Talk:Dietary Reference Intake

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Medicine High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Dietary Supplements High‑importance

	Dietary Reference Intake is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)