Our Take on the Updated Dietary Guidelines: Let’s Look at the Science (or Lack Thereof)

If you feel like your social media has been flooded with discourse about the new dietary guidelines, and the upside-down pyramid that went with them, you are not alone. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans were updated (as they are every five years) and published by the USDA a few weeks ago on January 7th. These guidelines are  established to provide science based, evidence based recommendations to promote health and help individuals meet nutrient needs.  

Not only do the recently updated guidelines seem to veer away from science based practices, they also lean far into unrealistic, ableist, and unnecessarily restrictive recommendations. There are a few things in particular that stood out to us as unhelpful, problematic, and not based in the science that is supposed to inform them. A few of our dietitians review them here: 

The MyPlate model is gone and replaced with an inverted pyramid.

The introduction of the new dietary guideline pyramid may be bringing more confusion than it is clear and helpful recommendations. The traditional food pyramid, which has been phased out for nearly 10 years, posed its own challenge with the question being raised around effectiveness. Introducing an inverted pyramid risks this same issue of confusion and also reinforces hierarchical views of “good” and “bad” foods, without any real guidance around what a balanced meal looks like.

The plate model offered a more intuitive and flexible visual that reflected how people actually eat with an emphasis on balance rather than restriction/moralization of food – Courtney

The saturated fat recommendations are conflicting.

The new dietary guideline pyramid focuses on saturated fat from animal sources highlighting foods like beef, whole poultry, milk, cheese and other dairy products at the top, which suggests they should be consumed more than the foods closer to the middle and bottom, where foods like  avocado, olive oil, fish and nuts take a much smaller place. 

Along with the emphasis on meat, poultry, eggs and full fat dairy at the center of the diet, they recommend cooking with butter, olive oil and beef tallow. There is strong evidence that high intakes of saturated fats are correlated (among many other factors) with increased LDL cholesterol and increased risk for cardiovascular disease, whereas polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats from plant sources support heart health. Animal based foods also tend to be more expensive, ignoring socioeconomic barriers to following their recommendations.

Lastly, the written recommendations on healthy fats contradict what is shown in the pyramid. They recommend saturated fat not exceed 10% of total daily calories, however in practice, if someone were to consume the amount of animal products being suggested, they would easily exceed that 10% which doesn’t make sense and make these guidelines difficult to follow. – Haley 

There is a huge, unnecessary, emphasis on protein.

While protein plays an important role in health, emphasizing it as the primary focus of an inverted food pyramid can be misleading. Most Americans already meet—and often exceed—protein needs, consuming an estimated 20–50% more than recommended, largely driven by diet trends and gym culture, making protein deficiency a relatively uncommon concern. Nutrition adequacy is not achieved through protein alone; our bodies function best when foods are eaten together, with carbohydrates providing essential fuel and fiber—nutrients many Americans are already falling short on.

Elevating protein as the “most important” food group can also reinforce food perfectionism, stigmatize individuals with limited access to protein-dense foods, and marginalize cultural dietary patterns that support health without centering protein in this way. – Jackie

Carbohydrates are at the bottom of the pyramid.

Carbohydrates play a critical role in our diets by serving as the body’s primary and most efficient source of energy, particularly for the brain and nervous system. Sources such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains also provide essential nutrients including fiber, B vitamins, antioxidants, and minerals that support digestive health, cardiovascular function, and metabolic regulation. Dietary fiber is especially important, as it promotes gastrointestinal health, helps regulate blood glucose and cholesterol levels, supports a healthy gut microbiome, and contributes to satiety and satisfaction.

Despite these well-established benefits, the vast majority of Americans struggle to get adequate fiber each day. Severely limiting carbohydrates only makes this more difficult by reducing intake of the primary foods that supply fiber. Inadequate fiber consumption is associated with increased risk of a variety of health conditions. Optimal carbohydrate consumption is typically somewhere between 45-65% of total daily intake and chronic under consumption may also lead to fatigue, impaired concentration, nutrient deficiencies, and reduced dietary sustainability over time. Focusing on the type and diversity of carbohydrate sources—rather than their elimination—supports long-term health by addressing both energy needs and adequate intake of critical nutrients. – Lauren

The takeaway message is “eat real food”- what does this even mean?

While the message to eat “real” food seems simple, it ignores the complexity of what’s being asked of the American people. The recommendation, while also vague and confusing, is a disheartening shift away from health equity. It disregards essential factors for actually being able to implement the guidelines individually, such as: food access, socioeconomic status, cultural foods, disability, food affordability, and labor/time. 

The new guidelines specify that “added sugars are not part of eating whole foods,” encouraging people to avoid them entirely. This is a completely unrealistic and ableist perspective that not only reeks of privilege, but a total disconnect from the daily life experience of the typical person. It’s a recommendation that will now be even harder for folks with the least food security to adhere to, following recent reductions in SNAP funding. Not to mention that complete avoidance of added sugars is unnecessarily restrictive and villainizing of more accessible and joyful foods. It doesn’t work to ask folks to steer clear of processed foods when the administration is not only ignoring systemic and structural oppression that further drives reliance on these foods, but actively adding to the harm.

Processed foods that yes, include added sugars, offer a variety of health benefits that are ignored with these new dietary guidelines. Processed foods offer access to improved food safety, extended shelf life, increased convenience and accessibility; they can even reduce food waste. Processed foods increase access to nutrient availability through fortification processes that add vitamins and minerals to foods that are otherwise lacking. They fight against nutrient deficiencies. They can even support more sensitive stomachs by making foods more easily digestible. Processed foods are not anti-health; they are often a way to more easily access health. – Emily

---

We recommend approaching these guidelines the way that any generalized nutrition advice should be approached: ask yourself, does this recommendation feel realistic, approachable, and accessible? Does it feel non- restrictive of nutrients that I know I will feel deprived of without? Could I follow this without it really disrupting my life and relationship with food? 

We’re willing to bet that for most Americans, the answer to these questions right now is no. This is a huge shame because these guidelines are supposed to be meant for us. Recommendations that the majority of Americans can’t follow (and don’t need to follow to be healthy) are not recommendations that we support. If accessible, seek supportive and individualized nutrition guidance from a non-diet dietitian!