Chromium
Intake model: one reported food record, food date unconfirmed. References: man aged 19–30. How to read the references.
Clarify. Dietary quantity is unknown, and chromium essentiality and its retained US AI have material evidence uncertainty; this is not a deficiency flag.
Linked eating record; usual intake and clinical status unestablished · Reviewed 2026-10-10
Intake confidence: Unknown. Quantity confidence: Unknown. Body status: Unassessed.
FDA values describe food labels.
Chromium
Unknown — no food estimate available.
| Recommended intake | Upper reference | Food label reference |
|---|---|---|
| 35 µg (AI) US National Academies · Food and oral supplements | Not established US National Academies · Food and oral supplements | 35 µg (DV) FDA · Adults and children 4+ |
Other authority and form-specific references
- Not established
EFSA · No AR, PRI or AI judged appropriate for chromium in healthy peopleUS 35 µg AI remains the named primary reference. Unknown chromium composition is not a clinical deficiency diagnosis; essentiality is disputed.
Food contributions and uncertainty
None of the recorded food contributions is quantified. Unknown intake does not mean zero intake.
Unquantified: Trader Joe's European style organic plain nonfat yogurt; Trader Joe's Organic raw almonds; Raw English walnuts; Banana; Raspberries; Navel orange; Large beefsteak tomato; Hass avocado; Red bell pepper; Trader Joe's Organic basmati rice frozen; RT RT roast chicken meat and skin; RT RT chimichurri; Crown Prince Natural Skinless boneless sardines in olive oil.
Why this reference deserves an explicit uncertainty label
The US system retains an AI of 35 µg/day for men aged 19–30, with no established UL. However, chromium's status differs from that of clearly essential minerals. NIH notes that the US reference was set in 2001 and has not been reevaluated by the Food and Nutrition Board. Later research questions whether chromium meets the criteria for an essential nutrient. NIH chromium fact sheet
In its 2014 scientific opinion, EFSA found no convincing evidence that chromium is essential and considered setting dietary reference values inappropriate. This is a substantive disagreement about the evidence, rather than two competing optimal doses. The website therefore preserves the US AI for transparent reference consistency while displaying its limited evidential footing. EFSA chromium reference opinion
What the food log can establish
Chromium is unquantified across every food in the current catalog. The attention flag is Clarify, referring to a database and reference-evidence gap, not a likely deficiency. It would be misleading to compare an invented zero intake with 35 µg and prescribe the difference.
Food chromium is difficult to measure reliably and can be affected by contamination during processing and analysis. The current diet should not acquire new foods merely to optimize an unreliable chromium column. NIH food-source limitations
Supplement research does not establish a dietary requirement
A randomized, double-blind study in 19 healthy older adults tested 1,000 µg/day chromium picolinate for eight weeks. It found no significant improvement in insulin sensitivity, serum lipids or body composition. The small and older population limits inference, but it provides direct counterevidence to broad claims that chromium supplements reliably improve body composition in healthy people. Amato et al., 2000
An earlier trial in 180 people treated for type 2 diabetes reported improvements in glucose and insulin measures with pharmacological chromium doses. That population and intervention address a different question from ordinary nutrition in a person without a reported diabetes diagnosis. Positive disease-treatment results do not resolve chromium essentiality or establish an athletic benefit. Anderson et al., 1997
The interpretation is deliberately restrained: pharmacological effects, if present in selected circumstances, do not make a missing dietary total evidence of deficiency. These study doses are descriptions of experiments rather than a proposed regimen.
What would change the decision
No chromium supplement was reported. The practical default is to keep varied, enjoyable foods and retain this field as unknown until credible composition evidence is available. A marketed chromium-containing product would require a separate review of purpose, dose, study population and interactions. No UL was set because data were insufficient; that does not prove high-dose safety. NIH excess-intake and medication sections