2

votes

How would you change the RDA?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created December 21, 2010 at 5:26 PM

My $0.02:

  • Potassium is too high (I assume that lower sodium intake corresponds to diminished need for potassium...thoughts?)
  • Vitamin D is too low (I'm guessing that in equatorial regions, current levels are fine but that as one goes higher in latitude current levels could be raised quite significantly)

Comments?

Other changes?

5ef574d7893bc816ec52e04139e9bc09

(6097)

on October 13, 2011
at 06:59 AM

"condescension"

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on December 22, 2010
at 04:57 AM

"condesenscion"

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on December 22, 2010
at 04:52 AM

An abstract is not much to go on. Certainly not enough to justify the condescenscion.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on December 21, 2010
at 08:10 PM

If I were to re-do the question, I'd ask how to remake the "Food Guide," whether in the form of a pyramid or (more likely) some other "non-nutritionist" format. Basically, my question is aimed at a simple schematic or guide to achieving the required nutrients. On his all-meat diet, Steffanson said that the only nutrient he worried about was calcium, which I think was too simplistic.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on December 21, 2010
at 08:04 PM

A useful RDA need not be nutritionist. It might include sun exposure and/or a food guide of some kind. My question was intentionally vague--could very well include outside the box thinking.

B76f22ed4373946b3c8990b667562683

(783)

on December 21, 2010
at 07:05 PM

You're right about D3, in my opinion. This leaves out the research; it is just a reference guide for the layman. I don't use this one personally; I just eat what I know I should, and I'm fine. For a good scientific breakdown of how much we should be eating and why, I'd say look at The Perfect Health Diet by Jaminet or Prescription for Nutritional healing by Balch. Following American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the like is ones best bet, if you have the background. If not, I say acquire it.

0dc414565801956836465c7305b6f2f7

(10)

on December 21, 2010
at 06:19 PM

The Vitamin D-3 recommendation at that link is 100 iu, and states doses over 1000 iu is toxic, which is opposite of much of the research I've seen lately. The claims in the table are not backed up by links to the research.

  • 531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

    asked by

    (8878)
  • Views
    1.5K
  • Last Activity
    1407D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

3 Answers

1
B294438548c32ed878905baf6cd1b332

on December 21, 2010
at 06:06 PM

I would focus far more on real food, versus nutrition-speak for something like this that is intended in large part for general-public consumption:

I would create food groups like "Leafy Greens," "Other Vegetables," "Meat," "Organ Meats," "Fish," "Fruits", etc. I would list several examples in each category and offer guidelines on how many servings per day (or week) one should try to eat.

I know this isn't perfect, either...but I'd like to see a bigger emphasis on focusing on foods, meals, sunshine, living healthy -- the RDA stuff may be a necessary evil, but I believe it puts too much focus on nutrients and things science doesn't fully grasp.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on December 21, 2010
at 08:04 PM

A useful RDA need not be nutritionist. It might include sun exposure and/or a food guide of some kind. My question was intentionally vague--could very well include outside the box thinking.

0
B76f22ed4373946b3c8990b667562683

on December 21, 2010
at 05:41 PM

RDA is really a useless benchmark for the purposes of good nutrition. They were created in the 1940s by the Food and Nutrition Board by way of depriving test subjects of a particular nutrient, vitamin or mineral and seeing at what minimum dose symptomatology developed for deficiency.

This means the RDA is a minimum to avoid becoming sick due to vitamin/mineral deficiency. Hardly a standard for health.

The Optimal Daily Allowance (ODA) is a much better standard, based on scientific evidence for maximum health, not just avoiding deficiency. You can learn about it here, and there is a chart here breaking down all the facts and ODAs for any given nutrient. Don't forget, these may greatly differ from person to person based on health, age, sex, Rx, pregnancy, etc... Although generalizations can be made, good nutrition can also be highly personal.

B76f22ed4373946b3c8990b667562683

(783)

on December 21, 2010
at 07:05 PM

You're right about D3, in my opinion. This leaves out the research; it is just a reference guide for the layman. I don't use this one personally; I just eat what I know I should, and I'm fine. For a good scientific breakdown of how much we should be eating and why, I'd say look at The Perfect Health Diet by Jaminet or Prescription for Nutritional healing by Balch. Following American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the like is ones best bet, if you have the background. If not, I say acquire it.

0dc414565801956836465c7305b6f2f7

(10)

on December 21, 2010
at 06:19 PM

The Vitamin D-3 recommendation at that link is 100 iu, and states doses over 1000 iu is toxic, which is opposite of much of the research I've seen lately. The claims in the table are not backed up by links to the research.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on December 21, 2010
at 08:10 PM

If I were to re-do the question, I'd ask how to remake the "Food Guide," whether in the form of a pyramid or (more likely) some other "non-nutritionist" format. Basically, my question is aimed at a simple schematic or guide to achieving the required nutrients. On his all-meat diet, Steffanson said that the only nutrient he worried about was calcium, which I think was too simplistic.

-1
Ce7b9bcf264abeb5eb3944375e432477

on September 07, 2013
at 12:44 AM

You should really do some research before questions like this. Don't assume anything, because in this instance your assumptions are very wrong. It is hypothesised our ancestors got up to 16g of Potassium per day, 4 x the RDA, with less Sodium than in the modern diet. So infact Potassium is too low, far too low considering how much sodium we get, because it appears it is the ratio that is also important. Some searching of potassium just on this site should give you plenty of information.

I'll start you off: The Evolution-Informed Optimal Dietary Potassium Intake of Human Beings Greatly Exceeds Current and Recommended Intakes http://www.seminarsinnephrology.org/article/S0270-9295(06)00143-4/abstract

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on December 22, 2010
at 04:52 AM

An abstract is not much to go on. Certainly not enough to justify the condescenscion.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on December 22, 2010
at 04:57 AM

"condesenscion"

5ef574d7893bc816ec52e04139e9bc09

(6097)

on October 13, 2011
at 06:59 AM

"condescension"

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!