The Updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans

This January, the USDA and the HHS released the updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans. While the release of the new guidelines always generates some buzz, the release of these newest guidelines garnered unprecedented headlines. Featuring an upside-down pyramid and the words “Eat Real Food”, many people are celebrating the overthrow of the influence of the food industry on our governmental nutrition recommendations. But is that what the new guidelines reflect? Here we break down the good, the bad, and the utterly disingenuous. 

What are the Dietary Guidelines for Americans?

The first edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) came out in 1980. They included what to eat and drink to promote health, reduce the risk of chronic disease, and meet nutrient needs. They are not, nor have they ever been, meant to treat chronic diseases or reflect guidelines for medical nutrition therapy. The DGA comes out every five years in a joint publication by the USDA and HHS. Importantly, they must be based on a preponderance of scientific evidence and nutritional knowledge. 

Why are the DGA Important?

In the pseudoscience nutrition world, the DGA is notoriously blamed for the poor health of Americans. The rhetoric follows that Americans are sick with many chronic diseases; thus, the guidelines we have been told to follow are causing our collective poor health. The problem with this hypothesis is that almost nobody actually follows the DGA. 90% of Americans do not follow the DGA (1). So, how can we blame guidelines that nobody follows in the first place?

Given this, one might wonder why the guidelines matter. They matter because they are used for federal nutrition programs, including SNAP, WIC, and school lunch programs.  They are also used to influence new policies. 

What’s New in the Updated DGA?

The updated guidelines feature an inverted pyramid; foods at the top of the pyramid are to be emphasized, and foods at the bottom are to be minimized. Foods at the top of this pyramid are steak, cheese, chicken, whole milk, broccoli, and carrots (in other words, animal foods and vegetables). The featured foods in the middle of the pyramid include eggs, shrimp, butter, avocados, berries, and grapes (in other words, more animal foods and fruit). And at the bottom of the pyramid, foods to eat minimally, we see whole grains, including bread and oats. 

This inverted pyramid is a clear throwback to the old food pyramid that featured bread and grains at the base. This pyramid is often discussed in the pseudoscience nutrition world as the source of all of our chronic health woes. What always seems forgotten in these belabored rants is that the old food pyramid hasn’t been used since 2005. It is comical that charlatans in the nutrition world continue to berate a visual representation of guidelines that are over 20 years old. 

In 2005, the guidelines used a different kind of pyramid (called MyPyramid) that used vertical, rather than horizontal food categories, and included exercise as part of the pyramid, reflecting the importance of physical activity. Then in 2011, the pyramid shape was altogether scrapped and replaced with a plate (called MyPlate) that broke down the plate into sections. Half of the plate was fruit and vegetables, ~¼ was grains, ~¼ was protein foods, and included a cup of dairy. MyPlate has been used ever since (i.e., for over 15 years). The plate visual is used by many other Western nations for their guidelines. For example, the Canadian dietary guidelines image (my personal favorite) is a plate with photos of actual foods. A beautiful, easy-to-understand image. 

That said, it’s odd that we are throwing back to reference something that hasn’t been used in so long. It’s hard to say whether the developers of these new 2026 guidelines were simply ignorant of the fact that we’ve been using MyPlate for 15 years, or if they're hoping the American people are ignorant so they can paint the picture that best suits their narrative. 

Beyond the visual representation, what actually changed in the updated dietary guidelines, and what has stayed the same?

Protein Recommendations

This is probably the biggest quantitative change between the previous and updated guidelines. In the previous DGA from 2020, protein recommendations reflected the RDA of protein (0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight). They also provided ounce equivalents per day and as a percentage of total calories in the diet (10-35%).  The updated DGA provided a quantitative recommendation of 1.2-1.6 g/kg per day. This is significantly higher than the previous recommendation and more closely reflects what Americans already eat. Americans eat about 1.1-1.3g/kg/day (2). Thus, it’s odd that on the website for the DGA they state, “we are ending the war on protein.” What war on protein? Nutrition practitioners, nutrition scientists, and nutrition providers in public policy have never recommended reducing protein. If anything, it is the single macronutrient that we put on a pedestal. It is the only macronutrient that we supplement in powder form, which we add to countless foods for the sole purpose of increasing intake. Suggesting that there is a “war on protein” is asinine. 

The higher protein recommendation of the updated guidelines reflects some of the newer research that suggests that higher protein intake can be beneficial. While most people do not need and will not benefit from the higher end of this range (1.6g/kg), eating around 1.2 g/kg is safe for healthy people and may provide some benefit if they are increasing from closer to the RDA of 0.8g/kg. 

Beyond quantitative recommendations, the 2020 DGA recommended getting protein from a variety of sources, including both animal and plant sources, with particular emphasis on the benefits of eating more plant-based protein (e.g., fiber). The new guidelines say to include a variety of plant-based sources if you read through the text, but if you fail to read the fine print and just look at the visual representation, you are bombarded by the big chicken and massive steak. There’s not a chickpea or edamame bean in sight. 

Fruit and Vegetable Recommendations

The 2020 guidelines clearly recommended that half of our plate be fruits and vegetables. More specifically, the 2020 DGA recommended 3-5 servings of fruit and vegetables per day. The updated DGA recommends 3 servings of vegetables per day and 2 servings of fruit per day. Thus, the recommendations are very similar. Both sets of DGAs recommended a wide variety of fruit and veg options. 

Grain Recommendations

Here’s where it starts getting interesting. The 2020 guidelines recommended 6-ounce equivalents of grains per day, with at least half of those coming from whole grains. The updated DGA recommends 2-4 servings of whole grains per day (a serving is 1-ounce equivalent). They did not list a recommendation for refined grains; they just said they should be reduced. Thus, the recommendation for whole grains is very similar: the old DGA recommended at least 3 servings, and the updated DGA recommends 2-4 servings. It’s not clear how that could be translated into the very bottom tip of the inverted pyramid in the new guideline’s image. Fruits are right in the middle of the new pyramid, and the recommendation for fruits is less than the recommendation for whole grains. This is a completely mixed message. 

Dairy Recommendations

The 2020 guidelines recommended 3 servings per day of fat-free or low-fat dairy or fortified soy alternatives. The updated DGA recommends the same number of dairy servings, but recommends full-fat versions. They do not mention dairy-free alternatives. This is the first recommendation of the updated DGA that completely misses the mark. Dairy products are very nutrient-dense (albeit not nutritionally unique). However, dairy products are also rich in saturated fats, which at high intakes increase the risk of cardiometabolic diseases. Thus, recommending low fat or fat free dairy allows for the consumption of the many nutrients in dairy while reducing overall intake of saturated fat. 

There is literally no reason (at least none based on the scientific literature) to adjust the low/non-fat dairy recommendation to a full-fat dairy recommendation. The only explanation that seems plausible to me is that RFK Jr. and his team who created these guidelines are hoping that Americans are thickheaded enough to think that “whole” milk (which means full-fat) is the same as “raw” milk. Raw milk has been glorified in recent months by RFK Jr. and drones of pseudoscience nutrition grifters. There is absolutely no documented benefit to raw milk over pasteurized (which simply means heated to kill pathogenic bacteria), and there is substantial risk of raw milk consumption. Despite exalting raw milk, it seems that the team that created these guidelines knows that consumption of raw milk is dangerous, so any mention of raw milk was left out of the recommendations. Perhaps to avoid open recognition of their Dunning-Kruger, they now praise whole milk, hoping that Americans won’t catch on. 

The other issue with the dairy update is the omission of dairy free alternatives. Many people cannot consume dairy and many others choose not to consume dairy. There are countless dairy free alternatives on the market, and they vary widely in their nutritional value. Some of them, like fortified soy or pea milks, are very nutritionally similar to dairy products, whereas others, like rice milk and almond milk, are not as nutritionally similar to dairy. It behooves the public to have that information so that a nutritionally similar swap can be made. 

Saturated Fat Recommendations

The actual written recommendation for saturated fat of less than 10% of total calories from saturated fat, is unchanged between the 2020 guidelines and the updated guidelines. This recommendation is based on extensive evidence which shows that there is a critical threshold at which saturated fat increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. That threshold is around 10%; thus, keeping intake below 10% of total calories is warranted for most people (some people should keep their intake even lower, but as mentioned, these are general guidelines). 

However, while the written guidelines are unchanged, the recommendations to eat full fat dairy and to cook with fats including butter and beef tallow do not seem to mirror that recommendation. In fact, it is impossible to actually follow these guidelines as written. Even if one were to include some olive oil (also included in the new guidelines as a good fat to cook with), if you choose some of the proteins listed at the top of the food pyramid (even a leaner cut of meat), include their recommended 3 servings a day of full-fat dairy, and use even one serving of butter or beef tallow, you easily surpass the 10% of total calories from saturated fat. It seems as if the people who put together the actual quantitative nutrition recommendations and the people who made the visuals and the food examples were two different sets of people with two remarkably different levels of nutrition literacy. 

Added Sugar and Sodium Recommendations

The recommendation for added sugars and sodium was unchanged between the 2020 guidelines and the updated guidelines. Both sets of guidelines recommend limiting added sugar to less than 10% of total calories. Both sets of guidelines recommend limiting sodium to less than 2300mg per day. 

What is odd about this is the “Eat Real Food” focus of the updated guidelines. Certainly, any and all nutrition professionals would agree that we should eat more whole foods (ideally more plant foods). Most of our added sugars and sodium come from ultra processed foods. Since the updated guidelines seem to give the impression that the goal is to reduce ultra-processed foods, it seems interesting that these nutrients that come primarily from ultra-processed foods are unchanged. Perhaps the issue is that the previous guidelines also had the goal of reducing intake of processed foods, so adjusting these guidelines was unnecessary. 

Alcohol Recommendations

The recommendations regarding alcohol are startling. The 2020 guidelines recommended limiting alcoholic beverages to 2 drinks or less per day for men and 1 drink or less per day for women: a recommendation that one could argue is already too high. Alcohol is, after all, classified by the WHO as a Group I carcinogen. The new guidelines are not so strict. They removed the quantitative recommendation and just said “consume less alcohol for better overall health.” For an HHS Secretary who seemed to make his mark advocating for the ousting of big food corporations, this change in the recommendation is a massive win for the alcohol industry. There is nothing about this recommendation that will make Americans healthy again.

Overall Thoughts

As mentioned, there are not all that many differences between the 2020 guidelines and the new update. The major differences are the increased protein recommendation (this is fine, but what most people are already doing anyways), the emphasis on foods rich in saturated fat (this is imbecilic and the result of ideology, not scientific evidence), and the lack of specificity on the alcohol recommendation (literally the only reason for this would be to support the alcohol industry). 

There are many embarrassing errors within the new guidelines. For example, they recommend cooking with sources of “essential fats” like olive oil, butter, and beef tallow. Yet, none of these are rich sources (or even decent sources) of essential fats. In nutrition science, the word “essential” has a very specific meaning. It means a compound that the body cannot make on its own, so we must get it in the food supply. Only two fatty acids are essential and they are alpha linolenic acid and linolelic acid. They are found in foods like fatty fish, nuts, and seeds (think fish oil, seed oils, vegetable oils). It appears that whoever wrote these guidelines didn’t understand what “essential fats” means, so perhaps, they have never taken Nutrition 101. 

The support of the guidelines that I’ve heard from other nutrition professionals is that the idea to “eat real food” is a good one. It is. It would be great if we all reduced our intake of highly processed foods that are energy dense, hyperpalatable, and rich in sodium, added sugars, and saturated fat, and instead, replaced those foods with vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. We would be much healthier as a country if we did that. But the fact is that making that dietary change is not as simple as personal choice. Our dietary choices are the result of personal choice, yes, but also our socioeconomic status, our geographic location, and our life circumstances. Some people can’t afford fresh foods that can spoil. Some people literally have no access to them because they live in food deserts. Some people simply don’t have the time to cook nutritious meals. Some people don’t know how to cook nutritious meals. There are many factors that go into the foods we buy and eat. To help Americans “eat real food” requires policy change and other systemic changes to our food system beyond just personal choice. To leave this out of the conversation is to ignore a substantial piece of the puzzle. 

Finally, as mentioned, RFK Jr. has talked at length about the exploitative involvement of the food industry in the previous dietary guidelines. It’s not an unfair critique and we should get all funding from the food industry out of government decisions. The problem is, RFK Jr.’s critique seems to only go as far as the food industries that he doesn’t like. The team that worked on these guidelines is heavily funded by the beef and dairy industry, making his criticism highly hypocritical. Not to mention that the win for beef and dairy is strikingly obvious from the inverted pyramid, with meat and dairy taking up an entire third of the pyramid. 

Will the guidelines make Americans healthy again? Most certainly not. For those in the nutrition sciences, this step back is disappointing and extremely embarrassing. I guess for once, it’s fortunate that nobody really follows these guidelines to begin with. 

1. Krebs-Smith, S. M., Guenther, P. M., Subar, A. F., Kirkpatrick, S. I., & Dodd, K. W. (2010). Americans do not meet federal dietary recommendations. The Journal of nutrition, 140(10), 1832–1838. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.110.124826
2. Fulgoni V. L., 3rd (2008). Current protein intake in America: analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2004. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 87(5), 1554S–1557S. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/87.5.1554S.