Connect with us

Business

How the new protein and dairy diet flies in the face of modernist, according to a nutritionist who served on the advisory board until 2024

Published

on


Every five years, the U.S. government releases an updated set of recommendations on healthy eating. This document, called the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, has served as the cornerstone of nutrition policy for almost half a century.

On Jan. 7, 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture released the 2025-2030 edition of the guidelines. The updated guidelines recommend that people consume more protein and fat, and less ultraprocessed foods.

These guidelines are the foundation for governmental nutritional programs – for example, they are used to determine which foods are covered by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, as well as how school lunches are prepared. Eldercare centers and child care centers use them when providing meals, as do clinical nutritionists working with patients to help them achieve a healthy diet. And because the guidelines are so scientifically rigorous, many countries around the world base their own nutritional guidelines on them.

I’m a nutrition scientist specializing in developing interventions for preventing obesity. Between 2022 and 2024 I served on the scientific advisory committee tasked with assessing the best available evidence on a wide range of topics in nutrition in order to inform federal officials in updating the guidelines.

But most of the committee’s recommendations were ignored in developing the latest dietary guidelines.

On the surface, these guidelines share a lot of similarities with the previous version, published in 2020, but they also have a few important differences. In my view, the process followed was different from the norm.

How are the Dietary Guidelines for Americans developed?

For each update, HHS and USDA establish a scientific advisory committee like the one I served on. Members with expertise in different aspects of nutrition are carefully selected and vetted. They then spend two years reviewing the latest scientific studies to assess evidence about specific nutrition-related questions – such as the relationship between saturated fats in foods and cardiovascular disease and what strategies are most effective for weight management.

For each question, the committee first prepares a protocol to answer it, identifies the most rigorous studies and synthesizes its findings, discussing the evidence extensively. It then produces specific recommendations about the topic for the HHS and USDA. At each step, the public and the scientific community are invited to provide comments, which the committee considers.

All this scientific information is put together in a massive report, which the federal agencies then use to create the updated guidelines, translating the expert recommendations for the public and health professionals.

A departure from the norm

The advisory committee I served on functioned as usual – our report was published in December 2024.

But the dietary guidelines released on Jan. 7 were mainly not based on that report. Instead, they were based on a different scientific report that was also published on Jan. 7. That report drew some material from ours but went through a completely different process.

It was created by a group of people who were not vetted in the usual way, and although they repeated some of the same questions we did, they also explored other topics that were chosen with no input from the wider community of nutrition researchers or from the public. It was not based on a publicly available protocol, with no input from the scientific community, and it’s unclear how and to what degree it was peer-reviewed.

The updated dietary guidelines were developed through a different process compared with the established methodology that’s been used to assess nutrition science behind the guidelines for many years.

What’s new in the 2025-2030 guidelines

Many of the recommendations in the 2020 guidelines and the ones released on Jan. 7 are broadly the same: that Americans should consume three servings of vegetables, two servings of fruits and three servings of dairy products per day, as well as replacing refined grains with whole grains, and limiting intake of sugar and sodium.

The main differences relate to recommendations about protein and dairy products.

The 2020 guidelines recommended that Americans focus on protein such as poultry and other lean meats, seafood, eggs, legumes, nuts and seeds. The updated version instead emphasizes eating protein at every meal from different protein sources – not specifically lean ones.

The most recent guidelines also recommend a higher amount of protein – specifically 1.2 to 1.6 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day, up from 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight recommended in the Dietary Reference Intakes for the U.S, the official guidelines for nutrient recommendations. Recommending a higher protein intake goes beyond the mission of the dietary guidelines.

Also, the updated dietary guidelines now recommend full-fat dairy products, rather than low-fat ones as they did previously. But in my view, this recommendation isn’t practical, because it doesn’t raise the level of recommended saturated fat, which remains at 10%. To understand how this would work in practice, I roughly translated these recommendations into a typical menu based on my weight and calorie requirements. These changes would raise my saturated fat consumption well above this limit, so the messages are inconsistent. https://www.youtube.com/embed/zo-f0j1E_jY?wmode=transparent&start=0 The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend more protein and suggest consuming full-fat rather than low-fat dairy – a departure from previous versions.

Naming ultraprocessed foods

Another difference is that the new recommendations specifically call out avoiding ultraprocessed foods. The previous guidelines did not explicitly name ultraprocessed foods but instead recommended consuming nutrient-dense foods, which means foods that have a lot of nutrients while also having relatively few calories. That is, in essence, less processed or whole foods.

Food scientists still lack a solid definition of ultraprocessed foods. Our committee actually spent a long time discussing this, and the Food and Drug Administration is currently working on creating a clear definition of the term that can guide research and policy.

Also, solid research on ultraprocessed foods has been limited. Most studies available for our review took a snapshot of people’s eating habits but didn’t track their effects over a long time or compare groups in randomized controlled trials, the gold-standard research method.

That’s changing, however. The committee did its assessment two years ago, but evidence linking ultraprocessed foods to chronic diseases is getting stronger.

Can Americans trust the science behind the 2025-2030 guidelines?

In my view, some of the changes in the 2025-2030 guidelines, such as limiting ultraprocessed foods, are beneficial. But the problem is that it’s not possible to determine whether the necessary scientific rigor was applied in developing them.

Much of the research on saturated fat consumption is still unsettled and controversial. That’s why it’s important to have a systematic and transparent process for evaluating the research, with input from experts with multiple perspectives who review the entire body of research published about a particular topic.

If you don’t do it properly, you can select the evidence that you prefer. That makes it easy for bias to creep in.

Cristina Palacios, Professor and Chair of Dietetics and Nutrition, Florida International University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The ‘Holy Grail of comic books’ once owned by Nicolas Cage sells at auction for a record $15 million

Published

on



A rare copy of the comic book that introduced the world to Superman and also was once stolen from the home of actor Nicolas Cage has been sold for a record $15 million.

The private deal for “Action Comics No. 1” was announced Friday. It eclipses the previous record price for a comic book, set last November when a copy of “Superman No. 1″ was at sold at auction for $9.12 million.

The Action Comics sale was negotiated by Manhattan-based Metropolis Collectibles/Comic Connect, which said the comic book’s owner and the buyer wished to remain anonymous.

The comic — which sold for 10 cents when it came out in 1938 — was an anthology of tales about mostly now little-known characters. But over a few panels, it told the origin story of Superman’s birth on a dying planet, his journey to Earth and his decision as an adult to “turn his titanic strength into channels that would benefit mankind.”

Its publication marked the beginning of the superhero genre. About 100 copies of Action Comics No. 1 are known to exist, according to Metropolis Collectibles/Comic Connect President Vincent Zurzolo.

“This is among the Holy Grail of comic books. Without Superman and his popularity, there would be no Batman or other superhero comic book legends,” Zurzolo said. “It’s importance in the comic book community shows with his deal, as it obliterates the previous record,” Zurzolo said.

The comic book was stolen from Cage’s Los Angeles home in 2000 but was recovered in 2011 when it was found by a man who had purchased the contents of an old storage locker in southern California. It eventually was returned to Cage, who had bought it in 1996 for $150,000. Six months after it was returned to him, he sold it at auction for $2.2 million.

Stephen Fishler, CEO of Metropolis Collectibles/Comic Connect, said the theft eventually played a big role in boosting the comic’s value.

“During that 11-year period (it was missing), it skyrocketed in value.,” Fishler said “The thief made Nicolas Cage a lot of money by stealing it.”

Fishler compared it to the theft of Mona Lisa, which was stolen from the Louvre museum in Paris in 1911.

“It was kept under the thief’s bed for two years,” Fishler noted. “The recovery of the painting made the Mona Lisa go from being just a great Da Vinci painting to a world icon — and that’s what Action No. 1 is — an icon of American pop culture.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump order says Venezuelan oil money is being held by US for ‘governmental and diplomatic purposes’

Published

on



President Donald Trump’s new executive order on Venezuelan oil revenue is meant to ensure that the money remains protected from being used in judicial proceedings.

The executive order, made public on Saturday, says that if the funds were to be seized for such use, it could “undermine critical U.S. efforts to ensure economic and political stability in Venezuela.”

The order comes amid caution from top oil company executives that the tumult and instability in Venezuela could make the country less attractive for private investment and rebuilding.

“If we look at the commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela, today it’s uninvestable,” said Darren Woods, CEO of ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, during a meeting convened by Trump with oil executives on Friday.

During the session, Trump tried to assuage the concerns of the oil companies and said the executives would be dealing directly with the U.S., rather than the Venezuelan government.

Venezuela has a history of state asset seizures, ongoing U.S. sanctions and decades of political uncertainty.

Getting U.S. oil companies to invest in Venezuela and help rebuild the country’s infrastructure is a top priority of the Trump administration after the dramatic capture of now-deposed leader Nicolás Maduro.

The White House is framing the effort to “run” Venezuela in economic terms, and Trump has seized tankers carrying Venezuelan oil, has said the U.S. is taking over the sales of 30 million to 50 million barrels of previously sanctioned Venezuelan crude, and plans to control sales worldwide indefinitely.

“I love the Venezuelan people, and am already making Venezuela rich and safe again,” Trump, who is currently in southern Florida, wrote on his social media site on Saturday. “Congratulations and thank you to all of those people who are making this possible!!!”

The order says the oil revenue is property of Venezuela that is being held by the United States for “governmental and diplomatic purposes” and not subject to private claims.

Its legal underpinnings are the National Emergencies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump, in the order, says the possibility that the oil revenues could be caught up in judicial proceedings constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the U.S.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

As U.S. debt soars past $38 trillion, corporate bond flood is a growing threat to Treasury supply

Published

on


As the Treasury Department looks to ensure investors continue absorbing the fresh supply of debt it must sell, growing competition from companies issuing their own bonds could send rates higher, according to Apollo Chief Economist Torsten Slok.

In a note on Saturday, he pointed out that Wall Street estimates for the volume of investment grade debt that’s on the way this year reach as high as $2.25 trillion.

That’s as the AI boom increasingly sends companies, including hyperscalers and adjacent firms, to the bond market to fund massive investments in data centers and other infrastructure.

“The significant increase in hyperscaler issuance raises questions about who will be the marginal buyer of IG paper,” Slok said. “Will it come from Treasury purchases and hence put upward pressure on the level of rates? Or might it come from mortgage purchases, putting upward pressure on mortgage spreads?”

With U.S. debt topping $38 trillion, the federal government has already borrowed $601 billion in the first three months of the 2026 fiscal year, which began in October 2025, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office.

That’s $110 billion less than the deficit during the same period a year earlier as tariffs helped revenue outpace spending. But the Supreme Court could strike down President Donald Trump’s global tariffs soon, and this year’s tax season should see a surge of refunds to account for new tax cuts under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Meanwhile, Trump has vowed to boost defense spending to $1.5 trillion a year from $1 trillion, threatening to further deepen federal budget deficits.

And despite the Federal Reserve’s series of rate cuts this past autumn, Treasury yields remain about where they were in early September, suggesting the government will not see much relief on debt-servicing costs that are also contributing to the overall tally of red ink.

“The bottom line is that the volume of fixed-income products coming to market this year is significant and is likely to put upward pressure on rates and credit spreads as we go through 2026,” Slok said.

Apollo

To make sure there’s sufficient demand among bond investors, Treasury yields must remain attractive relative to the competition. Failure to draw enough investors raises the risk of so-called fiscal dominance, or when a central bank must step into to finance widening deficits.

That’s what former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned of last weekend, during a panel hosted by the American Economic Association.

“The preconditions for fiscal dominance are clearly strengthening,” she said, noting debt is on a steep upward trajectory toward 150% of GDP over the next three decades.

At the same time, he holders of U.S. debt have shifted drastically over the past decade, tilting more toward profit-driven private investors and away from foreign governments that are less sensitive to prices.

That threatens to turn the U.S. financial system more fragile in times of market stress, according to Geng Ngarmboonanant, a managing director at JPMorgan and former deputy chief of staff to Yellen during her tenure at Treasury.

Foreign governments accounted for more than 40% of Treasury bond holdings in the early 2010s, up from just over 10% in the mid-1990s, he wrote in a New York Times op-ed last month. This reliable bloc of investors allowed the U.S. to borrow vast sums at artificially low rates.

“Those easy times are over,” he warned. “Foreign governments now make up less than 15% of the overall Treasury market.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.