Not as far as nutrition is concerned. Some studies have indicated that D2 is slightly less potent, but the majority have shown equal efficacy.
>Or take "Vitamin K" for example
Same deal. You are confusing the notion that there are multiple chemical compounds that fulfill the role of a vitamin, that you need them all. They fill the same role, you need something to fill that role, not one specific form.
Your whole argument seems to be an attempt at pointless pedantry, when the pedantry presented doesn't even matter to the subject at hand.
The evidence does not support that claim. If anything we don't know, and that's my point. [1][2]
>Your whole argument seems to be an attempt at pointless pedantry, when the pedantry presented doesn't even matter to the subject at hand.
No I'm saying similar to "Vitamin B". You body may be lacking in pyridoxine or cobalamin or one of the other B vitamins. They are not equivalent. The B group has been studied in far greater depth, compared to say the menaquiniones (K2 group), and there simply does not exist the same level of research. Similarly K and D are groups too, and treating them like it's a single chemical with a specific effect is just plain wrong.
If you want to continue to argue please backup your claims with studies indicating K2 (any form) is equivalent to K1.
A study of 11000+ men by a German cancer research center found this:
"Our results suggest an inverse association between the intake of menaquinones, but not that of phylloquinone, and prostate cancer. Further studies of dietary vitamin K and prostate cancer are warranted." [3]
In other words K2 intake was correlated with reduced levels of prostate cancer, and K1 was not.
They are NOT the same thing and it's arrogant to dismiss this them as being functionally equivalent or assume one's body will perfectly convert between various forms as needed.
[1] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/4/694.full
[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21289249
[3] Dietary intake of vitamin K and risk of prostate cancer in the Heidelberg cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18400723
What claim?
>No I'm saying similar to "Vitamin B"
There is no vitamin B. You clearly know this, and are deliberately posting complete nonsense.
>In other words K2 intake was correlated with reduced levels of prostate cancer, and K1 was not
And in the studies that found no such correlation to begin with? Pretending a single study is evidence that there's an entire family of vitamins we know noting about is so incredibly stupid I refuse to believe you are actually doing that.
>it's arrogant to dismiss this them as being functionally equivalent
No, it is arrogant to claim that you know everything and this guy is a total moron because he did a great job of 100% completely and totally covering all vitamins, but you want him to worry about what form of vitamin D he uses based on absolutely no evidence that it matters at all.
Emotionally charged strawman. He's done some homework. My argument is that it's simply not enough. IE it's possible to be ignorant of how much one is ignorant of. There are also unknown unknowns that exist.
>Pretending a single study is evidence that there's an entire family of vitamins we know noting about is so incredibly stupid I refuse to believe you are actually doing that.
Another misrepresentation. I'm saying that the Vitamin K2 group is not widely understood and only recently gaining more attention in the last few years. [1]
Also there is no pretending going on, simply advocating skepticism and that it's an extremely complex topic with ongoing studies often refuting "obviousness" of a prior generation of thought.
I haven't even started on the role the microbiome plays in our health. The fact that there are 10x more non-human cells (100 trillion cells) in our bodies should be pause for concern and a little humbleness. We literally carry around thousands of different strands of bacteria and are only now in this decade starting to map the genetic material to figure out new advances and how these interact with the food we ingest and their systemic effects. [2][3][4]
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Vitamin-K2-Calcium-Paradox-Little-Know...
[2] http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubiome-sequencing-your-mic...
[3] http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/american-gut-what-s-in-you...
An argument that you did not support, as I said.
>I'm saying that the Vitamin K2 group is not widely understood and only recently gaining more attention in the last few years.
And I am saying that just because you want to pretend there's magic pixie dust that we need to live, doesn't mean it is actually true.
Another misrepresentation. I started the thread by saying that the human body can take a lot of abuse for many years without apparent ill-effects. That said, many would argue the difference between "living" (or surviving over a certain time period) and optimal health, is not an insignificant consideration.
It's quite possible to develop chronic conditions, that are not apparent at first, and only manifest themselves after years of nutritional deficiency.
Oh, well that is certainly a reasonable basis to pretend a very complete diet is dangerous and lacking. Oh wait, no that is a completely nonsensical basis.
I find it incredible that you will not concede any significant difference between D3 and D2 or between K1 and K2 groups. When the facts show the opposite. [2] Have you actually read the book on K2 and the evidence that it reduces arterial calcification?
You act like it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss studies and because of your preconceived notion that this diet is a perfect and "very complete" and "100% completely and totally covering all vitamins" (your words) and therefore any counterclaims means <insert strawman attack>.
I like this Rob fellow. I'm a huge supporter of ground up approaches, but this is simply not a black and white issue, and no amount of bullying from your quarter is going to change that.
[1] http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424#comments
[2] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531102338.ht...
But that is not what you claimed. You didn't say "this carries some risk", you said he is out of his depth, doesn't know what he is doing, and will pay the price. You are the arrogant one.
>You act like it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss studies
You are the one doing that, not me.
While we can agree that innovation should not be stifled, the idea that we can determine the processes by which the body utilizes nutrients and their interdependent effects, after a few months of research, is utterly hubristic.
I often make the claim that the human body (other animals are close too) exhibits one of the highest levels of complexity out of all the known systems in the universe, far exceeding the complexity of man mad systems. I challenge anyone to put forward a counter-example...
I've been researching nutrition for 5 years and read hundreds of papers on PubMed and, involved with QS (quantified self) and life extension movements, track my bloodwork in Google Spreadsheets etc.
You may be wondering, why would someone invest such an extraordinary amount of time (1000+ man hours) an energy in this topic? Well I used to think very differently about my health. As a young strong-willed software developer, I arrogantly assumed like many before I knew it all in my teenage years. My mental model of the body, was not dissimilar to your current views on GI (the body will just handle whatever you throw at it). As a result after 10 years of eating badly I ended up with a chronic disease (Psoriatic Arthritis).
Being a teenager I knew better and ate anything I wanted, which specifically was an extreme diet consisting entirely of pasta, milk and coke. Because that's what my body "wanted". Now I'm in my 30's and undoing the damage, but I've learned that this system really is complicated, more so than a rocket or microprocessor. You're right in the sense that the body can tolerate it for a while, but it's not designed to cope with abuse over a period of many years. Eventually you will pay the price.
Even now though, I wouldn't consider myself an "expert", although some of my peers might. But I have learned enough know when someone is out of their depth. This guy is well intentioned but that does not mean he's justified in making such grandiose claims.
For example he says "Vitamin D" and "Vitamin K", without acknowledging various forms exist.
For example he says he takes "Vitamin D(400IU):"
What exactly is 'Vitamin D'? Cholecalciferol (D3) [1] is quite different from Ergocalciferol (D2)[2]
D3 levels are particularly important when talking about overall health.
Or take "Vitamin K" for example, are we talking about the philoquinone (K1) [3] or the menaquinone (K2) [4] group?
Even if then, if one is talking Vitamin K2, there are various menaquinones forms so is he suggesting Mk4, mk7 or some other form? [5].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholecalciferol
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergocalciferol
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylloquinone
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_k2
[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10084398