FRESH

Hacker News

Home

Eat Real Food

1138 points by atestu

by kristopolous

24 subcomments

Tyson foods and other meatpacking companies lobbied and funded RFK...
Here's industry reports
https://www.nationalbeefwire.com/doctors-group-applauds-comm...
https://www.wattagnet.com/business-markets/policy-legislatio...
And straight up lobbying groups
https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/new-dietary-guideline...
https://www.meatinstitute.org/press/recommend-prioritizing-p...
Lobbying groups, putting out press releases, claiming victory...
Here's some things you won't find in any of the documents, including the PDFs at the bottom: community gardens, local food, farmers markets, grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those.
Just because you might like the results doesn't mean they aren't corrupt as hell

by woodruffw

24 subcomments

Of note: the US's per capita consumption of meat has increased by more than 100 pounds over the last century[1]. We now consume an immense amount of meat per person in this country. That increase is disproportionately in poultry, but we also consume more beef[2].
A demand for the average American to eat more meat would have to explain, as a baseline, why our already positive trend in meat consumption isn't yielding positive outcomes. There are potential explanations (you could argue increased processing offsets the purported benefits, for example), but those are left unstated by the website.
[1]: https://www.agweb.com/opinion/drivers-u-s-capita-meat-consum...
[2]: https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-detai...

by schmuckonwheels

30 subcomments

Speaking from personal experience, this is consistent with multiple doctors over the years recommending high-protein, low carb diets. (Clarification: low does not mean no carb.)
I don't understand people freaking out over this - outside of a purely political reflex - hell hath no fury like taking away nerds' Mountain Dew and Flamin' Hot Cheetos.
Nor do I understand the negative reactions to new restrictions on SNAP - candy and sugary drinks are no longer eligible.

by zeroonetwothree

22 subcomments

For all the lunacy of RFK this somehow is actually a really good set of guidelines? Certainly better than the previous version. I didn't expect that to be honest.

by nihakue

17 subcomments

How is it possible that beef, dairy, and chicken are front and center while Lentils, Tofu (or even just soy), Chickpeas, Nutritional Yeast, Broccoli, etc are all left off? Why do they arbitrarily split "protein" and "fruit/veg" given that most/all of the most protein dense foods are vegetables/legumes? Steak is a terrible source of protein (in terms of nutrient density). Immediately pretty suspicious.

by fabbbbb

10 subcomments

Unfortunately there seems to be no good aligned definition of what (highly) processed food is. 1,2
Whole grain bread or infant formula can be “highly processed” despite very healthy.
In the end someone else cooks for you and packages it. They can cook healthy or not or in between, add a lot of salt or little, .. as always it’s more complex.
1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-022-01099-1
2 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nutrition-research-r...

by overgard

5 subcomments

I'm pleasantly surprised, this is actually really good. The reason I'm surprised is because of how corrupt the creation of the previous food pyramid was (the sugar industry likely paid to downplay the danger of sugar[1])
I find when it comes to health advice, generally government sources can't be trusted because there's too much special interests and money involved. You really have to do your own research.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...

by sdo72

3 subcomments

I don't think it's even about low carb vs. high protein to begin with. Many countries and regions in the world are fine with a high-carb diet, and people there live long, healthy lives.
Americans eat so much processed food simply because it is much cheaper than fresh food. Processed food is made to get consumers addicted (through convenience, taste, etc.) and encourage them to consume much more. Fresh food is almost the opposite.
I grew up in a country where freshly made food is actually cheaper than processed food, even to this day. People who stick to a traditional diet are mostly thin, while those who stick to a processed food diet gain a lot of weight.

by jjkaczor

3 subcomments

Great! How will the reductions in consumer protection, health, FDA, etc. - by this current administration impact that?
https://www.food-safety.com/articles/11004-a-2025-timeline-o...

by galoisscobi

13 subcomments

Ironic that a steak is one of the three things showing up on the landing page. Is that the beef lobby money coming in?
I enjoy an occasional steak but if the goal is to improve diet of masses, it’s not the food I’d put at the center.

by mark_l_watson

1 subcomments

While the over-arc of this message is good (avoid packaged and processed food) I personally don’t like the advice that these are not top tier foods: non-GMO organic whole wheat (i.e., not soaked with pesticides), brown rice, and other pesticide-free whole grains —- all in moderation.
I also don’t like the emphasis on meat protein. Small amounts of meat protein a few times a week are definitely healthy for most people, but organic (not soaked in pesticides) beans, lentils, etc. are almost certainly a healthy way to consume extra protein.
I sense the ugly hand of the meat industry in realfood.gov. I think if more people understood how (especially) chickens and pigs are tortured in meat production, it would help people who are addicted to excess meat cut back on their consumption to just what they need for good health.
EDIT: the documentary movie The Game Changers (2018) is an excellent source of information. The scenes interviewing huge muscular vegetarian NFL football players really put the lie to the ‘must have meat’ addicts. That said, I still think small amounts of meat protein are very healthy for most people.

by __MatrixMan__

4 subcomments

I wish we could move past the "highly processed food" thing.
You can engineer healthy food. The problems isn't the processing. Its that most people who are engineering food do not have "healthy" among the goals.
We're conflating "designed" with "designed recklessly".
It matters because a lot of people can't afford the diet suggested here. The messaging needs to distinguish between adding protein powder because there's no meat available, and living on Cheetos because there's no meat available, and "highly processed" fails to do that.

by 60pfennig

0 subcomment

I thought America has fallen and nothing has to be expected then bullshit from the government. And now they want there citizens to eat healthy? Whats next? Asking to use renewables to save the earth?

by maerF0x0

1 subcomments

The good are things we've known for a while. Most of them result in unintended decrease in calories consumed and resulting weight/fat loss.
- More protein (than the prior RDA of 0.39g/lb) can lead to inadvertent caloric restriction and weight loss, and obesity is driving a large number of negative health outcomes. Also improves lean mass (muscle) retention during weight loss.
- Processed foods have lower satiety per calorie, and hence can lead to the same outcomes described above.
- Most people can benefit from eating more fruit and veggies. (Lots of people who change to vegetarian inadvertently eat significantly fewer calories because the food is not calorie dense)
The one glaring part I have a hard time reconciling is:
- This new Real Food guide seems like it's going to increase people's saturated fat intake, which is not good. DASH/Mediterranean diet seems to be a better model than both the prior and new pyramids.

by samrus

3 subcomments

As someone with psoriotic arthritis, this is just my diet (plus avoiding gluten) and honestly following it has made me feel alot better even aside from preventing the psoriosis
Good initiative from the government, i wouldnt have expected them to do something that messes with junk food corporations profits like this

by gradientsrneat

3 subcomments

I've seen ultra-processed food mentioned in other countries as well. It's a buzzword with no meaning.
Pasteurization saves lives. Flash-frozen foods retain more nutrition in transit, while freezing seafood kills parasites. And even the best bread and butter are as processed as food can get.
I'm reading the "chemical additives" list and it's a mix of obviously harmful things with known safe things added in trace concentrations - there's no intellectual rigor and a lot of fearmomgering.

by ixtli

1 subcomments

Wow thank god it's my fault im sick and i can make personal choices to stop chronic conditions! I was worried it might have something to do with material conditions i live in but also can not control, or worse that i might require medicine! Relatedly its a great thing that "real food" access isn't class-based.

by ecshafer

2 subcomments

This is the first food recommendation from the government that makes sense.
6-11 servings of grains, 3-5 veges, 2-4 fruit, 2-3 dairy, 2-3 protein (all sources), minimal fat was absurd and bad. Protein is until you hit your needed macros. Fats are as needed. Processed grains are basically empty calories. a cup or two of whole grains is all you really need and thats it.

by adaszko

2 subcomments

Just compare this with actual scientific findings and see for yourself: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03570-5

by legitster

2 subcomments

"We're ending the war on protein"
Weird branding and culture war stuff aside, this is probably the least objectionable thing this health administration has done.
That said, I don't know if this would actually move the needle much. The Japanese diet includes so much more processed foods and less protein and they still live longer, healthier lives. I think the ultimate factors are still portion sizes, environment, activity, and genetics.

by SamDc73

1 subcomments

I see a lot of people complaining about red meat.
It’s not the healthiest food, but it’s a much weaker risk factor than diets high in processed foods (including processed meats), refined carbs, added sugar, and excess salt.
For adults (25–64), the biggest diet-linked contributors to cardiometabolic death were sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats. [1]
also form the paper:
High sodium intake → ~66,000 deaths (9.5%)
Low nuts & seeds intake → ~59,000 deaths (8.5%)
High processed meat intake → ~57,000 deaths (8.2%)
Low seafood omega-3 intake → ~54,000 deaths (7.8%)
Low vegetable intake → ~53,400 deaths (7.6%)
Low fruit intake → ~52,000 deaths (7.5%)
High sugar-sweetened beverage intake → ~51,000 deaths (7.4%) Low whole-grain intake → ~41,000 deaths (5.9%)
High unprocessed red meat intake → ~2,900 deaths (0.4%)
(Full table is on page 5 of the linked paper)
[1] https://episeminars.web.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/754...

by kaonwarb

3 subcomments

I appreciate the nod to whole milk, which has been repeatedly shown to be associated with _lower_ obesity in children. E.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31851302/, many other studies.

by socalgal2

2 subcomments

Few ingredients is code for white people’s ideas of food.
Example: Curry has and average of 10-15 ingredients. Malaysian 15-20. Thai: 15–20. China: 10–16. Indonesia: 20–25. Mexican Moles 20-30. Etc…..
note: I expect this is unintentional. The authors of the new recommendations think more ingredients = processed. But it still ends up being an accidental judgement against other cultures.
Indonesia — 20–25
Malaysia — 15–20
Thailand — 15–20
India — 12–18
Mexico — 12–18
Ethiopia — 14–18
China — 10–16
Vietnam — 10–16
Morocco — 10–15
South Korea — 10–15
Italy — 4–7
Japan — 5–8
France — 6–9
Spain — 5–9
Greece — 6–10
United Kingdom — 5–9
Germany — 5–9
Austria — 5–9
Switzerland — 5–9

by FumblingBear

9 subcomments

Moderately amused at the quote "We are ending the war on protein." In my experience, every single brand in recent years has been coalescing around the idea of making protein bars, drinks, prominently labeling the amount of grams of protein are in items, etc.
I'm not opposed, as protein seems to be a good target to prioritize, but claiming there's a war on protein just seems so out of touch to the point of absurdity. It's practically the only thing that people care about right now.

by thunfischtoast

2 subcomments

The "protein" part of the "new" pyramid does not mention legumes (beans, peas, chickpeas, lentils, lupins...) despite them being a highly efficient source of proteins.

by sudobash1

3 subcomments

> Protein target: 1.2–1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day.
I was amused to see (kilo)grams used for the weights. I'll admit that as an American, I have no idea what my weight is in kilograms. Body weight is something that I always think of in pounds. I do use grams sometimes in food prep, but I think even that makes me a bit of an abnormality around here.
Not that I am complaining about their unit choice. I think American's would do well to be a bit more "bilingual" in our measurement systems. Also, the measurements they give are a lot easier to parse than 3/128 oz per 1lb bodyweight.

by stewx

0 subcomment

> We are ending the war on protein. Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein from both animal and plant sources, paired with healthy fats from whole foods such as eggs, seafood, meats, full-fat dairy, nuts, seeds, olives, and avocados.
This is some seriously radical stuff, if you take it literally. Every single meal you eat "must" prioritize protein? Why? Who is lacking protein in America?

by EvanAnderson

2 subcomments

Meta comment: The design aesthetic gives me a real "Cards Against Humanity" feel.

by the__alchemist

1 subcomments

> Whole grains are encouraged. Refined carbohydrates are not. Prioritize fiber-rich whole grains and significantly reduce the consumption of highly processed, refined carbohydrates that displace real nourishment.
I am consternated at the proliferation of refined grains. Here are my USA observations:
```
  - Grocery store or Amazon etc: Whole grain breads and flours are in the  minority, but it's possible to get them

  - Restaurants and bakeries: Impossible to find whole grains; 100% refined
```
IMO it's a no-brainer to eat the healthier stuff that has bran + endosperm intact instead of removing and attempting ton add back the micro-nutrients. (While still missing the fiber)

by pimlottc

1 subcomments

This website is far too complicated, just show a clear, labeled image of the new pyramid. This is designed to scare people, not inform them.

by ropable

0 subcomment

On the face of it, this initiative seems like solid nutritional advice. On the other hand, I'm a little dismayed to see animal protein sources given equal billing to vegetable and fruit on their new pyramid, and whole grains placed right at the bottom (below butter!) It's my understanding that people in the developed world already over-consume animal proteins to a large degree.
On the other hand: it's not like anyone ever followed the old food pyramid either. I'm now over here waiting with baited breath for the US federal govt to introduce some kind of regulation around the amount of additional sugar, salt and fats in processed food sold in the US (which makes up a large proportion of what people are eating right now).
The food landscape is complex and multi-factorial. I hope that they follow up with other initiatives to improve nutrition at a population level, like regulation and nutrition programs.

by CHB0403085482

0 subcomment

Eat less meat
https://www.mondaycampaigns.org/meatless-monday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWWe2U41N8 (no meat)

by solatic

1 subcomments

People should look at the actual guidelines, not the flashy website: https://cdn.realfood.gov/Daily%20Serving%20Sizes.pdf
In a 2000 calorie diet, 7-9 servings summed over fruits, vegetables, and grains vs. 6-7 servings summed over protein and dairy. 3-4 servings of protein where a serving is 1 egg or 3 ounces of meat means eating a meatless 2-egg breakfast and maybe a single hamburger patty at lunch and that's pretty much your daily protein.
Hardly some carnivorous revolution.

by sjw987

0 subcomment

In general, this message is good. Particularly interesting from a country which has given the world McDonalds and Coca Cola.
The rise of Ultra Processed Food (UPF) is almost inline with the explosion of waistlines around the world. Not to mention several large scale studies have found clear links between high UPF consumption and cognitive decline, dementia and Alzheimer's. In the West, 60 to 80% of peoples diets are UPF.
What we eat is both a short term (overweight and obese people bunging up the public healthcare system) and long term (elderly people with dementia and Alzheimer's clogging up the social care system) catastrophe.
Generally if it's coming in plastic wrap, you don't recognise stuff in the ingredients, or it has a ridiculously unnatural sounding lifespan, it's UPF.
It's disturbing how penetrative UPF are in the food market. I bought an "Eat Natural" cashew and blueberry with yoghurt coating bar this morning. Of course, very unnaturally it has sunflower lecithin, glucose syrup, palm kernel oil and palm oil vegetable fats, making it technically NOVA class 4 UPF.

by zkmon

6 subcomments

So, humans lost all of their evolutionary learnings and confused about what to eat. This doesn't happen with any other animal. And humans call themselves as an advanced race of animals. Not knowing what to eat is regress, not progress.
Things went well as long as mind was a servant of the body. Then it became the master and dictator of body. The mind started posing itself as a scientist and started questioning everything that were well-tested over centuries. It came up weird things such proteins, vitamins etc, but it forgot that what mattered was the big picture.
Body suffered silently as it lost it's most critical servant whom it trained over millennia.
It was enough to know that water flows down the slope, apple falls to ground, Sun goes around the Earth and life follows a rythm of seasons. Human life never needed Kepler's laws, relativity, quantum physics, computers, cars or sugar.
It's not too late. Listen to your instincts and body signals. Live on a farm (farm means crops and gardens, not just animals). Eat like your ancestors did. Eat less, eat varied food, more of greens and grains, mostly raw with a bit of cooking or heating.

by knollimar

2 subcomments

This isn't a pyramid?
Also I'm no health expert but this seems like a ton of protein. I'd like to see what a day of this diet looks like

by Anonyneko

3 subcomments

I just refer to the official Finnish nutrition guidelines, they seem pretty reasonable.
https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/en/foodstuffs/healthy-diet/nutri...

by tracker1

0 subcomment

s/1.2 to 1.4g of protein per kg of body weight/... lean body weight/
If you're overweight, your protein target should be based on your lean mass, not your excess mass. While you can have more, you're likely better off conserving the calories.
Also, personally, I tend to recommend at least 0.5g fat to 1g protein. This seems to be pretty close to what you get from a lot of healthy protein sources and given that you actually need a certain amount of essential fatty acids for your body to function, I find this helps from digestion, glucose control, satiety and even weight loss.

by geon

1 subcomments

> Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein from both animal and plant sources
Are they saying Real Food™ is incompatible with vegetarianism?

by jaredwiener

1 subcomments

This is the first .gov website I've seen that does not list any sort of agency, branch of government, commission, whatever, that's behind it.
Yes, I see the National Design Studio built it -- but presumably they aren't the ones writing nutritional guidance. Is this FDA? HHS?

by resters

1 subcomments

As someone who eats whole fruits and vegetables, some meat and fish, etc. already, I would like to feel more confident in the following:
- there is no way that any of the fish I am eating was from polluted water or contains any harmful chemicals.
- there is no way that any of the meat I am eating was sick, raised in horrible conditions, had cancer, had significant wounds or puss-producing sores, was fed the feces of other animals, was fed chemicals or hormones, etc.
- there is no way that any of the vegetables I am eating were watered with dirty water or fertilized or exposed to pesticides that are not 100% safe.

by pedalpete

0 subcomment

This reads to me as protein first, then veg.
American's don't seem to have a protein restriction problem. Look at your average burger, it is mostly meat, a bit of lettuce, and a bunch of low-quality bread.
I had a "salad" in SF when I was visiting, it was the largest chicken breast I've ever seen, a bunch of bacon and I had to practically go searching for the few leaves of spinach.
Lastly, is it really the guideline that are going to help, or is it accessibility?

by victor_y

0 subcomment

I think the effort is valuable, however hard for individuals to act upon to effectively improve their diet.
A simple do / don't list serves this better:
Do: - Do consume more legumes or beans, lentils and peas. - Do consume more fish (low lead options) - Do consume more vegetables and fruit
Don't - Don't consume alcohol or other harmful drugs - Don't consume sweetened items (either added sugars or artificial sweeteners) - Avoid processed food (try to cook as much as possible)
Feel like this is more helpful for 99% of people.

by diath

1 subcomments

Fish, lean beef, chicken, eggs, kefir, milk, cheese, rice, potatoes, EVOO, fruit and vegetables is all you need for peak athletic performance and optimal hormonal profile.

by scarhawk2026

2 subcomments

I love how this is still quite far off from the Harvard Food Pyramid..
But why use one of your best resources for research..
https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/healthy-eating-pyra...

by jostmey

2 subcomments

Makes sense to me! And poor diet is probably one of the biggest problems in the United States

by j_w

0 subcomment

This understates the vegetable and fruit intake you should have. 3 servings vegetables and 2 fruit is under what you should aim for. 2-4 servings of grains is a lot of grain.
Ideally the bulk of the volume that you eat should be vegetables and fruits. Meat as nutritionally required/when you like it. Meat at every meal/every day is not needed. Grains are a good filler, but vegetables and fruits are king.

by mud_dauber

0 subcomment

I'd almost pay attention to the message, but Kennedy has no credibility with me. Giving up 90% of animal protein has made me leaner with vastly lower cholesterol.

by didibus

0 subcomment

What exactly has changed ? And how does it differ say to the Canadian one: https://food-guide.canada.ca/themes/custom/wxtsub_bootstrap/... ?

by jonplackett

3 subcomments

Diet advice is always way too complex.
For most people ‘stop drinking sugary drinks ever’ would probably make the biggest life change.
And ‘the athletes plate’ would be the runner up bit of advice if you want something simple - half th plate veggies, 1/4 complex carbs, 1/4 unprocessed meat.
If you want to do it with complexity, count your macros.

by deathanatos

1 subcomments

… eggs are $6.50/dz at my local grocer, this week. Hand-printed sign on the door apologizing for the shortage. Tyson bought a more local company, and the prices of the product I had bought from the local producer went up like 50%.
We bought a soft drink for holiday game watching — Dr. Pepper with berries or something — and despite a shrink-flated can, it had something like 71% DV of sugar in it. That seemed excessive (and I ended up rate limiting them because of it), but it is frustrating to need to constantly treat the products around me like they're trying to sabotage me.

by chad_strategic

0 subcomment

We should trust our government to make the right decision for our health.

by criddell

0 subcomment

I always wish they would include a sample menu for one week that hits the daily recommended dose for every vitamin, mineral, fat, etc... without going over some calorie limit.

by tolerance

0 subcomment

For those who are wondering: https://klim.co.nz/fonts/die-grotesk/#information
I think Kris Sowersby is my favorite contemporary typographer.
https://klim.co.nz/collections/untitled/ https://klim.co.nz/collections/tiempos/ https://klim.co.nz/collections/soehne/

by xnx

0 subcomment

Harvard (https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/healthy-eating-plat...) or Canada's (https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/) guides are better.

by dazhengca

1 subcomments

Way too much scroll jacking for me to be honest, probably the worst site I’ve seen of their team, but still for government site not bad

by cdrnsf

0 subcomment

I couldn't finish scrolling to the bottom of this site. The performance is awful and all of the animations are extremely jarring.
Nutrition is important, but this administration's health policy under RFK Jr. is an unmitigated disaster.

by hk1337

0 subcomment

I really don't like web site designs that take control of things like my mouse wheel. This site isn't just scrolling down, it's advancing the presentation which in most places is moving down.

by Finbarr

0 subcomment

If you’d like a less condensed version of this, I highly recommend reading “In Defense of Food” by Pollan. It covers all the changes in nutritional science and food packaging that have led to the poisoning of the populace by the food industry, and it lays out a set of rules for what to eat and how to eat it in more detail.

by fsh

0 subcomment

My impression is that most nutritional research is just p-hacking on extremely noisy data. The only consistent outcome is that eating too much for an extended period of time is extremely unhealthy, regardless of what you are eating. Unfortunately, this runs contrary to the "more is better" mentality of US consumers who throw a hissy fit if food portions are not gigantic.

by NPC82

0 subcomment

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has put out a statement in response: https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/who-we-are/public-state...

by Spacemolte

0 subcomment

"Eat real food" yet they seem to roll back regulation including but not limited to food safety?

by rubzah

0 subcomment

Instead of more meat, eat more eggs. Eggs are as good a protein source as meat, down to the same amino acid groups (unlike other protein sources, like plant-based). People used to worry about cholesterol but that has pretty much been put to rest by now.

by swatson741

0 subcomment

I dunno about this. The problem mainly affects low-income families and residents of food deserts, and now the government is trying to put everyone on a keto diet. It just seems like they're not fixing the problems where they happen.

by tomaytotomato

0 subcomment

It's interesting to see the commentary on processed meat and inverting the pyramid. T
It feels a bit Orwellian in some way - Oceania is always the enemy, Saturated fat was never the enemy.
Meat is ok, I try and consume fish and chicken with the odd bit of beef, but the amount of chemicals that goes into processed meat like sliced ham would make a chemist blush.
I wrote a light hearted blog piece just before the new year on giving up processed meat if anyone is interested:
https://tomaytotomato.com/no-ham-anuary/
Also mandatory South Park clip:
https://youtu.be/fIGXkh6S8Zw

by MinimalAction

2 subcomments

I liked the new guidelines given here [1]. However, I disagree with the protein target recommendation. Feels way too much for a normal healthy adult with reasonable activity.
> Protein target: 1.2–1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day.
[1]: https://cdn.realfood.gov/Daily%20Serving%20Sizes.pdf

by dillydogg

0 subcomment

I really don't see how this is so different than what nutritionists have said for years. This reads as if the guans before was to drink soda and eat fat free candy all day. The three sentence dietary guidance still holds:
1. Eat food 2. Not too much 3. Mostly plants
Though the government's position seems to be at odds with #3. I would encourage more beans and greens, personally.

by GaryBluto

1 subcomments

What was that animation? It looked like 3 stock images coming together briefly, then flying off again, then the page scrolling.
Regardless, there's nothing here (aside from the odd scrolling layout of the page itself) I can disagree with. I'm already following this "diet" in the most part anyway, and that's without consciously thinking that much about it.

by monster_truck

1 subcomments

The accessbility of this website is deplorable. There is no way anyone responsible for this website has our best interests in mind

by c16

0 subcomment

Credit where credit is due, going back to whole-foods and single-ingredient foods is the correct decision for everyone, and is often cheaper. But you can tell it's with a heavy focus on meatpacking, and it's known there's heavy lobbying going on.
Is that a bad thing? I'd rather people eat single ingredient foods and foods without labels (fruit, veg) than neon green cereals. I guess my point here is that it's a little sad the 'right' outcome was as a result of heavy lobbying.
The correct order should have been greens > proteins > carbs for an overweight nation.

by kkaske

0 subcomment

In a way, "eat real food" functions less as scientific advice and more as a cultural signal. It could be seen as a rejection of industrialized diets and all the complexities around that. The idea of "Eat Real Food" might be a better default when you are hungry and looking for food. I guess time will tell.

by resumenext

1 subcomments

The big issue I have with this is no kale or oatmeal in the pyramid image. And rice seems to get a bad rank too. How many fat Asians do you see? People diss oatmeal (lames, tbh) cause of “leaky gut” but is that even a real thing? There’s also glyphosates but quaker is nongmo according to the label. Anyway, I see “leaky gut” and I think quack. The pyramid should have more kale, truly.

by TruffleLabs

0 subcomment

Kellanova, formerly known as the Kellogg Company, got the message and are now making Pop-Tarts with extra protein ;)
https://www.poptarts.com/en_US/products/new/pop-tarts-protei...

by bovermyer

0 subcomment

It's fascinating that my new gut reaction to the combination of "health" and ".gov" is now deeply negative.
That was not the case a decade ago.

by lIl-IIIl

0 subcomment

There's some inconsistency between the pyramid graphic and the written guideline. For example whole grains are moved to the tip of the pyramid. But the written guidelines say 2-4 servings a day.

by kayo_20211030

0 subcomment

Good God! There's too much scrolling involved. Is this some cunning way to make me exercise?

by KaiserPro

0 subcomment

Sounds like big government getting into people's lives to me.
Snark aside, american food culture is geared towards people working hard manual jobs, rather than desk work. It was fine in the 70/80/90s when people were still doing that kind of job, but times have changed. If you're burning 2k calories at work, you need a high calorie, high salt meal to replenish what you burnt/sweat out.
I would also gently point out that a "balanced" meal is generally better than a protein heavy meal. It also is highly dependent on your genetic makeup. I am much less sensitive to carbs compared to my Indian friend, My family also doesn't have a history of type 2/1 diabetes.
I'm also not sure how this is going to be balanced with farm subsidies.

by ahoka

2 subcomments

This was literally a South Park episode.

by jamesnights

1 subcomments

I question the premise. Why would you ask a government what's healthy to eat? That's a question for your doctor, your community, or medical institutions and universities, people who study that kind of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_diet

by Fischgericht

0 subcomment

What I am missing in this pyramid are brain worms. Brain worms are real food! Don't fall for the ultra-processed glue sniffing practice all scientists wrongly had been recommending you. Have a proudly american-made brain worm instead.

by Havoc

1 subcomments

Think it's telling that all the things shown first and most prominently in their food pyramid just so happen to have massive lobbies. Beef, Egg, Diary & chicken.
Doesn't seem terrible but that already makes me very suspicious of the reliability of this

by exabrial

0 subcomment

Hijacking the scroll wheel, even in 2025, is still unbelievably annoying. Please stop.

0 subcomment

by _qua

0 subcomment

The most important dietary intervention most people need is just eating less. The content of what they eat is secondary. It's not unimportant, it just matters less when you are still wildly overweight.

by theturtlemoves

1 subcomments

Carnivore diet from 2022-2024 and now carnivore by day, keto at the dinner table I can't begin to list the health problems that completely disappeared or went into remission for me. Lapse and I'm a ball of misery for three days. Happy to have gone to carni/keto, wish I'd done that twenty years ago. The best time to enjoy my health would have been 20 years ago, the next best time is now. Glad to see this.

by RagAlgo

0 subcomment

Coffee might be bitter and unpleasant at first, but like vegetables, you'll get used to it over time. Don't just seek out what suits your taste. You can't live like an elementary school student, right? Why not try eating vegetables first before judging what's good or bad? I'm not advocating vegetarianism, though.

by cassepipe

0 subcomment

> For decades we've been misled by guidance that prioritized highly processed food, and are now facing rates of unprecedented chronic disease.
Is this true ? I don't think the blame is to place on the previous guidance but people just you know food engineering and natural laziness, no ?

by zaptheimpaler

0 subcomment

Seems like bog-standard stuff doctors and books have been recommending for decades now. Canada has had a food plate like this [1] for a long time. It's a good step forward but I wonder what the actual implications are. How many people didn't already know this, how much does it change behavior and how will it impact other government programs?
[1] https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/

by 46493168

0 subcomment

Go vegan <3

by dvrp

1 subcomments

https://youtu.be/fIGXkh6S8Zw?si=QiVtewrkPY85FgQi

by neves

0 subcomment

Eric Topol is a better scientist than you favorite wellness expert. Here he talks about protein: https://erictopol.substack.com/p/our-preoccupation-with-prot...

by tomy0000000

0 subcomment

This is straight up the best US government campaign website I’ve seen. Kudos to whoever made this!

by xedrac

1 subcomments

One thing I would add to this site is to avoid seed oils like the plague. PUFA is in almost everything that is processed, and it absolutely wrecks havoc on your metabolism.

by cvbnmb

0 subcomment

This is the only good idea that has or probably will come out of this administration, and it’s still flawed:
- Despite folic acid in processed foods causing ADD and other problems in those with MTHFR mutations like me, folic acid does help prevent birth defects.
- The U.S. doesn’t produce, transport, or store sufficient quantities of organic fresh food to feed the entire country, nor would schools all have access to it.

0 subcomment

by backtogeek

0 subcomment

All the deep state stuff aside, I switched to 100% unprocessed meals for a month sometime ago after finding out I was becoming insulin resistant.
It worked I feel better and a few other things... My eye sight improved and my beard, leg and arm hair increased, noticeably.

by habosa

2 subcomments

Are these protein guidelines legit? I’m 200lbs (I’m tall) so they’re recommending 100-150g of protein per day. That feels like a lot…

by smy20011

1 subcomments

According to https://cdn.realfood.gov/Daily%20Serving%20Sizes.pdf, their recommendations do not meet their calories goal. Eg, for 2000 calories, you can eat 4 egg, 3 cup of milk, 4 slice of bread, 2 apple and 3 tbsp of oil per day.
Total calories will be 1,608 kcal/day.
It's a very depressing diet menu.

by mnemotronic

0 subcomment

Yea! Fat and red meat are back in style! And not a smidgen of talk about moderation! Woo-hoo!
This guy is my hero:https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/01/florida-man-eats-diet...

by raybb

0 subcomment

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good course to take to learn the basics of nutrition. I've done some very very simple ones from my insurance company for a small incentive but looking for something more serious and rooted in current scientific consensus (which I hear is not always so clear when it comes to nutrition).

by DebtDeflation

0 subcomment

Eating real foods (e.g., whole foods rather than highly processed foods) is good advice overall. But replacing mono and poly unsaturated fats with saturated fats is total nonsense. We have thousands of studies spanning decades showing that increased saturated fat consumption leads to elevated LDL-C and elevated LDL-C is causitively associated with higher rates of CVD. There's no reason to replace olive oil with butter and beef tallow.

by opinion3k

2 subcomments

it's great to recommend these things but if you're poor and live in a food desert, it doesn't address the actual issues that prevent people from eating healthier: money, living in an area where the bodega or wal-mart are your only food options, corporate interests that want us to eat ultra-processed foods, not having the time or ability to cook, and many more I'm sure.

by ramon156

0 subcomment

Anyone know how I can contact https://ndstudio.gov/ ? their talent form is broken

by sailfast

0 subcomment

Are they going to subsidize real food also? Maybe help get people access to it?
Or just talk about how good it is while they let people subsist on the most calories they can get for their dollar?
Also - great... another website as "governance". Put out a press release - it's solved!

by jjoe

0 subcomment

I processed the Scientific Report Appendices (PDF) through PaperSplain. I'm sharing the analysis here for those interested:
https://papersplain.com/sample/62d71c8ecb6411e042f346088c231...

0 subcomment

by ANarrativeApe

1 subcomments

if everybody eats the whole foods they can afford, they will be healthier than if they eat an ultra high processed food diet.
The cost of living issue could actually work in favor of those with less money as they can afford less of the unprocessed meat and cheese, and would have to 'settle' for more lentils, frozen vegetables and other incredibly healthy and inexpensive food.
yes, I know the cultural reasons that will make this switch highly unlikely, but that is disconnected from the pyramid.
The popular takeaway from the pyramid will not result in a decrease in the popularity of takeaways, ready meals and other UHP foods.
The polarization of the debate is as unhealthy as the eating habits that desperately need changing.

by ndom91

0 subcomment

Well it's a next.js app that's not vulnerable to react2shell, that's at least something they've done right haha

by didibus

0 subcomment

The only change from the previous dietary recommendations that I can see is that they recommend a bit of a smaller portion of veggies and a bit of a bigger portion of protein. Everything else seems exactly the same.
Am I missing something?
It also seems like the bigger protein portion over veggies is strangely what I would expect from someone on TRT...

0 subcomment

by andyjohnson0

0 subcomment

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
- Michael Pollan

by markvdb

0 subcomment

Why would I trust these recommendations? Much higher quality dietary information is available from much more trustworthy sources than the US government du jour.

by a3w

0 subcomment

How is milk considered food? Way too sweet for a diet in a rich country.

by ainiriand

0 subcomment

Half the pyramid is dairy+meat, that's a pass for me. I do not eat those and my yearly health checks are as boring as a tax seminar on a Friday afternoon.

by drakythe

1 subcomments

Disregarding comments on the proposed diet (as I am not qualified to comment and it all feels relatively like what I have passively absorbed over the past decade anyway):
Why, WHY, does this page act like an Apple marketing page and require so much scrolling??? Thanks. I hate it.

by nottorp

0 subcomment

Scrolling that kills my browser. I suppose the info is only for those who can afford very high end computers and thus also afford to pay for real food?

by throwfaraway4

4 subcomments

Makes sense. Now make protein affordable.

0 subcomment

by 827a

2 subcomments

I am positively blown away by the work National Design Studio is doing for the Federal Government.

by kyledrake

0 subcomment

I would love to see some evidence for the huge increase in protein on this new pyramid. I'm not challenging it, I'm genuinely curious if there's substantial evidence that a lot of it is actually good for most people.

by collaborative

1 subcomments

Nothing wrong with grains as long as they aren't the processed GM'd ones you find everywhere. Bake wholegrain spelt bread at home and you can make that 70% of your diet no problem. People used to only eat bread before, they were fine

by arnejenssen

0 subcomment

Fantastic. This will set America on a trajectory to prosperity

by cdrnsf

0 subcomment

How do you build what amounts to a brochure website and send ~10MB+ over the wire?

by dooglius

0 subcomment

I thought I recall from reading a previous 5-year one of these there being much more explicit information on ranges of micro-nutrients one should get (e.g. an explicit recommendation for how much Vitamin C to get). Is there an equivalent somewhere here?

by throwaway_5633

0 subcomment

Sounds like meat producers may have lobbied for this, fearing the quickly diminishing costs of lab-grown meat, expect lab-grown meat to be labeled “high-processed therefor bad” as soon as it becomes widely available.

by NPC82

0 subcomment

Traditionally, the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) is actually a policy guidance document and not a marketing or handout document.
Nine pages is laughable and sad. There are entire missing sections on different life stages and transition foods. (edit: I see it now, I scrolled by it because it's way shorter than it usually is) That kind of sensitive guidance on nutrition is supposed to come from this document - which is usually 150+ pages and includes input from committees of registered dietitians.
I'm glad some people are enthusiastic to find nutritional clarity in their lives but I can't imagine this is going to be helpful for the institutions or people that usually rely on it.
Also, please remember this secretary is actively ignoring a measles outbreak, has an obsession with instagram health fads, and is a disgrace to the global scientific community.

by cathyreisenwitz

0 subcomment

Vegs should be at the top, meat & animal products under. Still an improvement. #1 health tip for poor autists w IBS: Half a bag of frozen vegs in a bowl + splash of water. Microwave 2 min. Stir. Microwave 1 min. Salt. Eat.

by dooglius

0 subcomment

The actual PDF here: https://cdn.realfood.gov/DGA.pdf once you wade through the atrocious scroll-jacking

by bruceb

2 subcomments

One of the dumbest, frustrating things during Obama's Administration was the partisan Republican attack on Michelle Obama's push for healthier school lunches.
Democrats should not reflexive be against this just because they don't like the current president or HHS secetry. Same thing with the restrictions on buying soda and junk food with SNAP.
The supermarket is filled with processed food. Black cat/White cat whatever catches the mouse. The push to eat real food is good. Embrace it even if you don't like people behind it.

by lanyard-textile

2 subcomments

And 100 years from now, will we still call it the New Pyramid? :)
I guess we still call it New York...

by jdoe1337halo

0 subcomment

I get having issues with RFK and the way the administrations handles health issues surrounding vaccines, but this seems pretty solid.

by zartzurt

0 subcomment

Did anyone notice that if you hold right or left arrow button in the last section you can see rfk jr image appearing

by qgin

2 subcomments

Is there any evidence that what people actually eat is influenced by government guidelines? I have a hard time imagining someone seeing this and making an actual changing to their life in any way.

by tekkk

0 subcomment

Does this mean better school lunches? With real salad and meat, not just hamburgers and ketchup. I'd hope so.

by briandoll

0 subcomment

Pretty rich for the administration that deregulated OSHA and massively harmed our ability to ensure food safety to tell people literally anything about food.

by mcintyre1994

1 subcomments

So dumb question I guess but which part of that old pyramid is supposed to be prioritising highly processed food?

by bwestergard

1 subcomments

"In February 2010, Michelle Obama launched “Let’s Move!” with a wide-ranging plan to curb childhood obesity. The campaign took aim at processed foods, flagged concerns about sugary drinks, and called for children to spend more time playing outside and less time staring at screens. The campaign was roundly skewered by conservatives... But the strategy that Kennedy’s HHS is using to address the problem so far—pressuring food companies to alter their products instead of introducing new regulations—is the same one that Obama relied on, and will likely fall short for the same reason hers did a decade ago."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2025/09/maha-lets...

by sneilan1

1 subcomments

I'm so confused. Why would the United States care about people's health? It feels out of character for this administration given the times.

by scwilbanks

0 subcomment

The guidelines are good, but to make a real impact, we need a federally funded k-12 breakfast and lunch program that is free for all students.

0 subcomment

by bilsbie

0 subcomment

I worry this will cause people to try to treat their health problems with food instead of trusting the medical system.

by danielovichdk

0 subcomment

Shove some letters in there. You ate your way in. You can walk your way out.

by torcete

0 subcomment

In reference to this. I just want to tell the case of sugar alcohols and my partner. She used to suffer random intestinal bloating and it tooks us a while to discover the reason.
We were aware of the problems associated with carbs and sugar consumption and we tried to find alternatives so we switched to 0% sugar foods. It turns out that most of them are filled with sweeteners, mostly sugar alcohols, and they have worse consequences.
In fact, anything that you ingest, and it is not absorbed by your digestive system, must go somewhere. Sugar alcohols can be fermented by the gut bacteria causing other kinds of problems. I would say that the best thing to do is to reduce/remove sugar from your diet without trying to find substitutes.
By the way, my partner went to her GP (NHS) and they just dismissed her case by just saying. "Oh, we believe you have IBS". That's it, case close.

by crispyambulance

0 subcomment

Given that HHS is now run by a nutcase, it’s surprisingly not a completely insane dietary recommendation. I think a sensible person would do OK following those general guidelines.
That said, if you don’t like it, disregard it. No one is forcing you. I think it has too much emphasis on protein but that’s just me.
These guidelines theoretically could influence school lunches. Will it make them worse or better or change nothing? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

by throw7

1 subcomments

This is a good reset. I just imagine if this was put out by a Democrat white house, the republicans would be blowing a gasket.

by susiecambria

1 subcomments

There are so many things wrong with this website and the underlying arguments, assertions, etc., as others have pointed out, I will simply say that according to https://www.accessibilitychecker.org, the site is not compliant. Which doesn't surprise me in the least, but it is a good reminder that this is not a serious administration.

by mrguyorama

0 subcomment

Not bad.
I mean, the site runs like ass on my machine and gets the scrolling wrong a lot
But the recommendations are actually pretty good, and I even think the wording and tone is right, and I think it could stick in the minds of modern generations.
It does a good job of not pushing or engaging in any sort of BS conspiracy against seed oil or telling you to eat raw bull testicles or any bullshit.
Though, to be frank, this is what the entire medical establishment has been saying without fail for over 30 years. This was known when we built the original Food Pyramid. We expanded the grains category in it because of grain grower lobbying, and it was known to be not that important, though a grain heavy diet would have been a beneficial recommendation a hundred years ago when America was less wealthy.
The food pyramid shown here was replaced by the Bush Jr admin 20 years ago. Then we had a short lived pyramid that made no suggestions on amounts, and encouraged physical activity, and that was replaced by MyPlate which hilariously puts "dairy" in a glass as if you should regularly drink milk and not otherwise consume dairy.
My one qualm is that 100g per normal sized person of protein per day I think is a bit much, but Americans already do that for diet choice reasons. It really should be more plant food than meat.
But the official medical guidance has been identical for my entire life at least: "Eat a varied and balanced diet, don't over snack, don't drink calories, eat lots of plant fiber, eat basically anything in light moderation, exercise"
Oh sure, the tabloids at the checkout always have some diet fad. It was never supported by science or recommended by the actual field of medical science. Even during the 90s when we supposedly demonized fat, that was primarily diet culture.
The reality is knowing "what is a healthy diet" hasn't been the limiting factor in several generations. People aren't fat because they think chips, soda, and chicken nuggets are healthy for heavens sake.

by rdiddly

0 subcomment

Past experience has me asking whether this was drafted with the help of the Real Food Lobby. (I jest, but not all the way.)

by worldsavior

0 subcomment

Those are great animations. It's amazing what a browser can show.

by owentbrown

0 subcomment

When did white flour bread become a whole grain?
There's a picture of a loaf of bread next to the word "whole grains".

by djoldman

2 subcomments

This page seems to be the most "design-forward" federal .gov website I've ever seen.
Does anyone have other examples?

by ks2048

0 subcomment

Is an upside-down Pyramid still a Pyramid?
I thought the analogy was supposed to be a stable (wide) base forms the foundation of your diet.

0 subcomment

by TheAlchemist

0 subcomment

I like the title - average food in the US is absolute shit - both in taste and from health perspective. It doesn't even taste like real food most of the time. Just like sugar with some flavour...
I don't get the 'For decades we've been misled' though - what guidance prioritiezed highly processed food ? From the look on both pyramids, they pretty much recommend the same things, in different proportions (more proteins now, less carbs) - but I don't think any reasonable guidance promoted highly processed sweet carbs before.

0 subcomment

by LoganDark

0 subcomment

I would love to read something composed of actual text instead of flashy animations and movies.

by Whatarethese

0 subcomment

Good information and pyramid but holy moly that website is awful on desktop with a mouse.

by smeej

0 subcomment

To all the people saying this doesn't go far enough to change things: Of course it doesn't. This is a symbolic beginning, not the whole project.
Things like the composition of school lunches were determined for years by the recommendations that formed the shape of the food pyramid. What gets subsidized with SNAP and WIC was determined for years by the recommendations that formed the shape of the food pyramid.
The depiction of the recommendations does get fixed in people's minds. And then when actual guidelines come out for things that actually matter, like food programs, people expect them to correspond to what they know of the guidelines.
It's not that different from any corporate rebranding announcement. They show you the new direction they want to take the company with new imagery. You don't laugh and roll your eyes and say, "Suuuuure. Show us some new pictures. That'll fix it." You evaluate the direction the imagery says they're trying to go to decide if you think it's an improvement.
So, is eating "real food" like meat, vegetables, and fruit an improvement over a diet based on (especially processed) grains for people's health? Of course it is.
I'm not a fan of this government (or anyone else's, really), but I also think the people who are most likely to take this administration's word for it on something like dietary change are statistically among the people who would most benefit from this kind of dietary change, so I sincerely hope this works, and I'm glad to see they're trying to steer it this way. Even if the damn pyramid is upside down and looks like a funnel.

by kayge

0 subcomment

The new pyramid looks like a decent step in the right direction, and as other commenters have already mentioned: better definitions of "highly processed" vs "real food" might be helpful (but I think most of us probably have a fairly clear idea of what they mean).
Two more things I think should be considered:
1. Change the Nutrition Facts labels to say "Lipids" instead of "Fats". Seems like no matter how many times "fat doesn't make you fat" is repeated, many people are still scared of consuming fat.
2. Reconsider or recalculate the old 2000 calorie per day guidance. I have no actual data to support this — fitness and nutrition self-experimentation is just a hobby of mine — but I have a feeling that the "Average American" (which may also need to be defined somewhere) probably only needs around 1500 calories per day to maintain a healthy weight. There is obviously a wide range of needs depending on height, activity level, occupation, etc. but I feel like if someone is considering a 500 calorie treat, it would be more helpful if they thought "wow this is 1/3 of my daily calories... maybe I should split it with a friend" instead of "meh this is only 25% of my daily calories <chomp>"

by ElijahLynn

0 subcomment

This has way too much emphasis on meat. Watch Secrets of the Blue Zones on Netflix, and Gamechangers. We can get most of not all our protein from whole plant foods. And plant foods have a ton of phytonutrients that are proven to protect against certain cancerous.
We need to eat real plant food.

by literallyroy

1 subcomments

Any recommendations for healthy family eating that doesn’t require an hour every day?

by konne88

0 subcomment

This must be the first good looking government website I have ever seen.

by bookman10

0 subcomment

This is so much better. I wish this had been the advice when I was young.

by rus20376

0 subcomment

The message overall doesn’t seem especially controversial. I am personally disappointed on what seems to be a de-emphasizing of healthful plant based sources of protein such as beans and legumes, although nuts do seem to be noted more prominently.
If the message is “eat plenty of protein and fiber” beans and legumes are a great food that has both.

by eweise

0 subcomment

Dairy is not healthy fats.

by ubicomp

0 subcomment

Is there a note about glyphosate here? I don't see it.

by claymav

0 subcomment

Looks nice. Very wordy and boastful for such a simple message.

by rayiner

2 subcomments

The old food pyramid has been taught to school kids for decades—it was entrenched when I was a kid in the 1990s—and that has coincided with a huge increase in obesity in the country over the same period. Dispensing with it is a great step forward.

by robgibbons

0 subcomment

This site is flagged for some reason by BitDefender.

by mattanimation

0 subcomment

I just learned there is a .gov design studio... la what?

by bluerooibos

0 subcomment

What a brilliant marketing campaign for the Trump administration to look like they're doing something positive.
Yet, I see absolutely nothing on this website to suggest how they are going to change American diets. Do they think these guidelines don't already exist somewhere?

by jesse_dot_id

0 subcomment

Yeah, I don't feel comfortable with anything this government says for at least the next few years. It doesn't matter how sound the advice is. There is an agenda baked into everything.

by neversettles

1 subcomments

I also feel there's a role that cooking equipment plays in weight loss. I've found that having newer, higher quality non stick pans helps me recognize I don't need to oil my pans with as much butter.

by chrsw

3 subcomments

Great. Now let's start replacing fast food places with places that still serve you quickly but serve healthy food. Complete meals of whole foods.
One of the problems with the way we live and work is that it's so easy to go for the quick option. If you're working 60+ hours a week or trying to run a busy household, unhealthy food options are really attractive for you because they're so convenient. People generally know what good food is, it's just that they make the sacrifice because there's other things going on in their lives.
I've said things like this before and people respond like "well, I run my own business and raise a family and volunteer at my church and so on and on... AND cook perfectly healthy meals 3 times a day!" That's awesome for you, you're amazing, but let's get real.

by NickC25

1 subcomments

I own and run a CPG beverage company.
This is a good start. A start. The folks at the top, including RFK Jr. are still captured by big industry.
We need to get off of corn syrup, artificial ingredients, and harmful preservatives.
That said, food deserts still exist, and real whole food is expensive, especially in a time of dire economic stress. I thought that's what subsidies were for, but apparently they are for enriching Big Food / Big Ag executives, their lobbyists, and their bought-and-paid-for congresscritters.
We also need to realize we've been duped for generations into liking things that are overly sweet. Sweet is fine, but we don't need to add stevia or sugar to everything. One of my biggest walls of resistance that I see regularly with my own products is that people have been conditioned to expect that everything in my vertical is super sweet. Just last week I had a parent complain at a sampling that my drink wasn't as sweet as Prime, and thus it's shit. Prime has over an ounce of added sugar in its bottles. I'm marketing to an entirely different set of consumer, too. I offered her a million USD in cash if I could name 10 ingredients on a Prime bottle, and she'd tell me what the ingredient was for, why it helped her son, and the natural origin of the ingredient. She accepted, couldn't get past 1, and then told me that it didn't matter - her son liked what he liked and that's what she was going to buy. We've spoiled generations of people into accepting super sweet things with no idea of why something is or isn't sweet.
One thing I also do is that (i have the luxury of time to do this, which I recognize is something not everyone has) if i want something really sweet and it's not a fruit, I generally make it myself. If I am having a birthday party, I'll make the cake myself. If my nephew wants to leave christmas cookies out for Santa, I'll make them myself. If I want ice cream, I have an ice cream machine and I'll make it myself.

by SilentM68

0 subcomment

Regardless of who's right or wrong, who's more corrupt or not, in this case, "The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few," because in the long run, the US population's health will be better off overall, as the industry shift from ultra processed foods and sugars outweighs saturated fat risks if guidelines are followed moderately.

by 1970-01-01

1 subcomments

Why does it have to be another pyramid? Why can't we just use a simple pie chart? With a pie chart, we could compare both calorie ratios and daily ratios much easier.

by flockonus

0 subcomment

Very interesting, if they indeed are after public health and yet don't talk about organic vs. sprayed produce.

by banbangtuth

0 subcomment

What does 1 serving here mean?????????

by perhapsAnLLM

1 subcomments

The website is beautiful, but I'm so tired of landing pages that require me to scroll for eons to see all the content, chunk by chunk. It's aesthetically gorgeous, but painfully impractical.

by ShakataGaNai

0 subcomment

Its unfortunate the way modern politics has gone. I see this site and am immediately suspicious. What bullshit is there? What ulterior motive should I be concerned about?
Rather than reading it, assuming it was fact based science. Maybe not the best because governments never get things 100%.... but at least able to trust it. Now specifically because this is RFK's MAHA world, I assume everything on this site is a lie.
After reading through it I don't see anything terrible or stupidly over the top. Yes, more proteins and vegetables good, less heavily processed foods.

by awl130

0 subcomment

Bravo. I never thought I'd live to see the day. The old pyramid was so outdated.

by malkia

0 subcomment

Make Jerkey Without Sugar Again!

by btreecat

0 subcomment

It's a reverse funnel system

by nektro

0 subcomment

i dont have the expertise to say whether this is good info but its nice to see other folks saying it is. but a government website being one of these scrollbar hacks is atrocious

by otikik

0 subcomment

> The new Pyramid > Protein, Dairy & Healthy Fats
(shows picture of butter)
I'm sorry to say this, but butter, even if delicious, is not a "healthy fat". It's "less unhealthy" than margarine, and perhaps that's what they are going for.
Healthy fats are Olive oil (especially extra virgin), avocado, nuts, seeds and fatty fish.

by diego_moita

0 subcomment

Why would I even pay attention to guidelines from a government that wants to make political warfare in everything when the worldwide consensus on healthy diet is the so called Mediterranean Diet?
The world needs less America. Even in food guidelines.

by fogzen

2 subcomments

The "Reducing Saturated Fat Below 10% of Energy and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease" research appendix says they purposely excluded any study before 2010. Why? Also they only included randomized-controlled trials that lowered SFA below 10%. Why 10%?

by dbg31415

0 subcomment

> Protein target: 1.2–1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day.
Since this is an official US government website, are we now officially using metric?

0 subcomment

by hellonov24

0 subcomment

Site is beautiful. The current food is fucking trash, the new food guidelines make sense. Good work.

by kentbrew

0 subcomment

Beef <= cows <= corn <= fertilizer <= oil. It always circles back to oil.

by parrellel

0 subcomment

Let's see what the people who want to Make Mumps Great Again are recommending today?
64oz rare porterhouse breakfasts is it.
Neat.

by ptdorf

0 subcomment

Red meat is good for you. Animal fat is good for you.
Sugar is the real enemy.

by balls187

0 subcomment

Backed by Science*

by eudamoniac

0 subcomment

This isn't perfect. It is superb though, compared to previous recommendations. Let's take the wins when we get them. This release is closely aligned with the literature.

by staticassertion

0 subcomment

This site is infuriating. The information seems banal and better than the previous pyramid, though flawed.
It is quite stupid to say that the US is sick because of processed food while ignoring poverty, education, and insurance. The messaging should not include that but what can you expect?

by doug-moen

0 subcomment

This is Trump's MAGA diet, a replacement for the lame liberal DEI diet of the Biden administration. Not hyperbole, the web site states all this explicitly if you click through to this link: <https://cdn.realfood.gov/Scientific%20Report.pdf>
The Scientific Report mentions Trump 4 times, so I looked up Trump's diet. Seems he eats a lot of McDonalds takeout and drinks a lot of diet coke. It seems to me that Trump's diet is an exemplary and healthy diet that follows these new recommendations, which prioritizes foods such as beef, oils and animal fat (including full fat dairy) and potatoes. Cheeseburger and fries, and the diet coke avoids added sugar, while promoting hydration. Trump might be prickly about past criticism of his diet; now he can point to these recommendations.

by cramcgrab

0 subcomment

You can eat what you want, I’m eating real food. Good luck!

by okokwhatever

0 subcomment

This is OK

by jibal

0 subcomment

"Better health begins on your plate—not in your medicine cabinet."
This is an extraordinarily dangerous false dichotomy and misrepresentation. This government is killing people.

by cr125rider

0 subcomment

The war on protein feels as made up as the war on Christmas…

by AuthAuth

0 subcomment

Terrible website in both usability and conveying information but it looks nice. Info is good, Americans do need to eat healthier and these are good guidelines.
Also was this AI generated because Americans dont know what a Kilogram is and wouldnt use it to measure bodyweight.

by vixen99

0 subcomment

'America is sick. The data is clear' With an US obesity rate of what, 40% and horrible health stats overall, not much to argue over. Something should happen.

by brikym

0 subcomment

Tax Fake Food?

by globular-toast

0 subcomment

It's funny how language betrays how people think. Notice how it's always a "war" with these people. "War on motorists", "war on drugs", and "war on protein" now. These people are unable to think about anything doesn't involve conflict of some kind. Even in peacetime, they will find it, somehow.

by fnord123

1 subcomments

> America is sick. The data is clear.
Can we inform dictionaries and encyclopaedia that data is now a mass noun and it is considered archaic to use data as a plural of datum?

by greener_grass

0 subcomment

Project 2025 was strongly against active travel, yet increased car dependency is one of the main factors in poor health in the USA.

by maelito

0 subcomment

Bullying Europe but hoping to live like Europeans.

by d--b

0 subcomment

Well it takes some politics to get this kind of culture shift. As long as highly processed food is cheap and working class people are paid what they are paid, there is no chance of anything changing.
Additionnally, it is generally cheaper to eat at a fast food place than to actually cook at home. And since people don’t have time to go back home and cook something for lunch, they just eat at subway’s, domino’s or mc donald’s.
And since this has been going on for more than a generation, today’s grandparents don’t even know how to cook from raw ingredients anymore.
The US is sick, but change doesn’t start with food, it starts with fixing the economic inequality.

by aussieguy1234

0 subcomment

If you are of European decent, 80% of your ancestors diet was whole grains.

by insane_dreamer

0 subcomment

Couldn't agree more that we should be eating minimally processed food -- our family spends money and time to do just that. I'm glad the gov is promoting it more heavily.
But this statement on the home page of that website is preposterous:
"For decades we've been misled by guidance that prioritized highly processed food,"
What guidance ever suggested eating highly processed food? Other than ads of course, but this implies medical guidance. Doctors, nutritionists etc. have been pushing minimally-processed fruits and veggies and avoiding highly-processed food for decades.
What a horrible attempt to portray this as somehow "new" guidance by a "newly enlightened" leader (aka RFK).

by hahahahhaah

0 subcomment

Nice one... so they look like heros for maybe $100k or $1m spent on a website that is like a hackathon showcase. But what action are they taking? Is junk food going to be taxed. Are they making healthy food more affordable?

by burnt-resistor

0 subcomment

Drink raw milk, get antibiotic-resistant e. coli, salmonella, and/or listeria.
Cooking is processing. Pasteurization is processing. Not all processing is "bad".
To be consistent with their supposed "values", then they have to end subsidies for field corn, wheat, and soy and subsidize organic produce. That will never happen because these are lifestyle influencers playing bureaucrat when they don't know anything.

by lanfeust6

0 subcomment

We can do away with "pyramids". Canada's food guide for instance is pretty good https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/. Aside from lots of veg, you can balance the rest.
The Americanised diet had a heavy emphasis on refined carbs, added sugar, added fat, and no fibre. Thats a far cry from whole grains and pulses, which have been researched extensively and are thought to be healthy.

by gowld

0 subcomment

Unreadable clunky website.

by teiferer

0 subcomment

Also, don't vaccinate your kids against measles.
And if you happen to run over a bear cub, drive it to Manhattan and dump it in Central Park.

by lloydatkinson

1 subcomments

Looks like a very good effort, shame some people will disagree with it just because it doesn't match their politics.

by 2OEH8eoCRo0

0 subcomment

Not as bad as expected. Healthy fats and whole grains with lots of fruit and vegetables. Emphasis on minimal processing.
It might even be better messaging than the healthy plate because it shows the foods visually which is what some people need to see.

by dyauspitr

0 subcomment

Interesting, this is not bad at all. Maybe the only real issue is prescribing a lot of red meat which categorically isn’t that good for you.

by kasane_teto

0 subcomment

I hate websites that scroll like this. It’s so… clunky.

by nice_byte

0 subcomment

"We're ending the war on protein"
WTF is this even referring to? literally everyone here is _obsessed_ with their protein intake, regardless of whether they're a meat-eater or not. of all the things America's at war with, protein is definitely not one of them.

by klik99

0 subcomment

Is there any effort to make real food more affordable for most Americans?
Is there any proof that "much of chronic disease is linked to diet and lifestyle"?
Is our bar so low that we give RFK credit for saying "eat real food" which everyone knows, while cutting vaccination recommendations, defunding public health and making our health care worse? The implication that chronic illness is a "lifestyle" problem is victim blaming, sure you can point to a lot of individual cases where this is the case, but the main issue is access to good, affordable food. I'm convinced the one thing that ties the varied MAGA coalition together is a belief that the problems of modern America are moral failings of the masses. Many of the coalition truly believe it, and the people rigging the system are more than happy to fund them to distract from their looting, just as the sugar industry funded blaming fat for obesity.
I don't like to be this righteous on HN, but RFK wagging his finger about how "diet and lifestyle" causes most chronic disease, which is where 90% healthcare costs go to, just upsets me. If you truly believe that, then who cares if people suffer from chronic disease. Go ahead and gut public health and the CDC, most people with chronic diseases brought it upon themselves! Doctor says "Eat Real Food".
The only hope I have is that he's committed enough to battle lobbyists and introduce more food regulations, like he did with food dye. That's the tough work, against entrenched power structures and real risk. Until then, it's all just talk.

by lbrito

0 subcomment

That is one atrocious website. Couldnt get past the second fake-slide, so slow and broken it was

by jasonlotito

0 subcomment

War on protein? I don't know of any war on protein, but I do live in a more liberal area than the rest of the country. Considering this is coming from a more conservative government, I wonder what war on protein is going on in conservative areas of the country. Why were conservatives having a war on protein?

by nkmnz

0 subcomment

Anyone else disappointed because they didn't show the Swanson Pyramid Of Greatness?

by lunias

0 subcomment

Cool, yet another pyramid that people will debate. There a lot of different diets. Try them and judge which ones work best for you based on your goals and which foods are available to you. A lot of people in the United States struggle with caloric restriction i.e. not which foods, but how much.

by globalnode

0 subcomment

companies and special interest groups run your country

by mythrwy

0 subcomment

Geeze that's bad! Can we just show the pyramid and some text?

by sneak

0 subcomment

A reminder: cardiovascular disease is right up there close to tied with cancer for the #1 killer in non-accidental deaths.
Cholesterol only comes from animals. Non-animal protein sources are much safer and healthier for humans to consume. This website is not science, it's ideology.
But we already knew that's all we could expect from RFK and this administration.

by jordanpg

0 subcomment

FTFY: Eat Real Food -- if you can afford it and have time to.
But I'm sure the Administration will accompany this release with various programs to boost access for the bottom 50% to fresh produce, meat, etc. right?

by hopelite

0 subcomment

Something this does not actually seem to address is that even our “real food” is also polluted with massive glyphosate. And no, it is also something that is a massive problem in Europe, including meat, which does not get as regulated as vegetables and fruits, so levels can often be even higher.
This young woman did an excellent explanation of the overall state of things in a YouTube video, for anyone that wants an intro. https://youtu.be/s64PNMAK92c

by jorblumesea

0 subcomment

All of this coming while the administration guts science funding, food inspections, vaccine guidelines, handouts to farmers producing nutrient poor foods, corporatist policies creating more food deserts.
thoroughly discredits what they are trying to do, even if there is some good in here.

by ekjhgkejhgk

0 subcomment

Good message, shitty website.

by dangus

0 subcomment

Here's the problem: the Republican government is against almost everything that is proven to improve health outcomes.
They are against transit funding, urbanism, bike lanes, etc, and are pro-automobile and pro-car-dependency. Remember when Republicans literally killed high speed rail in Ohio?
They are essentially anti-city almost as a base concept. See all their political jabs at cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. One of the healthiest states in terms of obesity rates, California, is the party's punching bag.
The party is trying to end ACA subsidies and is against universal healthcare and access to preventative care. How will Americans access dieticians and nutritionists if they can't afford private health insurance?
How will Americans eat real food if Republicans decide to hold food stamps hostage every time there is a budget dispute?
Trump himself is known to be anti-exercise on a personal level. [1]
[1] https://nypost.com/2026/01/01/us-news/president-trump-explai...

by PaulDavisThe1st

1 subcomments

> For decades we've been misled by guidance that prioritized highly-processed food
WTF are they talking about?

by ratelimitsteve

0 subcomment

RFK is insane about a lot of things but I've been eating roughly like this with a focus on lean protein and fresh produce and I brought myself back from the brink of prediabetes and basically got rid of my sleep apnea. Besides, the last food pyramid was just as worked by industry lobbyists as this one is. That's the problem with tolerating a little bit of corruption: the difference between you and the blatantly corrupt goes from being a difference of kind to merely a difference of degree.

0 subcomment

by spruce_tips

0 subcomment

wow, it's almost like this makes sense

by llm_nerd

0 subcomment

Phew! Finally Americans can stop eating according to the old dietary guidelines! Everyone clear out your pantries and fridges and get with the new hotness. Those old guidelines, you see, were the cause of all of the obesity and poor health!
...wait, you mean to tell me extraordinarily few Americans actually listened to guidelines? That this is all performative nonsense?
Honestly, it isn't as ignorant as I expected (although it of course pushes for "whole milk" and other bits of ignorant advice), but it's basically playing on the ignorance of the readers. Americans already eat some of the most amounts of protein worldwide -- yet of course proclaims an imaginary "war on protein" strawman -- yet also are one of the fattest and least healthy countries.
People actually following the prior guidelines in earnest would likely be in great metabolic shape. But Americans don't: They gobble cheeseburgers and drink a dozen cokes and complain that stupid big medicine is trying to con them, while reciting some nonsense a supplement huckster chiropractor told them on YouTube.

0 subcomment

by ck2

0 subcomment

every single gov website is being hijacked for propaganda
one by one
completely untrustworthy
I fully expect weather .gov at some point to be taken over, nothing is sacred with these a-holes
https://404media.co/dhs-is-lying-to-you-about-ice-shooting-a...
impeach them all

by yamal4321

0 subcomment

.gov
Uhm... Skip

by isoprophlex

5 subcomments

let me first post a shallow, obligatory complaint about the unreadability of this submission due to egregious scrolljacking.
for those interested without getting angered by weird scroll behavior, see below.
too bad there's such a focus on animal protein/products, which isn't all that good if you want to design a world-wide society of billions of people that's going to last into the next 1000 years. seems like at least half of the pyramid was designed by Big Agro lobbyists. other than that, i guess anything's better than what the average american eats now.
----
Protein, Dairy, & Healthy Fats: We are ending the war on protein. Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein from both animal and plant sources, paired with healthy fats from whole foods such as eggs, seafood, meats, full-fat dairy, nuts, seeds, olives, and avocados.
Protein target: 1.2–1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day.
Vegetables & Fruits: Vegetables and fruits are essential to real food nutrition. Eat a wide variety of whole, colorful, nutrient-dense vegetables and fruits in their original form, prioritizing freshness and minimal processing.
Vegetables: 3 servings per day. Fruits: 2 servings per day.
Whole Grains: Whole grains are encouraged. Refined carbohydrates are not. Prioritize fiber-rich whole grains and significantly reduce the consumption of highly processed, refined carbohydrates that displace real nourishment.
Target: 2–4 servings per day.

by 7777777phil

0 subcomment

[dead]

by hindustanuday

0 subcomment

[dead]

by jaco6

0 subcomment

[dead]

by fat-soyboy

0 subcomment

[dead]

by ycombinary

0 subcomment

[dead]

by dfdsfsfsdf

0 subcomment

[dead]

by witte

0 subcomment

[dead]

by arghandugh

2 subcomments

[flagged]

by ks2048

2 subcomments

[flagged]

by aero142

1 subcomments

[flagged]

by danesparza

0 subcomment

[flagged]

by eimrine

0 subcomment

Drink real milk, not the ultra-pasterized shit.

by black_puppydog

0 subcomment

Lol good one. Anything matching .real.\.gov$ can be discarded as BS these days...
Edit:
Actually make that simply .*\.gov$
It's unbelievable to which point this clown show has permanently dismantled US soft power. Guess they think they have enough hard power to compensate. What with all that good raw milk and meat they're eating...

by wvlia5

0 subcomment

Optimize your diet with my app
https://matiasmorant.github.io/nutrition/

by shrubby

0 subcomment

Protein intale seems crazy.
0,9 grams per kg of LEAN weight is more than enough for normal activity.
You don't need to feed the fat any protein as it will only accumulate more fat.
And food produces a third of the emissions of humankind out of which full vegan would obliterate two thirds as in total of 25% of our emissions. Add the land use rewilding effect of 50-100 gigaton and we'd be net neutral with this one change.
Considering the iconic burning Macdonalds video and this recommendation we seem to be doomed.
I'm lovin it.