If you've been anywhere near social media in the last few weeks, you've seen the absolute circus surrounding the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs). Depending on which talking head you follow, these guidelines are either a "return to real science," a catastrophic departure from evidence, or the government finally admitting they've been lying to you for decades.
Spoiler: it's more complicated than any of those takes, and most of the loudest voices haven't read past the inverted food pyramid graphic.
So I dug into the actual document, cross-referenced it with MASS's breakdown by Eric Helms, and here's where things stand — the good, the bad, and the genuinely baffling.
WTF Are the Dietary Guidelines, and Why Should You Care?
The DGAs serve two jobs. One: public-facing nutrition guidance — think the old Food Pyramid from 1992 or the MyPlate graphic. Two: they're a policy document. They dictate what goes into school lunch trays, what WIC packages contain, what SNAP benefits cover, and how hospitals set baseline nutrition standards.
So even if you personally never read them (and statistically, you don't), they affect millions of Americans who rely on federal food programs. This is where the stakes get real.
While they may not dictate what you put in your shopping cart, they dictate what goes onto a school lunch tray or into a WIC package. That's why this matters.
The Process Problem (This Is the Part That Should Piss You Off)
For over 30 years, the DGAs have been developed using a well-established process. An independent panel of scientists — the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) — conducts systematic reviews, meets in publicly livestreamed forums, and produces a massive evidence report. For this cycle, that report was 421 pages of publicly available, peer-reviewed guidance.
Here's where things went sideways. The current administration created a second committee — "The Scientific Foundation for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans" — that produced a competing 90-page report. This second committee arrived at different conclusions on protein, dairy fats, and other key issues. And the federal agencies chose to favor this report over the DGAC's.
How the 2025 DGAs Were Actually Made
Professor Cristina Palacios, who served on the DGAC, said the second committee's report was "created by a group of people who were not vetted in the usual way" — with no public input, no publicly available protocol, and unclear peer review. That's a red flag the size of a barn.
This isn't about left vs. right politics. This is about whether nutrition policy should be grounded in transparent, evidence-based processes or whether we're cool with a less-accountable group overriding the scientists who've done this work for three decades.
What Actually Changed (and What Didn't)
Here's the thing that gets lost in the social media firestorm: most of the core advice didn't change. The new guidelines still recommend eating appropriate calories for energy balance, staying hydrated, limiting added sugars, and consuming 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per day. The website even redirected from myplate.gov to realfood.gov — with the bold claim that "for decades we've been misled." But the actual written recommendations? Boringly similar to the previous version.
The meaningful changes come down to four areas. Here's my honest take on each one:
Protein: The One Actual Win
The new recommendations of 1.2–1.6g of protein per kilogram of body weight per day are a real upgrade. For a 180-lb person, that's roughly 98–131g of protein daily. Anyone in the strength training space has known for a long time that higher protein intakes help with satiety, body composition, lean mass retention, and potentially reducing sarcopenia and osteopenia as we age.
Worth noting: the RDA itself didn't change. The DGAs just decoupled from it for the first time, which is a break from historical precedent. That's a procedural concern, but the recommendation itself? Solid.
The Fat Math Doesn't Add Up
This is where the new guidelines start to eat themselves. The DGAs now say "healthy fats" include those found in meat, poultry, eggs, and full-fat dairy. They explicitly recommend cooking with butter and beef tallow. Sounds great if you're in the ancestral eating camp, right?
Except the guidelines also still say to keep saturated fat under 10% of total daily calories. Do the math on a 2,000-calorie diet and you'll see the problem immediately:
The Saturated Fat Tightrope
On top of this, the guidelines now caution against seed and nut oils over oxidation and inflammation concerns. The problem? Most of the relevant human research shows these fats have neutral to positive health outcomes at the population level. That recommendation runs counter to the available evidence.
"Highly Processed" — A Term With No Definition
I'm all for eating less junk. But the new guidelines use the term "highly processed" without giving it a legal or scientific definition. They skipped over the established (if debated) NOVA classification for "ultra-processed foods" and landed on a vaguer term that means... whatever you want it to mean.
And that's a problem for policy. If you're a school district trying to comply with these guidelines, does whey protein count as "highly processed"? What about canned beans? Whole grain bread? Low-fat yogurt? All of these are processed to some degree, and many of them are nutrient-dense, affordable staples for families on tight budgets.
“"Highly processed" has no legal or scientific definition. It is functionally unenforceable in policy.”
By lumping pastries and Pop-Tarts in the same category as canned chickpeas and protein powder, the guidelines fail the people who need clear, actionable direction the most.
The Alcohol Messaging Was a Disaster
On paper, the new alcohol guidance is actually an improvement. Old guidelines said ≤1 drink/day for women, ≤2 for men. The updated scientific consensus says the healthiest amount of alcohol is zero, with nonlinear risks as intake goes up. Light drinking is fine. Heavy drinking is catastrophic. The new DGAs vaguely say "limit intake" without specific numbers — which, on its own, is more honest.
But then Dr. Oz got on camera and managed to say contradictory things about alcohol in under 60 seconds — some comments pointing toward less drinking, others referencing Blue Zones in a way that sounded like he was giving people a pass. Multiple people reached out asking if the new guidelines were more permissive of alcohol. That was probably not the intended message.
Better as written. Worse as communicated. A net zero at best.
The Inverted Pyramid Is Confusing As Hell
The new visual is an inverted food pyramid. Red meat, cheese, and whole poultry sit at the widest section on top. Whole grains — which the written text still recommends as the highest proportional food group by servings — are crammed into the tiny point at the bottom.
If you only look at the picture (which is what most people do), you'd think the government wants you eating mostly steak and cheese. That's not what the text says. The visual and the written guidance are in direct conflict, and for a public-facing tool meant to simplify nutrition, that's a failure.
MyPlate wasn't perfect, but at least it showed proportional guidance for a single meal. This new pyramid creates more confusion, not less.
"Eat Real Food" Sounds Great If You Can Afford It
The flagship message — "eat real food" — is one of those things that sounds unobjectionable until you think about who's actually affected by these policies. Fresh meat, produce, and minimally processed dairy are expensive. They're less accessible in food deserts. And processed foods — the ones being demonized — are often the most affordable, shelf-stable options for families stretching every dollar.
The visual emphasis on large cuts of meat and blocks of cheese promotes expensive items. The visual minimization of grains discourages cheaper staples. And since government programs base purchasing decisions on the DGAs, this could directly increase the cost of nutrition benefit programs.
For families relying on WIC or school lunch programs, replacing low-fat yogurt with full-fat versions, swapping plant oils for butter, and avoiding affordable "processed" staples like whole grain bread could make following the guidelines harder — and more expensive — not easier.
These guidelines shape the food environment for the most vulnerable populations, even if they are largely ignored by the general public. That's the real impact.
Zoom Out: The Global Consensus Hasn't Changed
If you're confused by the whiplash of this update, here's the move: look beyond US borders. When you compare independent, evidence-based guidelines from the UK, the WHO, and the previous US DGAs, they all converge on the same thing.
The UK Eatwell Guide (2016), WHO Healthy Diet Indicators (2020), and the previous US DGAs (2020–2025) were developed independently by different expert groups across different countries and continents. They all point in the same direction — because that's where the totality of the evidence points.
UK NHS Eatwell Guide; WHO Healthy Diet Fact Sheet; USDA Dietary Guidelines 2020–2025
- ✓Build meals around fruits, vegetables, and starchy carbs (preferably whole grain)
- ✓Moderate dairy and protein — with emphasis on beans, pulses, fish, and eggs
- ✓Limit saturated fat, salt, and added sugar
- ✓Choose unsaturated oils and spreads in small amounts
- ✓Stay hydrated, primarily with water
The new 2025 US DGAs take some steps away from that consensus — particularly around saturated animal fats and the dismissal of seed oils. That should give you pause.
The Bottom Line: What Should You Actually Do?
Don't panic. Don't follow influencer hot takes. And don't assume the new pyramid is gospel.
The broad scientific consensus on healthy eating hasn't shifted: eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, get enough protein, favor whole grains, limit saturated fat and added sugar, and stay hydrated. That's it. That's been the answer for a long time, and it's still the answer.
If you're someone who lifts and cares about body composition, the higher protein targets are a welcome acknowledgment. But the confusion around fats, the vague "highly processed" label, and the messaging disasters around alcohol and the inverted pyramid are legitimate concerns — especially for the populations who rely on these guidelines the most.
“Follow the evidence. Not the pyramid.”
Content based on Eric Helms' analysis for MASS (Monthly Applications in Strength Sport). Adapted for swearstrength.com.