In the 1940's is when President Roosevelt released the RDA, or Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) model which assisted Americans to focus on nutritious eating. This model, that took on the shape of a pyramid in the 1980s (and hence now goes by the term “food pyramid”), has passed through a variety of iterations since its beginning more than 60 years ago[i].
This change and evolution of the RDA model is, in many respects, a positive step. It shows that, just as America’s info on diet and nutrition is advancing, so too are the models that guide its eating habits. In fact, the USDA itself has determined to update the term and currently refers to “RDI’s” (“Reference Daily Intake”) rather than RDA’s.
The fact that there may be the question of what to eat, how to eat and when to eat causes increased perplexity amongst plenty of Americans that positive step brought up above is definitely undermined. A survey conducted by the USDA in 1996 verified this truth when 40% of people responding agreed strongly with the statement that “there are such a lot of recommendations about healthy ways in which to eat, it’s difficult to understand what to believe”[ii].
One of the most serious expressions of this developing dietary confusion has to do with an idea called the Daily Value, or “DV”. Introduced by the USDA in the 1990s, the DV is a dietary numerical reference that is said to allow people to make healthy eating choices[iii].
The philosophical plan behind the DV, that is expressed as a percentage, is that it supplies a terribly vital piece of information. The DV tells customers how much of a nutrient they're getting from a specific food item. For instance, if the DV label on a can of beans states that it represents "10% of the DV for fat”, then consumers will keep track of that number to understand if, throughout the day, how much fat they are eating[1].
But, one does not have to be a mathematician or a dietician to understand that the above idea begs a vital question : is this10% of the DV for fat “smart” or is it “unhealthy”? In other words, should a shopper select this source of fat because it represents a good source of fat, or avoid it for the opposite reason?
It's this dilemma that has caused so much confusion among health-conscious consumers. It's triggered particular anxiety among people who are wisely making certain that they eat the suggested daily allowance for protein.
The necessity of protein in diet cannot be understated. It is not simply an important macronutrient for athletes, like bodybuilders and runners. Protein is critical for life itself, irrespective of mobility or athleticism. Among other vital functions, protein maintains and repairs muscle tissue, assists in digestion, regulates chemicals, manages hormones, and produces enzymes[iv]. In extreme cases, a dangerous lack of protein really ends up in a condition known as Kwashiorkor, where the body cannibalizes itself[2].
Making an attempt to determine the correct quantity of protein – as expressed in terms of DV% -- has been a difficult challenge for most dieters. Sadly, as a result of this turmoil, some customers have not been consuming top quality protein. This is because the DV number is merely not enough information upon which they'll make healthy protein eating decisions.
The missing number in the DV equation is the Reference Daily Intake (RDI) level. The RDI for protein is, usually, 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 determine what the “optimum” DV number ought to be.
For instance, if a product offers twenty five grams of protein, and the RDI is fifty grams per day, then the product “optimum” DV will be fifty percent. Thus, the figure fiftyy percent ought to appear on the product’s labeling. If the quantity is below 50%, the shoppers immediately recognize that it's not an optimum source of protein.
Locating top quality sources for vital micronutrients like protein (among others) is a challenge that should not be tough, but it's, because some food makers do not want to teach consumers on the way to detect high quality from low quality. This is particularly regrettable within the health and nutrition food business, where one would expect manufacturers to strive for high quality nutrition. Regrettably, this is not always the case.
But, that is not reason to despair. Instead, it's simply a primary reason to support firms that are making the effort to ensure that their products reflect only high quality DV levels, and a concurrent effort to educate the public on how to determine optimum DV.
[1] The FDA is clear that the DV concept is not intended to direct people on how much they should eat. 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 not as a recommendation. The intake per day is suggested by the RDA/RDI, which will be discussed further in this article.
[2] Kwashiorkor is more prevalent in some parts of the developing world, but incidences have been reported in the US.
[iv] Source: “The Importance of Protein”. OhioHealth. http://www.ohiohealth.com/facilities/mcconnell/weightmanage/details/protein.htm
Author Resource:
About Protica Research
Founded in 2001, Protica Research (Protica, Inc.) is a nutritional research firm specializing in the development of capsulized foods (dense nutrition in compact liquid and food forms). Protica manufactures Profect (www.profect.com), IsoMetric, Pediagro, Fruitasia and more than 100 other brands in its GMP-certified, 250,000 square foot facility. One area of specialty is the manufacturing of Medicare-approved, whey protein shots for bariatric patients.
You can learn more about Protica at www.protica.com - Copyright - Protica Research
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/rss.jpg "XML Feed For RSS")