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

Trump calls for one-year cap on credit card rates at 10%

Published

on



President Donald Trump on Friday called for a one-year cap on credit card interest rates at 10%, effective Jan. 20, without specifying details.

“Please be informed that we will no longer let the American Public be ‘ripped off’ by Credit Card Companies that are charging Interest Rates of 20 to 30%, and even more, which festered unimpeded during the Sleepy Joe Biden Administration. AFFORDABILITY!” he wrote on social media.

It’s not clear whether credit card companies will respond to his call, or what actions he might take to force any change.

The post comes as the Trump administration intensifies efforts to demonstrate to voters that the president is addressing concerns about costs and prices that have emerged as a central issue in the November midterm elections.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to seek limits on the interest credit card companies can charge.

Hours before his message on Friday, Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, said on X: “Trump promised to cap credit card interest rates at 10% and stop Wall Street from getting away with murder. Instead, he deregulated big banks charging up to 30% interest on credit cards.”

In a letter last year to Sanders and Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, a group of banking trade groups painted a dire outcome for consumers if the government ever capped interest rates on credit cards at 10%, as the senators had proposed.

“Many consumers who currently rely on credit cards would be forced to turn elsewhere for short-term financing needs, including pawn shops, auto title lenders or worse — such as loan sharks, unregulated online lenders and the black market,” the group wrote.

The Bank Policy Institute said in a report last year that “while the proposed cap is a well-intentioned effort to reduce the high debt burden some households are facing, it would harm consumers’ access to card credit.” The group also said such a move could force card issuers to reduce cardholder benefits, including lucrative rewards tied to purchases. 

Responding to Trump’s post on Friday, Hawley said on X: “Fantastic idea. Can’t wait to vote for this.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Asian households still save as much as half their wealth in cash. Fintech platforms like Syfe want to change that

Published

on



Growing up in India, Dhruv Arora’s mother gave him one key piece of financial advice: Put his money in the bank. 

But Arora, now the founder of Singapore-based fintech platform Syfe, quickly realized that following his mother’s advice meant his money “did absolutely nothing.”

“We have quite a heavy culture of saving,” Arora says, citing Asia’s often unstable economic and policy history. But inflation and low interest rates end up eroding the value of household savings. “Over time, the $100 you put in the bank doesn’t become $101, but effectively $98” due to the effects of inflation.

Asian households sometimes keep as much as 50% of their net worth in cash, rather than in investments or assets. In contrast, in developed markets like the U.S. and Europe, that figure is closer to 15%. 

But that conservative attitude in Asia is starting to change. Asians are getting wealthier, pushing them to explore different investment options. Strong stock market performance is also driving a new wave of retail investors across the Asia-Pacific.

“Asian households are slowly dipping their toes into stock markets,” HSBC economists wrote in a Jan. 9 report, though noted that “overall equity investment remains quite low.” The bank predicts that a steady shift from low-yield cash to higher-yield investments will mean “more money will continue to rotate into equity markets over the next few years,” reducing a reliance on foreign investors. 

A slew of fintech apps have emerged in recent years to tap a growing interest in investing and wealth management among Asian users. These alternative finance platforms, such as Syfe, Stashaway and Endowus, often offer a range of investment options, ranging from cash management to managed portfolios and options trading. The challenge, Arora says, is how to “bridge the gap between holding money and growing wealth,” and “give more people the confidence to put their savings to work.”

Arora began his career as an investment banker for UBS in Hong Kong in 2008, soon after the Global Financial Crisis. Despite Asia’s relatively quick recovery, Arora noticed that the region’s professionals were building wealth yet didn’t know how to manage it. “These were smart people like doctors, lawyers and consultants, who were doing well professionally, but just did not know what to do with their money,” he says. 

He launched Syfe in 2019, just a few months before another global crisis: The COVID-19 pandemic. Yet the pandemic ended up being an opportunity for fintech platforms like Syfe. “It acted as a catalyst for a shift in investor behavior,” Arora explained, as people suddenly had the time to engage with financial markets.

In the U.S., for example, people stuck at home began to get involved in stock trading through platforms like Robinhood. Fueled by social media, these retail investors began to heavily trade in so-called meme stocks like Gamestop and AMC.

Syfe has since expanded from its home market of Singapore to new Asia-Pacific economies like Australia and Hong Kong. The platform continues to grow both its userbase and company revenue, and the company claimed it reached profitability in Q4 2025. It’s now a “self-sustaining organization,” Arora says. 

Syfe closed an $80 million Series C funding round last year, and is backed by major investors like NYC-based Valar Ventures and UK-based investment firm Unbound.

The platform’s users generated $2 billion worth of returns while saving $80 million in fees last year, according to the company. 

Currently, Arora wants to deepen Syfe’s presence in its existing markets. Last year, the platform began to roll out bespoke offerings for its users, like private credit for accredited investors looking to diversify their portfolios on Syfe. Syfe will launch options trading in 2026.

Arora notes that many of Syfe’s users, over time, have grown more comfortable with taking larger investment risks, moving from putting their money in Syfe-managed portfolios, to more actively trading on brokerages and income portfolios.

Yet he eventually wants to bring Syfe to new markets in North Asia and the Middle East, which boast sizable populations of what Arora terms the “mass affluent,” a population with significant investable assets and higher-than-average incomes, though still not in the high-net-worth category. 

“This demographic has historically been ‘stuck in the middle’: too large for basic retail banking, yet often underserved by traditional private banks,” he explains.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Lawmakers and victims criticize new limits on Grok’s AI image as ‘insulting’ and ‘not effective’

Published

on



Elon Musk’s xAI has restricted its AI chatbot Grok’s image generation capabilities to paying subscribers only, following widespread condemnation over its use to create non-consensual sexualized images of real women and children.

“Image generation and editing are currently limited to paying subscribers,” Grok announced via X on Friday. The restriction means the vast majority of users can no longer access the feature. Paying, verified subscribers with credit card details on file can still do so, but theoretically they can be identified more easily if the function is misused.

However, experts, regulators, and victims say that the new restrictions aren’t a solution to the now widespread problem.

“The argument that providing user details and payment methods will help identify perpetrators also isn’t convincing, given how easy it is to provide false info and use temporary payment methods,” Henry Ajder, a UK-based deepfakes expert, told Fortune. “The logic here is also reactive: it is supposed to help identify offenders after content has been generated, but it doesn’t represent any alignment or meaningful limitations to the model itself.”

The UK government has called the move “insulting” to victims, in remarks reported by the BBC. The UK’s prime minister’s spokesperson told reporters on Friday that the change “simply turns an AI feature that allows the creation of unlawful images into a premium service.

“It is time for X to grip this issue; if another media company had billboards in town centers showing unlawful images, it would act immediately to take them down or face public backlash,” they said.

A representative for X said they were “looking into” the new restrictions. xAI responded with the automated message: “Legacy Media Lies.”

Over the past week real women have been targeted at scale with users manipulating photos to remove clothing, place subjects in bikinis, or position them in sexually explicit scenarios without their consent. Some victims reported feeling violated and disturbed by the trend, with many saying their reports to X went unanswered and images remained live on the platform.

Researchers said the scale at which Grok was producing and sharing images was unprecedented as, unlike other AI bots, Grok essentially has a built-in distribution system in the X platform. 

One researcher, whose analysis was published by Bloomberg, estimated that X has become the most prolific site for deepfakes over the last week. Genevieve Oh, a social media and deepfake researcher who conducted a 24-hour analysis of images the @Grok account posted to X, found that the chatbot was producing roughly 6,700 sexually suggestive or nudifying images per hour. By comparison, the five other leading websites for sexualized deepfakes averaged 79 new AI undressing images hourly during the same period. Oh’s research also found that sexualized content dominated Grok’s output, accounting for 85% of all images the chatbot generated.

Ashley St. Clair, a conservative commentator and mother of one of Musk’s children, was among those affected by the images. St. Clair told Fortune that users were turning images on her X profile into explicit AI-generated photos of her, including some she said depicted her as a minor. After speaking out against the images and raising concerns about deepfakes on minors, St Clair also said X took away her verified, paying subscribers status without notifying her or refunding her for the $8 per month fee.

“Restricting it to the paid-only user shows that they’re going to double down on this, placing an undue burden on the victims to report to law enforcement and law enforcement to use their resources to track these people down,” Ashley St Clair said of the recent restrictions. “It’s also a money grab.”

St Clair told Fortune that many of the accounts targeting her were already verified users: “It’s not effective at all,” she said. “This is just in anticipation of more law enforcement inquiries regarding Grok image generation.”

Regulatory pressure

The move to limit Grok’s capabilities comes amid mounting pressure from regulators worldwide. In the U.K., Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated he is open to banning the platform entirely, describing the content as “disgraceful” and “disgusting.” Regulators in India, Malaysia, and France have also launched investigations or probes.

The European Commission on Thursday ordered X to preserve all internal documents and data related to Grok, stepping up its investigation into the platform’s content moderation practices after describing the spread of nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfakes as “illegal,” “appalling,” and “disgusting.”

Experts say the new restrictions may not satisfy regulators’ concerns: “This approach is a blunt instrument that doesn’t address the root of the problem with Grok’s alignment and likely won’t cut it with regulators,” Ajder said. “Limiting functionality to paying users will not stop the generation of this content; a month’s subscription is not a robust solution.”

In the U.S., the situation is also likely to test existing laws, like Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields online providers from liability for content created by users. U.S. Senators Ron Wyden, Edward J. Markey, and Ben Ray Luján have issued a statement urging Apple and Google to “immediately remove the X and Grok apps from their app stores” following Grok’s alleged use for generating “nonconsensual sexualized images of women and children at scale.” The lawmakers called the images “disturbing and likely illegal,” and said the apps should remain unavailable until Musk addresses the concerns.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has also called for Grok to be blocked from generating “sexually explicit images of children and women, including prominent Muslim women.”

Riana Pfefferkorn of Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence previously told Fortune that liability surrounding AI-generated images is murky. “We have this situation where for the first time, it is the platform itself that is at scale generating non-consensual pornography of adults and minors alike,” she said. “From a liability perspective as well as a PR perspective, the CSAM laws pose the biggest potential liability risk here.”

Musk has previously stated that “anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.” However, it remains unclear how accounts will be held accountable.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.