RDAs are a joke. - LOL Posted: Nov 18th, 2017 - 6:00 pm In Reply to: This was the context: "My attempts at using B6 (at 50 mg a day) led to neuropathy in my feet... - SoftFlex fan too
Anyone citing the RDA on ANY nutrient has proven themselves too ignorant to old a discussion about ANY nutrient.
"For the last half-century, the RDAs for vitamin and minerals have formed the basis for conventional nutritional wisdom. The commonly held belief is that as the RDAs are met, our nutritional needs will be amply covered. However, as I delved deeper into the subject of nutrition, it occurred to me that the RDAs are little more than an nutritional white elephant. Research over the last decade or two shows that the RDAs are set too low, and have little if any place in modern nutritional dogma.
The RDAs actually represent the level of nutrients needed to prevent deficiency diseases and maintain normal nutrition. For instance, 60 mg of vitamin C is deemed to be the amount of this nutrient we need to consume each day to keep us from getting scurvy. However, the RDAs can be open to misinterpretation. One common misconception about them is that they in some way represent what are deemed to be the ‘safe’ levels of nutrient intake. Actually, the RDAs are not designed to reflect safe nutrient levels at all. What is known to be the safe daily intake for a nutrient is often many times the RDA. For instance, while the RDA for vitamin B6 is just 2 mg, its upper safe limit is at least 200 mg. Another example is vitamin B12, which has an RDA of 1 mcg and an upper safe limit of at least 500 times this amount."
http://www.drbriffa.com/2002/03/03/rdas-recommended-daily-allowances/
Post A Reply Reply By Email Options
Complete Discussion Below: (  marks the location of current message within thread)
|
