New dietary guidelines; released in January, have increased the amount of protein recommended that Americans consume. The 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) have generated significant debate including criticisms of the scientific process by which the guidelines were developed. This article will discuss some of the concerns raised by a group of experts who authored the paper “Perspectives on the Protein Recommendations in the 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans” published in The Journal of Nutrition by the American Society for Nutrition.
I will also share some of my personal thoughts on these recommendations. I like a variety of foods, but I love steak – especially a perfectly grilled medium rare beef strip steak. I have written over a dozen articles on protein for my blog and make protein a priority in my diet. I am biased towards information that reinforces my eating habits, so I was happy to see these guidelines emphasize protein.
However; I am very skeptical about how these guidelines and other health and medical policies are being made. This administration has cut funding for the sciences and eliminated a tremendous number of science, medical and public health employees. Policies have been made that are not consistent with my view of the scientific consensus.
The authors of the article critiquing the official dietary guidelines appear to be very well qualified to understand the science behind the guidelines. The authors declared that they are “researchers with broad expertise in protein metabolism, clinical nutrition, epidemiology, and federal nutrition policy.” You can see a listing I put together of the first 3 authors of the paper and their credentials here.
Every 5 years a set of recommendations are issued that have been referred to as the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans”. The guidance shapes national programs like school lunch standards, federal food assistance, and public health education.
The developmental process for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) follows a transparent, multi-stage framework updated every five years jointly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). After specific questions are identified as needing answered or updated a group of 20 experts works on analyzing the data available. This independent Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) works over about a 2 year period and produces a scientific report.
Typically the guidelines are then written based on that (DGAC) scientific report. The current administration scrapped the scientific report written by the panel of 20 experts and created their own report. The administration titled this alternative report the “Scientific Foundation for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030”.
The sidestepping of the usual process has alarmed many observers with some calling the alternative report being tainted as it was written by those with ties to industries who may benefit from what the guidelines have promoted. It is important to note that just having received money from an industry does not mean you should be disqualified from the scientific process. A good example is the lead author of the perspectives article, he declared that he had received consulting fees and speaking honoraria from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and has received grant funding and consulting fees from the National Dairy Council. Since the article he wrote is critiquing the emphasis on animal proteins it would seem like that industry support he received did not affect the paper that was produced.
The authors of the perspectives critique; while acknowledging many strengths of the guidelines, detailed several concerns. One of those concerns was that the guidelines were largely based on a limited scope of evidence. The authors report that the final 2025–2030 DGA recommendations drew from a rapid systematic review of trials on high versus low protein diets for people trying to lose weight.
While I agree with the authors that broad nutritional guidelines should not be based just on studies looking at a single nutrient and weight loss outcomes; I must say that I like the focus on body composition and weight loss. A large percentage of our population (including myself) are trying to lose fat (or should be) AND preserve healthy muscle. The article rightly points out that the guideline did not use research or address OTHER health outcomes. However, I must say that having too much fat and not enough muscle has a huge impact on your risk of many chronic health conditions and your quality of life.
The authors of the critique call into question if normal weight people who do not engage in moderate to intense exercise such as resistance training need to consume the amount of protein the guidelines recommend. While there may be some truth to the assertion that such individuals may not require as much protein – I must say that to be healthy; everyone should be engaged in regular exercise including resistance training. If you have been a reader of my blog (or a patient of mine) you know how much I emphasize regular physical activity including resistance training.
There are several other scientific and practical concerns with the guidelines. Many experts have called out how the guidelines are incomplete and at times have contradictions. I am not going to detail all of those criticisms in this article but will acknowledge that some of what is in the guidelines is “odd” (to be kind).
It is disappointing that the administration did not follow a rigorous process – I think much of what they say about protein is probably right. I will continue to personally prioritize protein (my wife calls it being “protein forward”). I will continue to talk to patients about getting enough protein – even if that means drinking a highly processed protein shake (I do that more than occasionally). I and many of my patients are trying to lose fat and gain muscle so prioritizing protein makes sense.
It is just as important for us to engage in resistance training. Please read my article about combining higher protein diets and resistance training. Movement is medicine. “Exercise may be the single most potent medical intervention ever known” is a statement made by a cardiologist and researcher that I fully endorse. In helping Americans be more healthy; I hope we not just encourage healthy eating, but facilitate a culture of being active.
In the ten page 2025–2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans document the word “protein” can be found 17 times. When I searched for the word “fiber”- there were only 2 spots with mention of fiber. If I were to write the guidelines, I would have likely had more mentions of fiber. Future articles of Health Matters will talk about fiber and explore the evidence of why I make fiber a priority in my diet along with protein.
Russ
Please let me know your thoughts on this and other articles including my recent article on the combination of resistance training and higher protein diets on fat loss and muscle preservation.
Other articles on protein:
Protein
Do higher protein diets harm our bones?
Protein, Muscle and Quality of Life
What is the largest organ in the body?
Amino Acids: Building Blocks of Proteins
Essential, Nonessential and Conditionally Essential Amino Acids
Protein Digestion & Absorption
Problems with Protein Digestion & Absorption
Amino Acids, Not Just Building Blocks of Proteins
What is a Limiting Amino Acid of a Food? And why is this concept important for meal planning?
How Well Each Food Supplies Us with Essential Protein Building Blocks
Higher Protein Diet + Resistance Training Effects on Fat Loss and Saving Muscle
Disclaimer: I am a family practice PA. I am not a registered dietician. My educational background in nutrition includes an undergraduate course in nutrition, biochemistry and integrated nutritional concepts in my professional training. I believe nutrition is a key to our health and our quality of life and have made a point of going beyond the basics in trying to understand the details and nuances for me and my patients. See my full “Disclosures, Disclaimers, Biases, and Context” here.