Cited by 51Nutrition, Health, and Society StudiesNutrition and Health StudiesDietetics, Nutrition, and Education

Evolution of Recommended Dietary Allowances—New Directions?

Harper, A. E.·1987·Annual Review of Nutrition

Abstract

Introduction ........ , , 509 Evolution of Dietary Standards 510 Dietary recommendations 1835-1940 510 Recommended dietary allowances 515 Other dietary standards , , 516 RDA Are Dietary Standards Based on Scientific Principles 518 Primary use of RDA .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 518 Scientific bases for RDA 518 Purposes for Which RDA Have Been Used 522 Information and education 522 Food and nutrition regulations 524 Developm�nt of ,!�w and special foods 524 Therapeutic nutrltlOn ......... 525 Standards for food programs 525 Evaluating the Adequacy of Nutrient Intakes 526 The probability approach 527 Dietary Standards and Guidelines for Healthful Diets 529 Misunderstanding of RDA .. 529 Guidelines for healthful diets , 530 Directions in Dietary Standards and Guidelines 532 Directions in RDA , ........ , ....... ,. 532 Dietary guidelines ....... , 533 Diet and disease 534

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.nu.07.070187.002453

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • RDAs were quickly recognized as methodologically and conceptually inappropriate for chronic diseases, leading to creation of new nutrient-based metrics (e.g., Adequate Intakes, AIs; Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges, AMDRs) which were limited by imprecise definitions and inconsistent usage.

    “RDAs were quickly recognized as methodologically and conceptually inappropriate for chronic diseases, leading to creation of new nutrient-based metrics (e.g., Adequate Intakes, AIs; Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges, AMDRs) which were limited by imprecise definitions and inconsistent usage.16”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harper, A. E.
Corresponding author
Harper, A. E.
Venue
Annual Review of Nutrition
Published
1987-07
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
509-537
ISSN
  • 0199-9885 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-4312
OpenAlex
W2172858970
Cited by
51
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Review of Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Nutrition, Health, and Society Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutrition and Health Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Keywords
RDA, nutritional standards, nutritional adequacy, probabilistic methods, dietary guidelines, healthy eating, nutritional therapy, diet and disease
MeSH terms
Diet, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Health Promotion, Humans, Nutritional Requirements, History, 19th Century, History, 20th Century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review