Brian Pollack, LCSW, CEDS-C
Brian is the Founder and Clinical Director of Hilltop Behavioral Health, a boutique eating disorder specialty practice in Summit, NJ. He is one of the few male master’s-level Certified Eating Disorder Specialists in the country, with expertise in FBT, male clients, athletes, and muscle dysmorphia. He hosts the Minding Men podcast and serves as an adjunct professor at Yeshiva University.
Learn more about Brian →What if the nutrition guidelines shaping school lunches, SNAP benefits, and public health policy were released without a single registered dietitian on the panel?
That’s exactly what happened when the USDA unveiled its updated Dietary Guidelines and redesigned food pyramid graphic in early 2025 — and the eating disorder and nutrition communities took notice immediately.
In this episode of Nourish and Empower, registered dietitian Maggie and licensed therapist Jess break down what actually changed, what stayed the same, and — most importantly — why blanket nutrition guidelines can never replace individualized care. Whether you work in eating disorder treatment, you’re a parent navigating food conversations with your kids, or you just want to understand what the pyramid actually means for you, this conversation is essential listening.
A Quick History: From Pyramid to Plate to… Pyramid Again?
Before diving into the new guidelines, it helps to understand the graphic timeline:
- 1980: The first USDA Dietary Guidelines are published
- 1992–2005: The iconic food pyramid that most people remember from school
- 2005–2011: A brief, largely forgotten graphic called “MyPyramid”
- 2011–2025: MyPlate — a dinner plate divided into food groups, widely praised for its simplicity and cultural adaptability
- 2025: A new inverted triangle/pyramid-shaped graphic replaces MyPlate
Maggie was quick to flag the elephant in the room: much of the public conversation compared the new graphic directly to the 1992 food pyramid — skipping 20 years of evolution entirely. “The food pyramid that has been in comparison has been discontinued for 20 years,” she noted.
And Jess’s husband coined a new nickname for the shape: the food funnel.
What’s Actually in the New Graphic?
The Structure
The new graphic organizes food into three main zones:
- Left side: Proteins, Dairy, and Healthy Fats
- Right side: Fruits and Vegetables
- Bottom: Whole Grains
At first glance, placing whole grains at the bottom triggered alarm bells for Maggie. On the old food pyramid, foods at the narrow top were meant to be used “sparingly.” The new positioning seemed to suggest the same — but the written guidelines actually recommend 2–4 servings of whole grains per day.
“The confusion there,” Maggie emphasized, “is that most people are not going to look further than the graphic.”
The Peanut Problem
One small but telling example of the graphic’s ambiguity: a peanut appears lower on the image than walnuts and almonds. This could imply peanuts are nutritionally inferior — but peanuts actually contain more protein per ounce than any other nut. The positioning may relate to omega-3 fat content (where walnuts do excel), but nothing in the graphic explains this.
The Big Changes: Proteins, Fats, and Mixed Messaging
Animal Protein Is Back in the Spotlight
The previous dietary guidelines leaned into plant-based proteins and variety. The new graphic and guidelines shift toward a heavier emphasis on animal-based protein sources — red meat, poultry, dairy, eggs.
Jess noticed the tension immediately: online discourse has spent years celebrating high-protein diets and protein-fortified everything. So what does “war on protein” even mean? Maggie’s interpretation: it’s less about reducing protein overall and more about pushing back on powder-based protein supplements in favor of whole food animal sources.
The Saturated Fat Contradiction
Here’s where the guidelines get genuinely confusing. The recommendation to keep saturated fat under 10% of total daily calories has not changed — it’s been there for years. But by simultaneously pushing more animal-based proteins (steak, dairy, butter all appear prominently in the graphic), the new guidelines are effectively encouraging foods high in saturated fat while maintaining the same saturated fat limit.
Maggie’s take: “With emphasizing more animal-based foods, we are automatically then seeing an increase in saturated fat intake. How are people supposed to eat more animal-based foods and still maintain the saturated fat guidelines?”
The mixed messaging, she noted, directly fuels public distrust in nutrition science.
“Nutrition is personal. We need to consider family history, our health status, our access, our culture, our preferences. Population-level tools do not mean this is a personal nutrition prescription for you.” – Maggie Legavor, RD
Kids, Sugar, and the Danger of Moralizing Food
One of the most discussed elements of the new guidelines: added sugar recommendations for children — specifically, limiting added sugar for kids under a certain age.
Both Maggie and Jess pushed back — not because nutrition for children doesn’t matter, but because of what decades of restriction-based messaging has produced: secretive eating, binge eating behaviors, and fractured relationships with food that persist into adulthood.
“As providers in the eating disorder world,” Maggie said, “I can’t even say how many times I’ve had an adult client where we see these same themes: I was restricted as a kid when it came to sugar, or I was not allowed dessert until I finished my plate.”
The research supports this clinical pattern. A national cohort study of over 10,000 children ages 9–14 found that food insecurity — which creates cycles of restriction and overconsumption — was directly linked to binge-eating disorder at two-year follow-up. The study highlighted what clinicians already see: when food access becomes unpredictable or controlled, children’s eating behaviors reflect that instability.
Research: Food Insecurity and Binge-Eating Disorder in Early Adolescence
Nagata et al., International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2023
In a national cohort of 10,035 children ages 9–14, food insecurity was significantly associated with binge-eating disorder at two-year follow-up. The “feast-or-famine” cycle — periods of restriction followed by abundance — contributed directly to the development of disordered eating behaviors.
The scale of this issue makes the stakes clear. From 2018 to 2022, health visits related to eating disorders among people under 17 in the U.S. more than doubled — a 107.4% increase, rising from approximately 50,000 visits to over 100,000. Getting youth nutrition messaging wrong isn’t a theoretical risk. It’s a documented one.
Research: Alarming Increase of Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents
European Association of Pediatrics Working Group, The Journal of Pediatrics, 2023
U.S. health visits for eating disorders among under-17s increased 107.4% between 2018 and 2022 — from ~50,000 to over 100,000. Globally, eating disorder prevalence in the general population doubled from 3.4% to 7.8% between 2000 and 2018.
Jess added the call that resonated loudest: where was the intuitive eating voice on this panel?
“Telling people no sugar, telling people that we need to be hard and fast about certain things, and not emphasizing that all foods fit — that’s a huge missing piece. Because if we’re saying food can change mental health and decrease depression, then let’s stop placing morals on food.” – Jessica Coviello, LPC.
The Bigger Problem: Access, Affordability, and Equity
Dietary guidelines mean very little without addressing who can actually afford to follow them. One panelist did acknowledge the access issue — noting efforts to expand whole food availability through SNAP benefit retailers.
But Maggie and Jess want to see it go further. Registered dietitians working in community nutrition settings routinely encounter clients who cannot afford the foods being recommended. A graphic with colorful whole foods is aspirational. Policy that makes those foods accessible is transformational.
“Nutrition can’t stand alone. We need the right other pillars of support around it — the medical piece, public health, mental health, affordability, access. There are so many other components.” – Maggie Lefavor, RD
The Missing Seat at the Table: Where Were the Dietitians?
Perhaps the most pointed critique from this episode: not a single registered dietitian was included on the panel that created these guidelines.
The difference between a nutrition scientist and a registered dietitian matters. RDs complete not just research training but extensive internships in clinical nutrition, community nutrition, and food service — the applied, people-facing work that translates research into real-world guidance.
“Dietitians are the ones that are going to be there working with the public, answering questions, explaining all of this,” Maggie said. “The lack of trust that this can create for the public — dietitians are the ones dealing with that distrust and confusion.”
“I’m disappointed that a dietitian wasn’t included — we have some incredible research dietitians in this field.”— Maggie, RD
Conclusion
The 2025 USDA Dietary Guidelines aren’t all bad — and Maggie and Jess are careful to say so. But a graphic alone, without a dietitian on the panel, without addressing access and affordability, and without a framework for all-foods-fit thinking, will fall short of meaningful public health impact.
What it comes back to, every time: nutrition is individual. Eat adequately. Eat consistently. Eat a variety. And if you want guidance tailored to your actual health, family history, culture, and life — find a registered dietitian.
If this conversation got you thinking, the full episode is well worth your time. Maggie and Jess bring exactly the kind of nuanced, eating-disorder-informed perspective that was missing from the panel that created these guidelines — and that your feed probably needs more of.
🎧 Listen to the full episode of Nourish and Empower on your favorite podcast platform. For eating disorder treatment resources, visit hilltopbehavioralhealth.com. Healing happens here.
