![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How do they come up with the recommended daily values? What is the process scientists use to determine this value? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.130.109 ( talk) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Like all good scientific values and measurements... they guess! -- 62.56.103.230 ( talk) 14:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
this article recommends saturated fatty acid intake be limited to "as few as possible" but the Healthy Diet article states that a sufficient quantity of saturated fatty acids is "necessary". they cant both be right.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.33.232 ( talk) 05:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is right. You technically do not need any saturated fat in your diet (your body can make all the saturated fat it needs). However this would be practically impossible to accomplish. The healthy diet article is filled with misinformation at this time. Jasonbholden ( talk) 01:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I thiink the person who made the switch (edit) recently from 0.9 mg copper to 90 mcg copper was off by a power of 10 in their conversion. 65.78.17.194 13:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for paying attention. I believe there was an error in the earlier text. I double checked this against the cited table, and think it is now correct. M dorothy 04:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Daily intake of vitamin b12 should be 2.4 mg NOT mcg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 ( talk) 17:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
B12 intake is 2.4 mcg, not mg. Ref: http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12.asp#h2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.178.248 ( talk) 10:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the difference between the Estimated Average Requirements, Reference Daily Intake, and Adequate Intake? -- Beland 20:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The EAR is the amount of a given nutrient that meets the needs of half of a specific healthy population (the average person). The RDA is the EAR + 2 standard deviations. Thus it is the amount of a given nutrient that meets the needs of 97.5% of a specific healthy population. The EAR is used more often to evaluate how many people in a population are meeting their needs for a nutrient. The RDA is more often used for individual recommendations. Jasonbholden ( talk) 05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that 130 g carbohydrates is for a dog, but not for a human. A human should consume at least 8.8 MJ/day. Of that energy, 55 % should constitute carbohydrates (300 g), 15 % protein (80 g) and the remainder should be fat. That is what professionals say. I would say, that the fat intake could be a little bit less, if someone is inactive (8.8 MJ/day), or a little bit more, if someone is very active (e. g. bikers, having energy output up to 25 MJ). Further, if someone is recovering after some stress, e.g. cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, intensive psychical or physical strain etc., protein intake should be at least 140 g, but better 160 g. When my resting heart rate was 36/min (after 100 km on bike), my protein intake was more than 120g/day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.65.9 ( talk) 19:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the difference between this article and Reference Daily Intake. They both appear to be about the same thing.-- DustWolf ( talk) 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am planning on elaborating on ULs, RDAs, EARs, etc, explaining how they are developed and what they mean. However I think it may be better to create a new article on each one. To illustrate why this may be better I will use an addition to the "B vitamins" page as an example. On that article I added a table with tolerable upper intake levels for various B vitamins. If someone read that, but did not know what a tolerable upper intake level was they could click on the link and find out immediately, rather than having to fish through this article to find it.I thought I would try to get some input before I go making new articles. Jasonbholden ( talk) 02:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
Anchor}}
and {{
Anchors}}
). For example, the article
Circus (building) has a section heading
==Architectural design{{anchor|Spina}}==
.[[Circus (building)#Spina]]
links to the section
Architectural design of that article, which is where the meaning of spina is explained. You can make the link look pretty by using a pipe, thus:
[[Circus (building)#Spina|spina]]
, which looks on the page like
spina. And you can make a redirect page; the page
Spina (Roman circus) is an example; so
[[spina (Roman circus)|]]
also does the job. --
Lambiam
14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)The proposal is to merge Reference Daily Intake to here ( Dietary Reference Intake) for the reasons given above (see the section Confusing). -- Lambiam 06:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Should remove the 'Sources' column from the table; those are subjective values, not specific to the DRI and it misses out a lot of vitamin sources, especially ones you don't find in middle-American superstores. E.g. the single Source for B2 is yeast extract, whereas the B2 page shows 12 sources from all 4 main food groups. E.g. the vitamin E Sources gives just "wheat germ oil, almond, edible seeds", but Tocopherol#Sources gives 22, including peanut oil, coconuts, and maize, which are often available in the developing world where wheat germ oil and almonds are not (don't forget that poor folk and foreigners read Wikipedia too).
Could better use the space to quote the RDA values for the same vitamins, linking back to the RDA page, so that people can compare and contrast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.240.40 ( talk) 06:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The UL on Mg seems a bit low ?, it shouldn't definetly be lower than the DRI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.97.61.108 ( talk) 00:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The current description of "Tolerable Upper Intake Level" is inaccurate. It is not "the highest level of daily consumption that current data have shown to cause no side effects in humans when used indefinitely without medical supervision." Research evaluated by the Institute of Medicine demonstrates safety at much higher levels than the UL. However, a margin of safety is applied to account for the certainty/uncertainty of the research and variation in individual response within a population. If there are a small amount of low quality studies a higher margin of safety will be applied when compared to a nutrient w/ several high quality dose response studies. I would like the description of UL to be revised to something like this:
Feel free to make it more concise or easier to understand for the casual encyclopedia reader. Jasonbholden ( talk) 01:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The Dietary Reference Intake is a system of nutrition recommendations from the United States Department of Agriculture intended for the general public and health professionals. Applications include:
* Food labels in the United States and Canada
_______________________________
This maes it seem like the United States Department of Agriculure can implent govermental decisions in Canada. Someone should elaborate if anyone knows anythign abotu the subject.f
_______________________________
Is not the Tolerable Upper Intake Level based on the weight of the individual? The article should also say "based on a average xx Kg weight" I guess. (DC)
No, I don't believe the tolerable upper intake level is given on a per weight basis. There is a large margin of safety used when determining UL's, so a value per Kg of body weight would give the appearance that it is more exact than it actually is. Jasonbholden ( talk) 04:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
There should be a note for the RDI/AI of protein (listed as 56g/day) referencing the debate among weight trainers, bodybuilders, nutritionists and medical professionals concerning the necessary daily intake of protein--as well as a reference to the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, heavily problematic in Western, particular American, diets, which is suggested in this chart to be the the typical 10:1 ratio (some sources insist on a 4:1 ratio or less).
I disagree. The RDA for protein is 0.8g/kg of body weight and this meets the needs of 97-98% of the adult population. A discussion about the protein requirements of small groups of people, like body builders, is not appropriate for this page. Also the AI for essential fatty acids does not address a particular ratio of omega 6 to omega 3's. Once a ratio is recommended in the DRI's we may include it in the article. Until then it does not belong on this page (ratios are discussed in other articles). I believe the AI's for omega 3 and omega 6 essential fatty acids are levels to prevent a deficiency. Thy should not be used to promote a specific ratio. Jasonbholden ( talk) 04:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The UI for Zinc is listed as 40 mg; could it maybe be appropriate to include a footnote that for some individuals 50 mg is a sufficient UI?
No. The UL is a specific value, determined by Institute of Medicine. Many supplements contain 50mg of zinc, which is probably safe to take for a short period of time or as directed by a licensed healthcare provider. This does not make 50mg an alternative UL for some individuals. A UL is a safe dose that almost all of the healthy U.S. population can consume indefinitely without medical supervision. Jasonbholden ( talk) 04:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I computed what the recommendations of the Food and Nutrition Board (listed in the article) imply in terms of energy intake. Recommended daily macronutrient intake is given as 130 g carbohydrates and 56 g protein, while fat should be limited to 20–35% of calories. Using the usual conversion factor of 4 kcal/g for carbs and proteins, their contribution is 744 kcal. If this at least 65% of energy intake, the total energy intake including fat is at most 1145 kcal. This is much lower than the usual recommended daily energy intake (see Food energy#Energy usage in the human body). Am I doing something wrong? -- Lambiam 17:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The DRI's are nutrient requirements. They are not used to determine optimal macronutrient composition as a percentage of Caloric intake. For example, based on the DRI's a 70kg person needs to eat at least 130g of carbohydrates and 56g of protein. The key word here is "at least". This does not mean he/she should only eat 744 kcals from carbohydrates and protein. Jasonbholden ( talk) 04:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The table states for Magnesium that UL is less than RDA/AI, which looks like a dangerous situation, and is probably a mistake in one of the numbers. / 216Kleopatra ( talk) 16:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
A foot note under the table will be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The recommendation in the DRI document released by iom, in the later versions that I could find, say that saturated fat should be minimized. In table Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs): Additional Macron utrient Recommendations of http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Summary_Listing.pdf for instance.
The 20 gram figure comes from the Daily Reference Values, which are a subset of the Daily Value (DV) set of figures. That shit is from the usda and is probably just even more politically influenced or something. You can see in the explanations if you google dietary reference intake saturated fat why there is no recommendation for saturated fat; humans can synthesize it ( in optimal amounts?) from unsaturated fats. Explanation here for instance: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1461.pdf .
I've recently updated the Vitamin A and C lists to better reflect the given source. I suspect that most of the other entries are also inconsistant with that source due to unsourced incremental changes going unchallenged. The version of the source used (release 23) is outdated — release 27 is here. Before I consider making a pass through the list to update it, can anyone suggest a better source for similar information? One that doesn't involve quite so much WP:OR to distil a sensible list of food types from the exhaustive list of specific products with different preservation and cooking methods. One that doesn't implicitly describe liver as a "top source" for Vitamin A when according to a UK NHS website, liver consumption should be limited. Or perhaps it would be better to delete this "Dietary Sources" column altogether? TuxLibNit ( talk) 22:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
In the article for Reference Daily Intake it is stated that "The RDI is based on the older Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) from 1968." The RDI established the RDV, which is printed on nutrition labels. In this article it is stated that "The RDA is used to determine the Recommended Daily Value (RDV) which is printed on food labels in the U.S. and Canada" immediately after the description of DRI. This is misleading since the RDA from the DRI is not the one used on food labels. I recommend this sentence be moved/removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.94.226 ( talk) 03:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Peaches only contain 6.6 mg (8% Dietary Reference Intake) of Vitamin C per 100 grams. (SEE THE TABLE IN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peach#Nutrition_and_research) This means you will need to eat over 1.2 KG of peaches to get 100% of the DRI of Vitamin C.
Therefore this article is wrong in stating that peaches are a "top source" of Vitamin C. Please remove 'peaches' from the table in the article.-- 197.79.0.5 ( talk) 20:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hence min. requirement should be zero ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.18.71 ( talk) 03:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hasn't it already been determined that the 17:1 ratio typical to the American diet is unhealthy and that the >4:1 ratio is preferable?
I read that Iron DRI is higher for these groups. What about other elements ? There needs to be a table for these groups. Rox Tarr ( talk) 13:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much everyone in the US over the age of 30 or so still calls the Daily Value shown on labels the "RDA". I don't know enough about the subject to do so myself, but I'd like to see someone boldly reorganize the article to give RDA the prominence that would accurately reflect its historical importance in US food labeling, and its likely search frequency among US users. There should also be clarification of "RDA" versus "USRDA": USRDA redirects here, even though the term doesn't occur on this page. Of course we want a global perspective, but a couple generations of US practice, familiar to every US consumer of the relevant age cohort, is pretty notable. -- Dan Wylie-Sears 2 ( talk) 06:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it is time to delete this column? The RDI article doesn't have one, quite a lot of time is spent fiddling with the entries, the last time I looked a lot of the entries were inconsistent with the given source (probably because unsourced incremental changes have gone unchallenged over the years) and the default USDA source is far from ideal for this purpose. The USDA source lists some strange things as being high in a particular nutrient, for example dry instant mashed potato for potassium. In general, there is a lot of original research going on here to compile a list that could easily be taken as dietary advice, when in reality it is nothing of the sort. For example, we are implicitly describing liver as a "top source" for Vitamin A when according to a UK NHS website, liver consumption should be limited. I think it would be less work and less misleading for us to just refer off to articles on nutrition and healthy diet and leave it at that. Even if a list of foods high in a particular nutrient was a good thing to have I think it would be better off in a separate article, where DRI, RDI and other recommendation systems could all link to it. TuxLibNit ( talk) 11:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The UL values in the table look pretty old. Also, it's referenced to a dead link: Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs): Tolerable Upper Intake Levels, Vitamins., Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, National Academies, 1997
I just updated DVs on the main table at the article Dietary element, and added a column for ULs. I used the most up-to-date sources I could find. U.S. Food and Drug Administration 14. Appendix F
Dietary Reference Intakes : Electrolytes and Water The National Academies (2004)
The second and third ones are from the same source, the third just has water and electrolytes including sodium, chloride, and potassium, which were left out of the second. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 23:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
References
We need a review and update on the URLs used to direct users to the DRI tables. This URL for the source noted as "IOM", for example, is dead, as is this one identified in the markup as "nationalacademies.org". I replaced the former with this which lists all the existing IOM nutrient tables, directing the user to link by category to individual tables. Because there have been periodic IOM updates over recent decades, with some nutrient tables being unchanged, there is potential confusion about what is "current". David notMD has been working on this article and may have better insight, so I'll ping him for input. -- Zefr ( talk) 14:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
My thinking is this is worthy of upgrading to at least C-class, but because I was responsible for many of the changes, do not want to be the person who does it. Anyone comfortable with their ability to decide?
I edited the vitamins section of the table here according to the USDA nutrient tables where one can specify a sorted listing of nutrient contents among all foods in the database, using this website location. One has to select from the pick lists: 1) choose a nutrient, 2) use the "All foods" subset, 3) ignore "Food groups", 4) sort by "Nutrient content", and 5) measure by "100 g". It's evident that the previous foods listed were often unsourced and may have been personal preferences. In the USDA list for vitamins - using the current Standard Release 28 (2016) - the highest content sources for most vitamins now listed are predominantly fortified food and beverage products, which I grouped broadly without mentioning brands. For the encyclopedia, we should list foods that the common user recognizes, which requires some interpretation and selection among the highest-content sources. Over the next few days, I'll work on the minerals. -- Zefr ( talk) 17:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Adding "Fortified food" to every line does not bring any information whatsoever, we might as well say supplement pills. Fortification is not food. Also a lot of items are not common food. Cod liver oil is common food? It's closer to medication than it is from food. Potentially harmful levels of retinol. Using dried versions doesn't make sense either unless they are common food (like spices, raisins or dates for example). Items aren't sorted but that's not a major issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor973 ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Contributor973 ( talk) 13:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This section has no explanation and no reference. David notMD ( talk) 09:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Having dealt for > 4 decades with recommended nutrient intake levels, I remain frustrated by the EAR-DV-DRI-RDI-RDA-UL terms and often-different and confusing values intended for the public (specifically, users of this encyclopedia), shown in the article table under Current recommendations for United States and Canada: Vitamins and minerals. The 2004 IOM tables and terms are meaningful to experts, but have been changed with new studies and measurements, now best reflected by the public-facing Daily Values which appear on food product labels. New dietary guidelines on nutrient intakes were updated in 2020 here (although published by the FDA for Americans, many countries follow these guidelines). I think we should follow these DV values, and simplify/revise the table headings accordingly. Comments? Zefr ( talk) 15:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reference intake which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 18:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Move re-requested on correct talk page ( non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 10:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
– Following move of Reference intake to Reference Intake, move Reference intakes to Reference intake and redirect this link there Whizz40 ( talk) 07:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it’s a multiple move request. Agree it doesn’t belong here. The automated tool put it here because the Talk page of the article to be moved redirects here. Grateful for help fixing this. Whizz40 ( talk) 08:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it just needs moving to the right Talk page, which I can do when I get a chance later. Whizz40 ( talk) 08:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
My earlier edit on the non-nutrient but "beneficial element" status of fluoride was undone by @ Zefr. Here is the reference: “These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluoride as an essential element, according to accepted standards. Nonetheless, because of its valuable effects on dental health, fluoride is a beneficial element for humans.” Dr. Vernon Young, Chair of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, stated this at the workshop’s conclusion." - in letter from Bruce Alberts, Ph.D., President of the National Academy of Sciences and Kenneth Shine, President of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to Albert W. Burgstahler et al, 20 Nov 1998
My edit which should be reinstated was: Fluoride was acknowledged as a non-nutrient when first added to the DRI in a controversial 1997 decision, but included as a "beneficial element" based on the assumption of systemic benefit with no special considerations.
This is not controversial as it is also noted in the Federal Registry multiple times as not a nutrient or not an essential nutrient and with questions about safety for all consumers that prohibit establishing a RDA. However, the primary references to this material seem to be censored by Wiki. Here is a 1995 Federal Registry reference which characterize fluoride use as a drug: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-12-28/pdf/95-31197.pdf
More recently, the 2006 National Research Council noted that they could find no evidence of safety for any "susceptible sub-population" and recommended the MCLG be lowered based on evidence of harm and more research for a safe threshold. And the National Toxicology Program published a note in March 2023 attached to their report that there is 'no obvious (safety)threshold' for total fluoride exposure or water fluoride exposure during pregnancy that does not result in developmental neurotoxic impact in the fetus. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/ongoing/fluoride Seabreezes1 ( talk) 16:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
How do they come up with the recommended daily values? What is the process scientists use to determine this value? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.130.109 ( talk) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Like all good scientific values and measurements... they guess! -- 62.56.103.230 ( talk) 14:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
this article recommends saturated fatty acid intake be limited to "as few as possible" but the Healthy Diet article states that a sufficient quantity of saturated fatty acids is "necessary". they cant both be right.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.33.232 ( talk) 05:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is right. You technically do not need any saturated fat in your diet (your body can make all the saturated fat it needs). However this would be practically impossible to accomplish. The healthy diet article is filled with misinformation at this time. Jasonbholden ( talk) 01:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I thiink the person who made the switch (edit) recently from 0.9 mg copper to 90 mcg copper was off by a power of 10 in their conversion. 65.78.17.194 13:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for paying attention. I believe there was an error in the earlier text. I double checked this against the cited table, and think it is now correct. M dorothy 04:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Daily intake of vitamin b12 should be 2.4 mg NOT mcg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 ( talk) 17:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
B12 intake is 2.4 mcg, not mg. Ref: http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12.asp#h2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.178.248 ( talk) 10:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the difference between the Estimated Average Requirements, Reference Daily Intake, and Adequate Intake? -- Beland 20:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The EAR is the amount of a given nutrient that meets the needs of half of a specific healthy population (the average person). The RDA is the EAR + 2 standard deviations. Thus it is the amount of a given nutrient that meets the needs of 97.5% of a specific healthy population. The EAR is used more often to evaluate how many people in a population are meeting their needs for a nutrient. The RDA is more often used for individual recommendations. Jasonbholden ( talk) 05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that 130 g carbohydrates is for a dog, but not for a human. A human should consume at least 8.8 MJ/day. Of that energy, 55 % should constitute carbohydrates (300 g), 15 % protein (80 g) and the remainder should be fat. That is what professionals say. I would say, that the fat intake could be a little bit less, if someone is inactive (8.8 MJ/day), or a little bit more, if someone is very active (e. g. bikers, having energy output up to 25 MJ). Further, if someone is recovering after some stress, e.g. cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, intensive psychical or physical strain etc., protein intake should be at least 140 g, but better 160 g. When my resting heart rate was 36/min (after 100 km on bike), my protein intake was more than 120g/day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.65.9 ( talk) 19:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the difference between this article and Reference Daily Intake. They both appear to be about the same thing.-- DustWolf ( talk) 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I am planning on elaborating on ULs, RDAs, EARs, etc, explaining how they are developed and what they mean. However I think it may be better to create a new article on each one. To illustrate why this may be better I will use an addition to the "B vitamins" page as an example. On that article I added a table with tolerable upper intake levels for various B vitamins. If someone read that, but did not know what a tolerable upper intake level was they could click on the link and find out immediately, rather than having to fish through this article to find it.I thought I would try to get some input before I go making new articles. Jasonbholden ( talk) 02:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
Anchor}}
and {{
Anchors}}
). For example, the article
Circus (building) has a section heading
==Architectural design{{anchor|Spina}}==
.[[Circus (building)#Spina]]
links to the section
Architectural design of that article, which is where the meaning of spina is explained. You can make the link look pretty by using a pipe, thus:
[[Circus (building)#Spina|spina]]
, which looks on the page like
spina. And you can make a redirect page; the page
Spina (Roman circus) is an example; so
[[spina (Roman circus)|]]
also does the job. --
Lambiam
14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)The proposal is to merge Reference Daily Intake to here ( Dietary Reference Intake) for the reasons given above (see the section Confusing). -- Lambiam 06:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Should remove the 'Sources' column from the table; those are subjective values, not specific to the DRI and it misses out a lot of vitamin sources, especially ones you don't find in middle-American superstores. E.g. the single Source for B2 is yeast extract, whereas the B2 page shows 12 sources from all 4 main food groups. E.g. the vitamin E Sources gives just "wheat germ oil, almond, edible seeds", but Tocopherol#Sources gives 22, including peanut oil, coconuts, and maize, which are often available in the developing world where wheat germ oil and almonds are not (don't forget that poor folk and foreigners read Wikipedia too).
Could better use the space to quote the RDA values for the same vitamins, linking back to the RDA page, so that people can compare and contrast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.240.40 ( talk) 06:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
The UL on Mg seems a bit low ?, it shouldn't definetly be lower than the DRI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.97.61.108 ( talk) 00:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The current description of "Tolerable Upper Intake Level" is inaccurate. It is not "the highest level of daily consumption that current data have shown to cause no side effects in humans when used indefinitely without medical supervision." Research evaluated by the Institute of Medicine demonstrates safety at much higher levels than the UL. However, a margin of safety is applied to account for the certainty/uncertainty of the research and variation in individual response within a population. If there are a small amount of low quality studies a higher margin of safety will be applied when compared to a nutrient w/ several high quality dose response studies. I would like the description of UL to be revised to something like this:
Feel free to make it more concise or easier to understand for the casual encyclopedia reader. Jasonbholden ( talk) 01:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The Dietary Reference Intake is a system of nutrition recommendations from the United States Department of Agriculture intended for the general public and health professionals. Applications include:
* Food labels in the United States and Canada
_______________________________
This maes it seem like the United States Department of Agriculure can implent govermental decisions in Canada. Someone should elaborate if anyone knows anythign abotu the subject.f
_______________________________
Is not the Tolerable Upper Intake Level based on the weight of the individual? The article should also say "based on a average xx Kg weight" I guess. (DC)
No, I don't believe the tolerable upper intake level is given on a per weight basis. There is a large margin of safety used when determining UL's, so a value per Kg of body weight would give the appearance that it is more exact than it actually is. Jasonbholden ( talk) 04:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
There should be a note for the RDI/AI of protein (listed as 56g/day) referencing the debate among weight trainers, bodybuilders, nutritionists and medical professionals concerning the necessary daily intake of protein--as well as a reference to the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio, heavily problematic in Western, particular American, diets, which is suggested in this chart to be the the typical 10:1 ratio (some sources insist on a 4:1 ratio or less).
I disagree. The RDA for protein is 0.8g/kg of body weight and this meets the needs of 97-98% of the adult population. A discussion about the protein requirements of small groups of people, like body builders, is not appropriate for this page. Also the AI for essential fatty acids does not address a particular ratio of omega 6 to omega 3's. Once a ratio is recommended in the DRI's we may include it in the article. Until then it does not belong on this page (ratios are discussed in other articles). I believe the AI's for omega 3 and omega 6 essential fatty acids are levels to prevent a deficiency. Thy should not be used to promote a specific ratio. Jasonbholden ( talk) 04:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The UI for Zinc is listed as 40 mg; could it maybe be appropriate to include a footnote that for some individuals 50 mg is a sufficient UI?
No. The UL is a specific value, determined by Institute of Medicine. Many supplements contain 50mg of zinc, which is probably safe to take for a short period of time or as directed by a licensed healthcare provider. This does not make 50mg an alternative UL for some individuals. A UL is a safe dose that almost all of the healthy U.S. population can consume indefinitely without medical supervision. Jasonbholden ( talk) 04:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I computed what the recommendations of the Food and Nutrition Board (listed in the article) imply in terms of energy intake. Recommended daily macronutrient intake is given as 130 g carbohydrates and 56 g protein, while fat should be limited to 20–35% of calories. Using the usual conversion factor of 4 kcal/g for carbs and proteins, their contribution is 744 kcal. If this at least 65% of energy intake, the total energy intake including fat is at most 1145 kcal. This is much lower than the usual recommended daily energy intake (see Food energy#Energy usage in the human body). Am I doing something wrong? -- Lambiam 17:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The DRI's are nutrient requirements. They are not used to determine optimal macronutrient composition as a percentage of Caloric intake. For example, based on the DRI's a 70kg person needs to eat at least 130g of carbohydrates and 56g of protein. The key word here is "at least". This does not mean he/she should only eat 744 kcals from carbohydrates and protein. Jasonbholden ( talk) 04:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The table states for Magnesium that UL is less than RDA/AI, which looks like a dangerous situation, and is probably a mistake in one of the numbers. / 216Kleopatra ( talk) 16:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
A foot note under the table will be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
The recommendation in the DRI document released by iom, in the later versions that I could find, say that saturated fat should be minimized. In table Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs): Additional Macron utrient Recommendations of http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Summary_Listing.pdf for instance.
The 20 gram figure comes from the Daily Reference Values, which are a subset of the Daily Value (DV) set of figures. That shit is from the usda and is probably just even more politically influenced or something. You can see in the explanations if you google dietary reference intake saturated fat why there is no recommendation for saturated fat; humans can synthesize it ( in optimal amounts?) from unsaturated fats. Explanation here for instance: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1461.pdf .
I've recently updated the Vitamin A and C lists to better reflect the given source. I suspect that most of the other entries are also inconsistant with that source due to unsourced incremental changes going unchallenged. The version of the source used (release 23) is outdated — release 27 is here. Before I consider making a pass through the list to update it, can anyone suggest a better source for similar information? One that doesn't involve quite so much WP:OR to distil a sensible list of food types from the exhaustive list of specific products with different preservation and cooking methods. One that doesn't implicitly describe liver as a "top source" for Vitamin A when according to a UK NHS website, liver consumption should be limited. Or perhaps it would be better to delete this "Dietary Sources" column altogether? TuxLibNit ( talk) 22:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
In the article for Reference Daily Intake it is stated that "The RDI is based on the older Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) from 1968." The RDI established the RDV, which is printed on nutrition labels. In this article it is stated that "The RDA is used to determine the Recommended Daily Value (RDV) which is printed on food labels in the U.S. and Canada" immediately after the description of DRI. This is misleading since the RDA from the DRI is not the one used on food labels. I recommend this sentence be moved/removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.94.226 ( talk) 03:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Peaches only contain 6.6 mg (8% Dietary Reference Intake) of Vitamin C per 100 grams. (SEE THE TABLE IN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peach#Nutrition_and_research) This means you will need to eat over 1.2 KG of peaches to get 100% of the DRI of Vitamin C.
Therefore this article is wrong in stating that peaches are a "top source" of Vitamin C. Please remove 'peaches' from the table in the article.-- 197.79.0.5 ( talk) 20:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hence min. requirement should be zero ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.18.71 ( talk) 03:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hasn't it already been determined that the 17:1 ratio typical to the American diet is unhealthy and that the >4:1 ratio is preferable?
I read that Iron DRI is higher for these groups. What about other elements ? There needs to be a table for these groups. Rox Tarr ( talk) 13:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much everyone in the US over the age of 30 or so still calls the Daily Value shown on labels the "RDA". I don't know enough about the subject to do so myself, but I'd like to see someone boldly reorganize the article to give RDA the prominence that would accurately reflect its historical importance in US food labeling, and its likely search frequency among US users. There should also be clarification of "RDA" versus "USRDA": USRDA redirects here, even though the term doesn't occur on this page. Of course we want a global perspective, but a couple generations of US practice, familiar to every US consumer of the relevant age cohort, is pretty notable. -- Dan Wylie-Sears 2 ( talk) 06:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it is time to delete this column? The RDI article doesn't have one, quite a lot of time is spent fiddling with the entries, the last time I looked a lot of the entries were inconsistent with the given source (probably because unsourced incremental changes have gone unchallenged over the years) and the default USDA source is far from ideal for this purpose. The USDA source lists some strange things as being high in a particular nutrient, for example dry instant mashed potato for potassium. In general, there is a lot of original research going on here to compile a list that could easily be taken as dietary advice, when in reality it is nothing of the sort. For example, we are implicitly describing liver as a "top source" for Vitamin A when according to a UK NHS website, liver consumption should be limited. I think it would be less work and less misleading for us to just refer off to articles on nutrition and healthy diet and leave it at that. Even if a list of foods high in a particular nutrient was a good thing to have I think it would be better off in a separate article, where DRI, RDI and other recommendation systems could all link to it. TuxLibNit ( talk) 11:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The UL values in the table look pretty old. Also, it's referenced to a dead link: Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs): Tolerable Upper Intake Levels, Vitamins., Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, National Academies, 1997
I just updated DVs on the main table at the article Dietary element, and added a column for ULs. I used the most up-to-date sources I could find. U.S. Food and Drug Administration 14. Appendix F
Dietary Reference Intakes : Electrolytes and Water The National Academies (2004)
The second and third ones are from the same source, the third just has water and electrolytes including sodium, chloride, and potassium, which were left out of the second. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 23:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
References
We need a review and update on the URLs used to direct users to the DRI tables. This URL for the source noted as "IOM", for example, is dead, as is this one identified in the markup as "nationalacademies.org". I replaced the former with this which lists all the existing IOM nutrient tables, directing the user to link by category to individual tables. Because there have been periodic IOM updates over recent decades, with some nutrient tables being unchanged, there is potential confusion about what is "current". David notMD has been working on this article and may have better insight, so I'll ping him for input. -- Zefr ( talk) 14:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
My thinking is this is worthy of upgrading to at least C-class, but because I was responsible for many of the changes, do not want to be the person who does it. Anyone comfortable with their ability to decide?
I edited the vitamins section of the table here according to the USDA nutrient tables where one can specify a sorted listing of nutrient contents among all foods in the database, using this website location. One has to select from the pick lists: 1) choose a nutrient, 2) use the "All foods" subset, 3) ignore "Food groups", 4) sort by "Nutrient content", and 5) measure by "100 g". It's evident that the previous foods listed were often unsourced and may have been personal preferences. In the USDA list for vitamins - using the current Standard Release 28 (2016) - the highest content sources for most vitamins now listed are predominantly fortified food and beverage products, which I grouped broadly without mentioning brands. For the encyclopedia, we should list foods that the common user recognizes, which requires some interpretation and selection among the highest-content sources. Over the next few days, I'll work on the minerals. -- Zefr ( talk) 17:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Adding "Fortified food" to every line does not bring any information whatsoever, we might as well say supplement pills. Fortification is not food. Also a lot of items are not common food. Cod liver oil is common food? It's closer to medication than it is from food. Potentially harmful levels of retinol. Using dried versions doesn't make sense either unless they are common food (like spices, raisins or dates for example). Items aren't sorted but that's not a major issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor973 ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Contributor973 ( talk) 13:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This section has no explanation and no reference. David notMD ( talk) 09:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Having dealt for > 4 decades with recommended nutrient intake levels, I remain frustrated by the EAR-DV-DRI-RDI-RDA-UL terms and often-different and confusing values intended for the public (specifically, users of this encyclopedia), shown in the article table under Current recommendations for United States and Canada: Vitamins and minerals. The 2004 IOM tables and terms are meaningful to experts, but have been changed with new studies and measurements, now best reflected by the public-facing Daily Values which appear on food product labels. New dietary guidelines on nutrient intakes were updated in 2020 here (although published by the FDA for Americans, many countries follow these guidelines). I think we should follow these DV values, and simplify/revise the table headings accordingly. Comments? Zefr ( talk) 15:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reference intake which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 18:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Move re-requested on correct talk page ( non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 10:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
– Following move of Reference intake to Reference Intake, move Reference intakes to Reference intake and redirect this link there Whizz40 ( talk) 07:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it’s a multiple move request. Agree it doesn’t belong here. The automated tool put it here because the Talk page of the article to be moved redirects here. Grateful for help fixing this. Whizz40 ( talk) 08:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it just needs moving to the right Talk page, which I can do when I get a chance later. Whizz40 ( talk) 08:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
My earlier edit on the non-nutrient but "beneficial element" status of fluoride was undone by @ Zefr. Here is the reference: “These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluoride as an essential element, according to accepted standards. Nonetheless, because of its valuable effects on dental health, fluoride is a beneficial element for humans.” Dr. Vernon Young, Chair of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, stated this at the workshop’s conclusion." - in letter from Bruce Alberts, Ph.D., President of the National Academy of Sciences and Kenneth Shine, President of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to Albert W. Burgstahler et al, 20 Nov 1998
My edit which should be reinstated was: Fluoride was acknowledged as a non-nutrient when first added to the DRI in a controversial 1997 decision, but included as a "beneficial element" based on the assumption of systemic benefit with no special considerations.
This is not controversial as it is also noted in the Federal Registry multiple times as not a nutrient or not an essential nutrient and with questions about safety for all consumers that prohibit establishing a RDA. However, the primary references to this material seem to be censored by Wiki. Here is a 1995 Federal Registry reference which characterize fluoride use as a drug: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-12-28/pdf/95-31197.pdf
More recently, the 2006 National Research Council noted that they could find no evidence of safety for any "susceptible sub-population" and recommended the MCLG be lowered based on evidence of harm and more research for a safe threshold. And the National Toxicology Program published a note in March 2023 attached to their report that there is 'no obvious (safety)threshold' for total fluoride exposure or water fluoride exposure during pregnancy that does not result in developmental neurotoxic impact in the fetus. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/ongoing/fluoride Seabreezes1 ( talk) 16:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)