Hello,

The article states that the RDA (Recommended Dietary Allowance) for all or most vitamins is determined based on scientific research. Some time ago, I read a book about vitamin C, where it was stated, and very reasonably substantiated with facts, that the commonly cited RDA for vitamin C in our regions - 60-120 mg - is insufficient. It is allegedly supposed to be several times higher, and that's only for a healthy individual. In cases of illness, stress, or poor diet, it should be even more. This is supposedly also scientifically proven. So why do RDA values still insist on 60-120 mg?

Thank you.

The rules for establishing RDA (RI) also aim to set a level of a given substance where there is the highest probability that it will not have a negative impact on various population groups. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the realistic possibility of achieving such an amount in everyday diet. Therefore, RDA should never be viewed as optimal doses; in fact, the term "recommended" is not entirely accurate (hence the change from RDA to RI). Each country adjusts the values based on its own judgment. For instance, the USA has set the level for vitamin C at 180 mg (it is the most developed country with excellent availability of quality food, and the average weight of an individual is higher than in Europe or Asia, which is another factor that plays a role).

Themes:  Vitamin C