Posted by Larry Hoover on February 15, 2005, at 8:37:57
In reply to Optimum Daily Intakes, 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."Thank you very much for stumbling. ;-)
The paragraph above looks like something I might have said, except I wouldn't have been so respectful. ;-)
Notwithstanding the arguments made throughout this lengthy piece, I think the intake recommendations are still a tad conservative in some places (e.g. vitamin D). It is thrilling to note their zinc, selenium, vitamin C (and others) recommendations are absolutely in line with my own thinking. I feel rather proud of myself.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:458036
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20050131/msgs/458065.html