<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If you\u2019ve been online in the last month, you\u2019ve most likely seen that there\u2019s a new The guidelines made a splash with the message to \u201ceat real food,\u201d as well as replaced the MyPlate graphic with a not-so-subtly inverted \u201cfood pyramid\u201d hearkening back to the 1990s. The branding definitely screams big changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But, what actually has changed from the earlier dietary guidelines? And, is there any updated science to support or reaffirm these claims? Let\u2019s cover some of the highlights of what you need to know about the DGA and how it could inform your own healthy food choices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Every five years since 1980, a set of dietary guidelines has been released which provides food and beverage guidance<\/a> to help people achieve and maintain good health<\/a>. The DGAs influence programs like the National School Lunch Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and even US military mess halls. So, despite the fact that up to 90% of Americans may not follow<\/a> the DGA [1], the guidelines have significant implications for food and nutrition policy and the dietary choices available to millions of Americans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The 2025-2030 DGA are largely similar to previous versions. In summary:<\/p>\n\n\n\n All of these are essentially the same things Americans have been hearing for years. However, there are some nuances that may be particularly relevant to readers of Natural Womanhood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While previous iterations of the DGA have always recommended a variety of protein sources, the 2025 update might be the first time protein has taken center stage. Starting from the newly marketed inverted pyramid<\/a>, your eye is immediately drawn to the steak, full chicken, ground beef, and cheese at the top. The marketing seems to emphasize animal-based proteins, but the actual guidelines recommend \u201ca variety of protein foods from animal sources\u2026 as well as a variety of plant-sourced protein foods.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n The 2025-2030 DGA also recommends more protein per day compared to previous guidelines: 1.2-1.6 grams per kilogram<\/em> of ideal body weight. For context, this means that a 130lb female should consume between 70-95 grams of protein per day according to these guidelines. The last set of DGAs<\/a> didn\u2019t have a set amount of protein per day, but recommended 5.5 oz equivalents of protein foods daily. This equals about 56 grams of protein per day, and aligns with the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of 0.8 g\/kg body weight. Importantly, the protein RDA reflects the minimum to avoid deficiency<\/a>, not the amount that supports optimal health, and is based on a typical American sedentary lifestyle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Protein is definitely having a moment<\/a>, touted as the key to everything from weight loss to insulin resistance. I\u2019ve seen fitness influencers recommend that active women consume up to 1 gram of protein per ideal pound<\/em> of body weight (almost twice as much as in the DGAs). The evidence for the current DGA protein recommendation was a rapid systematic review of studies<\/a> where participants were also focusing on intentionally losing weight or high activity. All of the studies were too different from one another to calculate a pooled result [2]. Instead, the investigators extrapolated information from these studies to come up with the protein guidelines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There actually isn’t a lot<\/a> of quality scientific evidence for the exact protein amounts the average person should consume per day. Most research is done on populations with specific dietary or activity goals, such as in obesity medicine or sports medicine [2-4]. These results don\u2019t necessarily apply to the general, healthy (or, unhealthy) population, however. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Still, most Americans<\/a> are already consuming approximately 1.0-1.2 g\/kg of protein per day, so these recommendations aren\u2019t too far off-base from reality [3]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The DGAs recommend avoiding \u201chighly processed foods,\u201d a term that is unregulated and does not have a standardized definition in the nutrition space. Notably, the guidelines don\u2019t <\/em>use the term \u201cultraprocessed food<\/a>\u201d (UPF). While most people would say a bag of chips was a processed food, the same can actually be said of a can of diced tomatoes, or a bag of frozen corn. Both of these have been processed from their raw form of the tomato and corn on the cob. (The DGAs define \u201chighly processed foods\u201d as those which are packaged, prepared, and\/or ready-to-eat foods which have added sugars and sodium, artificial flavors, dyes and preservatives, and low calorie sweeteners.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n In his commentary<\/a> on the DGAs, Kevin C. Klatt, PhD, RD mentions the committee couldn\u2019t get a UPF definition<\/a> together in time, and thus settled on the unregulated term \u201chighly processed.\u201d The scientific report for the DGA also mentions that a joint USDA\u2013U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) effort to establish a uniform definition is underway (so stay tuned for more!). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Definitions aside, there is<\/em> plenty of research to support the general principles of limiting added sugars (more on that below), and prioritizing whole fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and proteins for the average American.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new 2025 DGAs make a novel distinction between \u201clow quality\u201d carbohydrates (refined grains, simple starches, and foods with added sugars and preservatives) and \u201chigh quality\u201d carbohydrates (whole grain products, fruits, vegetables, and beans). The overall goal is to inform and empower Americans to select the high quality, whole food carbohydrates in their diets, and to avoid the refined and processed forms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One interesting and relevant point regarding enriched grain consumption for our readers is the folic acid<\/a> content of refined grain products. There is essentially no recommendation in the DGAs for consumption of any kind of refined grain products (processed food or otherwise). There are extensive benefits of whole grains, including fiber and micronutrients, but in the United States, only refined flours (AKA \u201call purpose flour\u201d) are required to be enriched for several nutrients, including folic acid. This mandatory fortification has been very successful<\/a> at reducing neural tube defects by ensuring a passive folic acid consumption of any women who could become pregnant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The guidelines do emphasize that women of childbearing age, and those trying to conceive or who are pregnant, consume additional foods high in folate, since they would not be getting folic acid through fortified grain products. Natural sources of folate include dark leafy vegetables (spinach, kale), legumes (lentils, chickpeas, beans), citrus fruits, asparagus, broccoli, avocado, liver, eggs, and nuts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to the recommendation for whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, the DGAs include a recommendation to avoid added sugars. The previous DGAs were explicit in the recommendation of less than 50g of added sugar daily<\/a> (or less than 10% of total calories). The new DGAs continue to emphasize the negative outcomes<\/a> of a diet high in added sugars, and they even conducted their own umbrella analysis (basically a review of the literature that they did not publish independently) on the impact of added sugars, sugar-sweetened beverages, and fruit juice on chronic disease outcomes [4]. They did remove the explicit 10% calorie threshold in favor of recommending less than 10g of added sugar per meal and less than 5g added sugar per snack. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The new DGAs also recommend avoiding non-nutritive sweeteners (things like sucralose, aspartame, and sugar alcohols that don\u2019t add any calories) because there is evidence these sweeteners might disrupt metabolism and contribute to cardiovascular disease [5]. Additionally, according to the World Health Organization, non-nutritive sweeteners have no benefit<\/a> on body composition for individuals trying to lose weight by following a calorie deficit diet. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Importantly, the DGA authors acknowledge that most added sugars are consumed in highly processed foods, and it is difficult to pinpoint whether negative health outcomes are due to the food itself, the added sugars, the lack of nutritional value, or all of the above. That said, their recommendation follows previous guidance to avoid added sugars wherever possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps one of the more \u201ccontroversial\u201d sections of the new dietary guidelines is the addition of butter and beef tallow (oils high in saturated fats) to the list of \u201chealthy fats.\u201d Let\u2019s look at some of the evidence for including these foods and the balance of fats needed in a healthy diet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As outlined by the DGAs, fat is an essential macronutrient that is crucial<\/a> for metabolism, cell membrane regulation, and hormone production. Fats can be classified into saturated or unsaturated fats, depending on how many double bonds they have in their chemical chain. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Saturated fats (no double bonds) are solids at room temperature (think butter, coconut oil, or tallow) while unsaturated fats (one or more double bonds) are liquid at room temperature (think olive, avocado, and seed oils). Unsaturated fats can further be broken down into mono- or poly-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA or PUFA for short). All three types occur naturally in a variety of food sources, however in the past few decades, the use of manufactured fats and oils (both MUFAs and PUFAs) has increased in highly processed and packaged foods. <\/p>\n\n\n\n You may also have heard of PUFA in reference to Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids, where Omega-3 are the \u201cgood fats<\/a>\u201d you consume in fish, nuts, flax, and chia seeds, while Omega-6 are found in vegetable and seed oils and some other nuts.. Both Omega-3 and Omega-6<\/a> are essential fatty acids that our bodies can\u2019t make on their own, so it\u2019s crucial we consume healthy levels of both through food.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Evidence over the past century has suggested that saturated fats<\/a> negatively contribute to the risk of heart disease and cholesterol levels, and fueled a recommendation<\/a> in the nutrition space to replace those saturated fats with unsaturated fats. Saturated fats have also been implicated in reduced semen quality related to male fertility [6], and a high fat, low fiber diet has been associated<\/a> with decreased fertility<\/a> in a study of non-human primates [7].<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, an older study<\/a>, shared by Natural Womanhood favorite author Lily Nichols, RD<\/a>, showed that higher consumption of saturated fats decreased<\/em> the risk of ovulatory infertility (or infertility that\u2019s caused by lack of sufficient ovulation) [8]. The study authors actually added nuance to this finding, emphasizing how a diet high in trans<\/em> fats was associated with negative outcomes\u2014yet their data did show that women consuming 12-14% of calories from saturated fat (compared to the recommended less than 10%) had lower levels of ovulatory infertility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the absence of definitive causal studies, nutrition research<\/a> has relied on intermediate endpoints to extrapolate cardiovascular disease risk, particularly levels of LDL<\/a> (the bad form) cholesterol [9]. The DGA admits there is disagreement between research studies, and attempts to take a midline approach by continuing their whole-foods-first recommendation: don\u2019t eat highly processed foods, and instead eat meats, poultry, eggs, omega 3-rich seafood, nuts, seeds, full-fat dairy, olives, and avocados. The DGAs also continue to recommend avoiding any trans<\/em> fats, as these have no positive effect on health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Interestingly, the updated DGA is the first edition to discuss the negative effects of consuming seed oils<\/a>, those industrialized oils high in PUFA and Omega-6 fatty acids that are largely used in highly processed foods and sold as a replacement to saturated fats. Seed oils are more readily oxidized when exposed to high heat (in production or in cooking), causing<\/a> potentially harmful byproducts [10]. There are also suggested health implications to consuming a high ratio of Omega-6 fatty acids (found in seed oils) compared to Omega-3 and other types of fat [11]. If your diet is weighted heavily with highly processed and prepackaged foods, you\u2019re probably consuming a decent amount of seed oil, compared to if you occasionally use vegetable oil in your home cooking. (We\u2019ve already written an article<\/a> detailing the facts about seed oils if you\u2019d like to do more reading on this particular topic.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n The research does agree that fats matter to your fertility (and overall health!). Being underweight<\/a> or overweight<\/a> could contribute to infertility<\/a> and additional health issues for your baby. Taking the whole-foods first approach will probably help you get the most optimal diet intake. But maybe be careful about switching to a saturated fat-forward diet, since the research is still evolving. As always, moderation is best\u2014and there are other macronutrients (like protein, fiber, and carbohydrates) that deserve a place in a healthy diet, too!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, the updated dietary guidelines don\u2019t represent a dramatic shift from previous recommendations. Core principles remain the same: diets built around whole foods\u2014including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and adequate protein\u2014are consistently associated with better long-term health outcomes. The scientific committee continues to rely on a large body of research supporting higher intakes of fruits and vegetables, sufficient dietary protein, and limiting refined sugars and ulra-processed foods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, nutrition science is complex, and not every question has a definitive answer. Where evidence is still evolving\u2014such as optimal protein intake, or what kind and how much fat to consume for different sexes and life stages\u2014moderation, dietary variety, and a focus on whole foods remain the most reliable approach. For most women, especially those paying attention to cycles, energy levels, and fertility, these guidelines serve best as a flexible framework rather than a rigid set of rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cfood pyramid\u201d in town<\/a>. In January 2026, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) jointly released the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans<\/a> (DGA).<\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat are the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA)?<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What changed with the new DGAs?<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Protein takes center stage<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Highly processed foods get called out<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Grains and sugars get new distinctions<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
New guidelines around added sugar <\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Non-nutritive sweeteners<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
(Good) fats are no longer the enemy<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Types of fats<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
How do certain fats affect our health?<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A note on seed oils<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The bottom line on the new Food Pyramid<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
References<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n[1] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Food and Nutrition Board; Committee on Evaluating the Process to Develop the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025; Callahan EA, Delaney KM, Yaktine AL, et al., editors. Evaluating the Process to Develop the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025: Final Report. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2022 Nov 17. 2, The Process to Create the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Is Both Complicated and Complex: Background and Context for Task 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n[2] “The Scientific Foundation For The Dietary Guidelines\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n[3] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 2024. Nutrient Intakes from Food and Beverages: Mean Amounts Consumed per Individual, by Male\/Female and Age, What We Eat in America, NHANES August 2021-August 2023. <\/p>\n\n\n\n[4] Huang Y, Chen Z, Chen B, Li J, Yuan X, Li J et al. Dietary sugar consumption and health: umbrella review BMJ 2023; 381 :e071609 doi:10.1136\/bmj-2022-071609<\/p>\n\n\n\n