 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2008Nutrients Required in a Day?
Good Afternoon, I was researching nutritionally complete meals, and ran into a problem. All the foods I found were so nutritionally deficient with respect to the RDA, that it looked like it was impossible to get one's required nutrients, no matter what one ate. For example, I have read in many places that one can live indefinitely on potatoes and milk as that provides the body with all the nutrients it needs. Yet so so many nutrients were missing (or were present in only tiny fractions of the RDA) that either this information is wrong, or I'm confused about the charts. Are many nutrients manufactured by the body? If so, what are the nutrients that one must consume every day to remain healthy? Thanks in advance. On Jan 21, 3:55 pm, xmp...@yahoo.com wrote: > I have read in many places that one can live indefinitely > on potatoes and milk as that provides the body with all the nutrients > it needs. Incorrect! On Jan 21, 2:55 pm, xmp...@yahoo.com wrote: > Are many nutrients manufactured by the body? If so, what are the > nutrients that one must consume every day to remain healthy? A nutrient is a substance that can be used for metabolism or growth. Air, water, and food are nutrients that need to be consumed daily to remain healthy. -- Ron > On Jan 21, 2:55 pm, xmp...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Air, water, and food are nutrients that need to be consumed daily to > remain healthy. Air & water are nutrients? Total nonsense! On Jan 21, 12:55 pm, xmp...@yahoo.com wrote: > Good Afternoon, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thanks in advance. You are thinking in 'black and white' terms. It is less clear cut. One can get by with less than optimal amounts of most nutrients. That one gets by doesn't mean there isn't damage one's health. Taking your example of someone living on milk and potatoes, they likely will be short on carotenoids and hence more prone to macular degeneration. Or given this diet might most likely tried to in inland Norway or old Ireland, there would likely be higher frequency of at less least too little vitamin D during part of year thus resulting in higher rates of rickets, death in childbirth due a narrow pelvic passage, type 1 DM, MS, breast cancer, and prostate cancer. Or the shortage of vitamin K might result in a higher frequency of soft tissue calcium deposits and the resulting premature deaths as a result. Further, I'll suggest most folks would eat a more varied diet. Indeed, those families that had the habit of eating greens, vegetables other than just potatoes, plus fish, meat, organ meat and even grains would have greater reproductive success than families trying to live on limited diets.. Which is why in my opinion traditional diets often have some merit. Which doesn't make traditional diets optimal but rather just successful in terms of reproduction of the family or tribe. Or more to the point that is how a family becomes a tribe; whereas, other just pass into history. > Good Afternoon, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thanks in advance. Well, I think you have a good question. I used the Fitday download software to monitor RDA and DV. However, I'm losing faith in the folks who set these standards and the Fitday download is a bit out-of-date. [...] > I used the Fitday download software to monitor RDA and DV. However, I'm > losing faith in the folks who set these standards and the Fitday download is > a bit out-of-date. I also lost faith in all nutritional information (and those who provide them) after reading up on the RDA. For starters, they changed the food pyramid. Now it's some kind of multi-colored aberration that supposedly gives us a better idea of the proportions of what to eat. In reality, it does the opposite. The tapering of the stripes makes it hard to distinguish the widths, and it doesn't convey any more information than the original (easier to read) layout did. Maybe they're trying to quietly abandon the food pyramid -- to avoid another "Basic 4 Food Groups" fiasco? Second, their advice to eat a variety of foods within each group (and even going by colors) seems to be another way of just telling us to eat a bunch of different foods, but less of some types than others, in the hope that we'll stumble upon what we need. It's a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach, that shows a lack of precision and understanding. I'm seriously considering ignoring that thing entirely. On Jan 24, 10:08 am, xmp...@yahoo.com wrote: > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I'm seriously considering ignoring that thing entirely. Which is what the bulk of the population will do. It is on school children and college student that this thing will be inflicted on. Personally I eat to get certain macro and micronutrient goals. My goals are higher than the RDA/AI levels. It results in various rules of thumbs. Some will suggest eating colorful fruits and veggies which is a good idea. Restricting grains especially refined is certainly useful. Nor do I assume the RDA or even similar levels are optimal. Certainly has people age or develop disease or disease process the RDA type approach is foolish. On Jan 24, 12:08 pm, xmp...@yahoo.com wrote: > I also lost faith in all nutritional information (and those who > provide them) after reading up on the RDA. What did you read about the RDA that gives you no faith in nutritional information? I thought the measurements were reasonably accurate. > For starters, they changed the food pyramid. A quick web search returned about a thousand food pyramids. So, you get to pick and choose depending on your goals or illnesses. > Second, their advice to eat a variety of foods within each group (and > even going by colors) seems to be another way of just telling us to > eat a bunch of different foods, but less of some types than others, in > the hope that we'll stumble upon what we need. It's a "throw > everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach, that shows a > lack of precision and understanding. There are many different nutritional factors, and some that may not be discovered or the amount that should be ingested. > I'm seriously considering ignoring that thing entirely. I don't think that pyramids form a very good guide, it's better to focus on the essential nutrients. Because there are more nutrients needed than different types of food that can be eaten in a day, a few supplements can balance things out. (FWIW, linear programming techniques can solve the problem, but it would be difficult to construct the diet). -- Ron |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.