In the 1940s when President Roosevelt introduced the RDA, or the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) model, America’s focus on nutritious eating began to receive nationwide attention. 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 changes since its birth more than 60 years ago[i]. This change and evolution of the RDA model is, in many respects, a positive step. It just goes to indicate that just as America’s knowledge on diet and nutrition is dynamically changing, so too are its numerous models and guides that influences their eating habits. As a matter of fact, the term RDA’s have now been replaced with “RDI’s” (Reference Daily Intake as updated by the USDA itself. The fact that many Americans are increasingly unable to determine what, how, and when to eat undermines some of the recent constructive changes. A survey conducted by the USDA in 1996 verified this fact when 40% of respondents agreed strongly with the statement that “there are so many recommendations about healthy methods to eat, it’s hard to know what to believe”[ii] The concept of the Daily Value, or “DV” is among the most serious examples of this growing dietary confusion . The DV which was launched by the USDA in the 1990s, is a numerical reference for various diets whose function was to allow individuals to make healthy eating choices [iii]. The philosophical concept behind the DV, which is expressed as a percentage, is that it provides a vital piece of information. The DV informs consumers how much of a nutrient they are getting from a particular food item. For example, if the DV label on a can of beans declares that it represents “10% of the DV for fat”, then consumers can keep track of that quantity to know, throughout the day, how much fat they’re consuming[1] However, one doesn’t have to be a mathematician or a dietician to see that the above idea begs a significant question: is this10% of the DV for fat “good” or is it “bad”?. To put it simply, the consumer needs to be guided if he has to choose this particular source of fat because it is a source for good fat or should he stay away from it for the opposite reason? This is the question that has provided fuel for much of the confusion among the health-conscious consumers. It has prompted explicit anxiety among those who are wisely ensuring that they eat the recommended daily allowance for protein. You can not underestimate the importance of protein in a diet. It is not simply an important macronutrient for athletes, such as bodybuilders and runners. Regardless of mobility or athleticism, protein is a essential part of life itself. Protein maintains and repairs muscle tissue, aids digestion, regulates chemicals, manages hormones, and produces enzymes, just to mention a few of its major functions[iv]. In extreme cases, a harmful lack of protein actually results in a situation referred to as Kwashiorkor, where the body cannibalizes itself [2]. Trying to determine the right amount of protein – as expressed in terms of DV% — has been a difficult challenge for most eaters. Unfortunately, because of this confusion, some consumers have not been eating high quality protein. This is because the DV number is just not sufficient information upon which they can make healthy protein eating decisions. The Reference Daily Intake or the RDI is actually missing from the DV equation. 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 example, if a product offers 25 grams of protein, and the RDI is 50 grams per day, then the product’s “optimum” DV will be 50%. Thus, the DV of 50% ought to appear on the product’s label. In this manner, the consumer would instantly know that it isn’t an optimum protein source if the figure is lower than 50%. Finding high quality sources for important micronutrients like protein (among others) is a challenge that should not be difficult, however it is, because some food makers do not want to educate consumers on how to determine high quality from low quality. This is especially unfortunate in the health and nutrition food industry, where one would expect that manufacturers strive for high quality nutrition. Regrettably, this is not always the case. However, that is not cause to despair. Rather, its just as much cause to support corporations that 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 the way to determine optimum DV. [1] The FDA is clear that the DV concept is not intended to direct people on how much they need to eat. In this instance, the eater should not conclude that eating 10 cans of beans will achieve “100% of the recommended fat intake per day”. The DV is meant as a reference number only and not as a recommendation. The RDA/RDI has a direct correlation on the consumption per day, which we will be discussing later on. [2] Kwashiorkor is more widespread among developing countries, although there have been some reported cases in the U.S. as well.
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
Mail this post
Technorati Tags: diet, nutrition, protein, Weight Loss
