User's guide to the new DRIs

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

We, as dietetic professionals, will find the guidance offered in the Commentary by Barr, Murphy, and Poos (p 780) to be invaluable in assessing and evaluating dietary intake. We have relied heavily on the recommendations of the Food and Nutrition Board since their inception in 1941. Major changes are seen in the current revision, the eleventh, and the Commentary delineates the use of the new references, now referred to as Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). It is exciting to note that the new DRIs represent a collaborative effort between the USA and Canada. The DRIs are comprised of four different categories: Estimated Average Requirements (EARs) that provide estimated median requirements; Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) calculated by adding 2 standard deviations to the EAR; Adequate Intakes (AIs) that are provided when there are inadequate date to set an EAR; and Tolerable Upper Limits (ULs)—a new and very useful category. Of the 29 nutrients currently considered, 17 have RDAs, 9 have AIs, and 22 have ULs. To date, boron, nickel, and vanadium have neither EARs nor AIs. Please note the restrictions in using AIs in assessing dietary inadequacy, especially important for calcium and vitamin D. Designing innovative programs to promote healthful dietary habits for the general public is one of our profession's greatest challenges. Research articles in this issue assess this topic from a variety of perspectives. Tinker and colleagues (p 789) recommend boosting subject participation by “building in options (or ‘work-arounds’) within the dietary intervention programs” as well as implementing tests, such as the SF-36 Health Survey, that may indicate a patient's physical and emotional status. According to this study, physical and emotional factors can predict participation and adherence levels and could assist dietitians in tailoring an intervention program for a specific individual or cultural group. Thomson and colleagues (p 801) reveal that women who have had breast cancer report more healthful diet habits after diagnosis, including reduced consumption of high-fat foods and added fats. We can continue to improve public health nutrition programs through the exchange of timely and important ideas and information among members of our profession. According to Gaetke and colleagues (p 851), a listserv offers a practical way to teach, learn, and communicate for dietetic interns who are participating in supervised practice rotations at remote sites. Faculty comments noted that these electronic discussions also provided a way for them to gain insight regarding students’ formation of ethics and analyzing thinking about dietetics issues. While the Internet is certainly a valuable educational tool for dietitians and our clients, sometimes a simple photograph, or in the case of this month's FYI, a “fotonovela,” can be effective in emphasizing a nutrition message. Stopka and colleagues (p 766) acknowledge the importance of culturally appropriate marketing campaigns, specifically a community-based approach that uses a story told with photographs portraying the breastfeeding challenges and successes of a Hispanic/Latino family. The Commentary describing the many uses of the DRIs will continue to be a valuable resource for our profession, and it is with great anticipation that we await an additional joint report on energy and macronutrient recommendations, later this year. BOARD OF EDITORS Keith-Thomas Ayoob, EdD, RD, FADA, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York Leila T. Beker, PhD, RD, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC Peter L. Beyer, MS, RD, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City Catherine M. Champagne, PhD, RD, FADA, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge Sarah Collins Couch, PhD, RD, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH Ruth DeBusk, PhD, RD,DeBusk Communications, LC, Tallahassee, FL Constance Geiger, PhD, RD, Geiger and Associates, Salt Lake City, UT Michele Morath Gottschlich, PhD, RD, Shriners Burns Institute, Cincinnati, OH Rebecca A. Gould, PhD, RD, Kansas State University, Manhattan Jean H. Hankin, DrPH, RD, University of Hawaii, Honolulu Janet R. Hunt, PhD, RD, US Department of Agriculture, Grand Forks, ND Eileen T. Kennedy, DSc, RD, International Life Sciences Institute, Washington, DC Deborah E. Kipp, PhD, RD, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Mary J. Kretsch, PhD, RD, US Department of Agriculture, Davis, CA Melinda Manore, PhD, RD, Oregon State University, Corvallis Richard D. Mattes, PhD, MPH, RD, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN Beverly J. McCabe, PhD, RD, The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock Shortie McKinney, PhD, RD, FADA, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA Barbara Millen, DrPH, RD, Boston University, Boston, MA Linda Nebeling, PhD, MPH, RD, FADA, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD Linda G. Snetselaar, PhD, RD, University of Iowa, Iowa City Mary Story, PhD, RD, University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis Amy Subar, PhD, MPH, RD, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD Lesley Fels Tinker, PhD, RD, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA Virginia L. Wilkening, MS, RD, US Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC Judith Wylie-Rosett, EdD, RD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY Monica E. Yamamoto, DrPH, RD, FADA, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA