RDAs are opinions, not science. They are
guesses based on averages, which in many cases do not apply at all to any given individual.
The only way that RDAs are even remotely useful is if one is eating a standard diet where many vitamins and minerals are of lesser bioavailability as they are in the form of meat. In terms of vitamin C, there's a reason why meat eaters don't get scurvy, which is that meat contains other compounds that make the need for exogenous vitamin C much less necessary.
That is precisely why RDAs are mostly nonsense. Absolute values for micronutrients mean very little when you don't account for the food substrate, cofactors, an individual's overall health, what a person weighs, what their body composition is, etc.
Somehow, humans (the Homo genus, to be exact), got away without RDAs for millions of years. And they ate lots of meat.
> I hope beef liver is in your daily diet, otherwise you're also going to come up short in a bunch of other micros.
No, humans do not have to eat organ meat. There is no evidence for this. Skeletal muscle and fatty tissues, particularly that from large ruminant animals, provide everything that a human body needs to function optimally.
> If you're also strength training you also need to go above the RDA for certain micros (e.g, Vit C, B vitamins, Calcium, ...) making it even harder.
The human body does not contain an RDA meter. As I already discussed, RDA is an opinion that only makes sense when a certain set of vitamins and minerals are viewed in isolation. The RDA and RDI hypotheses fall apart when all the other variables of human diet and health come into play.
> This diet is pure pseudoscience.
Yeah... I guess stable isotope data is pseudoscience as well, but RDA is rock solid. Right.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13011
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-41033-3#ref-CR9