The Crossroads of the Nutrition War: When Common Sense Clashes with Industrial Power

The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans were officially released on January 7, 2026.

This new edition marks a historic major shift compared to previous years. In this version, the federal government has moved away from some traditional nutritional concepts of the past decades, shifting the core philosophy from simple "nutrient control" to "Eat Real Food".

This new guide is significantly shorter (only about 6 pages), aiming to make it easier for the public to understand. Below are the core content, key changes, and specific recommendations of the guide:

1. Core Philosophy: Return to "Real Food"

The new guide emphasizes rejecting ultra-processed foods and returning to natural, whole food sources.

• Slogan: "Eat Real Food."

• Core Shift: Even some natural fats previously considered "unhealthy" (like butter, whole milk) have now been elevated in status, as long as they are unprocessed "real food." Conversely, highly processed "low-fat" or "sugar-free" alternatives are explicitly advised against.

2. Key Dietary Recommendations

✅ Prioritize

• High-Quality Protein: This is the top priority of the new guide. It encourages consuming high-nutrient-density protein at every meal.

• Recommended Sources: Red meat (e.g., beef), poultry, eggs, seafood, full-fat dairy.

• Plant Protein: Legumes, peas, lentils, nuts, and seeds.

• Healthy Fats: Fats are no longer demonized; natural sources of fat are encouraged.

• Recommended Sources: Olive oil, butter, beef tallow, full-fat dairy, avocados, nuts.

• Note: This is a significant departure from past recommendations of "low-fat/skim milk" and "vegetable oils over animal fats."

• Whole Grains & Fruits/Vegetables: Emphasis continues on fiber-rich whole grains, as well as colorful vegetables and fruits.

❌ Strictly Limit or Avoid

• Ultra-Processed Foods: This is the new guide's biggest "enemy." It advises avoiding packaged foods with complex ingredients and numerous additives.

• Added Sugars: A stricter stance than ever before.

• Recommendation: No added sugar is part of a "healthy diet."

• Specific Limit: Some suggestions recommend no more than 10 grams (about 2.5 teaspoons) of added sugar per meal, a very strict standard. For children, complete avoidance of added sugars is recommended.

• Refined Carbohydrates: Reduce intake of refined grains like white bread, crackers, and flour tortillas.

• Sugary Drinks: Explicitly advises avoiding soda, fruit drinks, and energy drinks.

3. Specific Nutrients and Population Recommendations

• Sodium (Salt): Recommends daily sodium intake for those 14 and older be limited to 2300 milligrams (consistent with previous years).

• Infants and Children: Emphasizes completely avoiding added sugars in early life (especially the first two years), prioritizing nutritional needs through breast milk, formula, and natural complementary foods.

• Chronic Disease Populations: The guide mentions that for certain chronic disease patients, a Low-Carb Diet may help improve health outcomes. This is the first time official guidelines have given relatively clear recognition to low-carb diets.

4. Changes in Visuals and Policy Tools

• Reintroduction of the "Food Pyramid" Concept: This edition seems to reintroduce a visual hierarchy similar to the "food pyramid" (different from the "MyPlate" used for the past 15 years), where protein, dairy, and healthy fats occupy prominent positions, while the foundational role of whole grains is relatively diminished.

• Simplification: The guideline document is very brief, designed for the general public to understand directly, no longer filled with obscure academic terminology.

5. Controversies and Expert Opinions

This edition of the guidelines has sparked intense debate within the nutrition community:

• Supporters believe it corrects the past mistake of over-fearing saturated fat, which led people towards high-sugar and highly processed low-fat foods, returning to traditional human dietary patterns.

• Opponents (such as some heart associations and nutrition societies) worry that encouraging red meat, butter, and full-fat dairy could increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, and argue that parts of the guide deviate from the original scientific report recommendations of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (the scientific advisory panel).

Summary: The core of the 2025 U.S. Dietary Guidelines is essentially "Eat meat, eat eggs, drink whole milk, eat plenty of vegetables, and throw away processed foods and sugar." It is not just a nutritional recommendation but a "reset" of past U.S. nutrition policy.

The emergence of this "Eat Real Food" philosophy is not sudden; it is based on a movement called "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA).

This is not just a simple update of dietary advice, but a political and public health reckoning against America's "failed nutrition policies" of the past decades. Below are the deep background and reasons behind this report:

1. Root Cause: A Crisis Triggered by the "Chronic Disease Epidemic"

The core driver of this philosophy is the severe health crisis currently facing the United States.

• Data Background: The report states that the U.S. is in a "national health emergency." Despite spending a very high percentage of GDP on healthcare, Americans' life expectancy and health status are declining.

• Change in Attribution: Kennedy (RFK Jr.) and the Trump administration believe the root cause of the surge in obesity, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, and cancer is not a lack of willpower, but that the food supply system has been contaminated with "toxic" substances.

• Conclusion: The low-fat, high-carb dietary advice of the past decades is considered a failure. Not only did it fail to curb obesity, but it may have fueled the epidemic of metabolic diseases.

2. Core Philosophy: Fighting "Ultra-Processed Foods" and "Industrial Additives"

"Eat Real Food" is a rebellion against the modern food industry.

• Against "Industrial Manipulation": The new guide's background is built on a declaration of war against Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs). Officials believe supermarkets are filled with packaged foods containing large amounts of preservatives, colorings, high-fructose corn syrup, and seed oils, which are defined as "chemical mixtures" rather than food.

• Controversy over Seed Oils: This Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) specifically targeted previously promoted "vegetable oils" (like soybean oil, corn oil), considering them a root cause of inflammation in the body, thus promoting a return to traditional animal fats like butter and tallow.

3. Political and Interest Background: Breaking "Corporate Capture"

This is the most controversial but also the most welcomed background by its supporters — anti-establishment.

• Allegation: Kennedy (RFK Jr.) has long criticized the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for being "captured" by large food and pharmaceutical companies. He believes the old "food pyramid" was designed by lobbying groups (like the grain and sugar associations) to sell more cheap agricultural products, not for public health.

• Reset: Therefore, the 2025 guidelines are designed as a "reset" aimed at cutting off the influence of big corporations on dietary advice. This is also why the guide was condensed from a hundreds-page academic report into a few pages of "common-sense advice" — to bypass the complex bureaucratic academic system and speak directly to the public.

4. Key Driver: RFK Jr. and the MAHA Agenda

It is impossible to understand this report without mentioning Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

• As the new Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), he directly translated his campaign platform "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) into federal policy.

• His core belief is: "Food is medicine." If the toxicity problem at the source of the food supply is not solved, no amount of medication can solve America's health crisis.

Summary

The emergence of the "Eat Real Food" philosophy is because the authorities believe past nutritional science took the wrong path.

Its background is: No longer trusting the ultra-processed food industry, no longer believing in the "low-fat" dogma, and attempting to save America's crumbling public health system by returning to the natural dietary patterns of our ancestors (meat, eggs, dairy, whole plants).

Regarding the qualifications of RFK Jr. (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) and the scientific nature of this report, there is currently extreme polarization in the U.S. and globally.

Simply put: From the standards of traditional academia and bureaucracy, both his "qualifications" and the report's "scientific process" have serious flaws; but from the emerging perspective of "metabolic health" and "anti-corruption," it is seen as a return to common-sense correction.

Here is a detailed objective analysis:

I. Is RFK Jr. Qualified Enough?

1. Education and Credentials: Non-Professional Background

• Weakness: RFK Jr. himself is an environmental lawyer with no degree in medicine, nutrition, or public health. From the traditional "technocratic" standard, his role as HHS Secretary making decisions on nutritional guidelines is "a layman leading experts."

• Criticism: The mainstream medical community (e.g., the American Medical Association AMA) has long criticized him for lacking basic scientific literacy and having a history of spreading what mainstream science considers "pseudoscience," such as anti-vaccine rhetoric.

2. His Strength: A Lawyer's Background Against "Corporate Capture"

• Different Perspective: His supporters believe the problem with nutrition is not "too little science," but "too many conflicts of interest." As a lawyer who has long litigated against large corporations (like Monsanto), he is adept at exposing the flow of interests between regulatory agencies (FDA/USDA) and food giants.

• Redefining "Qualification": In the eyes of MAHA supporters, his "qualification" is not about understanding biochemical formulas, but about daring to challenge the manipulation of dietary guidelines by giants like Coca-Cola and General Mills.

3. The Role of His Brain Trust

• This guide was not created by him in isolation. He has a group of "anti-establishment" medical advisors behind him (e.g., Dr. Casey Means, Dr. Marty Makary). These individuals have high reputations in the field of metabolic health but are often marginalized by mainstream academia.

---

II. Is This Report Scientific Enough?

The scientific nature of this report is very complex; it is half "absolutely correct" and half "highly controversial."

1. Parts with Strong Scientific Consensus (Main Strengths)

These parts are not only scientific but may even be more aligned with the latest cutting-edge research than the old guidelines:

• Cracking Down on Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs): A large body of recent research (e.g., Kevin Hall's NIH experiments) conclusively proves that ultra-processed foods disrupt the body's satiety mechanisms, leading to overeating and metabolic disorders. The old guidelines were vague on this; the new guidelines take a strong stance, which is very scientifically defensible.

• Strict Control of Added Sugars: The impact of sugar on insulin resistance and inflammation is well-established. The new guide's "zero-tolerance" attitude towards sugar aligns with the direction of metabolic pathology research.

2. Parts with High Scientific Controversy (Main Weaknesses)

These parts are considered by mainstream medicine to be "dangerous gambling":

• Saturated Fat (Red Meat, Butter, Tallow):

• Mainstream View: Decades of research by the American Heart Association (AHA) insists that saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol, thereby increasing heart disease risk.

• New Guide View: Believes cholesterol is not the culprit for heart disease; inflammation is.

• Assessment: This is a hotly debated topic in academia, far from settled. The new guide directly adopts the "opposing" view, taking a very large step, risking angering cardiologists.

• Demonizing Seed Oils:

• Mainstream View: Soybean oil, canola oil are rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids, which help lower cholesterol.

• New Guide View: Believes industrially extracted seed oils are prone to oxidation, producing toxins, and are a root cause of inflammation.

• Assessment: Currently, high-quality human clinical evidence on the harm of seed oils is not as abundant as for sugar. This part of the recommendation is highly "speculative."

3. Procedural "Unscientific" Nature

• Ignoring the Expert Committee: By law, dietary guidelines should be based on the scientific report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC). The 2025 DGAC report did not actually recommend completely overturning the low-fat diet. RFK Jr.'s team largely discarded or modified the scientists' committee draft, rewriting the conclusions directly by executive order.

• From a procedural justice perspective, this is criticized as "political interference in science."

---

III. Summary: This is a "Paradigm Shift"

This is not just a question of scientific level, but a war between two "medical religions":

1. Old Camp (Mainstream Medicine/Epidemiology): Believes "calories are the main factor," focuses on cholesterol indicators, tends towards low-fat diets, and trusts peer-reviewed institutional science.

• They believe the new report is pseudoscience that will kill heart patients.

2. New Camp (Metabolic Medicine/Functional Medicine): Believes "hormones (insulin) are the main factor," focuses on inflammation and blood sugar, tends towards low-carb/high-fat diets, and trusts evolutionary biology and clinical reversal cases.

• They believe the old report was the pseudoscience, because after 40 years of following the old guidelines, Americans are getting fatter and sicker.

Conclusion:

• If you ask a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, they will say this report is "not scientific enough, even dangerous."

• If you ask a clinical doctor treating diabetes or a biohacker, they will say this is "the most scientific and sane guideline in decades."

RFK Jr.'s qualifications might not be enough to pass a biochemistry exam, but he has accurately hit the pain point that Americans are "eating more 'scientifically' but getting sicker." This report is a massive social experiment.

The short answer is: Yes, a low-carb diet is highly scientific, especially for treating metabolic diseases (like diabetes, obesity, fatty liver).

In fact, the biggest shift in the nutrition community over the past 20 years has been moving from "fearing fat" to "focusing on the impact of carbohydrates on hormones (insulin)."

Below is a detailed analysis of the scientific basis of low-carb diets, broken down into mechanisms, evidence, and controversies:

1. Core Scientific Mechanism: The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model

The traditional nutritional view is the "calorie balance model" (calories in = calories out). Low-carb diets are based on the "hormonal model."

• Principle: When you eat carbohydrates (especially refined grains and sugars), blood sugar rises, and the pancreas must secrete insulin.

• Insulin's Role: Insulin is a "storage hormone." It not only pushes blood sugar into cells but also blocks fat burning and signals the body: "Energy is available now, store the excess as fat."

• Effect of Low-Carb: By reducing carbohydrate intake and keeping insulin levels low, the body is forced to switch from "sugar-burning mode" to "fat-burning mode" (producing ketones), thereby consuming stored body fat.

Illustration: As shown in the figure above, carbohydrates cause sharp insulin spikes, while fat causes almost no insulin fluctuation. This is the biochemical basis for the saying "eating fat doesn't make you fat, eating sugar does."

2. Clinical Evidence: From "Fringe" to "Mainstream"

Decades ago, low-carb was seen as a "dangerous fringe approach" (like early Atkins diet). But now, numerous Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) — the gold standard of scientific evidence — have confirmed its effectiveness.

• Diabetes Reversal: Large-scale clinical studies by the renowned U.S. company Virta Health showed that through a ketogenic diet (very low carb), 60% of type 2 diabetes patients reversed their diabetes within one year, stopping insulin use. This is almost impossible to achieve with traditional "low-fat diet" treatment.

• American Diabetes Association (ADA) Recognition: In 2019, the ADA officially listed low-carb diets as one of the standard recommended therapies for managing diabetes, acknowledging it as the most effective dietary pattern for lowering blood sugar.

• Improved Cardiovascular Markers: Studies find that low-carb diets typically significantly reduce triglycerides, raise "good cholesterol" (HDL), and lower blood pressure.

3. Why Was It Previously Considered "Unscientific"?

• Saturated Fat Fear: The scientific hypothesis of the 1950s-70s posited that saturated fat causes heart disease (the diet-heart hypothesis). Since low-carb diets typically involve high fat intake, they were considered "suicidal" by the medical establishment at the time.

• The Reversal Now: Modern large-scale meta-analyses show that there is no clear direct causal relationship between natural saturated fats (like meat, butter) and heart disease mortality. This cleared the biggest theoretical obstacle for low-carb diets.

4. Controversies and Risks: Low-Carb is Not Perfect

While low-carb is scientific, it is not without controversy or suitable for everyone.

• LDL Cholesterol Issue: About 10-30% of people experience a significant increase in "bad" cholesterol (LDL) when following a low-carb (especially ketogenic) diet. While supporters argue this is harmless large-particle LDL, mainstream cardiologists remain concerned, believing it may increase long-term risk.

• Athletic Performance: For power athletes (e.g., sprinters, weightlifters), carbohydrates are still the most efficient fuel. Low-carb may temporarily reduce performance in such high-intensity activities.

• "Dirty Keto": If a person avoids carbs but consumes large amounts of processed meats (bacon, sausage) and poor-quality vegetable oils, they may lose weight but will experience severe inflammation. This is why the 2025 guidelines emphasize "real food" — i.e., healthy low-carb (avocados, grass-fed beef, eggs), not processed low-carb.

Summary

Low-carb is not only scientific, but it is also one of the most powerful scientific tools currently available for combating metabolic syndrome (obesity, high blood pressure, high blood sugar).

Its scientific basis rests on biochemistry (lowering insulin) and clinical data (reversing diabetes).

Its Suitable Populations:

• ✅ Most Suitable: Obese individuals, diabetics, those with insulin resistance, and sedentary modern people.

• ⚠️ Needs Caution: Type 1 diabetics (requires medical supervision), high-level competitive athletes, pregnant women, and those with certain genetic lipid metabolism disorders.

The 2025 U.S. Dietary Guidelines promote it precisely because a large portion of the U.S. population is in a "metabolically unhealthy" state. For this group, low-carb is a more scientific "antidote" than low-fat.

That's an excellent question. After learning about the benefits of "low-carb," many people tend to go to extremes, thinking "carbs = poison" and that they must avoid them completely.

The answer is: Unless you are treating severe diabetes or extreme obesity (requiring a ketogenic diet), completely eliminating carbs is unnecessary for most people, and may even be unsustainable.

The core of the 2025 new guidelines is not "zero carbs," but "high-quality carbs."

Here is a practical guide to "eating carbs healthily" based on the new guidelines and modern metabolic science:

1. Core Principle: Look at "Degree of Processing," Not Just "Grams"

The new guidelines advocate "Eat Real Food." To judge whether a carb is okay to eat, just ask one question: "Did it grow naturally, or was it made in a factory?"

✅ Green Light Carbs (Eat Freely / Real Food)

These foods contain carbs, but they are wrapped in fiber, digest slowly, and won't spike blood sugar.

• Above-ground vegetables: Broccoli, spinach, cabbage, kale (very low carb, very high fiber).

• Whole fruits: Apples, berries (blueberries/strawberries), citrus (note: eat the fruit, don't drink the juice).

• Root vegetables (in moderation): Sweet potatoes, potatoes, carrots, pumpkin (if steamed or boiled, not fried).

• Legumes: Lentils, chickpeas, black beans (high protein + high fiber).

⚠️ Yellow Light Carbs (Control Portions / Be Careful)

• Whole grains: Brown rice, oats, quinoa. Although better than white rice, they are still high-starch foods. If you exercise a lot, you can eat them; if you are sedentary, eat less.

• High-sugar fruits: Bananas, grapes, mangoes, pineapple (very high in sugar; best eaten around exercise).

❌ Red Light Carbs (2025 Guidelines Recommend Complete Elimination)

These are called "Acellular Carbohydrates." Their cell walls have been destroyed, so they turn directly into sugar that floods the bloodstream.

• Refined grains: White bread, white steamed buns, noodles, white rice (since the bran is removed, they are almost equivalent to sugar).

• Powdered products: Cookies, cakes, breakfast cereals, crackers.

• Liquid carbs: Fruit juice, soda, sweetened milk tea, sports drinks. This is the worst form of carbs.

---

2. Advanced Tips: How to Eat Carbs Without Gaining Weight? (Blood Sugar Management)

If you want to eat carbs and maintain metabolic health, you can use these "biohacking" techniques (which also align with the new guidelines' emphasis on blood sugar control):

A. Change Your Eating Order (Very Important!)

Don't start with rice or bread. Follow this order:

1. Eat fiber first (vegetables): Forms a net in your stomach.

2. Then eat protein and fat (meat/eggs/dairy): Slows stomach emptying.

3. Eat carbs last (staple foods/fruit): This can lower your blood sugar spike by 30%-70% and significantly reduce insulin secretion.

B. "Dress" Your Carbs

Never eat carbs "naked" (e.g., a single cookie as an afternoon snack, or bread on an empty stomach in the morning).

• Method: Always pair carbs with protein or fat.

• Example: Apple + nut butter; potato + butter/beef; rice + lard/vegetables. Fat slows down carb absorption.

C. Turn Carbs into "Resistant Starch"

If you love rice or potatoes, let them cool down after cooking (or cool them and then reheat).

• Principle: The cooling process creates "resistant starch," which is difficult for the body to absorb. It goes directly to the large intestine to feed probiotics, reducing calorie absorption and lowering the blood sugar response.

D. "Earn" Your Carbs

• Eat after exercise: Muscles crave glycogen like a sponge after a workout. Eating carbs (even a bowl of white rice) at this time sends sugar to repair muscle tissue, not to store as belly fat.

• Eat less when sedentary: If you're sitting at a computer for 8 hours today, you don't need that much high-energy fuel. Eat more meat and vegetables instead.

---

3. Summary: Specific Advice for You

You don't need to eliminate them completely, but do a "carb swap":

• Old breakfast: Bread + juice ❌ (This is sugar + sugar)

• Healthy breakfast: 2-3 eggs + avocado + a handful of blueberries ✅ (Protein + good fat + low-sugar fruit)

• Old lunch: A big bowl of rice with toppings (lots of rice, few vegetables) ❌

• Healthy lunch: A large piece of steak/fish + lots of stir-fried vegetables + half a fist-sized sweet potato/pumpkin ✅

A one-sentence summary of the 2025 way of eating: Treat carbohydrates as a side dish, not the main course. The main course should be meat, fish, eggs, and vegetables.

This is a very astute and critical question. It is also one of the biggest points of conflict between the 2025 new dietary guidelines and the past.

The simple and direct answer is: not recommended.

Under the 2025 "back to real food" philosophy, so-called "ultra-processed health foods" are seen as "wolves in sheep's clothing". Even in some radical views (such as RFK Jr.'s team), these highly industrialized "health products" are more deceptive than traditional junk food because they make you think you are eating healthy food.

Here is why the new guidelines advise you to stay away from these "healthy" ultra-processed foods:

1. What are "ultra-processed health foods"?

First, we need to define what you see in the supermarket:

• Plant-based Meats: Such as Beyond Meat or Impossible Burger.

• Protein Bars: Beautifully packaged, touting "high protein, low sugar".

• Meal Replacements: Claiming to contain all the vitamins the body needs.

• "Keto" Snacks: Cookies and breads touting "zero carbs".

• Plant Milks (some): Oat milk, almond milk with added thickeners, vegetable oils, and sugar.

2. Why does the new guideline oppose them?

The new guideline is based on the NOVA food classification system (a standard that classifies foods by degree of processing rather than nutritional content). Even if these products' nutrition labels (macronutrients) look perfect (high protein, low carbs), they still fall into Category 4: Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF).

A. The problem of "deconstruction and recombination"

Real food is a complex "matrix".

• Real food: When you eat a steak, you are eating protein, fat, water, vitamins, and minerals combined in a natural structure. Your body knows how to digest it slowly.

• Ultra-processed health food: The factory grinds soybeans into powder, extracts isolated protein, adds industrial seed oil (for texture), adds synthetic vitamins (for good data), adds emulsifiers (for shape), and finally adds flavorings.

• Consequence: Your body does not treat this as "food" but as a bunch of chemical signals. This often leads to rapid absorption, inflammatory responses, and gut microbiota disruption.

B. Hidden "saboteurs"

To make these "health foods" made from powder taste like real food, a large amount of industrial ingredients must be added:

• Emulsifiers: Such as carrageenan, soy lecithin. Studies show they may disrupt the intestinal mucus layer, leading to leaky gut.

• Artificial Sweeteners: Aspartame, sucralose, etc. Although calorie-free, they may trick the brain, leading to increased cravings for sweets later and potentially altering gut microbiota.

• Industrial Seed Oils: Many plant-based meats or protein bars use cheap sunflower or soybean oil, which are pro-inflammatory ingredients that the new guidelines explicitly recommend reducing.

C. The special controversy of "plant-based meat"

An important political background of the 2025 guidelines is opposition to "lab-grown meat".

• The official view is that a piece of grass-fed beef (single ingredient: beef) is much healthier than a plant-based patty containing 20 ingredients (pea protein, canola oil, methylcellulose, maltodextrin, etc.).

3. How to identify? (Avoidance guide)

If you pick up a package and see the following, it is ultra-processed health food, and it is recommended to eat less or not at all:

1. Ingredient list too long: More than 5 ingredients.

2. Contains things you don't have in your kitchen: Do you have "hydrolyzed soy protein" at home? "High fructose corn syrup"? "Acesulfame potassium"? If not, it's ultra-processed.

3. Claims a "health halo": The front of the package says big words like "high fiber", "added vitamin D", "low fat". Real food (like broccoli or eggs) usually has no packaging and doesn't need to shout on the street that it's healthy.

4. Practical advice: If I'm busy, what should I eat?

It's hard to completely reject convenience foods, but you can do "downgrade substitutions":

Ultra-processed "healthy" foods (try to avoid)Real food alternatives (recommended)**Reason
**Protein BarBoiled eggs / beef jerky / a handful of almondsEggs and meat are naturally high in protein, no additives.
Plant-based burger (Fake Meat)****Real beef patty / grilled mushrooms / tofuTofu is processed, but it's traditional simple processing, not ultra-processed.
Oat milk with sugar/gums****Whole milk / pure coconut milk / waterMany plant milks are essentially "starch water + oil + gum".
Fruit-flavored low-fat yogurt****Full-fat Greek yogurt + fresh berriesAvoids the sugar and thickeners in jam.
Whole wheat crackers/soda crackers****Apple slices / cucumber sticksCrackers are made from refined flour, causing rapid blood sugar spikes.
Vitamin-fortified juice****Eat the fruit directlyFiber slows sugar absorption.

Summary

The 2025 guidelines are not looking at the Nutrition Facts but at the Ingredients list.

As long as the ingredient list is full of chemical names, even if it is "low-fat", "low-sugar", "high-protein" or even "organic", it is still not "real food".

If you are eating for health, eating a real apple is always better than an apple-flavored energy bar containing a hundred vitamins.

This is a very critical question, and it's the biggest point of debate in nutrition science in recent years.

The short answer is: Yes, the evidence is very strong. Even ultra-processed foods marketed as "healthy" (like low-sugar protein bars, plant-based meats, fortified breakfast cereals) are increasingly shown by high-quality studies to be harmful to human metabolism.

The core issue isn't the "nutrition facts panel" (even if it says high protein, low sugar, zero fat), but rather the destruction of the "food matrix" and the biological effects of industrial additives.

Here is the evidence currently held by the scientific community, explaining why "ultra-processing" itself is a problem:

1. Solid Evidence: Kevin Hall's Controlled Experiment

This is one of the most famous experiments in nutrition history, completely changing how we view processed foods.

• Background: Dr. Kevin Hall at the NIH conducted a tightly controlled randomized controlled trial.

• Design: Subjects ate an "ultra-processed diet" for two weeks and an "unprocessed diet" for another two weeks.

• Key Point: The calories, sugar, fat, protein, and fiber content of both diets were exactly the same. In other words, from a nutrition label perspective, the meals were identical.

• Result: When people ate the "ultra-processed food," they unconsciously consumed about 500 more calories per day and significantly gained weight in just two weeks.

• Conclusion: The problem isn't the sugar or fat itself, but that the physical structure and chemical properties of ultra-processed foods bypass the body's satiety mechanisms, making it impossible to stop eating.

2. Why Are "Healthy" Ultra-Processed Foods Also a Problem?

Many products marketed as "healthy" (like protein bars, whole wheat crackers, plant milks) are blacklisted because they have these three hidden killers:

A. The Collapse of the "Food Matrix"

• Real food (e.g., almonds): Fat is wrapped in fiber within cell walls. When you eat almonds, about 20% of the fat isn't even absorbed and is excreted. Digestion is slow, blood sugar is stable.

• Ultra-processed food (e.g., almond-flavored energy bar): The factory grinds the ingredients into powder, destroying the cell walls. Fat and sugar become "free."

• Consequence: Even if the nutrition is the same, your body absorbs them at an "explosive" rate. This causes insulin spikes and inflammation, even if it's "low sugar."

B. Texture Effect: Eating Too Fast

• Chewing is key: Ultra-processed foods are usually soft and easy to swallow.

• Evidence: Studies show that the number of chews and eating time are significantly lower for ultra-processed foods compared to whole foods.

• Consequence: Your stomach hasn't had time to send the "I'm full" signal to your brain (usually takes 20 minutes), and you've already consumed excess calories.

C. Gut Microbiome Disruptors

This is the most cutting-edge area of research. To make those "healthy powders" stick together and have a long shelf life, industrial ingredients must be added:

• Emulsifiers: Like carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), polysorbate-80. Animal studies show they erode the intestinal mucus layer, leading to leaky gut and chronic inflammation.

• Artificial Sweeteners: Although calorie-free, some sweeteners (like saccharin, sucralose) have been shown to alter gut microbiome diversity, paradoxically inducing glucose intolerance.

3. Large-Scale Epidemiological Evidence

Beyond lab studies, long-term tracking studies of hundreds of thousands of people show striking consistency:

• All-cause mortality: For every 10% increase in daily ultra-processed food intake, the risk of all-cause mortality increases by about 14%.

• Cancer and Heart Disease: A large 2024 study in The Lancet confirmed that people with high ultra-processed food intake have a significantly higher risk of several cancers (especially ovarian and brain cancer) and cardiovascular disease.

• Mental Health: Recent studies have even found a strong association between ultra-processed food intake and an increased risk of depression and anxiety.

4. What is the NOVA Classification? (How to Judge)

To avoid the disguises of the food industry, scientists created the NOVA classification system. You need to be wary of Category 4.

• Category 1: Unprocessed/Minimally Processed (Recommended): Eggs, apples, fresh meat, rice.

• Category 2: Processed Culinary Ingredients (In Moderation): Salt, butter, sugar, vegetable oil.

• Category 3: Processed Foods (Okay to Eat): Canned fish, fresh cheese, freshly baked bread (only flour, water, salt, yeast), pickles.

• Note: These are simple preservation methods, no industrial chemicals added.

• Category 4: Ultra-Processed Foods (Avoid): Contains ingredients not found in your home kitchen (like high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, flavor enhancers, emulsifiers).

• Includes: Sodas, packaged snacks, most supermarket bread, plant-based meats, meal replacement powders, flavored yogurt.

Summary: Is the Evidence Sufficient?

For the conclusion that "ultra-processed foods are harmful," the evidence is already very strong (Strong Consensus).

As for those ultra-processed foods marketed as "healthy" (like protein bars), the current evidence is also clear: They might be slightly better than pure junk food (like potato chips), but they are far inferior to real food.

• If you eat them for convenience, that's a trade-off.

• If you eat them for health, you've been misled by marketing.

The 2025 dietary guidelines' advice is very pragmatic: Your body evolved over millions of years to digest complex, natural foods, not to handle factory-synthesized nutrient powders.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans are important not just because they are a set of "recommendations," but because they are a legal document that directly dictates the flow of the federal government's roughly $100 billion in annual food and nutrition spending.

Based on the policy platform of RFK Jr. and the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) team, this 2025 "return to real food" guide will be enforced through the following five "battlefields." This is not just a change in dietary advice, but a "shock therapy" for the American food system.

1. Battlefield One: The School Lunch Revolution

This is the area most affected and of greatest concern to parents. Currently, American school lunches consist mainly of frozen, reheated processed foods (like pizza, chicken nuggets, chocolate milk).

• Prohibited List: The new guidelines will empower the USDA to ban high fructose corn syrup, artificial food dyes (like Red 40, Yellow 5), industrial seed oils, and sugary drinks from school lunches.

• Return to "Real Kitchens": Funding will shift from buying frozen processed foods to building school kitchens and hiring chefs to cook fresh meat, eggs, and vegetables on-site.

• Whole Milk Returns: For the past decade or more, schools were only allowed to serve skim or low-fat milk (often loaded with sugar for taste). The new policy will allow and even encourage whole milk back into schools and ban sweetened flavored milk.

2. Battlefield Two: Federal Food Assistance Reform (SNAP & WIC)

Over 40 million Americans rely on SNAP (food stamps) and WIC (Women, Infants, and Children). In the past, you could buy soda and candy with food stamps.

• Purchase Restrictions: The new policy will attempt to turn SNAP into a "restricted list" similar to WIC. That means government benefits will no longer pay for soda, candy, and ultra-processed snacks. This is called "no longer poisoning the taxpayer with taxpayer money."

• Double Bucks: If recipients buy fresh vegetables, fruits, or meat at farmers' markets, their benefit value could be doubled.

3. Battlefield Three: Shifting Agricultural Subsidies (Farm Bill)

This is the deepest economic lever. Current U.S. agricultural subsidies primarily go to corn and soybeans—the basis for producing high fructose corn syrup, soybean oil, and animal feed, which are the raw materials for ultra-processed foods.

• From "Commodities" to "Specialty Crops": Policy will attempt to shift subsidies from monocultures to regenerative agriculture, fruits, vegetables, and grass-fed livestock.

• Goal: Make carrots and grass-fed beef cheaper, and make highly processed corn chips more expensive.

4. Battlefield Four: "Food as Medicine" in the Healthcare System

This version of the guidelines emphasizes metabolic health, so the healthcare system (Medicare/Medicaid) will get involved.

• Medically Tailored Meals: Doctors will be empowered to prescribe "healthy food prescriptions" for patients with diabetes or heart disease. Insurance companies will no longer just reimburse for insulin or statins, but will start reimbursing for "vegetable boxes" or "gym memberships."

• Logic: Buying a few months of high-quality food for a patient is much cheaper than paying for a heart bypass surgery.

5. Battlefield Five: Labeling and Transparency (The "Tobacco Moment")

Modeling the regulation of the tobacco industry, strict labeling will be applied to ultra-processed foods.

• Black Label Warnings: On the front of packages high in sugar or containing artificial additives, a prominent black warning label (similar to practices in Chile and Mexico) may be mandatory, indicating "High Sugar" or "Contains Artificial Ingredients."

• Ingredient Decryption: Require food companies to disclose the specific chemical composition of vague ingredients (like "natural flavors").

---

Major Challenges and Resistance Ahead

While the blueprint is grand, its implementation will face hellish difficulty:

1. Counterattack from Food Giants: Companies like Kraft Heinz, General Mills, and Coca-Cola will launch massive lawsuits and lobbying campaigns, accusing the government of interfering with the free market.

2. Price Shock: "Real food" is more expensive than processed food. If promoted forcefully without adjusting the supply chain, it could cause school lunch costs to skyrocket or low-income families to feel the pain of rising prices.

3. Supply Chain Breakdown: The current U.S. agricultural system is designed to produce corn and soybeans. Due to a lack of sufficient small and medium-sized farms and slaughterhouses, it may not be able to supply the billions of tons of fresh meat and vegetables needed by schools nationwide.

Summary: The implementation of this guide will no longer be gentle persuasion, but the federal government using its immense purchasing power (schools, military, hospitals) to forcibly change market demand. If successful, this would be the most thorough public health intervention in the U.S. in half a century.

Indeed, from a public health and long-term perspective, this is seen by many as "the greatest course correction in American health history."

If it can truly be implemented, it's not just about making people thinner; it's about reshaping the very foundation of the nation. But as with all major changes involving the redistribution of interests, this is also a case of "easier said than done." While cheering, we also need to clearly see the real-world struggles it faces.

To help you understand the logic behind this "great thing" more intuitively, we can look at its far-reaching impact from three dimensions:

---

1. Where is this change "good"?

• Saving Money: The U.S. currently spends about $4.5 trillion annually on healthcare, the vast majority of which goes to diet-related chronic diseases (diabetes, heart disease). If reducing chronic disease by 10% through "eating real food" could save enough money to cover basic education or infrastructure.

• Fairness: In the past, health was a privilege of the rich (the rich can afford organic vegetables, the poor can only eat cheap, deeply processed junk food). If subsidy policies change to make healthy food cheap and accessible, that's true social equity.

• Environment and Soil: Returning to natural food usually goes hand-in-hand with supporting regenerative agriculture. Reducing reliance on monocultures (fertilizer- and pesticide-intensive corn and soy) helps restore America's increasingly depleted soil.

2. Why couldn't it be done before? (The "Arena of Interests")

The reason this task is so difficult is that it touches two extremely powerful interest groups:

• Big Food: Their profits come from turning extremely low-cost raw materials (cheap starch, oil, sugar) into high-margin snacks through chemical processing. Asking them to switch to selling fresh meat and vegetables with thinner margins and shorter shelf lives is like "cutting off their livelihood."

• Big Pharma: If Americans lower their blood sugar just by eating and no longer need long-term medications for diabetes, blood pressure, and weight loss (like Wegovy/GLP-1 agonists), pharmaceutical companies' revenues would face a devastating blow.

3. Lessons for Us: How to Be Your Own "MAHA"?

Regardless of whether the policy can be 100% implemented, this philosophy has already given us ordinary people a "health safe haven." You don't need to wait for policy changes in the U.S. or any country; you can start practicing it in your life today:

• Shop only the "perimeter" of the supermarket: Most supermarkets have a similar layout. The perimeter is usually fresh produce, meat, eggs, and dairy; the inner aisles are colorful processed packaged foods. Only shop the perimeter.

• Read the ingredient list, not the expiration date: If a food can last a year without spoiling, it means even bacteria don't like it, and your body probably won't either.

• Return to the kitchen: Take back control of your food. Even the simplest fried egg or stir-fry understands your body better than any expensive "healthy meal replacement."

---

Summary

This is indeed a grand plan that will benefit future generations. It marks our return from the era of "feeding humanity with chemistry and industry" to the era of "nourishing life with nature's gifts."

The core of this change is actually just one sentence: "Respect the laws of biological evolution; don't try to challenge humanity's millions-of-years-old digestive system with a factory assembly line."

Would you like me to help you create a one-week minimalist meal plan based on the "real food" philosophy, to see how to practice this new guideline at low cost in daily life?

That's a multi-trillion-dollar question. To put it bluntly: This is an epic battle of "David versus Goliath."

While the idea is a "great thing," fully implementing it in reality and defeating these giants that have been entrenched for half a century is extremely difficult. We can break it down from three angles: the giants' defensive weapons, RFK Jr.'s offensive strategy, and the odds of success.

---

1. The Giants' "Defensive Arsenal"

Food and pharmaceutical giants will not sit idly by. Their counterattack methods are extremely powerful:

• Lawsuits (First Line of Defense): Food giants will invoke the First Amendment (commercial free speech) to challenge warning labels on packaging, or accuse the government of overstepping its authority by modifying the SNAP purchase list. This lawsuit could go all the way to the Supreme Court, dragging on for years.

• Lobbying and Funding: Washington has thousands of full-time lobbyists serving the food industry. They will weaken the policy's force by sponsoring academic research and funding politicians' re-election campaigns.

• The "Price" Trump Card: The giants will create a narrative that "natural food is a luxury for the rich, and the government is depriving the poor of their right to drink Coke and eat cheap cereal." This kind of "class rhetoric" is politically very damaging.

• Scientific Review: The giants will fund "experts" to publish opposing research reports, creating confusion and making the public think "nutrition science changes every day, so the new guidelines might not be right either."

---

2. RFK Jr. and the MAHA Team's "Offensive Strategy"

Facing the giants, RFK Jr. doesn't plan to negotiate gently like traditional bureaucrats. His strategy is a "flanking maneuver" :

• Debureaucratization (Cleaning House): His first step is to fire officials within the FDA and USDA who are considered to have ties to industry interests. Without these "insiders," the giants' lobbying efforts will become much harder.

• Using Executive Power (Bypassing Congress): Many regulations regarding school lunches and food benefits can be modified directly through executive orders, without needing lengthy congressional legislation, giving him room for rapid implementation.

• Public Opinion War (Waking People Up): Communicating directly with the public through podcasts and social media. When tens of millions of parents realize that their children's inattention, obesity, and allergies might stem from additives in school lunches, this public pressure will be very difficult for the giants to suppress.

• The Economic Logic of "Food as Medicine": He is trying to convince insurance companies. If insurers find that paying for "quality beef and vegetables" is cheaper than paying for "a lifetime of diabetes medication," health insurers might switch sides, supporting the new guidelines against Big Pharma.

---

3. Can They Really Be Defeated? (Three Possible Outcomes)

The final outcome of this war may not be a "complete victory" or "complete defeat," but one of these three scenarios:

Scenario A: Pyrrhic Victory (Best Case)

The government successfully mandates warning labels on packaging, and school lunches are completely revamped. Although Coke is still sold, it's labeled like tobacco, and sales plummet. American health indicators begin to bottom out and rebound within 5-10 years.

Scenario B: Stalemate (Most Likely Case)

Some policies are implemented (like school lunches), but core interests (like agricultural subsidies, food stamp restrictions) are deadlocked in Congress. The giants launch "pseudo-natural" products (still ultra-processed, but with better packaging and ingredient names) to evade regulation. This becomes a decades-long tug-of-war.

Scenario C: Reversal After the Person Leaves (Most Pessimistic Case)

The interests touched are so great that they cause price increases or political backlash. If the next administration rescinds these executive orders, everything returns to square one.

---

4. Why Is This Time "Different"?

Previous dietary guideline reforms have failed, but this time there are two variables:

1. Data Visibility: Now ordinary people wearing continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) can see with their own eyes how ultra-processed foods spike their blood sugar. This "individual awakening" didn't exist before.

2. Cross-Party Consensus: Health used to be a progressive issue. Now MAHA has turned it into a consensus that crosses the red-blue divide: "Protect the children, save the national budget."

Summary

Defeating the giants is not something that can be done overnight; it may even take a generation. This is not just the implementation of a guide; it's a turn of civilization.

Even if the giants win in Washington, as long as the public gains knowledge and starts voting with their wallets (no longer buying those chemical mixtures), the giants will have to change. As RFK Jr. said: "We don't need a law to make Coca-Cola go out of business. We just need people to know what it is, and its business will naturally shrink."

If you want to "defeat the giants" in your own life right now, where would you like to start? Is it cleaning out the ultra-processed foods from your kitchen cabinets, or trying a "real food" challenge for a week? I can help you plan a "zero-to-hero transformation plan."

Of course they do, and in this area, the United States is actually a "latecomer."

For a long time, the U.S. Dietary Guidelines have been heavily criticized for being influenced by corporate lobbying. In contrast, several countries around the world have already taken the lead in combating ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and returning to natural diets.

The practices of these countries are precisely the template that the 2025 U.S. guidelines aim to emulate—or even surpass:

---

1. Brazil: The Global Leader in the "Anti-Ultra-Processed Food" Movement

Brazil was the first country in the world to make "degree of processing" the core standard of its dietary guidelines.

• Core Philosophy: Brazil's 2014 Dietary Guidelines pioneered the use of the NOVA classification system. It doesn't dwell on complex nutrients (like protein or fat percentages), but simply and directly tells citizens: "Avoid ultra-processed foods; base your diet on natural or minimally processed foods."

• Implementation: Brazilian law mandates that at least 30% of ingredients in school lunches must be purchased directly from local family farms, which has significantly curbed the entry of industrialized pre-made meals into schools.

2. Chile: The World's Strictest Packaging Warnings

In 2016, Chile implemented what is known as "the world's strictest food labeling law," directly declaring war on food giants.

• Black Label Warnings (Stop Signs): Any packaged food high in sugar, saturated fat, salt, or calories must display a large black octagonal warning label on its front.

• Marketing Bans: Foods bearing these black labels are prohibited from appearing in advertisements targeting children, and packaging is strictly forbidden from featuring cartoon characters (like the famous Chester Cheetah or Tony the Tiger).

• Results: Just a few years after implementation, Chile's consumption of sugary drinks dropped by nearly 25%.

3. Mexico: Pioneer of the Soda Tax

Mexico was once one of the world's highest per capita consumers of Coca-Cola, with extremely high diabetes rates.

• Sugar Tax: Mexico imposes a heavy tax on sugary drinks and an 8% non-essential tax on ultra-processed snacks.

• School Ban: At the end of 2024, the Mexican government passed stricter decrees, completely banning the sale of ultra-processed foods in schools.

4. Nordic Countries (e.g., Sweden, Norway): Nordic Nutrition Recommendations (NNR)

The guidelines in Nordic countries focus not only on health but also on sustainability.

• Less Meat, More Plants: Their latest guidelines recommend reducing red meat intake, but the core remains "whole foods."

• Keyhole Label: Helps consumers quickly identify natural, high-fiber, low-salt healthy foods.

---

Why is the U.S. 2025 Plan Getting More Attention?

1. Scale difference: The United States is the world's largest food processing base. If the US, this "heart," changes, global supply chains and multinational companies' formulas will be forced to change accordingly.

2. Paradigm shift: Countries like Brazil mainly target "health," but the US 2025 plan carries a strong "medical reflection" and "political reckoning" tone. It directly challenges the definition of fat that mainstream Western medicine has held for the past 50 years.

3. Attitude toward red meat: This is a huge difference. Northern European countries, while supporting natural foods, still recommend limiting meat. But the US 2025 guidelines (influenced by RFK Jr.) strongly advocate high-quality red meat and animal fats, considering them the essence of human evolution. This is very unique among Western countries.

Summary and Comparison

Country Core Approach Focus
Brazil NOVA classification Emphasizes degree of food processing
Chile Black warning labels Targets child marketing, direct warnings
Mexico Sugar tax & school ban Economic leverage against sugary drinks
US (2025) Comprehensive administrative reset De-industrialization, reshaping agriculture, challenging existing medical dogma

This means we are entering an era of "nutritional nationalism": Countries are realizing that if they cannot protect their citizens' stomachs, their national finances will eventually be dragged down by chronic diseases.

Would you like to see how, based on the "NOVA classification" of Brazil and the US, you can conduct a "de-industrialization" audit of your current refrigerator? I can teach you to identify those "Class 4 foods" disguised as healthy.

This is a very core question. Hash Browns or French fries sit right at the crossroads of "natural food" and the "ultra-processed trap."

Under the logic of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines, evaluating whether fried food is healthy no longer just looks at whether it's "fried," but rather "what oil is used for frying" and "what processing the ingredient itself has undergone."

1. The Key Dividing Line: Industrial Hash Browns vs. Homemade Hash Browns

The new guidelines will tell you that these two types of "hash browns," though they share the same name, are biologically completely different things:

❌ Ultra-Processed Hash Browns from Supermarkets/Fast Food (Blacklist)

These are what the 2025 guidelines strongly advise avoiding.

• Complex Ingredients: Besides potatoes, they contain thickeners (like methylcellulose), sodium dehydroacetate (preservative), and dextrose (to achieve a golden color when fried).

• Fatal Flaw: Industrial Seed Oils. Most commercial hash browns are deep-fried at high temperatures in soybean oil, corn oil, or canola oil. The new guidelines argue that these vegetable oils produce large amounts of pro-inflammatory substances (like oxidized lipids and acrylamide) at high temperatures.

• Metabolic Impact: Highly pulverized potato starch + oxidized vegetable oil = blood sugar spike + bodily inflammation.

✅ Real, Healthy Frying (The New Guidelines' Surprising Recommendation)

If you make hash browns at home, the situation is completely different:

• Simple Ingredients: Just potatoes, salt, and a bit of black pepper.

• Core Change: Healthy Animal Fats. If you use Beef Tallow, Butter, or Lard to fry the potatoes.

• Scientific Basis: Saturated animal fats are extremely stable at high temperatures and do not easily oxidize and degrade like seed oils.

• Return to Tradition: One of the underlying concepts of the 2025 guidelines is that human ancestors consumed animal fats for thousands of years without modern metabolic diseases.

---

2. Why is the "Oil" More Important than "Frying"?

Experts behind the new guidelines (such as RFK Jr.'s advisory team) believe that the collapse of American health is largely due to the complete replacement of traditional animal fats with industrial seed oils starting in the 1970s.

• Saturated Fats (Tallow/Lard): Their molecular structure is stable, like a neat row of soldiers, and they don't easily break down at high temperatures.

• Polyunsaturated Fats (Soybean/Canola Oil): They contain multiple unstable double bonds. When heated, they break apart like a broken chain, generating free radicals that attack your cells.

---

3. Your "Hash Brown Strategy": How to Eat Them and "Return to Real Food"?

If you really enjoy this type of food, according to the 2025 philosophy, you should do this:

1. Clean Ingredients: Buy fresh potatoes and shred them yourself, rather than buying pre-made semi-finished products from the supermarket freezer with a long list of ingredients.

2. Choose the Right Fat: Use grass-fed beef tallow, Ghee, or Coconut Oil. This is the essence of the "MAHA" style—enjoy the deliciousness of fat while avoiding industrial toxins.

3. Watch the Proportions: Although fat is no longer the enemy, potatoes are still high in carbs. It's recommended to treat hash browns as a side dish, paired with high-protein steak or eggs to balance the blood sugar response.

4. Air Fryer (Neutral Option): An air fryer reduces the total amount of oil, but if you're spraying industrial spray oil (which contains propellants and seed oils), it's still not healthy enough.

Summary: Can You Eat Hash Browns?

• McDonald's or frozen packaged hash browns: These are ultra-processed foods; the new guidelines recommend avoiding them whenever possible.

• Fresh shredded potato pancakes fried in tallow: These are real food and can be part of a healthy diet.

This is the most interesting part of the 2025 guidelines: It doesn't deprive you of the right to enjoy delicious food, but it asks you to change the way you get that deliciousness—from the factory back to the kitchen.

Since we've talked about oils and frying, would you like to know why the new guidelines have also listed oat milk, once considered a "health model," on the "pseudo-health" list? This is also a common misconception for many people.