Minor counterpoint.

I subscribe to Bruce Ames' 'triage theory' (nutrients get used preferentially for what's needed right now, not for longer term needs).

Josh Rabinowitz (the metabolomics researcher) seems to be saying the same thing with his 'linear flow' consumption model.

Minimum Daily Requirements (MDRs) are set to prevent deficiency diseases; there's been little done to analyze micronutrients and chronic conditions. For instance, there's been very little on K2 and soft tissue calcification, somewhat more on K2 and osteocalcin.

I've seen some studies showing that creatine monohydrate is useful in reducing sarcopenia in elders - and at least one on Glycine and N-acetylcysteine (GlyNAC) supplementation to reverse mitochondrial dysfunction and glutathione deficiency in elders.

Then some people are poor methylators, so it's important to take things like B12, B6, and folate in methylated form.

Agreed that the supplement industry needs more policing. For instance, there's one form of magnesium that's particularly poorly absorbed (oxide). Look at pretty much any multivitamin that includes magnesium and you'll see it in that form. Yeah, it's probably 300% the MDR - but it's not doing you any good, cause it's just going on through.

TL;DR: it seems to depend on the individual, their life stage, and the particular micronutrient.