The amount of nutrients required for biological health is dependent on size of the person. However, it seems that our nutritional professionals continue to make the same mistake over and over. It has become part of the culture that one size fits all. A case in point is the release of vitamin D and calcium requirements. It seems in the grand wisdom of the examiners that a small one year old child needs for vitamin D are the same as a sixty year old two hundred fifty pound man – 800IU per day. It has become clear that our professionals have assumed we are so inept that we cannot do a bit of math.
The idea that one size fits all is even the case for most pharmaceutical drugs. It is not unusual for a two hundred fifty pound man be given the same amount of antibiotic to heal a strep throat as a one hundred thirty pound woman. How could this be? You see it on ibuprofen labels about the maximum amount that you should take in a day or the suggested dosage. Imagine the difference in a large person taking two, two hundred milligrams tablets versus a small person taking the same. It is apparent that the view of our institutional professionals is that the population is just stupid and not able to calculate amounts based on size.
If you take all of the nutrient requirements for vitamins and minerals as in a multiple vitamin, a small persons needs may be met but a large person will not have their needs met at all. If you can find a multiple vitamin that is dependent on the size of the person let me know. Of course there are children’s vitamins versus adults but the distinction stops there.
It seems that small people tend to live longer than large people. It has always been assumed that obesity plays some factor in how this plays out in health. However, given ideal body weights it appears there does not seem to be a large statistical difference in small people versus large people. However, if you think about the aged we know, it is apparent that there is some advantage to being small. Could this advantage be as simple as the stated requirements and guidelines for health favor small people? I suspect that this is somewhat the case.
If we look at vitamin D, even our friends at Grass Roots Health have fallen into the trap that one size fits all in the suggestion about how much is required to move your serum level. You see it nowhere in the institutional literature about the typical amount of a nutrient per pound of body weight. Only in some nutritionist guidelines will you find it. Of course the statement about the need to maintain the correct serum level of vitamin D and not the amount of vitamin D that you take is correct. However, the confusion over how much you need as you cannot test everyday as practical matter is a significant need in the population. This is true for vitamins and minerals.
In the government guidelines for nutrients you find this confusion of one size fits all in their information on the daily required intake: Dietary Fact Sheets If the government is giving you absolute minimums, you would think that a small person would have somewhat of an advantage over a large person. If the information is based on a one hundred forty pound person, a two hundred fifty pound person does not have a chance of meeting their daily requirements.
Rule of thumb for vitamin D: Forty IU of D3 per pound of body weight per day and then test to maintain a serum level of 25(OH)D between 40 to 80 ng/ml. Does anyone really believe that they are the average of the population? – Pandemic Survivor
Here are a couple of links if you are interested:
Height, body size, and longevity: is smaller better for the human body?
As a result of this page I made the following web page
Hypothesis: Smaller people may live longer due to more benefit from supplements and drugs
Interesting to note
1) Contrary to US RDA, vets provide supplements and drugs based on the animal weight.
2) Nurses provide drugs to infants based on body weight, but apparently do not vary the dose based on adult weight.
web page @ http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=3748