>I'd love for that to be true, but the research I linked to says otherwise. Source 1 is not "research." It is case reporting. Source 2: While I admit I didn't

>I'd love for that to be true, but the research I linked to says otherwise. Source 1 is not "research." It is case reporting. Source 2: While I admit I didn't read the whole thing (merely quickly went through the intro and conclusion plus a couple of other key paragraphs), it sounded like they were talking about setting levels of supplementation beyond normal dietary intake, right? If correct, that's at 75mg plus normal Japanese intake (which is higher than standard US intake, I believe). I'm happy to be corrected if I misunderstood something in my quick skimming. Plus, as is the case with most of these guidelines, especially with initial stabs at setting limits, they acknowledge that this threshold they set is conservative. The real best guess at a safe level would be higher--even according to them--because it is their job to be artificially conservative.