Posted by Tooooja on February 15, 2005, at 7:09:55
I stumbled across this little ditty while looking into more realistc nutrient intakes than the RDAs: http://www.thenhf.com/codex_11.htm
And here's an excerpt from the introduction " Current estimates of nutritional sufficiency, be they RDAs, AIs, EARs or NRVs, do not set nutritional intakes with the concept of optimum health in mind. They are simply estimates of the amounts of nutrients that healthy populations would require to maintain normal function and health and to avoid nutritional deficiency diseases. This approach, in our opinion, is highly flawed."
"Given the increasing prevalence in our societies of conditions such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, asthma, eczema, psoriasis, allergies, arthritis, high blood pressure, osteoporosis and depression, we believe that by definition our current system of nutritional values is no longer applicable."
Sounds like a good plan to me, they also have lists of what they estimate are optimum intakes, and an explanation of why.
Not surprisingly, magnesium consumption is often less than half the optimum, it's a tradgedy what's been happening to our food over the last 100 years. Intensive farming methods are screwing the soil big time.
poster:Tooooja
thread:458036
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20050131/msgs/458036.html