Talk:Dietary Reference Intake

Course assignment, 2007

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on Spring 2007.

Above undated message substituted from Template:EducationalAssignment by Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Mg RDA > UL ?

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)

Upper Level of nutrients intake

Hi editors. After a recent edit (by Ceruleanix) we got that this parameter cautions "against excessive intake of nutrients (like vitamin A and selenium) that can be harmful in large amounts". I would generalize a statement in brackets to "(like vitamins and minerals)". Because, in my opinion, the former one makes an impression that only some (a few of) nutrients (like those mentioned) have tolerable upper intake limits. What do you say? Tosha Langue (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tosha Langue I humbly disagree. I think it's implied that it's not just those substances/minerals that are harmful when overabundant.

It's explicited by the "like", it's not a comprehensive list. Ceruleanix (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not insisting, just thinking why vitamin C and sodium aren't chosen as examples.

You wrote: "it's implied that it's not just those substances/minerals that are harmful when overabundant." You mean that not all nutrients are harmful in the same extent when overdosed, right? If so, I agree with you! However, that "like" may imply that there are nutrients that cannot be harmful in large amounts. Yes, that's right, but as I see from the source (and other literature) every micro-nutrient has its own UL (even if it is not defined), while macro-nutrients in most cases are not even linked with the term Tolerable Upper Intake Level. Thus I'm suggesting some clarification, one or another. Tosha Langue (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You make a great point actually, however my preoccupation is that a potential reader, like myself, could go: "vitamins and minerals. okay, such as?"

I think selenium and Vit-A are great examples on their own. Selenium is actually in that grey area where too little can be as equally dangerous as too much. Furthermore, Vit-A has also a historical connotation, making it the ideal catch-all example IMO. Ceruleanix (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Vitamin A is also, globally speaking, a commonly deficient nutrient with a very high human cost. Vitamin A supplementation used to be one of the best uses of money ($/DALY) for public health initiatives. It might be losing out to other methods now (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266495), but remains very important. Artoria2e5 🌉 02:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Adherence update

The Adherence level is a little old, being from 2004. NHANES has since then continued to be updated and logically someone should have produced an updated dataset. Unfortunately I have failed to find something like that so far: PMID 33802295 and 32531972 (both from MDPI, heh) come close, but the former covers preschool kids and the latter only covers a handful of nutrients.

Oh, 32531972 cites 31581561 (also MDPI, duh), which seems to cover a larger set of nutrients, but does not provide inadequacy rates not segregated by "short sleep". That's one step closer at least. Artoria2e5 🌉 15:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)