through your sources before you cite them.

  14. >>I have already produced this study and then produced a copy from the study on the section on k2 testing.

    Yes, but it wasn’t clear which study you were referring to.

    >>And this again is from the study itself on the specific…
    ” Fractures
    Daily 5 mg of vitamin K1 supplementation increased serum vitamin K1 levels (22.6 nmol/l versus 2.0 nmol/l, p < 0.0001 at 2 y) (Figure 3D), but did not increase circulating vitamin K2 (menaquinones 4 and 7) levels. Vitamin K1 supplementation decreased ucOC and percentage of ucOC (−52.8% versus −3.5%, p < 0.0001, and −21.4% versus −2.0%, p < 0.0001 at 2 y, respectively) (Figure 3C). Serum vitamin K1 and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were not related to percentage change in BMD, CTX, or fractures. There was also no relationship between these outcomes and the interaction of serum vitamin K1 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels."

    The key phrase being…."but did not increase circulating vitamin K2 "

    So your theory that K2 is formed when there is too much K1 doesn't seem to be correct.
    Why didn't they detect K2? Who knows? Most probably it was metabolized or excreted before it could be measured (they only measured every three months, and then after an overnight fast). They haven't published any figures about the levels of K2 to back up their claim and have lumped it in with K1 in their graphs.

    1. For some reason you have decided to skip around so I will include these two prior posts here….

      I have copied what they stated in their study and it is not that they did not report k2 status..they did…..
      This is what they said…”but did not increase circulating vitamin K2 (menaquinones 4 and 7) levels. ”
      Of course they tested for k2 levels. this was a test of k1 not k2, that had to be disallowed.
      Your stating the test is difficult providing study on that shows nothing. WE can not presuppose the statements made in study are wrong or incorrect by behavior simply because we do not agree with them.
      The correct way is to provide study which counters their result…which you cannot do.

      At this point I think you are not even reading your own reference study materials..
      You do realize they reference my exact study that I just cited in their own paper…”Moreover, supplementation of 5 mg daily phylloquinone in 440 postmenopausal women with osteopenia for 2 years in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial caused a > 50% reduction in clinical fractures vs. placebo, although no protection against the age-related decline in bone mineral density was observed [61].
      That is the osteopenia study I just referenced and have been referencing.And that you are claiming is faulted with measurement.
      Do you perhaps suppose if they found it faulted they may just not include it as reference source within their own paper????
      Your position is untenable.
      Yes that is copied from your last reference.

      I state clearly I do not know specifically why the k2 levels did not increase. You are again presenting a straw man, stating things I did not state and then knocking them down. I state a couple of option and state I don’t knowwhy this presented as it did…this is clearly not presenting theory.

      It is very easy to defeat points if one makes them up.

      1. >>Of course they tested for k2 levels.
        Well, perhaps they could have shared the results with us.

        Given that you don’t even have a copy of the paper….

    1. Panorama, that’s an interesting study! For whatever it’s worth, I am going to give it a go for the next month (or three) trying a 10 hr feeding window then get lipid testing done after 8 weeks maybe.

      1. * But unlike the mice in the study, I will not be eating hamburgers LOL. I will see if there is an advantage to time restricted feeding in the case of persistently higher-than-desired LDL cholesterol while eating wfpb style.

  15. >>I never said K2 does not metabolize into k1.

    So why are you arguing? Are you still trying to ‘prove’ that calcium isn’t regulated in the body, or that Dutchmen are all hypercalcemic? I can’t keep up!

    >>I have said about 10 times k1 changes in part into k2.

    No one doubts that.

    >>In that specific study, which was of older women k1, did not.

    What ‘did not’? I’ve explained to you why the K2 levels are a) not even quoted and b) would be wrong even if they were, based on the method they used.

    >>At least not sufficiently enough to present as present in blood.

    I have no idea what you are talking about. What does ‘present as present in blood’ mean?

    >>Was it as there was no biological need since there was k1 supplementation at high levels, was their gut biome deficient in a particular bacteria…I don’t know.

    What does ‘there way no biological need’ mean?

    >>What it known is that they received bone effect within the absence of detectable k2 in their bloodstream with k1 present and being supplemented.

    That’s not known, for the reasons I explained. We have no reliable information about the K2 levels.

    >>I have copied what they stated in their study and it is not that they did not report k2 status..they did…..

    Why don’t you read the f**ing paper rather than relying on the abstract? They didn’t give any figures for K2, and, even if they had, they would have been inaccurate.

    >>Of course they tested for k2 levels. this was a test of k1 not k2, that had to be disallowed.
    Why don’t you *read the paper and find out what they did* instead of guessing?

    >>Your stating the test is difficult providing study on that shows nothing. WE can not presuppose the statements made in study are wrong or incorrect by behavior simply because we do not agree with them.

    Maybe you can’t, because you (obviously) don’t have a scientific background.

    >>At this point I think you are not even reading your own reference study materials..
    You have proven that you don’t even have a copy of them.

    >>You do realize they reference my exact study that I just cited in their own paper…

    What is your native language, as a matter of interest?

    >>Moreover, supplementation of 5 mg daily phylloquinone in 440 postmenopausal women with osteopenia for 2 years in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial caused a > 50% reduction in clinical fractures vs. placebo, although no protection against the age-related decline in bone mineral density was observed [61].

    Probably because they were using K1 rather than K2, which has an entirely different function.

    >>I actually read reference materials in support of others positions…I may learn a thing or two.

    You didn’t read that one – you just looked at the abstract.

  16. Your particular study on rats you state was in reference to decreased levels of calcium not increased. So it simply is not relevant.
    ARe you stating now it is concerned with higher levels of calcium?

    The neatherland study you claimed was composed of normal levels of calcium present. Since this is the third highest milk consuming country in the world far higher than the US, of course it also was a study of high not normal calcium consumption.

    >>K2 persists in the body that is a established fact. K1 does not.

    And how, exactly, would one go about testing your belief?

    >>I have already shown prior that study on osteopenia is being used in the paper you produced that is intended in your eyes to refute their statements.
    If it did that then why do they cite it as reference? Clearly they consider it a valid study or they would not use it as reference source.
    It my prior comment I copy and pasted the reference.

    I have – literally – no idea what you are attempting to say here. Could your write things in your mother tongue, perhaps, rather than using Google Translate?

  17. >>Do you perhaps suppose if they found it faulted they may just not include it as reference source within their own paper????

    We have established that there were no values for K2 in the osteoporosis paper. These values don’t appear out of thin air just because somebody quoted the paper.

    1. This was a study on k1 not k2 why should they record k2 numbers they were found with no increase.
      The study was on K2. They established no increase and stated it. And no one other than you is challenging that specific.
      Know why…because it would be quite silly to do so. That study has been out for years.

      1. If the study was on k2 of course they would record the numbers. It was not. And thus that was auxiliary information important to those who conduct the study but not important to those who read or evaluate the study.
        It had to be ruled out as contributory factor and a reading of no increase does that.

      2. >>The study was on K2. They established no increase and stated it. And no one other than you is challenging that specific.

        I realise that your science ‘background’ is limited to watching YT videos: I’m sorry that you are so frustrated. Please read the paper I linked to and read through my comments again.

        1. PCK what does that stand for anyway…this…”Pedagogical Content Knowledge (knowledge of how to teach a subject)”

          Wait a second did you check your pill box…..if it is full in the day marked this is the forth day…you need to take it.

          1. Yes please teach me teacher ..oh great one.

            But wait…who can apparently not even read the title of a study nevertheless content…..guess we could take a look see earlier on in this discussion for a look see on that…..

  18. “I’ve explained to you why the K2 levels are a) not even quoted and b) would be wrong even if they were, based on the method they used.”

    The study paper you provided, includes that study, the osteopenia study, not in a critical fashion but as supportive material. There is no mention of faulted numbers incomplete numbers or inaccurate numbers. They in fact reference it exactly as I have stated it. As partial support for their thesis.

    Once again..if it was faulted do you think they would cite it as supportive material in discussion of the subject?
    Clearly they would not. If it was faulted and that was the intent they would have mentioned it…they did not.

    Get used to it..you’ve been disproved.
    My advice is think before you criticize. You criticized my statement initially, not me yours. I have tried to be nice about it, but you are just starting to get carried away with yourself. Straw manning and a boatload of nonsense.
    You need to calm down and just walk away.

    Next time think before taking objection..is what this person saying wrong, or am I trying to find fault in what may be a thing right but stated perhaps in a different way.
    If you are inclined to find fault you will find it. But then you have to go through this…do you want that? Why offend people needlessly?
    Act human and peoples will generally treat you humanly.

    1. You once again are not reading things but only what you respond clearly….this was stated was earlier in the conversation from a source material…
      “in this specific from the paper..”Another difference between K
      1 and MK-4 on the onehand and the long-chain menaquinones on the other
      hand is their biological half-life time in the blood stream(5). Whereas K1
      and MK-4 typically exhibit half-lifetimes of 1 
      1.5 hour, long chain menaquinones such asMK-7 and MK-9 are characterized by half life times of
      several days (4, 6). This was demonstrated in a volunteer
      experiment in which equal amounts of K1 and MK-7
      were ingested; it resulted that K1 had almost completely
      disappeared after 8 hours, whereas MK-7 (almost
      exclusively bound to LDL) remained detectable until
      more than 4 days. Similar observations were made for
      MK-9 (LJ Schurgers, unpublished data). It must be
      concluded, therefore, that the long-chain menaquinones
      remain available longer for take up by extrahepatic tissues
      and that more constant circulating levels are generated
      because the postprandial fluctuations are smaller than in
      the case of K1″

      Yet despite this and the study reference source provided in the comment directly above that, you state this is a belief…
      “K2 persists in the body that is a established fact. K1 does not.
      And how, exactly, would one go about testing your belief?”

      You are just posting nonsense.

      1. I go through each of these lines and this is in the majority just strawman nonsense…
        “Are you still trying to ‘prove’ that calcium isn’t regulated in the body, or that Dutchmen are all hypercalcemic? I can’t keep up”

        The dutch study was on peoples who have high calcium intake that is inevitable as they come from the third largest milk consumer per capita in the world, their nation. I no where state they are in a condition of hypercalcemia.
        I have proven multiple times by study now, how high calcium intakes do provide calcium blood levels which are above the norms found with normal calcium consumption.
        I no where state calcium is not regulated by the body….

        So what else did I not state, that you will proceed to knock down…
        What other nonsense will you be providing?

        1. For some reason you find it impossible to grasp this…..

          “At this point I think you are not even reading your own reference study materials..
          You do realize they reference my exact study that I just cited in their own paper…”Moreover, supplementation of 5 mg daily phylloquinone in 440 postmenopausal women with osteopenia for 2 years in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial caused a > 50% reduction in clinical fractures vs. placebo, although no protection against the age-related decline in bone mineral density was observed [61].
          That is theosteopenia study I just referenced and have been referencing.And that you are claiming is faulted with measurement.
          Do you perhaps suppose if they found it faulted they may just not include it as reference source within their own paper????
          Your position is untenable.
          Yes that is copied from your last reference.

          Your reference on the difficulty in measuring K levels, the study paper you provided…. does include the osteopenia study not in a critical fashion as a example of bad work or misconstrued data or incomplete data, but as supportive material in their discussion.

          How comically foolish are you?

          1. I found it quite telling your knock on Tom, who provided reference of study paper not yet published, and then you claiming a real study you found knocking his as only a media release, and then you providing the real study….but alas it was a different study…

            Are you a complete fool or just acting as one?

            1. I say once again just walk away. You started this criticism of me, not me of you, I was giving a little answer to someone asking a question… you took objection. I did not field objection to you nor your content. At this point for all concerned…just walk away.
              You are looking foolish.

              1. One literally could not script this better..
                “A link to a paper would be useful, but a press release about a forthcoming conference paper is not so helpful.
                Here’s the paper:”
                I understand that the paper hasn’t been published yet which is why I didn’t provide a link. The study is about an analysis of NHANES data and the lead author is Professor Banach of Lodz University, The paper you linked to is based on the ARIC study and the most notable author is Professor Walter Willett of Harvard University. It is a very interesting link – thank you – but it is not the paperthat I or the press release were referring to.”

                Comedy on a dull day…..

                Just walk away.

                1. Any common thread here and in that exchange…..not reading the study materials cited. And then making idiotic statements as result….

                  Now where have we seen that before….lets see….where?

                    1. Oh here we go…
                      What exactly are you doing here displaying content adverse to Dr Gregers anyway. You are certainly alllowed to do so, but this vit K thing, your opinions are directly contradicting to his….so why? I have already copied them and a link has been provided by another.

                      Clueing us all into the truth the better way…what? What axe to grind is present in your woefully inadequate bag of tricks?
                      Please inform us oh great one.

                    2. I’ve been dealing with this dip s^&%$ for about two days…. providing careful considerate remarks, providing study upon study references from specific sources of qualification, and always in a polite courteous fashion, even admitting and conceding many points praising his studies provide as examples of good work…and this dip s*&^ starts to strawman me….

                      I simply cannot believe it. What a total piece of c.

        1. How about sharing your thoughts with us on why studies on K2 made in the Netherlands are suspect because Dutch people drink too much milk?

          Or why nothing written in a research paper can ever be wrong, and the only way of ‘analyzing’ a paper is to find another one which comes to a different conclusion?

          Or how not being able to even read a paper (because you don’t have a copy) is not an impediment to having strong opinions about the content you haven’t read (and couldn’t understand even if you did have a copy)?

          Or how you misunderstood the phrase an ‘acute increase in serum calcium levels’ because you thought that ‘acute’ meant ‘serious’.

  19. Or how results obtained in rats are valueless because [insert physiological process you don’t even remotely understand] ‘must’ be entirely different from that in humans.

    Or how writing dozens of posts, all of which are completely incoherent and which refer to unknown references which you haven’t read are some form of intelligent debate.

        1. How about you stop complaining about what the thing is called and spend some time reading it DS.

          No wonder you are so f*(&^ ed up…you never get past a title.

          1. That particular site has 126 research study papers listed as reference material on vitamin K DS….Any one can be retrieved from it.

            How stupid are you again? Tin foil clogging up the airwaves is it?

            1. Just read the title again…I can’t fu&^% believe it.

              Well gee jake looka here see…..nothing in this site nothing at all….no study there not a one….
              If you only read a title DS.

              Read the d thing. the studies are in it more than a hundred listed at the end of the article. fool

              1. I can simply not believe this guy…told repeatedly, read the study, you are not reading the studies, you are not reading the reference materiais, you are not reading the posts,…..and on and on and on.

                What does he do given a site to read, after all that…. abjectly dismisses it as a random website not spending a minute to explore the content.
                A complete perfect example of stupidity…

  20. >>What exactly are you doing here displaying content adverse to Dr Gregers anyway. You are certainly alllowed to do so, but this vit K thing, your opinions are directly contradicting to his….so why?

    If you have bothered to watch a few of Michel Gregor’s videos you will notice that he doesn’t analyze research papers, he simply selects material from them. He’s a clinician, not a scientist. I am a strong supporter of his work, and agree with most of his conclusions. But not all of them. For example, he went completely off the rails in his video on EMF.

    1. Anyone off the rails it is you, not him.

      So you are from the EMF crowd, wearing tin foil hats while writing all this drivel are we?

        1. *sigh* Who could imagine that following a non-animal diet could cause such bickering!

          As my exasperated mother used to say to my fighting siblings and me: “Children, love one another.”

          1. Don’t worry, I won’t be wasting any more of my time on this forum. Any rational argument. even if backed up with multiple references and analyses from peer-reviewed medical papers, which happens to disagree with Michel Gregor’s conclusions on a subject, is met first with disbelief and then with vitriolic anger, frustration and gobs of childish abuse. Your father is Michel Gregor and you are his little children. I am not a child, I am a PhD scientist who could have contributed a lot to your forum. But I’m not interested in interacting with people who can’t think for themselves and who behave like imbeciles.

            1. In the short time you have been here, your posts have disparaged pretty much everybody and everything,from Greger to the Mayo Clinic and everything in between. The only complimentary remarks you have uttered have been about yourself.

              You have also never acknowledged that you failed to understand what the paper on specific statin drugs versus comparator dugs was about, or the abstract we subsequently discussed. You even failed to understand an ESC press release. What kind of PhD scientist has such problems?

              Also, your attention to detail is such that you still aren’t able to spell Greger’s name correctly.

              Now you are going to flounce away because people don’t treat you the respect you think you deserve?

              Sorry, but your posts too often cause me to wonder ………. narcissistic personality disorder?

              1. >>In the short time you have been here, your posts have disparaged pretty much everybody

                Not even remotely. I have supported Greger’s work for a long time. What I don’t support is people such as yourself and Ron who get the wrong end of the stick and then refuse to budge in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong. I can’t be bothered with your unpleasantness, nor with your ignorance of even the most basic scientific facts. I have seen no evidence that you can do anything other than copy and paste largely irrelevant text from a Google search and abuse people online.

                >>You have also never acknowledged that you failed to understand what the paper on specific statin drugs versus comparator dugs was about

                Your endlessly repeating this nonsense doesn’t make it true. I did understand what the paper was about and disagreed with your ridiculous interpretation of it.

                >>You even failed to understand an ESC press release.

                I didn’t ‘fail to understand it’. Your interpretation was wrong. I also explained that press releases aren’t a form of peer-reviewed science, and referred you to a series of papers demonstrating my points in detail. Instead of looking at those papers, you wrote your original nonsense again and again, along with endless put-downs and abuse. Science doesn’t work like that, even if you do.

                >>Also, your attention to detail is such that you still aren’t able to spell Greger’s name correctly.

                I’m sorry that I spelled the name of your hero incorrectly,. Since I won’t be wasting any more time on this forum, I don’t think this matters very much. But thanks for at least criticizing me for something which you understand.

                >>Now you are going to flounce away because people don’t treat you the respect you think you deserve?

                I have more interesting things to do than deal with people whose level of debate consists largely of childish put-downs and abuse.

                1. PCK

                  You make egregious errors of fact and refuse to acknowledge them. Even now you are pretending that you were right all along. For example:

                  ‘I did understand what the paper was about and disagreed with your ridiculous interpretation of it.’

                  My ‘ridiculous interpretation’ as you call it was a direct quotation from the paper itself describing what the study was about. You refuse to accept that. However, anybody who reads the paper, and your posts, will easily be able to tell which is the ridiculous interprettion.

                  You have problems PCK. You need to deal with them before your condition becomes pathological. We are all human and we all make mistakes from time to time. Well-adjusted people own up to them, try to learn something from the experience and then move on.

                    1. Goodbye PCK

                      I wish you well but, for your own sake, you need to face up to the fact that you are not infallible.

  21. “Your father is Michel Gregor and you are his little children.”
    – – – – – – – – –

    Dr. Michael Greger (notice the correct spelling) is certainly not my father. Nor have I considered myself one of his groupies. I take what resonates, and skip the rest.

    Which is what I believe most of this bunch does — at least in the privacy of their own homes. :-)

    1. Well sure.
      Sometimes it does take a little push shove to find out what a person is really about, their intentions.
      It becomes clear we, in this fellow’s eyes, are little children being led astray by the big bad Dr Greger. In the heat of the moment he has now stated clearly how he sees things and this site.

      Which is a opinion to hold, yes in the privacy of ones domain. To be head hunting and putting it upon us here(that view) is over the top. If this was you tube fine, and a comment section on you tube, it is a open domain and that is to be expected.
      To come here to this site, Dr Gregers site, to be head hunting is just in poor form.

      It just really is impossible to discuss things with peoples holding those types of internal agendas. I personally can not think of one regular participant here who does not draw exception to Dr Gregers opinions at some time or other. But most of us do not internalize these conflictions and then act on them in the fashion this fellow has exhibited.

      1. Well, he did write in a post on the previous video that he thought that most people here were ‘morons’……………. which I suspect says a lot more about him/her than it does about the rest of us.

  22. I would like to clarify a statement in the video regarding light exposure and avoidance on days subsequent to the travel day: “On subsequent days, the local times of light avoidance and exposure need to be advanced [earlier] by [one to two hours] each day, until light avoidance coincides with [when you’re sleeping].”

    First, for westward travel, it would seem that the local times for avoidance and exposure need to be later. This would have the similar effect of following the dashed line of temperature minimum to the 0 time zone that earlier times do for easttward travel.

    Second for the hourly adjustment for each day, it would seem that this could be calibrated by dividing the time zones by the number of days of jet lag duration. for example 10 time zones of eastward travel is 10 x 2/3 = 6.6 days to adjust. The 14 time zones on the westward chart divided by 6.6 suggest that every day the time of exposure needs to be advanced (later if my first point is correct) by 2.12 hours.

    I regularly travel ten zones east and return 10 zones west with between 1 and 3 weeks in the east so clarifying the above will be very helpful

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This