America’s focus on nutritious eating started to receive national attention in the 1940s when President Roosevelt launched the RDA, or Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) model. Taking on the form of a pyramid in the 1980’s (which is why it’s typically called the food pyramid), this model has gone through many adjustments since its birth more than 60 years ago[i]. In many respects, the evolution of the RDA model could be interpreted as a step towards the right direction. It just goes to show that just as America’s data on diet and nutrition is dynamically changing, so too are its numerous models and guides that influences their eating habits. In fact, the USDA itself has decided to replace the term and now refers to “RDI’s” (“Reference Daily Intake”) instead of RDA’s. However, undermining some of this positive change is the fact that many People are increasingly confused over what, how, and when to eat. “There are so many suggestions about healthy methods to eat, it’s hard to know what to believe” is a statement that 40% of the respondents in a survey carried out by the USDA in 1996 strongly agreed to, and basically confirms the fact[ii] The concept of the Daily Value, or “DV” is among the most serious examples of this growing dietary confusion . Introduced by the USDA in the 1990s, the DV is a dietary numerical reference that’s supposed to allow people to make healthy eating decisions [iii]. Expressed as a percentage, the philosophical thought behind the DV is that it may give a vital piece of information. The info given by the DV is how much of a nutrient a consumer is getting from a certain food product. For instance, it might be easier for consumers to keep track of how much fat they are consuming throughout the day if the DV label on the can of beans says that it has “10% of the DV for fat.” However, one does not have to be a mathematician or a dietician to see that the above idea begs a major question: is this10% of the DV for fat “good” or is it “unhealthy”?. In other words, should a consumer select this source of fat because it represents a good source of fat, or avoid it for the opposite reason? It is this question that has prompted so much confusion among health-conscious consumers. It has brought on particular concern among those that want to be certain that they maintain the beneficial daily allowance for protein. You can’t underestimate the significance of protein in a diet. It is not simply a vital macronutrient for athletes, such as bodybuilders and runners. Protein is critical for life itself, no matter mobility or athleticism. Among other essential functions, protein maintains and repairs muscle tissue, aids digestion, regulates chemicals, manages hormones, and produces enzymes [iv]. A dangerous lack of protein, in extreme cases, is the cause of a condition known as Kwashiorkor, where the body cannibalizes itself [2]. It’s a difficult challenge for most eaters to try to figure out the appropriate quantity of protein in terms of DV%. As a result, some consumers haven’t been eating high quality protein because of this confusion. It’s because the DV numbers isn’t a sufficient basis for them to make healthy protein eating choices. The missing number in the DV equation is the Reference Daily Intake (RDI) level. The RDI for protein is generally 50 grams per day. Consumers can take the number of total grams of protein in a product, and divide it by this RDI for protein to find out what the “optimum” DV number should be. For instance, if a product provides 25 grams of protein, and the RDI is 50 grams per day, then the product’s “optimum” DV will be 50%. Therefore, the figure “50%” should appear on the product’s labeling. In this manner, the consumer would instantly know that it isn’t an optimum protein source if the figure is lower than 50%. It shouldn’t be much of a challenge to seek out good sources of essential macronutrients such as protein, however it has actually become so, because many food makers don’t want the consumers to have the ability to distinguish the high quality food from those with poor quality. This is especially unfortunate in the health and nutrition food industry, where one would expect that producers strive for high quality nutrition. Unfortunately, this isn’t often the case. However, you should not despair because of this. Rather, its just as much motive to support corporations which are making the effort to make sure that their products replicate only high quality DV levels, and a concurrent effort to educate the general public on methods to determine optimum DV. [1] The intent of the DV concept, according to the FDA, is not to dictate to individuals how much they should be eating. In this example, the eater should not conclude that eating 10 cans of beans will achieve “100% of the recommended fat intake per day”. The DV is intended as a reference number only and never as a recommendation. The intake per day is suggested by the RDA/RDI, which will be mentioned further on this article. [2] Kwashiorkor is more prevalent in some parts of the developing world, but incidences have been reported in the US.
About Protica
Founded in 2001, Protica Research (Protica, Inc.) is a nutritional research firm specializing in the development of Capsulized Foods®. Protica manufactures Profect, IsoMetric, Pediagro, Fruitasia and more than 100 other brands, including Medicare-approved, whey {liquid protein|protein liquid|protein supplements|protein shots|protein bullets|protein drinks} for {bariatric|weight loss surgery|bariatric surgery|dialysis|renal care|diabetic|cancer|immunodeficiency} patients.
You can learn more about Protica at www.protica.com
Copyright – Protica Research – http://www.protica.com/terms.htm
↑ Back to Top