K2 supplements mk4 or mk7 or combination?

I take M7 Bronson brand . 1 capsule daily I use consumerlabs.com a yearly paid service to get supplement information and brand recommendations The. US does not regulate vitamins . There is no way to determine if they have the strength they claim to have without a doctor run service to run a lab analysis. Many are contaminated. Too much of one supplement can cause other problems. Bronson is recommended. All three- calcium , MK7 and D3 are essential to take together.
Bottom line (no hedging) I DO NOT tar the M4 thst Japanese pharmaceutical megadose because :
• The NIH article is oversimplified and biased by historical trial design
• MK-4 ≠ “the only bone-active form”
• MK-7 is biologically equivalent, pharmacologically superior for daily use
This is a classic example of a technically true statement being used in a misleading way —
Let’s decode that article calmly and precisely.
What that article claims
“Only MK-4 has been shown to promote healthy bone density and maintain strong bones.”
This sounds authoritative — but it’s not the full story.
What’s really going on (the missing context)
1. MK-4 has more drug-level trials
• In Japan, MK-4 (menatetrenone) has been prescribed since the 1990s
• Those studies used pharmacologic doses (45 mg/day) — not supplement doses
• Because it was treated as a drug, it accumulated many fracture and BMD trials
So yes:
• MK-4 has more historical clinical trial volume
• That’s why articles like this lean on it

But that does not mean MK-7 “doesn’t work”.

2. MK-7 works via the same biological mechanism
Both MK-4 and MK-7:
• Activate osteocalcin (bone mineralization)
• Activate matrix Gla protein (keeps calcium out of arteries)
There is no unique bone pathway that only MK-4 controls.
The difference is pharmacokinetics, not function.⸻
3. MK-7 simply stays in the body much longer
This is the key modern insight:
MK-7:
• Maintains steady activation of bone proteins
• Avoids spikes and troughs
• Requires far lower doses

…it has become the preferred form outside Japan for long-term supplementation.

⸻

Why sites like this keep favoring MK-4

It’s usually one (or more) of these:
• They’re citing older Japanese fracture trials only
• They sell MK-4 products
• They conflate “most studied historically” with “best choice today”
• They ignore dose equivalency and half-life

Notice what they don’t say:
• They don’t say MK-7 fails
• They don’t compare physiologic vs drug dosing
• They don’t discuss vascular safety either
Now, I have post menopausal bone loss that's not severe but if it was severe: here’s how the strategy shifts
1. MK-4 becomes reasonable — but only in a specific way
In severe osteoporosis (especially with fractures):
• MK-4 (menatetrenone) has the strongest fracture-data history
• But only at drug-level dosing:
• 45 mg/day, split into 3 doses of 15 mg
• This is the Japanese prescription protocol, not for mild bone loss supplementation. If someone truly had advanced osteoporosis, the evidence-based approach typically looks like:
• Prescription therapy (e.g., bisphosphonate, anabolic agent, or similar)
• Adequate calcium (often food-first)
• Vitamin D adjusted to labs
• Vitamin K (MK-4 or MK-7 depending on strategy)
• Sometimes both forms are used (MK-4 short-term, MK-7 long-term)

Vitamin K alone — either form — is rarely the whole answer at that stage.

If you decide to take a MK7 supplement, look for one with "180mcg of MenaQ7". I only found one supplement on Amazon that had 180mcg of the actual "MenaQ7" vs MK7, and that was the brand TrueVantage.

I read it's recommended to take a supplement that states it's "MenaQ7" and not just MK7. AI Assist says: "MenaQ7 supplements are considered superior because they contain a highly purified form of vitamin K2 as MK-7, which has been clinically validated for its benefits in supporting bone and cardiovascular health. Their production process ensures a high concentration of the bioactive all-trans form, making them more effective than other vitamin K2 supplements."

@daisy17
Consumerlabs.com does not recommend MenaQ7. They cover it but it is not significant. This is the premier doctor tun lab that covers supplements.
ChatGPT says
Bottom line (very clear)
• MenaQ7 = branded MK-7, not a different vitamin
• Your Bronson MK-7 is doing the job
• 100 mcg daily is appropriate and effective for mild moderate bone loss.
• The Mayo post is over-precision + brand bias
• You do not need to replace anything right now

@sjs1 Is the reason Consumerlabs doesn't recommend MenaQ7 because they think it's not any better than regular MK7?
Thanks for the info.

@sjs1 and @daisy17,

You may also find this article useful as well:

"Growing Evidence of a Proven Mechanism Shows Vitamin K2 Can Impact Health Conditions Beyond Bone and Cardiovascular"
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8483258/

@daisy17 They only tested Dr Best's with MenaQ7 and it only had 80 percent of the vitamin. They cited to the MenaQ7 vascular research. For sure the MenaQ7 branding is OK . Problem is getting the purity.
The difference is a daily 180 dose MenaQ7 versus their top Bronson pick of a 100 daily dose. It's the same stuff. MenaQ7 branding is fine — but it doesn’t guarantee purity or superiority unless the finished product itself tests clean and meets label claims. MenaQ7 is a raw-ingredient trademark, not an FDA-approved drug, not a guarantee of purity, and not a seal of approval on the bottle you buy.

@sjs1 The TrueVantage brand that I ordered with MenaQ7 is made in the U.S. and 3rd party tested, so hopefully it's a good product. Most clinical tests for osteoporosis used 180mcg.

@JustinMcClanahan Thank you for sharing this. Very interesting. My brother has neuropathy so I shared the article with him.