Breaking Down the New Dietary Guidelines 2025–2030: Evidence, Gaps, and Real-World Practice - Episode 2
Quantity, Quality, and the Risk of Misinterpreting the Message Around Protein
In part 2 of the discussion, experts discuss recommendations around protein intake, including controversy and misconceptions.
In part 2 of the panel discussion, Colleen Sloan, PA-C, RD, steers the conversation toward one of the most talked about elements of the 2025–2030 US Dietary Guidelines: protein. With protein receiving heightened visibility in the document and representing a departure from guidance that has remained relatively stable for decades, Sloan asks how clinicians should interpret the updated recommendations and communicate them effectively to patients.
From his vantage point in preventive cardiology, Viet Le, PA, emphasized that the updated guidelines should not be read as a call to simply “eat more protein.” Instead, he framed the guidance as a strategic shift toward substitution, particularly away from refined carbohydrates, added sugars, and ultra-processed foods.
Le noted that while disparities persist, the US population as a whole is not broadly protein deficient. The more pressing issue, he argued, is that many protein choices available and commonly consumed are highly processed.
He also addressed concerns surrounding red meat, pointing out that the guidelines continue to recommend lean meats and fish and do not eliminate red meat altogether. Rather than endorsing high-protein, low-carbohydrate dietary patterns such as ketogenic or carnivore diets, the document reinforces moderation, particularly in light of ongoing recommendations to limit saturated fat to less than 10% of total energy intake. For clinicians, this reinforces the message that protein can play a constructive role in dietary swaps, but source and composition remain critical.
Catherine McManus, RD, expanded on the scientific rationale behind the evolving protein recommendations. She acknowledged that the updated guidance, which suggests protein intakes in the range of 1.2 to 1.6 g/kg/day for adults, represents an increase from the long-standing 0.8 g/kg/day benchmark derived from Dietary Reference Intakes. However, she emphasized that these higher targets remain well within the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR).
McManus explained that the traditional 0.8 g/kg recommendation is largely based on nitrogen balance studies, which may overestimate intake needs while underestimating nitrogen losses. As a result, the older benchmark may not accurately reflect protein requirements for optimal health and function. While acknowledging that further research is needed to fully understand the long-term implications of higher protein intake, she cautioned against overstating concerns, particularly given that most Americans already meet overall protein targets.
Importantly, McManus echoed Le’s point that adequacy at the population level masks imbalances across protein subgroups. While intakes of poultry, beef, and eggs are often adequate or excessive, Americans continue to fall short in consuming seafood, shellfish, nuts, and seeds. From her perspective, the guidelines’ emphasis on protein should be interpreted less as a push for higher quantities and more as a call to improve protein quality and diversity.
Sloan underscored the clinical implications of this distinction, noting that many patients equate increased protein with supplements, shakes, and bars—products that are frequently ultra-processed. The panel agreed that the guidelines instead emphasize whole-food protein sources, including both animal-based and plant-based options, and that clinicians play a critical role in clarifying this message during patient education.
The discussion also turned to the visual food guide accompanying the guidelines, which Sloan noted has generated concern for potentially contradicting the written recommendations. McManus agreed, observing that the imagery, particularly the prominence of animal proteins and unclear portion sizes, may confuse both consumers and clinicians. Visuals depicting large cuts of meat or poultry with skin and bone intact may unintentionally suggest portions or priorities that are not supported by the text.
McManus further highlighted an important nuance captured in the written guidance but difficult to convey visually: food preparation. Even nutrient-dense protein sources, she noted, can become less healthful depending on how they are prepared. The text, she argued, does a strong job emphasizing preparation methods, while the imagery falls short in communicating this layer of guidance.
Le reinforced these concerns, pointing out that consumers often respond more strongly to visuals than to written explanations. He noted seeing examples on social media where the image was shared without context, leading to celebratory but inaccurate interpretations of the guidelines’ intent. This disconnect, he argued, underscores a broader challenge: when visual messaging is not well aligned with evidence-based text, misinterpretation becomes inevitable.
Our Experts:
Colleen Sloan, PA-C, RDN, pediatric physician assistant and registered dietitian.
Catherine McManus, PhD, RDN, LD, assistant professor of nutrition, Case Western Reserve University; Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
Viet Le, DMSc, MPAS, PA-C, FACC, preventive cardiology physician assistant and associate professor of research, Intermountain Health.
