>>17310
This is a bit of a divergence from what we were talking about, but it seems interesting and I see where you got the connection from, so sure, let's talk about the legitimacy of government mandated recommended daily amounts.
>Why do you trust government designated RDAs to decide what makes someone deficient?
I assume what an expert on a topic says is generally true or at least partly true, I assume that the governments RDA is based on the findings and study of subject experts.
That is not to say square trust, I have encountered plenty of times that something that is being said by one expert is contradicted by another, or that my own and others their experience doesn't follow the expert conclusion, not to mention general development that can make a view outdated.
So no, I don't necessarily trust RDA's, but I assume they're good rules of thumb unless convinced otherwise.
>The US dietary reference intake recommends you consume 36.36x more magnesium than zinc, yet there's not a single animal source food that contains that ratio.
I am not an expert on the American RDA, in fact, I am not American at all and the European ratio is even higher. If what you're saying is true, I guess that could be interpreted as a flaw in the US/EU RDA.
Though I have a few questions about that.
1: Why animal source food, and not both plant and animal source food considering most people eat both meat and crops as their mainstay?
2: Why would a single animal product need to have that ratio? Don't we usually fill our dietary needs by combining different foodstuffs to make a fulfilling whole?
3: Could you recommend me some of the stuff you read or watched to come to the, assumed conclusion, that the US/EU recommended daily amount is not to be trusted?