Guest guest Posted March 4, 2006 Report Share Posted March 4, 2006 It seems more likely to me that our oh-so-trustworthy government is shortchanging us yet again. Remember: the RDA is the MINIMUM necessary to prevent goiter and cretinism. Optimal health would require far in excess of that dose, just like with vitamin C--the RDA is the minimum amount to prevent scurvy, and there's plenty of evidence that we need WAY more than that to be healthy. Deborah Mike wrote: > I tried searching for quantity of Iodine in Lugols on this group and > came up with 12mg iodine per 2 drops ? > > Someone explained it in a little more detail a little while ago, but > damned if I can find it !! > > Question - if the RDA is 150 MICROGRAMS (0.15 mgs)? - how come we are > overdosing ourselves with 100 times this in the form of Lugols or > Iodoral ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2007 Report Share Posted July 15, 2007 Thanks Chuck, Maybe you could also explain why MDA standards were changed to MDAs. Roni --- Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote: > Roni, > > You wrote: > > > > > > Exactly who decides on the RDA, and by what > criteria? > > > > It started when the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) > was established > within the National Academy of Sciences at the start > of WWII to advise > government agencies on nutrition. There was a > similar panel in Britain > at the same time. Both groups relied on dietary > standards that had been > published in 1933, but they focused on two new > criteria: starvation > relief programs and nutritional needs of infants, > children, and pregnant > women based on scientific measurements of human > needs for essential > nutrients and energy. > > The committee sent copies of the proposed allowances > to a large group of > scientists (about 50) and asked for criticism and > suggestions. As Lydia > J. , a member of that committee, described it > in 1958, “... they > believed that any accepted allowances should > represent not just the > thoughts of a small group of workers, however > competent they might be, > but that all persons who had done research on any > factor or had other > bases for judgment should have a part in their > formulation.” They still > operate that way, but today, there are at least > 5,000 members of > primarily research-oriented nutrition societies, and > membership of other > professional societies involved in nutrition > research would add at least > an additional 20,000 scientists. > > That answers the " who " part of your question. If you > don't know who the > National Academy is, let's just say the closest I > ever got was to eat at > their cafeteria. > > The criteria rely primarily on published literature. > Recent RDA > committees have sought additional scientific > expertise through > correspondence, workshops, and special meetings with > invited experts. A > group of anonymous reviewers critiques every report. > However, the very > first RDAs were restricted to " essential nutrients, " > chemical substances > necessary for human life and tissue growth and > repair that the body > cannot synthesize. These were identified when their > deficiency caused a > well-defined disease or a failure to grow. However, > they rounded up as a > safety margin, to provide not merely minima to > protect against actual > deficiency diseases but also a fair margin above > this amount to ensure > good nutrition and protection of all body tissues. > > Here is what the old NAS committee said about > criteria: > > " The allowances are designed for the maintenance of > good nutrition of > healthy persons in the United States under present > conditions. They are > not necessarily applicable to situations of > stringency or limited food > supply. The recommendations are not requirements, > since they represent > not merely minimal needs of average persons, but > nutrient levels > selected to cover individual variations in a > substantial majority of the > population. In addition, the values for each > nutrient above the minimal > level which will prevent deficiency are considered > to provide for > increased needs in times of stress and to permit > other potential > benefits. " > > From this, it is obvious that even the old RDA > committee was > considering the potential health benefits of > nutrient intakes above > minimum requirements. The 1974 version has remained > in effect through > the tenth edition. RDAs “are the levels of intake of > essential nutrients > considered, in the judgment of the Food and > Nutrition Board on the basis > of available scientific knowledge, to be adequate to > meet the known > nutritional needs of practically all healthy > persons.” > > The term “recommended dietary allowances” was > deliberately selected to > avoid any implication of finality or that the > allowances represented > minimal or optimal requirements. Studies with > animals indicated that > amounts sufficient to provide health for short > portions of the life span > might be inadequate to maintain good health > throughout life. > Consequently, they set RDAs generous enough to meet > adequately the > nutritional needs of average persons over both short > and long periods of > time. > > Iodine was recognized as essential in the 1989 > lists, along with > magnesium, zinc, and selenium. > > The method used for establishing allowances involves > selecting healthy > people who represent the segments of the population > for which allowances > were to be set, determining average requirements, > assessing > statistically the range of individual variability, > determining the range > of bioavailability/biological value in commonly > consumed foods, and then > calculating an allowance to cover their needs, at > least two standard > deviations above the mean requirements to insure > covering 98% of the > population. > > Six types of evidence are used in establishing RDAs: > 1. nutrient intakes observed in apparently normal, > healthy people, > 2. epidemiological observations of populations in > which the clinical > consequences of nutrient deficiencies are corrected > by dietary improvement, > 3. balance studies that measure nutrient status in > relation to intake, > 4. nutrient depletion/repletion studies in which > subjects are > maintained on diets containing marginally low or > deficient levels of a > nutrient, followed by correction of the deficit with > measured amounts of > that nutrient (such studies are undertaken in humans > only when the risk > is minimal), > 5. extrapolation from animal experiments, and > 6. biochemical measurements that assess the degree > of tissue > saturation or adequacy of molecular function in > relation to nutrient intake. > > Most recently RDA committees have commented on the > use of nutrients at > levels many times the RDA. Examples of these > pharmacological situations > include nicotinic acid, which when taken in doses of > up to 9 grams > daily, reduces serum lipids; vitamin A analogues, > which are used to > treat skin disorders; and antioxidant nutrients such > as vitamins C and > E, which some epidemiological data suggest may > reduce the risk of > coronary heart disease. The committees have > categorized these as > “pharmacological effects” because even at moderately > excessive intakes, > interactions among nutrients can result in adverse > effects, and > pharmacological action is often different from the > physiological > function. This is certainly true of iodine when you > also take large > doses of Armour or other thyroid meds, and some > experience toxicity. > > Beginning in the 1960s, various guidelines intended > to help reduce > chronic, degenerative diseases were disseminated. > For === message truncated === ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos./carfinder/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2007 Report Share Posted July 15, 2007 Roni Molin wrote: > > > Thanks Chuck, > > Maybe you could also explain why MDA standards were > changed to MDAs. Huh? Do you mean malondialdehyde? Muscular Dystrophy Association? Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2007 Report Share Posted July 15, 2007 Sorry, as soon as I hit send I realized my typo. I did send another post where I changed the first set of letters to MDR and RDA for the last set. Roni --- Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote: > Roni Molin wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Chuck, > > > > Maybe you could also explain why MDA standards > were > > changed to MDAs. > > Huh? Do you mean malondialdehyde? Muscular Dystrophy > Association? > > Chuck > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2007 Report Share Posted July 15, 2007 Roni, You wrote: > > > Sorry, as soon as I hit send I realized my typo. I did > send another post where I changed the first set of > letters to MDR and RDA for the last set. > Both are still reported, although the preference for RDA began in the 1950s. They come from exactly the same committee and the same literature. MDR is the _average_ intake level that prevents deficiency in the target group. RDA is two standard deviations above the average, so it insures freedom from deficiency for 98%. The goofy criticism, that MDR and RDA are faulty and subjective because they do not agree, is based on a misunderstanding of what they are, two different statistical parameters for the same distribution. They are _supposed_ to be different, because they report different things. One is at the 50% level, the other at 98%. A more recent style is to include both MDR and RDA under the umbrella of Reference Daily Intakes (RDIs), which includes other statistical parameters and maximum safe levels. These set the upper limit on iodine way below what Optimox recommends. However, since most people can't tell the difference between MDR and RDA, let alone all the other statistics, most labels still report one number, which they call %DV (percent daily value). For essential nutrients, the DV is the RDA. For other things, they use other RDIs. The older reporting method was %MDR, which made foods appear more nutritious, having a higher percentage of a recommended value. However, the labeling has been standardized by federal law to the RDIs. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2007 Report Share Posted July 15, 2007 Thank you for your explanation, sometimes my fingers don't follow my mind very exactly. Roni --- Chuck B <gumboyaya@...> wrote: > Roni, > > You wrote: > > > > > > Sorry, as soon as I hit send I realized my typo. I > did > > send another post where I changed the first set of > > letters to MDR and RDA for the last set. > > > > Both are still reported, although the preference for > RDA began in the > 1950s. They come from exactly the same committee and > the same > literature. MDR is the _average_ intake level that > prevents deficiency > in the target group. RDA is two standard deviations > above the average, > so it insures freedom from deficiency for 98%. The > goofy criticism, that > MDR and RDA are faulty and subjective because they > do not agree, is > based on a misunderstanding of what they are, two > different statistical > parameters for the same distribution. They are > _supposed_ to be > different, because they report different things. One > is at the 50% > level, the other at 98%. > > A more recent style is to include both MDR and RDA > under the umbrella of > Reference Daily Intakes (RDIs), which includes other > statistical > parameters and maximum safe levels. These set the > upper limit on iodine > way below what Optimox recommends. However, since > most people can't tell > the difference between MDR and RDA, let alone all > the other statistics, > most labels still report one number, which they call > %DV (percent daily > value). For essential nutrients, the DV is the RDA. > For other things, > they use other RDIs. > > The older reporting method was %MDR, which made > foods appear more > nutritious, having a higher percentage of a > recommended value. However, > the labeling has been standardized by federal law to > the RDIs. > > Chuck > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.