The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans

The release of the new U.S. Dietary Guidelines has been widely framed as a major reset in nutrition policy, and in some respects, that claim is justified.

There is a stronger emphasis on protein, nutrient density, and whole foods, and a more explicit recognition that the standard American diet is not simply suboptimal, but actively damaging to health.

This is progress, and it should not be dismissed.

However, the guidelines settle for safe ground. Reduce sugar. Limit ultra-processed foods. Choose whole grains. Balance the plate. These messages are easy to absorb, easy to defend, and easy to implement without provoking serious institutional resistance. They allow change to happen, but only within carefully defined boundaries.

And yet, organisations such as the American Heart Association have already released statements making clear that they will not move their position with regards to things like full-fat dairy or red meat. And we shouldn't have expected otherwise. Let's not forget that the dietary guidelines, whether designed for that purpose or out of opportunism, are helping to preserve a long-standing billion-dollar profit system, namely the food and pharmaceutical industries as we know them to this day.

The deeper issue, therefore, lies in the expectation that government-issued guidelines can meaningfully resolve individual health problems. They cannot. By design, they are broad, population-level recommendations. They are not personalised, they cannot account for metabolic variability, and they do not reflect lived experience. People struggling with fatigue, cravings, weight regain, insulin resistance, or poor glycaemic control are rarely helped by generic dietary advice, no matter how well-intentioned.

Health, ultimately, cannot be outsourced to institutions. Guidelines may offer a starting point, but responsibility remains with the individual. That responsibility involves paying attention to one’s own responses, questioning assumptions, experimenting thoughtfully, and being willing to deviate from official narratives when they do not align with outcomes. For many people, this process leads toward a meaningful reduction in carbohydrates overall, not just the removal of sugar or obvious junk food.

That path may not yet come with institutional endorsement, and it may never be universally recommended. But history suggests that meaningful shifts in health practice rarely begin at the top. They begin with individuals who question prevailing assumptions, accept accountability for their choices, and prioritise results over reassurance.

The new dietary guidelines represent movement in the right direction. They acknowledge past failures and begin to correct course. But they do not constitute a true paradigm shift. That work remains unfinished, and for now, it remains personal.