We Don't Need Another Food Pyramid
In January 2026, the 2025–2030 U.S. Dietary Guidelines were released. For decades, Americans have been taught to visualize healthy eating through government-approved graphics—first a pyramid, then a plate, and now an inverted pyramid. While these tools are well-intentioned, they are increasingly outdated. They no longer reflect the complexity of modern nutrition science, human behavior or our food system. Despite years of pyramid and plate messaging, diet-related chronic disease remains widespread, and adherence to dietary guidelines is persistently low. That alone should prompt us to ask whether this approach is still serving us.
Let’s start with the elephant in the room: U.S. nutrition guidelines have a credibility problem. The USDA—the agency responsible for creating them—is charged with both protecting public health and supporting U.S. agriculture. This inherent conflict has long raised concerns about industry influence and creates a reasonable perception that nutrition guidance is shaped by compromise rather than by the strongest available evidence.
The visuals themselves are also overly simplistic. A plate or pyramid implies that foods within a category are interchangeable, but we know food quality matters. A refined grain and a whole grain may occupy the same section of the plate, yet their health effects differ dramatically. The same is true for protein sources and fats. When nutrition is reduced to broad food groups, important nuance is lost.
Perhaps more importantly, these guidelines focus almost exclusively on what to eat while ignoring how and why people eat. They fail to account for affordability, time constraints, cooking skills, cultural traditions, emotional eating or internal cues of hunger and fullness. For some, it can even reinforce diet culture by turning meals into a test of whether you have the “right” or “wrong” foods on your plate.
The most significant flaw, in my view, is the one-size-fits-all nature of U.S. dietary guidance. Nutrition needs vary widely based on age, health status, culture, activity level and access to food. A single visual cannot capture this diversity and instead risks sending the message that there is only one “correct” way to eat.
After many years of working with clients, one truth has become clear to me: the best way to eat is the way that supports both physical and mental well-being—and that looks different for everyone. Some people thrive on a lower-carbohydrate approach and can sustain it long term. Others function best skipping breakfast or practicing intermittent fasting. Still others do better with five to six smaller meals per day that include carbohydrates (myself included). None of these patterns is inherently superior; sustainability and individual response matter more than rigid rules.
The irony is that we have known the fundamentals of good nutrition for a long time. Whole grains, fruits, vegetables, lean proteins, legumes, nuts, seeds and dairy can all play a role in a health-promoting diet. That foundation is unlikely to change. What should change is the insistence on telling people exactly how much, how often and when to eat these foods using static and overly simplistic visuals.
If I were writing the nutrition guidelines, they would sound something like this: We know which foods tend to support health and should make up the majority of the diet. From there, individuals are encouraged to experiment with foods, timing, and amounts to discover what helps them feel and function their best. Listen to your body. It holds a wisdom no plate or pyramid can replace.