The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans were recently released, and whether you love them, hate them, or haven’t thought much about them, they matter more than most of us realize.
First, I’d like to offer a little grounding. The Dietary Guidelines are not meant to be a personalized nutrition plan. They’re not telling you exactly what to eat. Their job, per the USDA and HHS, is to reflect the best available nutrition science and use it to shape policy, education, training, public health messaging, and nutrition guidance. They shape school lunches, hospital food, SNAP policies, how health professionals are trained, and how people are educated. These guidelines influence the environment we eat in, not just our plates.
That’s an important distinction, and it’s one we often forget when we argue about them like they’re a meal plan.
These guidelines are updated every five years, and every cycle comes with debate, lobbying, hand-wringing, and at least one controversial nutrition identity crisis. Each new pyramid or plate reminds us that science evolves. Culture shifts. The food system changes. Each version is a snapshot of where evidence, politics, and public health priorities collide at that moment in time.
With this framing in mind, I’d like to highlight a few of things that stood out to me as a workforce health promotion expert and Wellness Coach. This is just my perspective, and I truly welcome some healthy debate! I love to dig into the science, research and policy.
I’ll start where I usually do: the 10% I genuinely agree with or like.
Fat has a seat at the table again.
I’m happy to see the pendulum continuing to swing away from the “fat is bad, carbs are harmless” era. From a public health perspective, the low-fat messaging of the 80s and 90s was very well-intentioned but painfully oversimplified. In general, Americans still consume too much total fat, and cardiovascular disease remains on the rise . But we missed the nuance when we started to hype “low fat” or “fat free” everything. Fat is essential.
In our effort to warn against too much saturated fat, we quietly replaced it with refined carbohydrates, added sugars, and more sodium; creating a metabolic mess that made diabetes, insulin resistance, and heart disease more complicated, not less.
I’m glad the guidelines are no longer demonizing fat outright. Unsaturated fats, olive oil (my forever favorite), nuts, seeds, avocado, omega-3–rich foods, deserve their redemption song. The science has been solid here for years.
Where I get twitchy is the overemphasis on whole milk, red meat, and daily dairy consumption. You can get high-quality fats and protein without these specific foods. Red meat and full-fat dairy are not nutritional villains, but moderation still matters. This is where the guidelines lose some precision, and yes, it smells faintly of lobbying.
The importance of protein is being recognized, but let’s not pretend we’re deficient.
The new guidelines give a nod to protein, and increase the recommendation to 1.2–1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day. I’ve often recommended that people pay special attention to protein and encourage the inclusion of protein at meals. After all, protein is essential and offers so many health benefits!
I’ve also noted that for older adults, increasing protein matters. Muscle loss with aging is real, under-addressed, and absolutely tied to protein intake and resistance training. For highly active individuals, protein needs can be higher. On that, I’m aligned with the science.
But, here is where I have very mixed feelings about the new recommendations. The average American already meets, and often exceeds, basic protein needs. Broadly raising protein targets for everyone feels arbitrary. The conversation should focus less on protein quantity and more on better protein sources; those that are both healthy and environmentally sustainable. Additionally, moderate amounts of meat and dairy for those who choose them, can be good protein sources, but specifically naming dairy as a daily recommendation, feels more like politics than nutrition science.
Personally, I’d like to see a bigger nod to fiber versus protein. Fiber is an area where more Americans are actually falling short.
We took a step forward on ultra-processed foods, but were a definition short.
An area I applaud is that the guidelines emphasize whole foods and call out ultra-processed foods and added sugar. This is overdue. Like fat decades ago, we consume far too much of them, and the evidence linking high intake to poorer cardiometabolic, gut, and mental health continues to grow. Research coming out of has been clear: this isn’t just about weight, it’s about inflammation, metabolic disruption, and overall resilience.
But here’s the problem. We’ve been down this road before. Flagging something as harmful and telling people to avoid it without clearly defining it or offering usable guidance creates confusion, not action. If we’re going to talk about ultra-processed foods, we need to be more precise about what they are, why they matter, and how people can realistically reduce them within the constraints of modern life. We also need to provide guidance that recognizes that access to fresh foods and affordability remain a challenge for many. We risk repeating the fat fiasco—oversimplify, overcorrecting, and having to clean up the mess later.
We took a step back on Alcohol.
On this topic, I’m having a harder time finding the 10 percent I like. On the surface, the guidelines’ language around alcohol sounds reasonable– consume less alcohol. Who could argue with that?
But if you read closely and compare it to previous recommendations, they’ve quietly stepped back from clearer thresholds, and that’s counterproductive.
From a nutrition standpoint, alcohol has zero upside. The evidence is clear. From a broader health perspective, data shows that alcohol is associated with increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, and cognitive decline. Those risks rise with dose, duration, age, and sex. This isn’t controversial science, it’s well-documented.
While alcohol is not a not a nutritional asset, it can play a role in our social and emotional health. Connection, celebration, and stress reduction can be very positive side effects of moderate alcohol consumption. These benefits are real, and that’s why I often enjoy a nice cocktail while dining out. But, these are not nutritional benefits. And they diminish quickly as intake increases. That’s why thresholds matter. Not because they’re perfect, but because they help people benchmark behavior and recognize risk before things slide sideways.
Removing clearer guidance gives too much wiggle room with a substance that can be habit-forming and disproportionately harmful at higher doses. Alcohol-related harm is a public health issue. Ignoring that nuance doesn’t make it go away, it just makes it harder to spot and address.
The old recommendations to limit alcohol to one per day for women and two for men are somewhat arbitrary. Alcohol effects people differently. But, we need to start somewhere, and highlight that with alcohol, dose matters. We also need to recognize that men and women metabolize alcohol differently.
Not completely crazy, but lazy.
Taken as a whole, I don’t think these guidelines are “crazy.” I do think they’re a bit lazy. They omit some meaningful scientific rationale, oversimplify complex topics, have pulled back on nuance, and feel carefully worded to avoid alienating powerful industries.
They make progress on ultra-processed foods and added sugars. They stop vilifying fat. They nod toward protein needs in aging populations. All are good steps. But without clearer definitions, stronger evidence framing, and more practical direction, their ability to drive meaningful policy, education and health behavior change is limited.
And that’s the point. These guidelines shape systems. We should not be lazy. (There’s my subtle nod to adding some physical movement to the inverted pyramid too!)
Where do we go from here?
You don’t need to overhaul your diet because new guidelines came out. Instead, try this:
- Pay attention to where your fats come from this week.
- Add more unsaturated fats from whole food
- Notice how much of your diet comes from ultra-processed foods, not with guilt, just curiosity.
- Take an honest look at alcohol as a risk–benefit calculation, not a moral issue.
- If protein is a focus, think quality and distribution across the day, not just quantity.
Lastly, talk about it. Healthy debate is not a threat to good nutrition; it’s how we make sense of it! More than anything, I like that nutrition is in the headlines and people are thinking about small changes they can make within their own diets.
If you want help sorting through what actually matters for your life, habits, and health goals, reach out. This stuff is complicated, and working through it together is usually where the best insights land.
Carolyn Kontos, MS, ACC, Leadership and Wellness Coach, offers Wellness & Nutrition Coaching at the JCC through her Eat Well Programs. For more information, contact Carolyn at [email protected]
