Blog

2

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?

flag

3 Answers

1

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.

link|flag
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. – wjones3044 Dec 21 2010 at 20:04
0

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.

link|flag
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. – Chas Dec 21 2010 at 18:19
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. – chirocaveman Dec 21 2010 at 19:05
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. – wjones3044 Dec 21 2010 at 20:10
0

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

link|flag
An abstract is not much to go on. Certainly not enough to justify the condescenscion. – wjones3044 Dec 22 2010 at 4:52
"condesenscion" – wjones3044 Dec 22 2010 at 4:57
"condescension" – Kasra Oct 13 2011 at 6:59

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.