Introduce the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans to me.
The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans were officially released on January 7, 2026.
This new edition represents a historic and major shift compared to previous versions. In this edition, the federal government has changed some of the traditional nutritional concepts held for decades, shifting the core philosophy from simply "nutrient control" to "Eat Real Food".
This new guideline 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 this guideline:
The new guideline emphasizes rejecting ultra-processed foods and returning to natural, whole food sources.
Slogan: "Eat Real Food".
Core Shift: Even certain natural fats previously considered "unhealthy" (like butter, whole milk) have now been elevated in status, as long as they are "real foods" that are not overly processed. Conversely, ultra-processed "low-fat" or "sugar-free" alternatives are explicitly advised against.
High-Quality Protein: This is the top priority of the new guideline. Encourages consuming high-nutrient-density protein with every meal.
Recommended Sources: Red meat (e.g., beef), poultry, eggs, seafood, full-fat dairy.
Plant Protein: Beans, peas, lentils, nuts, and seeds.
Healthy Fats: No longer demonizing fats, encourages intake of fats from natural sources.
Recommended Sources: Olive oil, butter, beef tallow, full-fat dairy, avocado, nuts.
Note: This is a significant departure from the past stance recommending "low-fat/skim milk" and "vegetable oils replacing animal fats."
Whole Grains & Fruits/Vegetables: Continues to emphasize fiber-rich whole grains, and colorful vegetables and fruits.
Ultra-Processed Foods: This is the biggest "enemy" of the new guideline. Advises avoiding packaged foods with complex ingredients and large amounts of additives.
Added Sugars: Takes a stricter stance than ever before.
Recommendation: No amount of added sugar is part of a "healthy diet."
Specific Limit: There is a suggestion that added sugar per meal should not exceed 10 grams (about 2.5 teaspoons), which is a very strict standard. For children, complete avoidance of added sugar is recommended.
Refined Carbohydrates: Reduce intake of refined grains like white bread, crackers, flour tortillas.
Sugar-Sweetened Beverages: Explicitly advises avoiding soda, juice drinks, and energy drinks.
Sodium (Salt): Recommends daily sodium intake below 2300 mg for individuals aged 14 and older (unchanged from previous years).
Infants & Children: Emphasizes completely avoiding added sugar in early life (especially the first two years), prioritizing meeting nutritional needs through breast milk or formula and natural complementary foods.
People with Chronic Conditions: The guideline mentions that for some individuals with chronic diseases, Low-Carbohydrate Diets may help improve health outcomes. This is the first time the official guidelines have given relatively clear recognition to low-carb diets.
Revival of the "Food Pyramid" Concept: This edition seems to have reintroduced a visual hierarchy similar to the "Food Pyramid" (different from "MyPlate" used for the past 15 years), where protein, dairy, and healthy fats occupy important positions, while the foundational status of whole grains is relatively reduced.
Simplification: The guideline document is very brief, aiming to be directly understandable by the general public, no longer filled with obscure academic jargon.
This edition of the guideline has sparked intense debate in the nutritional science community:
Supporters believe it corrects the past mistake of excessive fear of saturated fat, which led people to turn to high-sugar and ultra-processed low-fat foods, and returns to humanity's traditional eating patterns.
Opponents (such as some heart associations and nutrition societies) worry that encouraging red meat, butter, and full-fat dairy will increase cardiovascular disease risk, and believe parts of the guideline deviate from the original scientific report recommendations of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (the scientific advisory panel).
Summary: The core of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans is "eat meat, eat eggs, drink full-fat milk, eat more vegetables, and throw away processed foods and sugar." It is not just a set of nutritional recommendations, but a "reset" of America's past nutrition policies.
Why was the "return to 'real food'" philosophy adopted? Tell me about the background of the report.
The adoption of this "return to 'real food' (Eat Real Food)" philosophy was not sudden; it is based on a movement known as "Make America Healthy Again (MAHA)".
This is not merely a simple update to dietary advice, but a political and public health reckoning targeting America's "failed nutrition policies" of the past few decades. Below is the deeper background and reasons behind this report:
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 extremely high healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP, American life expectancy and health status are declining.
Shift in Attribution: The Kennedy (RFK Jr.) and Trump administrations believe the root cause of the surge in obesity, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, and cancer is not a lack of willpower, but because the food supply system is contaminated with "toxic" substances.
Conclusion: The low-fat, high-carbohydrate dietary advice of the past few decades is considered a failure, not only failing to curb obesity but potentially contributing to the epidemic of metabolic diseases.
"Eat Real Food" is a rebellion against the modern food industry.
Opposing "Technology and Harsh Tricks": The background of the new guideline is built on declaring war on Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs). The authorities 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 concoctions" rather than food.
Controversy Over Seed Oils: This iteration of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) specifically targets previously promoted "vegetable oils" (like soybean oil, corn oil), considering them culprits of inflammation in the body, thus advocating a return to traditional animal fats like butter and tallow.
This is the most controversial but also most popular background among its supporters—anti-establishment.
Accusation: 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 grain and sugar associations) to sell more cheap agricultural products, not for public health.
Reset: Therefore, the 2025 guidelines were designed as a "reset," aiming to sever the influence of big corporations on dietary advice. This is also why the guideline 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.
This report cannot be understood 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 view is: "Food is medicine." If the toxicity at the source of food is not addressed, no amount of medical investment can solve America's health crisis.
The emergence of the "return to real food" philosophy is because the current administration believes past nutritional science took the wrong path.
Its background is: No longer trusting the ultra-processed food industry, no longer blindly believing the "low-fat" dogma, attempting to rescue America's increasingly collapsing public health system by returning to the natural eating patterns of our ancestors (meat, eggs, dairy, native plants).
Is RFK Jr. qualified enough? Is the report scientific enough?
Regarding RFK Jr.'s (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) qualifications and the scientific nature of this report, there is currently extreme polarization both in the United States and globally.
In simple terms: from the perspective of traditional academic and bureaucratic standards, his "qualifications" and the report's "scientific process" have serious flaws; but from the emerging perspective of "metabolic health" and "anti-corruption," this is seen as a correction returning to common sense.
Here is a detailed objective analysis:
1. Educational Background & Credentials: Not a Professional
Major Flaw: RFK Jr. himself is an environmental lawyer, without a degree in medicine, nutrition, or public health. From the traditional "technocracy" standard, his appointment as Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary and his authority over nutrition guidelines represent "amateurs leading professionals."
Criticism: Mainstream medical circles (e.g., the American Medical Association, AMA) have long criticized him for lacking basic scientific literacy and having a history of spreading statements (like anti-vaccine rhetoric) considered "pseudoscience" by mainstream science.
2. His Strength: A Lawyer's Background in Fighting "Corporate Capture"
A 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 benefits between regulatory agencies (FDA/USDA) and food giants.
Changing the Definition of "Qualification": In the eyes of MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) supporters, his "qualification" is not reflected in understanding biochemical formulas, but in daring to challenge the manipulation of dietary guidelines by giants like Coca-Cola and General Mills.
3. The Role of the Think Tank
The scientific nature of this report is very complex; it is half "absolutely correct" and half "highly controversial."
This content is not only scientific but arguably more aligned with the latest cutting-edge research than the old guidelines:
Cracking Down on Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF): Extensive recent research (e.g., Kevin Hall's NIH experiment) has conclusively proven that ultra-processed foods disrupt the body's satiety mechanisms, leading to overeating and metabolic disorders. The old guidelines were vague on this, while the new guidelines strongly criticize it, which is very scientifically sound.
Strict Control of Added Sugar: The impact of sugar on insulin resistance and inflammation is well-established. The new guideline's "zero-tolerance" attitude towards sugar aligns with the direction of metabolic pathology research.
This content is considered a "dangerous gamble" by mainstream medical circles:
Saturated Fat (Red Meat, Butter, Tallow):
Mainstream View: Decades of research by the American Heart Association (AHA) maintains that saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol, thereby increasing heart disease risk.
New Guideline View: Believes cholesterol is not the root cause of heart disease; inflammation is.
Assessment: This is a topic of intense academic debate, not fully settled. The new guideline directly adopts the "opposing" view, taking a very bold step that risks angering cardiologists.
Demonizing Seed Oils:
Mainstream View: Soybean oil, canola oil, etc., are rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids, which help lower cholesterol.
New Guideline View: Believes industrially extracted seed oils are highly prone to oxidation, producing toxins and being a source of inflammation.
Assessment: High-quality human clinical evidence for the harm of seed oils is not as robust as that for sugar. This recommendation carries a strong element of "speculation."
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 low-fat diets. RFK Jr.'s team largely discarded or modified the scientists' committee draft, directly rewriting the conclusions via executive order.
From the perspective of procedural justice, this is criticized as "political interference in science."
This is not merely a question of scientific qualification, but a war between two "medical religions":
Conclusion:
If you ask a professor at Harvard School of Public Health, they will say this report is "not scientific enough, even dangerous."
If you ask a clinician treating diabetes or a biohacker, they will say this is the "most scientific and clear-headed guideline in decades."
RFK Jr.'s qualifications might not be enough to pass a biochemistry exam, but he has indeed pinpointed the American pain point of "eating more 'scientifically' but getting sicker." This report is a massive social experiment.
Is a low-carb diet scientific?
The short answer is: Yes, the Low-Carb Diet is highly scientific, especially in treating metabolic diseases (like diabetes, obesity, fatty liver).
In fact, the biggest shift in nutritional science over the past 20 years has been moving from "fearing fat" to "focusing on the impact of carbohydrates on hormones (insulin)."
Here is a detailed analysis of the scientific nature of low-carb diets, divided into three levels: mechanism, evidence, and controversy.
The traditional nutritional view is the "calorie balance model" (calories in = calories out). The low-carb diet is based on the "hormone model."
Principle: When you eat carbohydrates (especially refined grains and sugar), 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 prevents fat burning and signals the body: "There's energy now, store the excess as fat."
Effect of Low-Carb: By reducing carb intake, 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.
Illustrative Diagram: As shown in the diagram above, carbohydrates cause sharp insulin spikes, while fat causes almost no insulin fluctuation. This is the biochemical basis for "eating fat doesn't make you fat, eating sugar does."
Decades ago, low-carb was seen as a "dangerous fringe" (like the 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 well-known American company Virta Health show that through a ketogenic diet (very low-carb), 60% of type 2 diabetes patients reversed their diabetes within one year and stopped using insulin. This was almost impossible with traditional "low-fat diet" treatment.
American Diabetes Association (ADA) Endorsement: In 2019, the ADA officially listed the low-carb diet as one of the standard recommended therapies for managing diabetes, acknowledging it as the most effective dietary pattern for lowering blood sugar.
Improvement in Cardiovascular Markers: Research has found that low-carb diets typically significantly lower triglycerides, raise "good cholesterol" (HDL), and lower blood pressure.
You might ask, if it's so scientific, why did the old food pyramid recommend eating so much bread and grains?
Fear of Saturated Fat: Scientific hypotheses from the 1950s-70s suggested that saturated fat caused heart disease (the diet-heart hypothesis). Since low-carb diets often accompany high fat intake, they were considered "suicidal" by the medical establishment at the time.
The Current Reversal: Modern large-scale meta-analyses show that natural saturated fats (like meat, butter) and heart disease mortality do not have a clear direct causal relationship. This clears the biggest theoretical obstacle for low-carb diets.
While low-carb is scientific, it is not without controversy and is not suitable for everyone.
LDL Cholesterol Issue: About 10-30% of people on a low-carb (especially ketogenic) diet experience a significant rise in "bad" cholesterol (LDL). While supporters argue this is harmless large-particle LDL, mainstream cardiologists remain concerned, believing it may increase long-term risk.
Athletic Performance: For explosive athletes (like sprinters, weightlifters), carbohydrates remain the most efficient fuel. Low-carb may reduce high-intensity performance in the short term.
"Dirty Keto": If someone avoids carbs but eats large amounts of processed meats (bacon, sausage) and low-quality vegetable oils, they may still lose weight but cause severe inflammation. This is why the 2025 guidelines emphasize "real food"—meaning healthy low-carb (avocados, grass-fed beef, eggs), not processed low-carb.
Low-carb is not only scientific but is currently one of the most powerful scientific tools against metabolic syndrome (obesity, hypertension, high blood sugar).
Its scientific basis rests on biochemistry (lowering insulin) and clinical data (reversing diabetes).
Its Applicable Population:
✅ Most Suitable For: Obese individuals, diabetics, those with insulin resistance, sedentary modern people.
⚠️ Require Caution: Type 1 diabetics (requires doctor's guidance), high-intensity competitive athletes, pregnant women, individuals with certain genetic lipid metabolism disorders.
The 2025 U.S. Dietary Guidelines champion it precisely because a large portion of the American population is in a state of "metabolic unhealthiness." For this group, low-carb is a more scientific "antidote" than low-fat.
So how should I eat carbohydrates in a healthy way? Should I almost not eat them at all?
This is an excellent question. After learning about the benefits of a "low-carb" diet, many people tend to go to extremes, thinking "carbs = poison" and that they must be completely avoided.
The answer is: Unless you are treating severe diabetes or extreme obesity (requiring a ketogenic diet), for most people, completely eliminating carbohydrates is unnecessary and may even be difficult to sustain.
The core of the 2025 new guidelines is not "zero carbs," but "high-quality carbs."
Here is a "Healthy Carbohydrate Eating" practical guide based on the new guideline philosophy and modern metabolic science:
The new guidelines advocate "Eat Real Food." To decide if a carb is okay to eat, just ask one question: "Is it naturally grown, or is it factory-processed?"
These foods contain carbs, but they are encased in fiber, digested slowly, and won't cause blood sugar spikes.
Above-ground vegetables: Broccoli, spinach, cabbage, kale (very low carb, very high fiber).
Whole fresh fruits: Apples, berries (blueberries/strawberries), citrus fruits (Note: eat the fruit, don't drink the juice).
Root vegetables (in moderation): Sweet potatoes, potatoes, carrots, pumpkin (if steamed/boiled, not fried).
Legumes: Lentils, chickpeas, black beans (high protein + high fiber).
Whole grains: Brown rice, oats, quinoa. Although better than white rice, they are essentially high-starch foods. If you are very active, you can eat them; if you are sedentary, eat less.
High-sugar fruits: Bananas, grapes, mangoes, pineapples (extremely high sugar, recommended to eat around exercise times).
These are called "Acellular Carbohydrates." Their cell walls have been destroyed, turning directly into sugar that floods the bloodstream upon consumption.
Refined grains: White bread, white steamed buns, noodles, white rice (almost equivalent to sugar due to the removal of bran).
Powdered products: Cookies, cakes, breakfast cereal, crackers.
Liquid carbs: Fruit juice, soda, sweetened milk tea, sports drinks. This is the worst form of carbohydrate.
If you want to eat carbs while maintaining metabolic health, you can use the following "biohacking" techniques (which also align with the new guidelines' emphasis on blood sugar control):
Don't start with rice or bread. Follow this order:
First, eat fiber (vegetables): Forms a net in the stomach.
Then, eat protein and fat (meat/eggs/dairy): Slows gastric emptying.
Finally, eat carbs (staple food/fruit): This can lower your blood sugar peak by 30%-70%, and insulin secretion will also be significantly reduced.
Never eat carbs "naked" (like eating a cookie alone for afternoon tea, or eating bread on an empty stomach in the morning).
Method: When eating carbs, always pair them with protein or fat.
Example: Apple + nut butter; potato + butter/beef; rice + lard/vegetables. Fat slows down carbohydrate absorption.
If you love rice or potatoes, let them cool down after cooking (or reheat after cooling).
Eat after exercise: Muscles crave glycogen like a sponge after exercise. Eating carbs (even a bowl of white rice) at this time will send sugar into the muscles for tissue repair, rather than turning into fat stored in the abdomen.
Eat less when inactive: If you're going to sit at a computer for 8 hours today, you don't need that much high-energy fuel; just eat more meat and vegetables.
You don't need to eliminate them completely, but rather perform a "carbohydrate 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, little vegetables) ❌
Healthy lunch: A large steak/fish + plenty of stir-fried vegetables + half a fist-sized sweet potato/pumpkin ✅
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.
So are ultra-processed health food products also not recommended?
This is a very sharp and crucial question. This is also one of the biggest points of conflict between the 2025 new dietary guidelines and the past.
The simple, direct answer is: Not recommended.
Under the 2025 philosophy of "returning to real food," so-called "ultra-processed health foods" are seen as "wolves in sheep's clothing." In some radical views (like RFK Jr.'s team), these highly industrialized "health products" are even more deceptive than traditional junk food because they make you think you're eating healthy.
Here's why the new guidelines advise you to stay away from these "healthy" ultra-processed foods:
First, let's define these things you see in the supermarket:
Plant-based meats: Like Beyond Meat or Impossible Burger.
Protein bars/energy bars: Beautifully packaged, touting "high protein, low sugar."
Meal replacement powders/shakes: Claiming to contain all the vitamins the body needs.
"Keto" snacks: Cookies, bread labeled "zero carbs."
Plant milks (some): Oat milk, almond milk with added thickeners, vegetable oils, and sugar.
The new guidelines are based on the NOVA food classification system (a standard that classifies foods by degree of processing, not nutritional content). Even if these products' nutrition labels (Macronutrients) look perfect (high protein, low carb), they still belong to Category 4: Ultra-Processed Foods (UPF).
Real food is a complex "matrix."
Real food: Eating a steak means you're eating protein, fat, water, vitamins, and minerals combined in a natural structure. Your body knows how to digest it slowly.
Ultra-processed health food: A factory grinds soybeans into powder, extracts isolate protein, adds industrial seed oils (for texture), adds synthetic vitamins (to look good on paper), adds emulsifiers (to hold shape), and finally adds flavorings.
Consequence: Your body doesn't recognize this as "food," but as a bunch of chemical signals. This often leads to overly rapid absorption, inflammatory responses, and gut microbiota disruption.
To make these "health foods" made from powders taste like real food, a lot of industrial ingredients must be added:
Emulsifiers: Such as carrageenan, soy lecithin. Studies suggest they may damage the intestinal mucus layer, leading to leaky gut.
Artificial sweeteners: Aspartame, sucralose, etc. Although calorie-free, they may trick the brain, increasing subsequent cravings for sweets 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 the new guidelines explicitly recommend reducing.
An important political backdrop of the 2025 guidelines is opposition to "fake meat."
If you pick up a package and see the following, it's an ultra-processed health food, and it's recommended to eat less or avoid it:
The ingredient list is too long: More than 5 ingredients.
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.
Boasts a "health halo": The front of the package has huge 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 about how healthy it is.
Completely rejecting convenience foods is hard, but you can do a "downgrade substitution":
Ultra-processed "Health" Food (Try to Avoid)Real Food Substitute (Recommended)**Reason
**Protein BarHard-boiled eggs / Beef jerky / A handful of almondsEggs and meat are naturally high in protein, with no additives.
Plant-Based Meat Burger****Real beef patty / Grilled mushrooms / TofuTofu is processed but belongs to traditional simple processing, not ultra-processing.
Sweetened/Gummy Oat Milk****Whole milk / Pure coconut milk / WaterMany plant milks are essentially "starch water + oil + gums."
Fruit-flavored Low-fat Yogurt****Full-fat Greek yogurt + Fresh berriesAvoids the sugar and thickeners in fruit 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.
Export to Sheets
The 2025 guidelines are not looking at the Nutrition Facts label, but at the Ingredients list.
If the ingredients list is full of chemical names, even if it's "low fat," "low sugar," "high protein," or even "organic," it's still not "real food."
If you're aiming for health, eating a real apple is always better than eating an apple-flavored energy bar containing a hundred vitamins.
Are ultra-processed foods really problematic? What about the healthy ones? Is the evidence sufficient?
This is a very critical question and the biggest point of contention in the nutritional science field in recent years.
The short answer is: Yes, the evidence is very substantial. Even ultra-processed foods marketed as "healthy" (like low-sugar protein bars, plant-based meats, vitamin-fortified cereals) are increasingly proven by high-quality research to be harmful to human metabolism.
The core issue is not the "nutrition facts panel" (even if it says high protein, low sugar, zero fat), but the destruction of the "Food Matrix" and the biological impact of industrial additives.
Here is the evidence currently held by the scientific community, explaining why "ultra-processing" itself is a problem:
This is one of the most famous experiments in nutritional history, which completely changed our view of processed foods.
Background: Dr. Kevin Hall from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) conducted a strictly controlled randomized trial.
Design: Participants 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 the two diets were exactly the same. That is, looking at the nutrition facts panel, these two meals were identical.
Result: When people ate the "ultra-processed foods," they unconsciously consumed about 500 more calories per day and gained significant weight in just two weeks.
Conclusion: The problem is not sugar or fat itself, but that the physical structure and chemical properties of ultra-processed foods bypass the body's satiety mechanisms, making people unable to stop.
Many products marketed as "healthy" (like protein bars, whole-wheat crackers, plant-based milk) are blacklisted because they harbor these three invisible killers:
Real food (like 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 (like almond-flavored energy bars): Factories grind ingredients into powder, destroying cell walls. Fat and sugar become "free."
Consequence: Even with the same nutritional profile, your body absorbs them at an "explosive" speed. This leads to insulin spikes and inflammation, even if it's "low-sugar."
Chewing is key: Ultra-processed foods are typically soft in texture and easy to swallow.
Evidence: Research finds that chewing count and eating time are significantly less when eating ultra-processed foods compared to whole foods.
Consequence: Your stomach hasn't had time to send the "I'm full" signal to your brain (which usually takes 20 minutes), and you've already consumed excessive calories.
This is the most cutting-edge area of current research. To make those "healthy powders" stick together and last long, industrial ingredients must be added:
Emulsifiers: Such as carboxymethyl cellulose (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) are proven to alter gut microbiota diversity, paradoxically inducing glucose intolerance.
To avoid the camouflage of the food industry, scientists invented the NOVA classification system. You need to be wary of Group 4.
Group 1: Unprocessed/Minimally Processed (Recommended): Eggs, apples, fresh meat, rice.
Group 2: Processed Culinary Ingredients (In Moderation): Salt, butter, sugar, vegetable oil.
Group 3: Processed Foods (Okay to Eat): Canned fish, fresh cheese, freshly baked bread (only flour, water, salt, yeast), pickles.
Note: These involve simple preservation without added industrial chemicals.
Group 4: Ultra-Processed Foods (Avoid): Contain ingredients you don't have in your home kitchen (like high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, flavor enhancers, emulsifiers).
Includes: Soda, packaged snacks, most supermarket bread, plant-based meats, meal replacement powders, flavored yogurt.
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 also points clearly: They might be slightly better than pure junk food (like 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're being 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 process factory-synthesized nutrient powders.
How will this guide be implemented?
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans is important not only because it is a set of "recommendations," but because it is a legal document that directly determines the flow of approximately $100 billion in federal food and nutrition spending every five years.
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 and implemented through the following five "battlefields." This is not just a change in dietary advice, but a "shock therapy" for the American food system.
This is the area most affected and of greatest concern to parents. Currently, American school lunches are primarily composed of frozen, reheated processed foods (like pizza, chicken nuggets, chocolate milk).
Prohibited List: The new guidelines will empower the Department of Agriculture 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 purchasing frozen processed foods to building school kitchens and hiring chefs to cook fresh meat, eggs, and vegetables on-site.
Full-Fat Returns: For over a decade, 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 the return of whole milk to campuses, while banning sugary flavored milk.
Over 40 million Americans rely on SNAP (food stamps) and WIC (Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program). In the past, you could use food stamps to buy soda and candy.
Purchase Restrictions: The new policy will attempt to turn SNAP into a "restrictive list" similar to WIC. That is, government benefits will no longer pay for soda, candy, and ultra-processed snacks. This is called "stop poisoning taxpayers with taxpayer money."
Double Bucks: If recipients purchase fresh vegetables, fruits, or meat at Farmers Markets, the value of their benefits may be doubled.
This is the deepest economic lever. Current U.S. agricultural subsidies primarily flow to corn and soybeans—the foundation for producing high-fructose syrup, soybean oil, and animal feed, which are the raw materials for ultra-processed foods.
From "Commodities" to "Specialty Crops": The 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 heavily processed corn chips more expensive.
This edition of the guidelines emphasizes metabolic health, so the healthcare system (Medicare/Medicaid) will begin to intervene.
Medically Tailored Meals: Doctors will have the authority to prescribe "healthy food prescriptions" for patients with diabetes or heart disease. Insurance companies will no longer only reimburse 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 coronary bypass surgery.
Modeled after tobacco industry regulation, impose strict labeling on ultra-processed foods.
Black Warning Labels: High-sugar foods or those containing artificial additives may be required to have prominent black warning labels on the front of the packaging (similar to practices in Chile and Mexico), stating "High Sugar" or "Contains Artificial Ingredients."
Ingredient Decryption: Require food companies to disclose the specific chemical composition of certain vague ingredients (like "natural flavors").
Although the blueprint is grand, its implementation will face hellish difficulty:
Counterattack from Food Giants: Companies like Kraft Heinz, General Mills, and Coca-Cola will launch massive lawsuits and lobbying, accusing the government of interfering with the free market.
Price Shock: "Real food" is more expensive than processed food. If promoted forcefully before the supply chain is adjusted, it could lead to soaring school lunch costs or cause low-income families to feel the pain of rising prices.
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 be temporarily unable to supply the hundreds of millions 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 will be the most thorough public health intervention in the United States in half a century.
That would truly be a great thing.
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 is not just about making people thinner, but about reshaping the very foundation of the nation. However, as with all major changes in the distribution of interests, this is also a case of "easier said than done." While cheering, we also need to soberly see the real-world game it faces.
To help you more intuitively understand the logic behind implementing this "great thing," we can look at its profound impact from the following three dimensions:
Saves 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 10% of chronic diseases could be reduced by "eating real food," the money saved would be enough to cover basic education or infrastructure construction.
Equity: In the past, health was a privilege of the rich (the rich could afford organic vegetables, the poor could only eat cheap, heavily processed junk food). If subsidy policies change, making healthy food cheap and accessible, that is true social equity.
Environment and Soil: Returning to natural foods often accompanies support for regenerative agriculture. Reducing reliance on monocultures (fertilizer and pesticide-intensive corn and soybeans) helps repair America's increasingly depleted soil.
The reason this task is said to be arduous is because it touches two extremely powerful interest groups:
Big Food: Their profits come from extremely low-cost raw materials (cheap starch, oil, sugar) turned into high-margin snacks through chemical processing. Asking them to switch to selling fresh meat and vegetables, which have thinner margins and shorter shelf lives, is akin to "cutting off their livelihood."
Big Pharma: If Americans lower their blood sugar through diet, no longer needing long-term use of diabetes drugs, blood pressure medications, and weight-loss injections (like Wegovy/GLP-1 analogs), pharmaceutical companies' revenues would face devastating blows.
Regardless of whether the policy is fully implemented, this set of ideas actually gives us ordinary people a "health sanctuary." You don't need to wait for policy changes in the U.S. or any other country; you can start practicing it in your life today:
Shop only the "outer aisles" at the supermarket: The layout of most supermarkets is similar; the outer aisles are usually fresh produce, meat, eggs, and dairy; the inner shelves are colorful processed packaged foods. Stay only in the outer aisles.
Look at the ingredient list, not the expiration date: If a food can sit for a year without spoiling, it means even bacteria don't like it, and your body might not 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 "health meal replacement."
This is indeed a grand plan that benefits future generations. It marks our return from the era of "feeding humanity with chemicals and industry" to the era of "nourishing life with nature's gifts."
The core of this transformation is actually just one sentence: "Respect the laws of biological evolution; do not try to challenge the human digestive system, which evolved over millions of years, with a factory assembly line."
Would you like me to help you create a one-week minimalist recipe plan based on the "real food" concept, to see how to practice this new guide in daily life at low cost?
Can it really be implemented? Can it really defeat all those giants?
This is a multi-trillion-dollar question. Frankly: this is an epic battle of "David vs. Goliath."
Although the idea is a "great thing," the difficulty of fully implementing it in reality and defeating these giants, entrenched for half a century, is immense. We can analyze this in depth from three angles: the giants' defensive arsenal, RFK Jr.'s offensive strategies, and the odds of success.
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 administrative overreach in modifying the SNAP purchase list. This legal battle could go all the way to the Supreme Court, dragging on for years.
Lobbying and Financial Investment: There are thousands of full-time lobbyists in Washington 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 the right to drink Coke and eat cheap cereal." This "class rhetoric" is politically very potent.
Scientific Confusion: Giants will fund "experts" to publish contradictory research reports, muddying the waters and making the public feel "nutrition science changes every day, so the new guidelines aren't necessarily right either."
Facing the giants, RFK Jr. does not intend to negotiate gently like traditional bureaucrats. His strategy is "flanking maneuvers":
De-bureaucratization (Cleaning House): His first step is to fire officials within the FDA and USDA who are perceived to have ties to industry interests. Without internal "insiders," the giants' lobbying difficulty will skyrocket.
Utilizing Executive Power (Bypassing Congress): Many regulations concerning school lunches and food benefits can be directly modified through executive orders, without going through the lengthy congressional legislative process, giving him room for rapid implementation.
Information Warfare (Awakening Consciousness): Communicating directly with the public via podcasts and social media. When tens of millions of parents realize that their children's attention deficits, obesity, and allergies may stem from additives in school lunches, this public pressure is hard for 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," insurance giants (Health Insurers) might turn against the pharmaceutical giants and support the new guidelines instead.
The final outcome of this war may not be "total victory" or "total defeat," but one of the following three scenarios:
The government successfully enforces warning labels on packaging, and school lunches are completely renewed. Although Coke is still sold, it is labeled like tobacco, and sales plummet significantly. American health indicators begin to bottom out and rebound within 5-10 years.
Some policies are implemented (like school lunches), but core interests (like agricultural subsidies, food stamp restrictions) become deadlocked in Congress. Giants launch "pseudo-natural" products (still ultra-processed but with nicer packaging and ingredient names) to circumvent regulation. This becomes a decades-long tug-of-war.
Due to the immense interests touched, causing price increases or political backlash. If the next administration takes office and revokes these executive orders, everything returns to square one.
Previous dietary guideline reforms failed, but this time there are two variables:
Data Visibility: Now ordinary people wear continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and can see with their own eyes how ultra-processed foods cause blood sugar to spike. This "individual awakening" didn't exist before.
Cross-Partisan Consensus: Previously, health was a progressive topic. Now MAHA has turned it into a consensus across red and blue parties—"protect children, save the national treasury."
Defeating the giants is not a matter of a day or even a decade; it may require the effort of a generation. This is not just the implementation of a guide; it is a civilizational shift.
Even if the giants win their lawsuits in Washington, as long as the public gains knowledge and starts voting with their wallets (no longer buying those chemical mixtures), the giants will be forced to change. As RFK Jr. said: "We don't need to pass a law to make Coca-Cola go out of business; we just need to let people know what it is, and its business will naturally shrink."
If you want to start "defeating the giants" in your life right now, where would you like to begin? Is it clearing out ultra-processed foods from your kitchen cabinets, or trying a one-week "real food" challenge? I can help you plan a "zero-based transition plan."
Don't other countries have similar plans?
Of course they do, and the United States is actually a "latecomer" in this field.
For a long time, the U.S. dietary guidelines have been heavily criticized for being deeply influenced by corporate lobbying. In contrast, several countries globally have already taken the lead in combating ultra-processed foods (UPF) and returning to natural diets.
The practices of these countries are precisely the templates that the new 2025 U.S. guidelines aim to emulate or even surpass:
Brazil was the first country in the world to make "degree of processing" the core criterion of its dietary guidelines.
Core Philosophy: Brazil's 2014 dietary guidelines pioneered the use of the NOVA classification system. It doesn't discuss complex nutrients (like protein, fat percentages), but simply and directly tells its citizens: "Avoid ultra-processed foods, base your diet on natural or minimally processed foods."
Practice: Brazilian law mandates that at least 30% of the ingredients for school lunches must be purchased directly from local family farms, which has greatly hindered the entry of industrial pre-made meals into schools.
Chile implemented a policy in 2016 known as the "world's strictest food labeling law," directly declaring war on food giants.
Black Stop Signs: Any packaged food high in sugar, saturated fat, salt, or calories must have a large black octagonal warning sign printed on the front.
Marketing Ban: Foods bearing these black labels are banned from advertising targeted at children, and cartoon characters (like the famous Chester Cheetah or Tony the Tiger) are strictly prohibited on their packaging.
Results: Within just a few years of implementation, sugary beverage consumption in Chile dropped by nearly 25%.
Mexico was once one of the countries with the highest per capita cola consumption and extremely high diabetes rates.
Sugar Tax: Mexico imposes a heavy tax on sugary beverages and an 8% non-essential goods tax on ultra-processed snacks.
School Ban: By the end of 2024, the Mexican government passed stricter legislation, completely banning the sale of ultra-processed foods within schools.
The guidelines of 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."
Green Keyhole Label: Helps consumers quickly identify healthy foods that are natural, high in fiber, and low in salt.
Since other countries have been doing this for a while, why is RFK Jr.'s plan still causing a global shockwave?
Scale is Different: The U.S. is the world's largest food processing hub. If the "heart" of America changes, global supply chains and multinational company formulas will be forced to change along with it.
Paradigm Shift: Countries like Brazil primarily target "health," while the U.S. 2025 plan carries a strong tone of "medical reflection" and "political reckoning." It directly challenges the Western mainstream medical definition of fat from the past 50 years.
Attitude Towards Red Meat: This is a huge difference. While Nordic countries support natural foods, they still advise limiting meat. However, the U.S. 2025 guidelines (influenced by RFK Jr.) strongly advocate for high-quality red meat and animal fats, believing this is humanity's evolutionary foundation. This is very unique among Western nations.
Country Core Method Focus
BrazilNOVA Classification Emphasizes food processing degree
ChileBlack Warning Labels Targets child marketing, direct warnings
MexicoSugar Tax & School Ban Uses economic leverage against sugary drinks
U.S. (2025)Comprehensive Administrative ResetDe-industrialization, reshaping agriculture, challenging existing medical dogma
Export to Sheets
This means we are entering an era of "nutritional nationalism": Countries are realizing that if they cannot protect their citizens' stomachs, national finances will eventually be crippled by chronic diseases.
Would you like to see how to conduct a "de-industrialization" audit of your current refrigerator based on this "NOVA classification" system from Brazil and the U.S.? I can teach you to identify those "Category 4 foods" disguised as healthy.
What about fried foods? Like hash browns and such?
This is a very core question. Hash browns or french fries happen to be at the crossroads between "natural food" and the "ultra-processed trap."
Under the logic of the 2025 dietary guidelines, evaluating whether fried food is healthy no longer just depends on whether it's "fried," but on "what oil it's fried in" and "what processing the ingredients themselves have undergone."
The new guidelines would tell you that these two "hash browns," despite sharing the same name, are biologically completely different things:
This is what the 2025 guidelines strongly advise avoiding.
Complex Ingredients: Besides potatoes, they contain thickeners (like methylcellulose), sodium dehydroacetate (preservative), dextrose (to achieve a golden brown color when fried).
Fatal Flaw: Industrial Seed Oils. Most commercial hash browns are deep-fried at high temperatures in soybean, corn, or canola oil. The new guidelines believe these vegetable oils produce large amounts of pro-inflammatory substances (like oxidized lipids and acrylamide) when heated.
Metabolic Impact: Highly pulverized potato starch + oxidized vegetable oil = blood sugar spike + bodily inflammation.
If you make hash browns at home, the situation changes completely:
Simple Ingredients: Only potatoes, salt, a bit of black pepper.
Core Change: Healthy Animal Fats. If you fry the potatoes in beef tallow, butter, or lard.
Scientific Basis: Saturated animal fats are extremely stable at high temperatures and do not oxidize and spoil as easily as seed oils.
Return to Tradition: One of the background philosophies of the 2025 guidelines is that human ancestors ate animal fats for thousands of years without modern metabolic diseases.
Experts behind the new guidelines (like RFK Jr.'s advisory team) believe the collapse of American health is largely due to the complete replacement of traditional animal fats with industrial seed oils since the 1970s.
Saturated Fats (Beef Tallow/Lard): Stable molecular structure, like a row of neat soldiers, not easily broken down by heat.
Polyunsaturated Fats (Soybean Oil/Canola Oil): Contain multiple unstable double bonds; when heated, they break like fractured chains, producing free radicals that attack your cells.
If you really love this type of food, according to the 2025 philosophy, you should operate like this:
Clean Ingredients: Buy fresh potatoes and shred them yourself, rather than buying pre-made semi-finished products from the supermarket freezer with a long ingredient list.
Choose the Right Oil: Use grass-fed beef tallow, ghee, or coconut oil. This is the essence of the "MAHA" style—enjoy the deliciousness fat brings, but avoid industrial toxins.
Mind the Ratio: 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 glycemic response.
Air Fryer (Neutral Option): Air fryers reduce the total amount of oil, but if you spray industrial cooking spray (containing propellants and seed oils), it's still not healthy enough.
Hash browns from McDonald's or frozen packages: Belong to ultra-processed foods, the new guidelines suggest avoiding them if possible.
Fresh shredded potato cakes fried in beef tallow: Belong to 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 demands you change the way you obtain that deliciousness—from the factory back to the kitchen.
Since we've touched on oil and frying, would you like to understand why the new guidelines also list oat milk, once a "model of health," on the "pseudo-healthy" list? This is also a common misconception for many people.