From what I've read as an amateur, Vitamin K1 sources are mostly leafy greens. Vitamin K2 sources are mostly animal fats.
Since Cronometer only has Vitamin K, is that number misleading and dangerous?
I second this...I'd like to see K2 as a separate vitamin as this one is very important for bone and teeth health along with calcium and vitamin D.
Same here - my Macros look out of whack as I take additional K2 with my D3, but I am not actually consuming extra K1
I'd really like to see k2 on the list of vitamins. Is there not enough nutrition data to support the tracking of k2?
Yes, many foods do not have data for vitamin K2 just yet.
As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer
Ok, so list k and then k1, k2 of if k1 or 2 is available, we'll know.
I don't believe that levels of K1 vs. K2 are available for many food sources. Furthermore, your body can convert between the two as needed. The whole idea that you HAVE to get K2 in order for your body to have that at its disposal is not born out by the science, despite the hype in some circles. There have been some studies done in this area, but most are animal studies, and the few human studies were fairly small. There needs to be more research to determine whether there's actually a benefit to consuming foods high in K2 vs. K1. I don't think the science has shown that at this point, it's much more of a hypothesis that hasn't been adequately tested yet.