Jump to content

Talk:Dietary Reference Intake/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

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)

Conflicting Info

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)

Correction

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)

Clarification request

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)

Quantity

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)

  • The RDA for carbohydrate is based on the amount of carbohydrate eaten that would provide the brain sufficient glucose, without the need of glucose production from dietary protein or glycerol. That is how they come up with 130 grams (it is basically a suggested minimum). However, there is no evidence to suggest that it is bad for your body to make glucose from protein, compared to obtaining it from your diet. In other words people can live on less than 130 grams of carbohydrate a day, but most healthy diets usually have around 55-65% of their energy content from carbohydrates, which is usually 2-3 times the RDA. The RDA for protein is 0.8 grams of protein per kg of body weight. This is sufficient for 97.5% of the healthy population, but some people require more (for example someone with cancer might need around 1-1.5 g/kg body weight and someone with a full body burn might need around 2 g/kg body weight).Jasonbholden (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Confusing

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 agree. The situation with all these subtly different notions (RDA, RDI, DV, RDV, DRV), with meanings shifting in time, is already confusing, and having two articles adds to the confusion. Therefore I propose that the two be merged (see Merge proposal below). I hope that this merge can be executed by someone who knows the subject matter and can do a better job in explaining the relationship between these TLAs than the current articles. BTW, most dictionaries list Recommended Daily Allowance as the first or only meaning of RDA (for example Stedman's Medical Dictionary and The American Heritage Abbreviations Dictionary), but, although Recommended Daily Allowance redirects to Dietary Reference Intake, this name is not mentioned at all in these articles and its meaning remains unexplained.  --Lambiam 06:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

To expand or add articles?

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)

I'm afraid that splitting this information over several articles would add to the confusion. I'd rather see a single treatment that clearly explains these different but related concepts, and in the process also explains how they are related and compare to each other.
For linking, you can use anchors (see {{Anchor}} and {{Anchors}}). For example, the article Circus (building) has a section heading
==Architectural design{{anchor|Spina}}==.
This means that [[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)

Merge proposal

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)

Oppose, that's like merging Fahrenheit and Celsius. There two different systems.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The relation between C and F is well-known and easily described. The relation between RDI and DRI is not (yet) well-described in these two articles. Boud (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment - i've just looked briefly at the two pages, but my understanding from a rapid glance is that if the two pages are complementary, then they should at least be written consistently (if the sources are consistent) in a slightly less confusing way than the way they are presently worded. My understanding as of 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC) is:
Questions:
  • If RDA is used in USA/Canada for RDV, then that means that part of DRI is used for nutrition labelling, contradicting the lead - in Dietary Reference Intake
  • Does DV=DRV=RDV ?
    • If yes, then what is used for DV=DRV=RDV? RDA or RDI?
  • The "RDA from 1968 is older" part of Reference Daily Intake needs to be reworded if an updated RDA definition is still considered useful.
Independent of any merge or non-merge, this confusion needs to be cleared up - maybe a historical/geographical timeline would help?
If someone understands the (historical/epidemiological/health-administrative) relations between all these defintions clearly enough and thinks that there should be two separate articles, then please do the clean up (e.g. use my attempted understanding and questions as a guide to the problems) and then come here and say that you've cleaned up, with e.g. a one sentence summary here (there's no need to repeat the explanation in full on the talk page) so that people can check. Otherwise, the arguments in favour of a merge seem strong to me: these are all closely related concepts, that overlap sufficiently that there's no need to have separate pages unless the material in the long term becomes too in-depth.
References - who defines the DRI and the RDI? It seems like nal.usda.gov is the main reference institution in both cases. i haven't tried going to the refs to sort this out myself, sorry.
Boud (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
No decision? Will delete tag. --S. Rich (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Should remove the 'Sources' column from the table; those are subjective values

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)

Mg UL vs RDA

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)

UL is for pills etc, blame the scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiloop (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


It IS weird, but still the values are correct. It seems that magnesium is quite plentiful in ordinary food, and no adverse effects have been experienced from magnesium intake from natural sources. However magnesium supplements do get toxic, above a certain level (it seems to be a laxative?). So in effect, we are recommended to get at least 400 mg per day, but no more than 350 mg from supplements. Actually, a supplement of 100 mg per day is supposed to be enough to ensure adequate intake for all but the very elderly.
Maybe we should add a footnote to the magnesium row in the table? Tøpholm (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

UL description inaccurate

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:

  • Tolerable upper intake levels (UL), to caution against excessive intake of nutrients (like vitamin A) that can be harmful in large amounts. This is the maximum daily intake that is likely to pose no risk of adverse health effects in most people of a specified age group when consumed indefinitely without medical supervision. When possible, a UL for a particular nutrient is based on a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL). A NOAEL is the highest experimental oral dose of a nutrient that did not produce any observable negative effects in the individuals studied. If a NOAEL is not available, a lowest-observed-adverse effect (LOAEL) level may be used. This is the lowest oral dose of a nutrient that produced adverse events in people studied. Once a NOAEL or LOAEL is determined, several uncertainty factors are applied to provide a margin of safety because of the wide range of individual responses within a particular population and/or missing data.

Feel free to make it more concise or easier to understand for the casual encyclopedia reader. Jasonbholden (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

misleading

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)

Macronutrients

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)

Zinc

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)

Resulting daily energy intake

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)

Magnesium

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)

Carbohydrates(130gm) include fiber(38gm)?

A foot note under the table will be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar (talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Error in the saturated fat value.

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 am shocked and appalled the IoM uses the same language for saturated fats and cholesterol as for trans fats, an FDA-recognized poison that interferes with the delta-6 desaturase enzyme in prostaglandin production. Meanwhile, no studies exist showing why saturated fats or cholesterol might be harmful, only observational correlations based on the diets of populations and their prevalence of specific heart diseases.
here's a couple overviews of why it's so complicated to figure out where medical science went wrong:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth.html
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-truth-about-ancel-keys-weve-all-got-it-wrong/
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2008/mar2008_Protecting-Bone-And-Arterial-Health-With-Vitamin-K2_01.htm
when you also consider that vitamin K2 deficiency leads to atherosclerosis, and butter is a very good source of both vitamin K2 (MK-4) and cholesterol and saturated fat, and the IoM is giving exactly the opposite advice ("don't eat butter") well, how far should we take this argument from authority? why should saturated fat intake be minimized?
Fennfoot (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Top Sources in Common Measures

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)

RDA is ambiguous

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)

 Done I think has been fixed for a while now. TuxLibNit (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Peaches LOW in Vitamin C.

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)

The article has been (more or less) correctly reflecting what the (old) USDA database says but there is an anomaly in the database. It lists "Peaches, frozen, sliced, sweetened" as 94 mg/100g but the next-highest peach item to be listed is "Peaches, raw" at 6.6 mg/100g (with variations on "canned with syrup" lower still). I suspect the high listing in the database is either for a specific fortified product or is simply an error. I've taken peaches out of the list in the article for now.TuxLibNit (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Oops. Ascorbic acid/Vitamin C is routinely added when freezing peaches to prevent browning. So it is effectively fortification but generic to frozen peaches, not specific to a single product. I've reinstated as frozen peaches with a note to clarify.TuxLibNit (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Carbs are not essential ?

Hence min. requirement should be zero ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.18.71 (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The requirement as shown in this article should be whatever the DRI says (which happens not to be zero). If you want to the article to say that reliable sources say that the DRI is wrong in this respect, you'll need to identify those sources.
TuxLibNit (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio

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?

Has it? Then give a source. In any case, the values shown in this article should still be whatever the DRI says.
TuxLibNit (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

RDI for vegetarians/Vegans, Premenopausal wemen and possibly other groups ?

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)

Yes there are many different tables in the DRI covering different groups and they contain different recommendations for each group. Feel free to clarify this point in the article, but bear in mind that this is meant to be an article about the DRI, not a copy of its many tables. The link in the External links section should take you to the whole DRI with all its tables.
TuxLibNit (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Make RDA more prominent?

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)

@Dan Wylie-Sears 2: RDA appears in both the second and third sentences of the lead. The first section of the article is a History section which does nothing but talk about RDA. I'm not sure you can get much more prominent than that. The specific acronym USRDA is hardly used within wikipedia articles (see here) so it is not obvious that the term is notable enough to merit coverage in this article. In particular note that by redirecting RDA to this article, which is about US standard, en.wikipedia is assuming that RDA always means the US RDA and no-one seems to be challenging that. Going back to your first sentence I do think there is an argument that RDA should redirect to Reference Daily Intake rather than here, but I don't have a strong opinion either way. If someone does choose to change redirects please look at the full list here and try to keep synonymous terms pointed at the same article.
TuxLibNit (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete "Top sources in common measures"?

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)

UL values out-of-date

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 (DRIs): Elements Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, National Academies (2011)

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)

Here is a citation and link to the 2016 update to the U.S. Daily Values. David notMD (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC) [1]

References

  1. ^ "Federal Register May 27, 2016 Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels. FR page 33982" (PDF).

Sourcing the IOM nutrient tables

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)

Z - A good link, as those tables are kept current. The footnotes in the tables describe last updates as early 2000s, which is true. Since then, only calcium and vitamin D were revised (2011) and the new numbers for those are in the tables. All this means the "2004" can be removed and the access date set for today.
Ref #8 for ULs appears deadlink. Can be replaced by link to one of the tables: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRI-Tables/5Summary%20TableTables%2014.pdf?la=en David notMD (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I will add that the IOM has not initiated updating DRIs other than what was done for calcium and vitamin D in 2011, so I believe we are good for at least several years. David notMD (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we could do a better job of source consolidation. Current references 2, 3 and 6-8 overlap with the USDA listing I provided and the one summary table you provided. Can we reduce 5 references to one serving all the nutrients, and if so, which is best? --Zefr (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Ref #2 goes to one page in a 237 page book from 2003. I say delete, as 3 now covers the update to Daily Values. Keep 3 for that reason. #6 (DRI 2011 for calcium and vitamin D) is valid to keep where it exists now - in History and Standards of Evidence sections. #7 (used twice) links to a list of tables. There is no one table that covers the content being referenced, so either keep as is or divide into two refs, each to one of the tables at that link. #8 is currently a very slow or dead link. It could be replaced by what is currently #7, as one of the tables at #7 has the UL information and is identified as such. If you wish, I will implement all of these changes. Reduces five to three. David notMD (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Please go ahead. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted two refs and a bit of clean-up. And added two refs to explain system in EU. David notMD (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Still Start class?

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 posed that question Dec 2017, but with my Jan 2018 eyes, better to keep as Start until there are sections describing processes of determining EARs, RDAs, ULs and using RDAs to create Daily Value (DV) information on food and dietary supplement labels. David notMD (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Updating common food sources

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)

The listing of foods with the highest contents was derived from the USDA tables, as described above, For vitamin A as an example, this is the list used when the table was edited in October. Not all the foods shown are "common" (freeze-dried chives, NZ lamb are not likely common), and others like kale, often used as a vitamin A-rich food, is not among the top 50 sources. It would be ok to substitute foods based on the USDA source ranking, but not on cherry-picking foods by unsourced reputation. --Zefr (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
This table does not make any sense in its current state. Thankfully no brands were added on the plus side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor973 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
First, please remember to sign your Talk conversations with your username and timestamp by using the pencil icon in the upper left of the edit box. If you want to propose changes, make them here first so other editors can review and comment. --Zefr (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Many of the "Top common sources" are laughably uncommon. Shiitake mushrooms? Acerola? Hazelnut oil? Cottonseed flour? Who even knows what those are and where to find them, and is able to afford them? Look at the list for Vitamin C. It doesn't list tomatoes, fresh green peppers, green peas, or citrus, which are all great sources of C, easy to find, familiar, affordable---common. Just because you made the list semi-mechanically doesn't mean that it is useful or practical.CountMacula (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2018 (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: you're misled if you feel fortified foods are not foods, as they are ubiquitous among manufactured foods and are a focus for consumer guidance by an agency like the FDA. Nutrition experts, such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, recognize fortification as a significant (if not dominant) means for nutrient intake. CountMacula: the revised sources of nutrients were derived entirely from the USDA National Nutrient Database rankings from highest to lowest contents among all foods analyzed. We try to be objective. If there's a better system for listing example sources, we should be open to it. --Zefr (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Well I get it that you don't understand or pretend you don't understand the issue about fortified food in this kind of article. There is no useful information from the classification you support by mentioning fortified food. By your standards we should include Haribo new fortified jelly beans as the highest source of vitamin C. Also fortified food is a poor choice for you dietary intake as has been showed in a lot of studies (here is one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23255568). Vitamins and multivitamins are for the most part useless when isolated.

Contributor973 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Adherence section

This section has no explanation and no reference. David notMD (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Explanation and ref restored. It had been created in 2014, deleted 23 October 2017 by an IP editor who made no other edits to any articles. David notMD (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Terminology in the table on vitamins and minerals

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

Requested move 2 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fluoride

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 article is about the DRI, which implies a quantitative daily intake value recommended for the nutrient (or element) in question. There is no DRI recommended daily intake value for fluoride, which is why I removed the edit. Zefr (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dietary_Reference_Intake/Archive_1&oldid=1219910547"