Everyone Is Fighting About the New Dietary Guidelines

And Almost No One Is Talking About the Actual Problem 

Protein bros are celebrating.
Plant-forward folks are panicking.
Public health experts are clutching their pearls.
And the rest of the internet is yelling “THE FOOD PYRAMID IS BACK” like it’s 1993 and we’re all eating SnackWells in low-rise jeans.

Meanwhile, the general population is standing in the middle of this food fight wondering why eating has once again turned into a moral performance review.

So let’s slow this down. Not to pick sides. Not to dunk on anyone. But to talk about what’s actually happening with the new dietary guidelines, why the discourse keeps collapsing into chaos, and why so many people seem committed to misunderstanding the entire point.

Because the guidelines themselves aren’t the real issue.

What the Dietary Guidelines Are (And What They Are Not)

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans are population-level public health nutrition guidance.

They are not athlete fueling plans.
They are not oncology nutrition protocols.
They are not individualized medical advice.
They are not macro prescriptions.
They are not a moral ranking of foods.

Their job is not to optimize the ceiling of health or performance. Their job is to raise the floor for the largest number of people possible, across wildly different budgets, bodies, cultures, allergies, and access points.

A lot of the outrage comes from people evaluating these guidelines through lenses they were never designed to satisfy.

That doesn’t make those lenses wrong.
It means they’re mismatched.

Internet Discourse vs. What the Guidelines Actually Say

Here’s where most of the confusion lives.

What the Internet Says the New Dietary Guidelines Are Doing

• “The food pyramid is back and flipped upside down”

• “Protein is king now”

• “They’re telling everyone to eat steak and butter”

• “Whole grains and fiber are being deprioritized”

• “Plant foods are being erased”

• “This is either finally evidence-based or totally anti-science”

What the Guidelines Actually Do

• Emphasize dietary patterns, not single foods

• Highlight protein adequacy without excluding plant foods

• Continue to recommend fruits, vegetables, fiber, and whole grains

• Maintain limits on saturated fat overall

• Explicitly include frozen, canned, shelf-stable, and familiar foods

• Attempt (imperfectly) to balance evidence with feasibility and access

Most of the fighting isn’t about what’s written. It’s about how people interpret visuals and project ideology onto them.

Which brings us to the most repeated argument of all.

“This Isn’t New” Is Not the Flex People Think It Is

A lot of professionals are saying, “We’ve been saying this for decades.”

Okay. Then let’s ask the uncomfortable follow-up.

If these recommendations existed for decades and didn’t land, didn’t translate, didn’t build trust, and didn’t meaningfully change outcomes for large portions of the population… what exactly are we defending?

History doesn’t live in PDFs.
It lives in outcomes.

If people are reacting now, that tells us something about framing, visibility, trust, and inclusion. That’s not rewriting history. That’s acknowledging reality.

Saying “people didn’t pay attention before so why bother now” isn’t realism. It’s resignation. And resignation doesn’t improve public health.

Access Is Not a Footnote (And Neither Are Allergies)

Let’s name something wildly obvious that keeps getting skipped.

Not everyone can eat everything.

Some people are allergic to fish.
Some people are allergic to shellfish.
Some people can’t tolerate legumes, soy, dairy, or nuts.
Some people would rather physically gag than let shrimp anywhere near their mouth.

Food is not just nutrients. It’s safety, tolerance, sensory experience, culture, and history. Public health nutrition guidance that assumes universal eat-ability is already disconnected from reality before it leaves the page.

And access isn’t just about price.

Are these foods available where people live?
Are they affordable on limited budgets?
Are they accessible through food assistance programs like SNAP?
Are they shelf-stable?
Do they require extra prep time, equipment, or energy?

“SNAP-eligible” does not automatically mean realistic.

The Butter vs. Olive Oil Reality Check

This is where a lot of the discourse completely loses the plot.

Yes, olive oil has strong evidence behind it.
Yes, unsaturated fats matter.
No, that does not mean olive oil is universally accessible, affordable, or trusted.

Especially right now.

Between rising food costs and ongoing conversations about olive oil adulteration and impurity, many people are making very simple decisions: what can I afford, trust, and use consistently?

Real-World Cost Comparison (Approximate U.S. Prices)

If you think the general population is choosing an $11 bottle of olive oil over a $2 package of butter because of epidemiology charts, you are wildly disconnected from reality.

Including butter or tallow in public health nutrition guidelines is not a moral endorsement. It’s an acknowledgment of how people actually eat, shop, and cook.

Public health works better when guidance expands options instead of pretending everyone lives in the same food environment.

Protein vs Plants Is a False Binary

Another major misfire in this conversation is the assumption that emphasizing protein means abandoning plant foods.

It doesn’t.

Protein adequacy is emphasized because underconsumption is common, especially in older adults and under-resourced populations. The guidelines still include plant proteins. They just don’t pretend there’s one universally “correct” way to meet protein needs.

This isn’t an animal-vs-plant war.
It’s a feasibility conversation.

You can care deeply about fiber and whole grains and recognize that familiar foods are often the entry point. Both things can be true.

Before Someone Yells “The Science Doesn’t Support This”

Let’s pause here.

When someone says “the science doesn’t support these guidelines,” what they usually mean is “this doesn’t align with the outcome I prioritize most.”

Nutrition science is not one unified body of evidence. It’s epidemiology, randomized trials, observational studies, mechanistic data, and population research, all with strengths and limitations.

Public health nutrition guidance is built on weight of evidence plus feasibility.

And science itself has limits.

Much of the research people cite most confidently is conducted in populations with food security, healthcare access, stable housing, and Western dietary norms. That doesn’t make the research useless. But it does limit how confidently it can be applied as universal prescription.

Science tells us a lot about risk.
It tells us far less about adoption.

Public health fails when guidance is technically correct but practically unusable.

If You’re Doing Fine, This Isn’t About You

This part matters.

If you’ve found your balance with nutrition, truly, great. You don’t need to change a damn thing.

These guidelines are not coming for your olive oil, your legumes, your fiber intake, or your grocery routine.

They’re meant for people who are struggling, constrained, allergic, under-resourced, or simply trying to eat something that works without being shamed.

The Question No One Wants to Answer

So here’s the pivot.

If you’re arguing hardest against these changes, what are you doing to reduce barriers to food access?

Because critique without construction isn’t advocacy. It’s commentary.

I’m not asking this from a pedestal. I’m asking it as someone who actively tries to reduce barriers without pretending I can personally fix a broken system or bankrupt myself in the process.

I:

• give surplus fuel to local athletes instead of hoarding it

• donate shoes through Sneakers4Good and use what little they return to buy more

• educate for free, both online and in person

• create affordable resources like my LEA Protocol and Fuel Like You Mean It guide so people aren’t locked out by price

• share meals with my neighbors often
  
  

• advocate for others where and when I can

None of that is perfect. None of it is enough on its own. But it’s actual work, not just loud opinions.

Public health doesn’t improve because we’re right on the internet. It improves when barriers get lowered. And if your contribution stops at “people should eat better” without doing anything to make that possible, then you’re not protecting public health.

You’re protecting a worldview.

And a Quick Reality Check for Masters and Menopausal Athletes

Let’s be very clear about one more thing.

These dietary guidelines also aren’t written for masters athletes or menopausal athletes.

They don’t account for:
hormonal shifts that affect appetite and insulin sensitivity
changes in protein needs with age
bone density concerns
muscle loss risk
recovery changes
or the fact that “eat a balanced diet” becomes wildly insufficient advice once estrogen leaves the chat

So if you’re a peri- or post-menopausal athlete reading this and thinking, “Cool, but this still doesn’t help me fuel, recover, or feel good,” you’re not wrong.

Population-level guidelines are meant to prevent deficiency and reduce disease risk at scale. They are not designed to support performance, body composition changes, or symptom management during menopause.

That’s exactly why I created Mastering Menopause.

It exists because menopausal athletes are consistently told to follow generic advice that was never tested on them, never designed for them, and often leaves them underfueled, frustrated, and blamed for not “trying hard enough.”

Mastering Menopause bridges the gap between:
what public health guidelines cover
and what menopausal athletes actually need

without turning nutrition into another full-time job or pretending hormones don’t matter.

If the new guidelines feel irrelevant to your life stage, that’s not a failure on your part. It’s a scope issue. And it’s one that deserves better support.

Final Thought (Before We All Go Eat Something)

The dietary guidelines aren’t perfect. They never are. They probably never will be.

But dismissing them wholesale because they don’t optimize for one disease outcome, one ideal diet, or one privileged population misses the entire point.

This isn’t protein vs plants.
It’s access vs exclusion.
It’s feasibility vs purity.
It’s reality vs ideology.

And the people caught in the middle don’t need another food fight.

They need guidance that actually meets them where they are.

If you haven't read the actual guidelines and have only seen all the opinions thrown around online, you can find them here.