Almanac A1C

A Historic Rewrite of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Posted

by

A1C Medical Team

Table of Contents
Keywords: , , , , , , ,

Introduction

The 2026 revision of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans represents a historic inflection point in federal nutrition policy, signaling a decisive shift away from decades of low-fat, grain-centric guidance toward a more metabolically informed paradigm. Emerging evidence and policy analyses describe a framework that emphasizes higher protein intake across the life course, greater acceptance of full-fat dairy products, and an explicit move to discourage ultra-processed foods as a distinct risk category, rather than focusing solely on individual nutrients in isolation. In parallel, the new guidance introduces tighter limits on added sugars, with particular concern for sugar-sweetened beverages and child-targeted products, reflecting growing consensus that chronic excess sugar intake is a key driver of weight gain, insulin resistance, and downstream cardiometabolic pathology. Collectively, these shifts have been described as a “reset” of U.S. nutrition policy that reorders the hierarchy of recommended foods, elevating minimally processed, protein-rich options while de-prioritizing refined carbohydrates and industrially formulated products.

This policy realignment must be understood against the backdrop of a continuing epidemic of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), conditions that now account for substantial proportion of morbidity, mortality, and healthcare expenditure in the United States. Observational and interventional data consistently link high intake of ultra-processed foods and added sugars with increased adiposity, impaired insulin sensitivity, hepatic steatosis, and cardiometabolic risk, while higher protein and whole food based dietary patterns are associated with improved satiety, body composition, and glycemic control. The 2026 guidelines can therefore be viewed not only as a belated policy response to these trends, but also as a strategic opportunity to re-align public health nutrition with contemporary metabolic science shifting the focus from abstract macronutrients ratios toward food quality, processing level, and metabolic outcomes across the lifespan. In doing so, they lay a foundation for integrating advances in system biology, precision nutrition, and digital health into future cycles of dietary guidance and clinical practice.

Historical Evolution of US Guidelines

Since their formal introduction in 1980, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans have evolved from a predominantly low-fat, grain-centric paradigm toward a more food-based, pattern-oriented framework that increasingly acknowledges the metabolic impact of dietary quality rather than macronutrient percentages alone. Early iterations, epitomized by the 1992 Food Guide Pyramid, prioritized a broad base of grain servings, many of them refined, while recommending sparing use of fats and oils, a structure that visually and conceptually entrenched a “carbohydrate-heavy, fat-light” hierarchy in public consciousness. Subsequent revisions gradually incorporated greater emphasis on whole grains, fruit, and vegetables, yet revisions gradually incorporated greater emphasis on whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, yet the overarching narrative continued to center of fat restriction and total calorie control, with relatively limited attention to protein quantify and quality, food processing level, or eating patterns relevant to satiety and metabolic health. The replacement of the pyramid with MyPlate in 2011 marked a shift toward a simpler, plate-based icon that highlighted fruits, vegetables, grains, protein foods, and dairy, but it retained a strong grain emphasis and remained largely neutral on the distinction between minimally processed and ultra-processed items within these categories [1].

Against this historical backdrop, the 2026 guidelines have been characterized by commentators as an “inverted pyramid,” reflecting a re-ordering of priorities that elevated protein-rich foods, dairy (including full-fat options), and minimally processed whole foods, while explicitly de-emphasizing added sugars, refined starches, and ultra-processed products. This evolution addresses several long-standing criticisms of prior guidance: that it under-emphasized protein and dietary fiber as tools for appetite regulation and body-composition support, relied too heavily on refined grain-based foods to fill caloric needs, and failed to clearly warn against ultra-processed foods despite accumulating evidence linking them to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Critics have also argued that nutrient-reductionist messaging (for example, “low fat” or “low cholesterol”) inadvertently encouraged the food industry to engineer low-fat, high-sugar products that met numeric targets while worsening metabolic risk profiles. By explicitly tightening limits on added sugars and, for the first time, naming ultra-processed foods as a category to minimize, the current guidelines begin to correct these omissions and more closely align federal nutrition policy with contemporary understanding of metabolic health and the obesogenic food environment [1,2,3,4,5,6].

Key Policy Shifts in the 2026 Guidelines

The 2026 Dietary Guidelines articulate a more granular re-ordering of macronutrient priorities food sources, and processing levels than any previous iteration, with an explicit aim to reshape everyday meal construction. In contrast to earlier guidelines that treated the 0.8g/kg reference intake as sufficient for nearly all adults, the new framework treats this value as a minimum and orients its examples and narrative language around higher protein intakes often in the rage of roughly 1.2-1.6g/kg/day for most healthy adults, particularly for individuals with overweight, obesity, or age-related loss of muscle mass. This shift is operationalized in consumer-facing materials that repeatedly encourage “a source of protein at every meal,” translating into practical targets such as 25-35g of high-quality protein at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with options spanning eggs, Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, poultry meat, fish, legumes, and tofu. The language around protein no longer presents it as interchangeable with refined grain calories, but rather emphasizes its roles in maintaining lean mass, supporting satiety, and moderating post-prandial glycemic excursions, functions particularly relevant in the context of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and sarcopenic obesity [2,7,8].

Dairy guidance is likewise specified with greater clarity, particularly regarding fat content and product type. Where earlier guidelines strongly favored low-fat or fat-free milk and yogurt on the basis of saturated-fat reduction, the updated recommendations explicitly endorse whole‑fat dairy, including whole milk, full‑fat yogurt, and certain cheeses, as compatible with a cardiometabolically healthy pattern when consumed as part of minimally processed, mixed meals. Example meal patterns highlight combinations such as whole‑fat yogurt with nuts and berries, or whole milk with eggs and whole‑grain toast, implicitly shifting away from fat‑free flavoured yogurts and sweetened cereals that previously met nutrient‑based criteria but carried high added‑sugar loads. The text distinguishes between fats delivered in a natural food matrix such as dairy, meat, fish, nuts and seeds, fats embedded in ultra-processed products like pastries, fried snack foods, and confectionery, indicating that the latter are metabolically more concerning despite similar nominal saturated-fat content. In this way, the guidelines preserve numeric limits on saturated fat but contextualize them within a more nuanced view of food form, processing, and dietary pattern [2,7,9,10,11,12].

The treatment of ultra‑processed foods moves beyond prior, vague admonitions to “limit” certain categories and instead adopts a quasi‑categorical discouragement of a broad swath of industrial formulations. Policy summaries and explanatory materials explicitly list sugar‑sweetened beverages, energy drinks, packaged desserts, candies, sweetened breakfast cereals, flavoured yogurts, and many frozen or shelf‑stable ready‑to‑eat meals as foods that should not be part of a routine diet, except on an occasional basis. The guidelines repeatedly invoke descriptors such as “highly processed,” “packaged,” and “ready‑to‑eat” when referring to products dense in added sugars, refined starches, industrial fats, sodium, and additives, and contrast them with home‑cooked or minimally processed foods composed of recognizable ingredients. Importantly, this language is not confined to beverages but extends to the totality of the ultra‑processed food environment, encouraging consumers and institutions to read ingredient lists and to favour foods with minimal processing and short, comprehensible ingredient lists [2,6,7,8,13,14].

The stance on added sugars is tightened in both tone and implementation details, with special emphasis on early life and school‑age children. While the numeric benchmark of less than 10% of total calories from added sugars is maintained as an upper limit for adults, the new guidelines emphasize that “less is better,” stating that there is no physiological requirement for added sugars and that health benefits accrue as intake approaches zero. For infants and toddlers under two years of age, the recommendation is effectively zero added sugars, with specific warnings against fruit drinks, sweetened milks, desserts, and snack foods marketed to young children. For school‑aged children and adolescents, policy guidance translates these principles into concrete standards for institutional meals: caps on grams of added sugar per serving of flavoured milk and breakfast cereals, weekly limits on the proportion of calories from added sugars in school menus, and phased timelines to bring existing products into compliance [5,8,15].

Taken together, these detailed shifts amount to more than cosmetic adjustments to nutrient targets; they reconfigure the implied “default plate” for Americans. A metabolically aligned meal under the 2026 framework is characterized by a substantial portion of high‑quality protein, one or more servings of full‑fat or reduced‑processing dairy, abundant non‑starchy vegetables and some whole‑food carbohydrate sources, alongside a deliberate absence of sugar‑sweetened beverages, desserts, and ultra‑processed side dishes. Ultra‑processed items are cast as exceptions rather than staples, and added sugars, particularly in beverages and child focused products are potrayed as incompatible with routine eating patterns aimed at preventing obesity, diabetes, and fatty liver disease. In this sense, the guidelines operationalize an “inverted pyramid” in which minimally processed, protein-dense, whole-food choices form the daily foundation, while ultra-processed and sugar-laden products are explicitly relegated to the margins of the diet [2,3,5,6,8,14,15].

Metabolic Health Rationale

The metabolic rationale underpinning the 2026 Dietary Guidelines rests on a large body of mechanistic and clinical evidence linking higher protein intake, reduced added sugar consumption, and minimization of ultra‑processed foods with favorable changes across multiple domains of metabolic health, including satiety regulation, body composition, insulin sensitivity, and cardiometabolic risk. Dietary protein has been demonstrated to exert potent effects on appetite control and energy balance through several convergent pathways: protein‑rich meals increase circulating concentrations of satiety‑promoting gut hormones, particularly glucagon‑like peptide‑1 (GLP‑1) and peptide YY (PYY), while suppressing ghrelin, the orexigenic hormone secreted by the gastric mucosa. These hormonal shifts are accompanied by elevations in diet-induced thermogenesis, the energy cost of digesting, absorbing, and processing nutrients, which is approximately 20-30% for protein compared to 5-10% for carbohydrate and 0-3% for fat, thereby increasing total energy expenditure and contributing to a net negative energy balance when protein displaces lower-thermic macronutrients. In controlled trials, diets providing ³1.2g/kg/day of protein during energy restriction preserve lean body mass (LBM) more effectively than isocaloric lower-protein diets, reducing LBM loss by approximately 1–2 kg and improving the ratio of fat mass to fat‑free mass loss, an outcome associated with better long‑term weight maintenance and metabolic health. Furthermore, higher‑protein diets enhance perceptions of fullness and satiety and reduce subsequent ad libitum energy intake in many, though not all, study contexts, particularly when protein partially replaces refined carbohydrates [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23].

Conversely, excessive intake of added sugars and ultra‑processed foods drives a constellation of metabolic perturbations centered on hepatic de novo lipogenesis (DNL), insulin resistance, and chronic low‑grade inflammation. Fructose and other free sugars stimulate DNL by serving as direct lipogenic substrates and by inducing insulin‑mediated upregulation of key lipogenic transcription factors and enzymes, including sterol regulatory element‑binding protein‑1c (SREBP‑1c), fatty acid synthase (FAS), acetyl‑CoA carboxylase (ACC), and stearoyl‑CoA desaturase‑1 (SCD‑1). Controlled feeding studies demonstrate that dietary sugar restriction reduces fractional DNL by approximately 10% and hepatic triglyceride content by ~7%, with parallel improvements in fasting insulin, glucose, triglycerides, and liver enzymes, supporting a causal role for added sugars in the pathogenesis of non‑alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The saturated fatty acids synthesized de novo accumulate preferentially in the liver, and the hepatic saturated fat fraction shows a strong negative correlation with hepatic insulin sensitivity (Spearman r = −0.55), suggesting that the quality of intrahepatic lipid, not merely its quantity, directly impairs insulin signalling and glucose homeostasis. This effect is compounded bythe high glycemic index and glycemic load of refined carbohydrates and added sugars, which elicit rapid postprandial glycemic excursions, sustained. Hyperinsulinemia, and a feed-forward cycle of peripheral insulin resistance, adipose lipolysis, and hepatic free fatty acid influx [24,25,26,27,28,29,30].

Ultra‑processed foods amplify these risks through multiple, often synergistic mechanisms beyond their macronutrient composition. Prospective cohort studies and meta‑analyses consistently report that higher ultra‑processed food intake is associated with increased risk of obesity (odds ratio ~1.55), type 2 diabetes (dose‑response risk ratio 1.12 per 10% increase in energy from ultra‑processed foods), cardiovascular disease mortality (risk ratio 1.50), NAFLD, metabolic syndrome, and incident insulin resistance, with associations persisting after adjustment for body mass index and total energy intake. Mechanistically, ultra‑processed foods promote passive overconsumption: controlled feeding trials show that ad libitum energy intake increases by approximately 500 kcal/day when participants consume ultra‑processed versus minimally processed diets matched for macronutrients, energy density, and fiber, leading to a 0.9 kg weight gain over two weeks on the ultra‑processed arm and a corresponding 0.9 kg weight loss on the unprocessed arm. This effect is attributed to hyper‑palatability, soft texture enabling rapid eating rate, high energy density, low protein content, and disruption of the food matrix structure through industrial processing, which increases starch gelatinization and accelerates glucose absorption, thereby amplifying postprandial glycemia and insulin demand. In addition, ultra‑processed foods induce chronic low‑grade systemic inflammation: individuals in the highest quintile of ultra‑processed food consumption (60–79% of daily calories) exhibit an 11% higher likelihood of elevated high‑sensitivity C‑reactive protein (hs‑CRP), a key biomarker of inflammation and predictor of cardiovascular disease, independent of age, smoking, physical activity, and other confounders. Proposed inflammatory mechanisms include high saturated fat and sodium content, emulsifiers and other additives that disrupt gut barrier integrity and promote endotoxemia, and dysbiosis of the intestinal microbiota with reduced production of short‑chain fatty acids and increased translocation of lipopolysaccharide (LPS), which activates inflammatory signalling cascades in adipose tissue, liver, and systemic circulation [25,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38].

Taken together, these findings provide a robust mechanistic foundation for the policy shifts articulated in the 2026 Dietary Guidelines. By raising protein targets and reducing reliance on added sugars and ultra-processed foods, the guidelines aim to exploit protein’s thermogenic and satiating properties to support negative energy balance and LBM preservation, suppress hepatic DNL and intrahepatic saturated fat accumulation, dampen postprandial glycemic excursions and hyperinsulinemia, and curtail exposure to inflammatory and obesogenic attributes of industrial food formulations, thereby addressing root metabolic drivers of obesity, type 2 diabetes, NAFLD, and broader cardiometabolic disease [3,5,6,16,24,25,35].

Rethinking Dietary Fats

The 2026 Dietary Guidelines mark a definitive departure from the blanket “low‑fat” paradigm that dominated U.S. nutrition policy for nearly four decades, replacing it with a more nuanced framework that distinguishes “healthy fats” embedded in whole‑food matrices including full‑fat dairy, eggs, fatty fish, nuts, seeds, and avocados from fats delivered in ultra‑processed, industrially formulated products. This shift acknowledges a growing body of evidence indicating that the metabolic and cardiovascular effects of dietary fat depend critically on the food source, structural context, and degree of processing, rather than solely on saturated fatty acid (SFA) content measured in isolation. While nominal limits on saturated fat intake remain formally unchanged, restricting SFA to less than 10% of total energy, the guidelines explicitly endorse whole‑fat dairy products and characterize this as “ending the war on fat,” signalling a fundamental re‑evaluation of how fat quality and food matrix structure modulate cardiometabolic risk [3,6,8,14,39,40,41,42,43,44,45].

Central to this re‑evaluation is the concept of the “food matrix”, the physical structure, nutrient composition, supramolecular organization, and bioactive components that together determine how a food is digested, absorbed, and metabolized, and how it influences downstream cardiometabolic pathways. Dairy foods exemplify this principle: although they are significant contributors of dietary SFA, prospective cohort studies and meta‑analyses consistently report that consumption of milk, yogurt, and cheese regardless of fat content is neutrally associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, or in some cases inversely associated with incident hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. For instance, a multinational cohort of 147,812 individuals followed for a median of 9.1 years found that higher intake of whole‑fat dairy (≥2 servings/day vs. zero) was associated with a 24% lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.71–0.80), an 11% lower incidence of hypertension (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82–0.97), and a 12% lower incidence of diabetes (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76–1.02), whereas low‑fat dairy consumed alone showed no significant association with these outcomes. Mechanistic studies attribute these findings to structural features unique to the dairy matrix: milk fat globules enveloped by a phospholipid‑rich membrane, calcium and phosphorus content that may bind fatty acids in the gut and reduce absorption, fermentation‑induced bioactive peptides in yogurt and cheese, and a high protein‑to‑energy ratio that enhances satiety and attenuates postprandial lipemia [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46].

Controlled feeding trials further illustrate the matrix effect: when saturated fat is consumed as cheese versus butter, two dairy products with similar total and saturated fat content but different matrices, cheese consistently produces smaller increases (or even reductions) in total cholesterol (TC) and low‑density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‑C) compared to butter, and both dairy sources shift LDL particle distribution toward larger, more buoyant, less atherogenic particles relative to baseline or non‑dairy controls. A randomized crossover trial demonstrated that cheese consumption significantly lowered TC and LDL‑C compared to a “deconstructed” matrix of butter, protein, and calcium matched for macronutrient and mineral content, indicating that the intact matrix itself not merely its constituent nutrients, exerts independent metabolic effects. These findings challenge the nutrient-reductionist assumption that all saturated fats behave equivalently and suggest that public health guidance focused narrowly on SFA grams, without regard to food source, may misclassify metabolically benign or even beneficial food (such as full-fat yogurt and cheese) as harmful [39,40,41,42,43,45].

Conversely, when dietary fats, saturated or otherwise are delivered within ultra-processed food matrices, their cardiometabolic impact is markedly worse. Prospective cohort studies report that each 10‑percentage‑point increase in the proportion of total energy from ultra‑processed foods is associated with a 12% higher risk of overall CVD (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05–1.20), a 13% higher risk of coronary heart disease (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02–1.24), and an 11% higher risk of cerebrovascular disease (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01–1.21), with these associations persisting after adjustment for saturated fat, sodium, sugar, and fiber intake, indicating that processing itself not merely nutrient composition, confers independent risk. Within the ultra-processed category, sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats show the strongest positive associations with CVD, whereas ultra-processed breads, cereals, yogurts, and dairy desserts show neutral or even inverse associations, further underscoring the heterogeneity of processing effects and the inadequacy of treating all “high‑fat” or “high‑SFA” foods as equivalent. Mechanistically, ultra‑processing disrupts the food matrix through high heat, pressure, extrusion, and the addition of emulsifiers, stabilizers, and hydrogenated or interesterified fats, which alter lipid droplet size, modify fat crystalline structure, reduce satiety signalling, accelerate gastric emptying and lipid absorption, and promote systemic inflammation and oxidative stress, pathways not engaged by whole-food fat sources [31,38,38].

Cross‑sectional and prospective analyses from Asian cohorts provide additional support for favorable metabolic effects of full‑fat dairy: among Japanese workers, individuals in the highest quartile of full‑fat dairy intake exhibited significantly lower fasting insulin and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA‑IR) compared to lower consumers (P for trend = 0.02), whereas low‑fat dairy intake showed no meaningful association with insulin sensitivity. A meta‑analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) similarly found that dairy intake, particularly low‑fat dairy, modestly improved HOMA‑IR, waist circumference, and body weight, although one large RCT in individuals with metabolic syndrome reported that both low‑fat and full‑fat dairy (3.3 servings/day for 12 weeks) unexpectedly decreased the  Matsuda insulin sensitivity index relative to a limited‑dairy control, through mechanisms unrelated to changes in adiposity or liver fat, highlighting the complexity and context‑dependence of dairy–metabolism interactions. Despite this single discordant trial, the preponderance of observational evidence and expert reviews supports the conclusion that whole‑fat dairy, consumed in the context of minimally processed dietary patterns, does not increase, and may even reduce cardiometabolic risk [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,49,51].

In light of this evidence, the 2026 guidelines articulate a dual message: they maintain formal SFA limits to preserve consistency with lipid‑lowering recommendations, yet they explicitly encourage consumption of full‑fat dairy, fatty fish, nuts, and other whole‑food fat sources while categorically discouraging ultra‑processed foods high in industrial fats, regardless of their nominal SFA content. This approach implicitly reframes the SFA target as a ceiling to be applied selectively, prioritizing reductions in ultra‑processed pastries, fried snacks, processed meats, and confectionery, while protecting or even promoting intake of fats embedded in nutrient‑dense, minimally processed matrices. By doing so, the guidelines “end the war on fat” not by abandoning SFA limits altogether, but by recognizing that the metabolic fate and clinical impact of dietary fats are governed as much by food structure, processing level, and accompanying nutrients as by fatty acid composition, and that public health nutrition must evolve from nutrient‑centric targets toward food‑based, matrix‑informed guidance that aligns with contemporary understanding of diet–disease mechanisms [2,3,6,8,14,39,40,41,42,43,45].

Ultra-Processed foods as a Distinct Risk Category

For the first time, federal dietary guidance explicitly identifies ultra‑processed foods as a distinct category to minimize, rather than simply advising broad moderation of “snacks” or “treats.” Policy documents and media summaries of the 2026 Dietary Guidelines state that Americans should avoid “highly processed packaged, prepared, ready‑to‑eat, or other foods that are salty or sweet,” specifically naming chips, cookies, candy, sugary breakfast cereals, and many ready‑to‑eat industrial formulations, along with sugar‑sweetened beverages such as soda, fruit drinks, and energy drinks. This language departs from the 2020–2025 guidelines, which did not single out ultra‑processed foods, and instead aligns federal messaging with emerging international consensus that processing level, beyond macronutrient content alone is a primary determinant of dietary harm. By framing ultra‑processed foods as a category to avoid, the guidelines operationalize an “eat real food” paradigm that privileges minimally processed, home‑cooked meals over industrially engineered products [2,3,8,14,38,52].

This categorical framing is supported by a rapidly expanding literature linking ultra‑processed food intake with obesity, cardiometabolic disease, and mortality. Large cohort studies such as NutriNet‑Santé show that each 10‑percentage‑point increase in energy from ultra‑processed foods is associated with a 12% higher risk of overall cardiovascular disease, 13% higher coronary heart disease risk, and 11% higher cerebrovascular disease risk, associations that persist even after adjustment for saturated fat, sodium, sugar, and fiber, indicating that processing per se confers additional risk beyond single nutrients. An umbrella review of meta‑analyses encompassing nearly 10 million participants found that greater ultra‑processed exposure is associated with higher risks of type 2 diabetes (dose‑response risk ratio 1.12 per 10% energy from ultra‑processed foods), obesity (odds ratio 1.55), and all‑cause mortality (risk ratio 1.21), as well as heart‑disease‑related mortality (hazard ratio 1.66). These patterns suggest that targeting the reduction of ultra‑processed foods may be more impactful than focusing narrowly on individual nutrients, because ultra‑processing simultaneously affects energy density, food structure, eating rate, palatability, additive exposure, and glycemic and hormonal responses, multiple converging mechanisms that together drive excess adiposity, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic risk [35,48,53,54].

Implications Across The Life Course

The 2026 Dietary Guidelines’ stricter stance on added sugars and ultra‑processed foods has explicit implications across the life course, beginning as early as complementary feeding. For infants and toddlers under two years, federal guidance and implementation rules emphasize that there is no physiological requirement for added sugars and recommend avoiding sugar‑sweetened beverages (SSBs), sweet snacks, and ultra‑processed baby and toddler foods, on the grounds that early exposure shapes taste preferences, reward pathways, and later dietary patterns. Longitudinal data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children show that offering cola‑type SSBs before age two is associated with higher total and android fat mass and higher BMI at age 24, whereas early exposure to 100% apple juice is associated with lower adult adiposity in females and a more favourable dietary pattern, underscoring how early beverage choices track into adult body composition and eating behaviour. In childhood and adolescence, the new USDA school nutrition standards translate guideline principles into specific operational limits: from July 1, 2025, breakfast cereals in school meals must contain no more than 6 g added sugar per dry ounce, yogurts no more than 2 g per ounce, and flavoured milk no more than 10 g per 8 fl oz; by 2027, added sugars must contribute less than 10% of weekly calories in school breakfasts and lunches. These measures respond to evidence that 70–80% of school‑aged children exceed the <10% energy from added sugars benchmark and that school breakfasts currently derive ~17% of calories from added sugars, with SSB intake ≥7 times/week or ≥500 mL/day associated with significantly higher odds of overweight/obesity (OR ≈1.4) in observational studies [55,56,57,58,59,60].

Life‑course models of metabolic programming posit that repeated exposure to high‑sugar and ultra‑processed foods during critical developmental windows “locks in” obesogenic phenotypes through interacting effects on adiposity, insulin sensitivity, gut microbiota, and neurocognitive reward circuitry. Prospective pediatric data indicate that higher ultra‑processed food intake in childhood is associated with greater energy intake, increased fat mass, higher skin advanced glycation end‑product (AGE) accumulation, mitochondrial dysfunction in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and more rapid progression of excess weight into adolescence and early adulthood, suggesting that processing level influences body fat accrual beyond calories alone. These trajectories mirror adult cohort and umbrella‑review findings linking ultra‑processed intake to higher risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiometabolic disease, and all‑cause mortality, implying that early‑life patterns may compound risk across decades. For adults, the same recommendations, prioritizing minimally processed foods and sharply limiting SSBs and ultra-processed products, aim to reverse or attenuate entrenched metabolic dysfunction by reducing glycemic load, hepatic de novo lipogenesis, and chronic inflammation, thereby improving weight, insulin sensitivity, and cardiovascular risk; when implemented through federal nutrition programs (school meals, WIC, SNAP), these policies shift the default food environment toward metabolically protective patterns at every age, aligning population‑level exposures with the biology of metabolic programming rather than against it [35,55,61,62,63,64].

Opportunities and Challenges for Implementation

Implementation of the 2026 Dietary Guidelines faces significant structural barriers even as it opens new clinical and public-health opportunities. Food industry influence, decades of investment in ultra-processed products, and the low retail price of energy-dense, sugar-rich foods all work against a rapid population-level shift toward higher-protein, minimally processed eating; these pressures are amplified in low-income communities, where affordability, limited retail options, and existing cultural dietary patterns can make “real food” harder to access and sustain. Without targeted policies, such as subsidies food nutrient-dense foods, reform of agricultural supports, and continued tightening of sugar and ultra-processed standards in school meals and federal nutrition programs, the guidelines risk being most achievable for higher-income, health-literate groups, thereby widening metabolic health disparities [2,3,5,14,48,55,56,61,65].

At the same time, the clearer emphasis on protein density and ultra-processed reduction creates actionable levers for clinicians, public-health practitioners, and payers. In clinical practice, translating the guidelines into simple pattern-based advice, protein at each meal, full-fat or minimally processed dairy, avoidance of sugar-sweetened beverages and packaged snacks can be integrated into obesity, diabetes and NAFLD management and monitored with digital tools and biomarkers. Public programs (school meals, WIC, SNAP) can operationalize the guidance through procurement standards that cap added sugars, restrict ultra-processed items, and prioritize minimally processed, protein-rich foods, while employers and insurers can build “food is medicine” benefits and incentive-based wellness programs around the same principles, using AI-enabled analytics to link dietary pattern shifts with reductions in cardiometabolic events and healthcare costs [3,6,55,56,65].

Role of AI and Precision Nutrition

The 2026 Dietary Guidelines establish a population-level template which are high protein, minimal added sugars, low ultra-processed intake that nevertheless requires individualization because metabolic responses to identical foods vary widely across people. Inter-individual variability in postprandial glycemic responses has been demonstrated in large cohorts: meals with similar macronutrient profiles can elicit markedly different glucose excursions between individuals, driven by factors such as gut microbiota, insulin sensitivity, β‑cell function, and behavioral context. Similar heterogeneity exists for lipid responses, weight‑loss trajectories, and satiety signaling, which are influenced by genetics, microbiome composition, chronotype, sleep, stress, medications, and baseline metabolic health; this has led major reviews to argue that “one‑size‑fits‑all” guidance should be viewed as a baseline over which personalized strategies are layered rather than a complete solution. Precision nutrition frameworks thus position the guidelines as a starting point that defines what constitutes a metabolically aligned pattern at the population level, while AI‑enabled tools determine which specific foods, timings, and combinations best achieve glycemic stability, lipid control, and weight management for a given person [66,67,68].

AI‑driven precision nutrition operationalizes this personalization by integrating continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), wearables, diet‑logging apps, and electronic health records (EHRs) into adaptive decision‑support systems. CGM generates high‑resolution glycemic time‑series data; when combined with AI, these data can be used to identify meal‑specific glucose excursions, detect patterns of dysglycemia, and generate individualized dietary recommendations that outperform generic “healthy diets” in improving postprandial glycemia and cardiometabolic markers. Machine‑learning models trained on CGM traces, food photographs, macronutrient composition, physical activity, sleep, and multi‑omics (genomics, metabolomics, microbiome) can predict future responses to candidate meals and propose optimized choices that adhere to the new guidelines (high‑protein, minimally processed, low in added sugars) while respecting individual tolerances and preferences. In clinical and population‑health settings, integration with EHRs enables risk stratification (for example, flagging individuals with early dysglycemia), automated generation of tailored nutrition prescriptions, and closed‑loop feedback where real‑world data continuously refine algorithms and care plans. Employer‑ and insurer‑sponsored programs are already beginning to deploy such platforms, coupling CGM‑ and app‑based coaching with incentives and outcome tracking, thereby translating high‑level dietary guidance into dynamic, data‑driven interventions that align individual behaviour with both metabolic biology and policy goals [69,70,71,72].

Ethical, Economic, and Health-System Impact

Achieving broad adherence to the 2026 Dietary Guidelines, characterized by higher protein intake, minimized added sugars, and sharply reduced ultra‑processed foods has the potential to yield substantial macro‑level benefits, including reductions in obesity, type 2 diabetes, NAFLD, and cardiovascular disease, with downstream decreases in healthcare utilization and costs and improvements in workforce productivity and healthy lifespan. Modeling studies and employer‑based “food is medicine” programs suggest that even modest shifts toward guideline‑concordant patterns can lower cardiometabolic event rates and medication use, implying significant returns on investment for health systems, payers, and governments when nutrition is treated as a core preventive intervention. At the same time, the ethical landscape is complex: ultra‑processed products are disproportionately marketed and sold in lower‑income and minority communities, where they often represent the cheapest and most accessible calories, raising concerns that stringent anti–ultra‑processed messaging could exacerbate stigma and health inequities if not accompanied by robust policies to improve access to affordable, minimally processed, protein‑rich foods. Equity‑oriented implementation thus requires coordinated action on food pricing, subsidies, retail environments, and marketing regulations, particularly restrictions on child‑directed advertising of ultra‑processed foods and beverages so that metabolically protective diets are not merely recommended as an ideal but made practically attainable for vulnerable populations who bear a disproportionate share of cardiometabolic disease burden [2,3,5,35].

Future Directions in Dietary Policy

Future directions in dietary policy will depend on resolving several critical evidence gaps while leveraging emerging data streams to evolve from static, consensus‑based guidance toward a dynamic, learning health‑system model. Key unanswered questions include the optimal protein intake range across the life course and by metabolic phenotype (for example, sarcopenic obesity, insulin resistance, NAFLD), the long‑term cardiometabolic and mortality effects of regular consumption of full‑fat versus low‑fat dairy within different dietary patterns, and how to operationally define “healthy fats” in ways that incorporate food source, matrix, and processing level across diverse ethnic, cultural, and genetic backgrounds. In parallel, future guideline cycles could systematically integrate real‑world data from AI‑enabled nutrition platforms, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), wearables, and large longitudinal cohorts into formal evidence reviews, allowing population‑level recommendations to be iteratively refined based on observed responses in millions of individuals rather than only on traditional RCTs and small mechanistic studies. Such an approach would support ongoing recalibration of protein targets, fat‑quality guidance, and ultra‑processed food limits as new patterns of benefit or harm emerge, moving dietary policy toward a more responsive, data‑driven framework that bridges the current gap between generalized guidelines and the realities of heterogeneous metabolic responses in real‑world settings [39,42,44,46,50].

Conclusion

The 2026 dietary guidelines represent a paradigm shift from the era of prescriptive nutrient restriction toward a system-based emphasis on food quality, metabolic resilience, and individualized nutrition. Rather than prioritizing isolated maconutrient limits, the new framework centers on whole, protein-rich, low- sugar, and minimally processed eating patterns that support glycemic stability, satiety signaling, mitochondrial function, and favorable body composition. This transition reflects the growing understanding that metabolic wellness depends less on calorie counting and more on the hormonal, microbial, and inflammatory consequences of food choices.

At a broader level, the guidelines embody a translational turn from population-level dietary targets to precision‑guided nutritional ecosystems. Here, digital health infrastructure, continuous biomarker monitoring, and artificial intelligence emerge as the critical enablers of implementation. Through predictive modelling and personalized feedback loops, AI‑powered platforms can integrate continuous glucose data, lipid variability, microbiome metrics, and dietary logs to generate individualized nutrition blueprints. This technological scaffolding transforms policy into practice, bridging the long-standing gap between generalized recommendations and each individual’s metabolic phenotype.

Health‑tech ecosystems thus redefine how clinical and public health nutrition operates. By embedding evidence‑based personalization into scalable digital frameworks, they convert static guidelines into dynamic care pathways, continuously adapting to biofeedback and behavioural data. The convergence of these innovations advances the global metabolic wellness agenda, moving from reactive disease management to proactive, precision-driven metabolic optimization, where policy data, and daily behaviour finally align.

Reference

  1. Snetselaar LG, de Jesus JM, DeSilva DM, Stoody EE. Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025. Nutrition Today. 2021 Nov 10;56(6).
  2. Halpert M. New US dietary guidelines call for more protein, less processed food. 2026 Jan 7; Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8e5d2k2w4lo
  3. Fact Sheet: Trump Administration Resets U.S. Nutrition Policy, Puts Real Food Back at the Center of Health [Internet]. HHS.gov. 2026. Available from: https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/fact-sheet-historic-reset-federal-nutrition-policy.html
  4. Quittner J. Trump Administration Flips the Food Pyramid With New Dietary Guidelines [Internet]. Yahoo News. 2026 [cited 2026 Jan 8]. Available from: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-administration-flips-food-pyramid-193508704.html
  5. Bendix A. New U.S. dietary guidelines: 6 biggest changes to know [Internet]. NBC News. 2026 [cited 2026 Jan 8]. Available from: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/dietary-guidelines-changes-takeaways-meat-dairy-alcohol-rcna252808
  6. Cooney E. Dietary guidelines declare war on processed foods and sugar, encourage more protein and dairy [Internet]. STAT. 2026 [cited 2026 Jan 8]. Available from: https://www.statnews.com/2026/01/07/dietary-guidelines-revised-more-protein-less-sugar-highly-processed-foods/
  7. Howard J, Dillinger K, Luhby T. New US dietary guidelines urge less sugar, more protein – and make a nod to beef tallow [Internet]. CNN. 2026 [cited 2026 Jan 8]. Available from: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/07/health/dietary-guidelines-rfk-maha
  8. Jr BL, Bendix A. New U.S. dietary guidelines from Trump administration back more protein and full-fat dairy, less grains [Internet]. NBC News. 2026 [cited 2026 Jan 8]. Available from: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/us-dietary-guidelines-protein-dairy-fat-rfk-jr-rcna252656
  9. Reader R, Brown M. RFK Jr. says to eat more protein, less sugar in new dietary guidelines [Internet]. POLITICO. Politico; 2026 [cited 2026 Jan 8]. Available from: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/07/rfk-trump-dietary-guidelines-protein-sugar-00713828
  10. Bendix A. New U.S. dietary guidelines: 6 biggest changes to know [Internet]. NBC News. 2026. Available from: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/dietary-guidelines-changes-takeaways-meat-dairy-alcohol-rcna252808
  11. Cooney E. Dietary guidelines declare war on processed foods and sugar, encourage more protein and dairy [Internet]. STAT. 2026. Available from: https://www.statnews.com/2026/01/07/dietary-guidelines-revised-more-protein-less-sugar-highly-processed-foods/
  12. Roubein R. New dietary guidance pushes whole milk, warns against processed food [Internet]. The Washington Post. 2026 [cited 2026 Jan 8]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2026/01/06/new-dietary-guidelines-whole-foods/
  13. Douglas L. Trump administration advises more protein, less sugar in new dietary guidelines. Reuters [Internet]. 2026 Jan 7; Available from: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/trump-administration-advises-more-protein-less-sugar-new-dietary-guidelines-2026-01-07/
  14. Henderson B. Eat Real Food: New U.S. Dietary Guidelines Name and Shame “Highly Processed Foods” [Internet]. Food-safety.com. Food Safety; 2026 [cited 2026 Jan 8]. Available from: https://www.food-safety.com/articles/11025-eat-real-food-new-us-dietary-guidelines-name-and-shame-highly-processed-foods
  15. Harvard T.H. Chan. Added Sugar [Internet]. The Nutrition Source. 2013. Available from: https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/carbohydrates/added-sugar-in-the-diet/
  16. Moon J, Koh G. Clinical Evidence and Mechanisms of High-Protein Diet-Induced Weight Loss. Journal of Obesity & Metabolic Syndrome [Internet]. 2020 Sep 30;29(3):166–73. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7539343/
  17. Kim JE, O’Connor LE, Sands LP, Slebodnik MB, Campbell WW. Effects of dietary protein intake on body composition changes after weight loss in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrition Reviews. 2016 Feb 16;74(3):210–24.
  18. Leidy HJ, Carnell NS, Mattes RD, Campbell WW. Higher protein intake preserves lean mass and satiety with weight loss in pre-obese and obese women. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md) [Internet]. 2007 Feb 1;15(2):421–9. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17299116/
  19. van der Klaauw AA, Keogh JM, Henning E, Trowse VM, Dhillo WS, Ghatei MA, et al. High protein intake stimulates postprandial GLP1 and PYY release. Obesity. 2013 May 13;21(8):1602–7.
  20. Kohanmoo A, Faghih S, Akhlaghi M. Effect of short- and long-term protein consumption on appetite and appetite-regulating gastrointestinal hormones, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Physiology & Behavior. 2020 Nov;226(226):113123.
  21. Halton TL, Hu FB. The Effects of High Protein Diets on Thermogenesis, Satiety and Weight Loss: A Critical Review. Journal of the American College of Nutrition. 2004 Oct;23(5):373–85.
  22. Haghighat N, Ashtary-Larky D, Bagheri R, Mahmoodi M, Rajaei M, Alipour M, et al. The effect of 12 weeks of euenergetic high-protein diet in regulating appetite and body composition of women with normal-weight obesity: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Nutrition. 2020 Jun 9;124(10):1044–51.
  23. Lim JJ, Liu Y, Lu LW, Barnett D, Sequeira IR, Poppitt SD. Does a Higher Protein Diet Promote Satiety and Weight Loss Independent of Carbohydrate Content? An 8-Week Low-Energy Diet (LED) Intervention. Nutrients [Internet]. 2022 Jan 26;14(3):538. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8838013/#__ffn_sectitle
  24. Chung ST, Magge SN. Dietary sugar restriction reduces hepatic de novo lipogenesis in boys with fatty liver disease. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2021 Dec 15;131(24).
  25. Hägele FA, Enderle J, Rimbach G, Bosy-Westphal A. Ultra-processed food consumption and the risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease—What are the proposed mechanisms? 2023 Aug 24;1(1):133–48.
  26. Roumans KHM, Lindeboom L, Veeraiah P, Remie CME, Phielix E, Havekes B, et al. Hepatic saturated fatty acid fraction is associated with de novo lipogenesis and hepatic insulin resistance. Nature Communications. 2020 Apr 20;11(1).
  27. McKeown NM, Meigs JB, Liu S, Saltzman E, Wilson PWF, Jacques PF. Carbohydrate Nutrition, Insulin Resistance, and the Prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome in the Framingham Offspring Cohort. Diabetes Care [Internet]. 2004 Jan 27 [cited 2020 Jan 18];27(2):538–46. Available from: https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/2/538.long
  28. Maki KC, Phillips AK. Dietary Substitutions for Refined Carbohydrate That Show Promise for Reducing Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Men and Women. The Journal of Nutrition [Internet]. 2015 Jan 1;145(1):159S163S. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/145/1/159S/4585783
  29. Dekker MJ, Su Q, Baker C, Rutledge AC, Adeli K. Fructose: a highly lipogenic nutrient implicated in insulin resistance, hepatic steatosis, and the metabolic syndrome. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2010 Nov;299(5):E685–94.
  30. Lejk A, Chrzanowski J, Cieślak A, Fendler W, Myśliwiec M. Reduced Carbohydrate Diet Influence on Postprandial Glycemia-Results of a Short, CGM-Based, Interventional Study in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes. Nutrients [Internet]. 2022 Nov 5 [cited 2022 Nov 25];14(21):4689. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36364951/
  31. Khalid Sawalha, Tripathi V, Alkhatib D, Luay Alalawi, Mahmood A, Alexander T. Our Hidden Enemy: Ultra-Processed Foods, Inflammation, and the Battle for Heart Health. Cureus [Internet]. 2023 Oct 22;15(10). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10663139/
  32. Tristan Asensi M, Napoletano A, Sofi F, Dinu M. Low-Grade Inflammation and Ultra-Processed Foods Consumption: A Review. Nutrients. 2023 Mar 22;15(6):1546.
  33. High Intake of Ultra-processed Foods Linked to Systemic Inflammation [Internet]. Fau.edu. 2025. Available from: https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/articles/ultra-processed-foods-inflammation
  34. Jacopo Ciaffi, Mancarella L, Ripamonti C, Brusi V, Federica Pignatti, Lisi L, et al. Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Systemic Inflammatory Biomarkers: A Scoping Review. Nutrients. 2025 Sep 20;17(18):3012–2.
  35. Lane MM, Gamage E, Du S, Ashtree DN, McGuinness AJ, Gauci S, et al. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ. 2024 Feb 28;384(8419):e077310.
  36. Millar SR, Harrington JM, Perry IJ, Phillips CM. Associations between ultra-processed food and drink consumption and biomarkers of chronic low-grade inflammation: exploring the mediating role of adiposity. European Journal of Nutrition. 2025 Apr 9;64(4).
  37. Grinshpan LS, Eilat-Adar S, Ivancovsky-Wajcman D, Kariv R, Gillon-Keren M, Zelber-Sagi S. Ultra-processed food consumption and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance: A systematic review. JHEP Reports [Internet]. 2024 Jan 1;6(1):100964. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589555923002951
  38. Srour B, Kordahi MC, Bonazzi E, Deschasaux-Tanguy M, Touvier M, Chassaing B. Ultra-processed foods and human health: from epidemiological evidence to mechanistic insights. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology [Internet]. 2022 Dec 1;7(12):1128–40. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468125322001698
  39. Dunne S, Gibney ER, McGillicuddy FC, Feeney EL. The effects of saturated fat intake from dairy on CVD markers: the role of food matrices. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2024 Feb 6;1–9.
  40. Torres-Gonzalez M, Rice Bradley BH. Whole-milk dairy foods: biological mechanisms underlying beneficial effects on risk markers for cardiometabolic health. Advances in Nutrition [Internet]. 2023 Sep 7;14(6). Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323013649?via%3Dihub
  41. Rethinking Dairy Fat and Cardiovascular Disease: Evidence from an Expert Review | Dairy Nutrition [Internet]. Dairynutrition.ca. 2025. Available from: https://dairynutrition.ca/en/nutrients-milk-products/rethinking-dairy-fat-and-cardiovascular-disease-evidence-expert-review
  42. Givens DI. Saturated fats, dairy foods and health: A curious paradox? Nutrition Bulletin [Internet]. 2017 Aug 15;42(3):274–82. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nbu.12283
  43. Rethinking the dietary guidelines on dairy fat and heart disease – Yogurt in Nutrition [Internet]. Yogurtinnutrition.com. 2025 [cited 2026 Jan 8]. Available from: https://www.yogurtinnutrition.com/rethinking-the-dietary-guidelines-on-dairy-fat-and-heart-disease/
  44. Lamarche B, Astrup A, Eckel RH, Feeney E, Givens I, Krauss RM, et al. Regular-fat and low-fat dairy foods and cardiovascular diseases: Perspectives for future dietary recommendations. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition [Internet]. 2025 Mar 1; Available from: https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(25)00137-6/fulltext
  45. dana. Full-fat dairy foods and cardiovascular disease: Is there a connection? [Internet]. Mayo Clinic Press. 2024. Available from: https://mcpress.mayoclinic.org/dairy-health/full-fat-dairy-foods-and-cardiovascular-disease-is-there-a-connection/
  46. Bhavadharini B, Dehghan M, Mente A, Rangarajan S, Sheridan P, Mohan V, et al. Association of dairy consumption with metabolic syndrome, hypertension and diabetes in 147 812 individuals from 21 countries. BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care. 2020 Apr;8(1):e000826.
  47. Mendoza K, Smith-Warner SA, Sinara Laurini Rossato, Neha Khandpur, Manson JE, Qi L, et al. Ultra-processed foods and cardiovascular disease: analysis of three large US prospective cohorts and a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. The Lancet Regional Health – Americas [Internet]. 2024 Sep 1;37(100859):100859–9. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667193X24001868
  48. Touvier M, Louzada ML da C, Mozaffarian D, Baker P, Juul F, Srour B. Ultra-processed foods and cardiometabolic health: public health policies to reduce consumption cannot wait. BMJ [Internet]. 2023 Oct 9;383:e075294. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj-2023-075294#:~:text=Overall%2C compared with people with
  49. Sochol KM, Johns TS, Buttar RS, Randhawa L, Sanchez E, Gal M, et al. The Effects of Dairy Intake on Insulin Resistance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Nutrients [Internet]. 2019 Sep 17 [cited 2021 May 28];11(9). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6769921/
  50. Schmidt KA, Cromer G, Burhans MS, Kuzma JN, Hagman DK, Fernando I, et al. The impact of diets rich in low-fat or full-fat dairy on glucose tolerance and its determinants: a randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition [Internet]. 2020 Nov 12;113(3):534–47. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/113/3/534/5979929
  51. Akter S, Kayo Kurotani, Nanri A, Ngoc Minh Pham, Sato M, Hitomi Hayabuchi, et al. Dairy consumption is associated with decreased insulin resistance among the Japanese. 2013 Apr 1;33(4):286–92.
  52. Breen K. RFK Jr.’s new food pyramid emphasizes protein, healthy fats. Here’s what to know about the dietary guidelines. [Internet]. Cbsnews.com. 2026. Available from: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dietary-guidelines-rfk-jr-sugar-processed-foods-gut-health/
  53. Vitale M, Costabile G, Testa R, D’Abbronzo G, Nettore IC, Macchia PE, et al. Ultra-Processed Foods and Human Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. Advances in Nutrition [Internet]. 2023 Dec 18;15(1). Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323013820#bib2
  54. New evidence links ultra-processed foods with a range of health risks – BMJ Group [Internet]. BMJ Group – Helping doctors make better decisions. 2019. Available from: https://bmjgroup.com/new-evidence-links-ultra-processed-foods-with-a-range-of-health-risks/
  55. Summary of Provisions in the Child Nutrition Programs: Meal Patterns Consistent With the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans Final Rule [Internet]. Available from: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/DGARuleFinalSummary5.2.24.pdf
  56. Carl M. USDA Updates its Nutrition Standards for Schools Nationwide [Internet]. ACSA Resource Hub -. 2024. Available from: https://content.acsa.org/usda-updates-its-nutrition-standards-for-schools-nationwide/
  57. Keller A, Bucher Della Torre S. Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Obesity among Children and Adolescents: a Review of Systematic Literature Reviews. Childhood Obesity [Internet]. 2015 Aug;11(4):338–46. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4529053/
  58. Li Y, Meng L, Zhang Y, Li W, Liang S, Zheng J, et al. Association between sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and childhood overweight and obesity: a cross-sectional study in Beijing, China. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2025 Nov 3;12.
  59. News ABC. USDA announces changes coming to school meals: What to know [Internet]. ABC News. Available from: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/usda-announces-changes-to-school-meals/story?id=109586018
  60. Benton D, Young HA. Early exposure to sugar sweetened beverages or fruit juice differentially influences adult adiposity. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition [Internet]. 2024 Mar 15;1–6. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-024-01430-y
  61. Updated Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs [Internet]. Eatrightpro.org. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; 2024. Available from: https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/practice-trends/updated-nutrition-standards-in-the-national-school-lunch-and-breakfast-programs
  62. Chang K, Khandpur N, Neri D, Touvier M, Huybrechts I, Millett C, et al. Association Between Childhood Consumption of Ultraprocessed Food and Adiposity Trajectories in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children Birth Cohort. JAMA Pediatrics [Internet]. 2021 Jun 14;175(9):e211573. Available from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2780512
  63. Gaia Mottis, Pratheba Kandasamey, Peleg-Raibstein D. The consequences of ultra-processed foods on brain development during prenatal, adolescent and adult stages. Frontiers in Public Health. 2025 Jun 23;13.
  64. Coppola S, Paparo L, Trinchese G, Rivieri AM, Masino A, De Giovanni Di Santa Severina AF, et al. Increased dietary intake of ultraprocessed foods and mitochondrial metabolism alterations in pediatric obesity. Scientific reports [Internet]. 2023;13(1):12609. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10400566/
  65. New USDA Nutrition Standards for K-12 Schools (April, 2024 Update) | Ordo [Internet]. Ordo.com. 2024. Available from: https://www.ordo.com/articles/new-usda-nutrition-standards-for-k-12-schools-april-2024-update
  66. Wu X, Oniani D, Shao Z, Arciero P, Sonish Sivarajkumar, Hilsman J, et al. A Scoping Review of Artificial Intelligence for Precision Nutrition. Advances in Nutrition [Internet]. 2025 Feb 1;100398–8. Available from: https://advances.nutrition.org/article/S2161-8313(25)00034-1/fulltext
  67. Mahdavi S, Anthony NM, Sikaneta T, Tam PY. Perspective: Multiomics and Artificial Intelligence for Personalized Nutritional Management of Diabetes in Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis. Advances in Nutrition. 2025 Mar;16(3):100378.
  68. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. Precision nutrition: a step too far? The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. 2024 Aug;12(8):503.
  69. Ji C, Jiang T, Liu L, Zhang J, You L. Continuous glucose monitoring combined with artificial intelligence: redefining the pathway for prediabetes management. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2025 May 26;16.
  70. Du Z, Zhang F, Ge Y, Liu Y, Yu H, Wang Y, et al. Application of Wearable Devices in Diabetes Management. Health and Metabolism. 2025 Feb 19;7.
  71. Poojitha Pushparaj, Mohan L, Anju Kanicheril Ambikalekshmi, Cherian E, Rajan R, Kumar N. AI and IoT in Nutritional Science: Transforming Digestion Research and Precision Nutrition. Current Research in Nutrition and Food Science Journal [Internet]. 2025 Nov 28;14(1). Available from: https://www.foodandnutritionjournal.org/volume14number1/ai-and-iot-in-nutritional-science-transforming-digestion-research-and-precision-nutrition/
  72. Mortazavi BJ, Gutierrez-Osuna R. A Review of Digital Innovations for Diet Monitoring and Precision Nutrition. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2021 Sep 1;17(1):193229682110413.

‌