Talk:Dietary Reference Intake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Mg RDA > UL ?[edit]

Introduced as an empty section by User:Vwalvekar (talk). Presumably the intended question is "Why is the UL on Mg less than the RDA? That looks wrong."

See the note on Magnesium UL and this archived thread for an answer.
TuxLibNit (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Very briefly, if a large amount is consumed all at once, as with a dietary supplement, little is absorbed, and what is not absorbed passes through to the large intestine where it causes watery stools and diarrhea. The U.S. UL is set at 350 mg. The EFSA UL is set at 250 mg.David notMD (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Make RDA more prominent?[edit]

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"?[edit]

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[edit]

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)