New Dietary Reference Intakes Replace the Old RDAs

Carl Keen, Ph.D. Professor and Chair, Department of Nutrition, University of California at Davis; former National Institute of Dental Research postdoctoral fellow, Proctor and Gamble postdoctoral fellow; member, California's Scientific Advisory Board for the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; reviewer, USDA Human Nutrient Requirements Study Section; member, EPA Environmental Health Grant Review Panels; member, numerous NIH panels; past president, California Nutrition Council. .

New Dietary Reference Intakes Replace the Old RDAs

Carl L. Keen
Distinguished Professor of Nutrition and Internal Medicine
University of California, Davis

As our understanding of nutrition has expanded, new concepts about the need for vitamins, minerals and other nutrients have developed.  Up until the mid-1900s, worries about scurvy (severe vitamin C deficiency), rickets (severe vitamin D deficiency), and cretinism (severe iodine deficiency) occupied the attention of many health professionals.  Once these deficiency diseases were eliminated, attention turned to getting adequate intake of nutrients – hence the introduction of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs).  In the past decade, nutrient recommendations have evolved to encompass levels for more optimal physical and mental performance, and the reduction of risk for several age-related diseases including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, age-related vision loss, osteoporosis, and certain cancers.  Thus, the new Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) have replaced the old RDAs.
The AdvoCare Scientific & Medical Advisory Board uses the DRIs when evaluating existing or proposed new formulas.  Safety and efficacy are always foremost in our thinking.  However, you will not see the DRIs on the product labels.  Rather, the Nutrition Facts boxes on all products use the “percent Daily Value,” which are based on the outdated 1968 RDAs (i.e., not based on the most current scientific information).  Though the use of “percent Daily Value” is required by law, the DRIs have been urged for adoption on nutrition labels by the Institute of Medicine, U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Sadly, no matter which set of guidelines is used, the typical American diet is often less than optimal.  Despite living in a land of plentiful, high-quality, and relatively inexpensive food, poor diets are recognized as a major cause of early death in the United States (J American Medical Assoc 291: 1238-1245, 2004).  To improve our nutrition, it is vital to choose diets rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and lean protein. However, an important question that must be asked is whether “good diets” alone are sufficient to meet the goal of “optimal nutritional status.” Or might this goal require the initiation of new food fortification programs, the use of dietary supplements, or both?
Some concerns about supplement use exist, such as:

1. Reduced motivation to improve one’s diet
2. Reduced intake of beneficial food ingredients not contained in the supplement
3. Excessive intake of one or more nutrients
4. Adverse nutrient-nutrient, drug-nutrient and/or drug-herbal interactions

However, the vast majority of studies finds that the diet of supplement users is typically better than that of non-supplement users (J American Dietetics Assoc 100:905-910, 2000)! In many ways, this is not surprising, as the majority of individuals who take supplements care strongly about their diet, and most realize that the supplements are a complement, not a replacement, for a “good” diet.  Safety concerns about supplements are very real, and extreme caution must be used to avoid excessive or imbalanced intake of nutrients or herbal extracts of unproven safety or efficacy.  Responsible companies carefully evaluate the composition of their formulations and constantly adjust formulas based on the latest scientific evidence.  Similarly, while increasing enthusiasm exists about the potential value of certain “hot” or “new” botanical supplements, responsible companies work to identify potential risks associated with the use of any new ingredient.
.
ARCHIVE
*This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.