Stop Gaslighting MyPlate: The Guidelines Didn’t Change — The Narrative Did
Let’s get something straight right now:
MyPlate was never the villain.
And no, the 2026 “new” Dietary Guidelines did not suddenly overthrow decades of nutrition science like a revolutionary coup.
What did change?
The messaging.
The politics.
And the need to create an enemy where none existed.
Recently, a widely shared post from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services claims to present a “real look” at the differences between MyPlate / the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines and the so-called “new” 2026 Dietary Guidelines.
Except… it doesn’t.
What it actually does is misrepresent MyPlate, cherry-pick language, and rewrite history to make it look like previous guidance was anti-protein, anti-fat, pro-processed food, and clueless about chronic disease.
That’s not just misleading — it’s flat-out false.
Let’s break this down.
Interested in reading up on the Old and New Guidelines, links below:
MyPlate Was a Visual Tool — Not a Scientific Paper
First problem: they’re attacking a plate graphic as if it was meant to be the entire body of U.S. nutrition science.
MyPlate was designed to:
Teach portion balance
Provide visual simplicity
Help the general public build a meal without needing a PhD
It was never meant to:
Replace the full Dietary Guidelines
Provide gram-by-gram macronutrient prescriptions
Be the final word on metabolic health, protein targets, or chronic disease
Blaming MyPlate for not doing what it was never designed to do is like criticizing a seatbelt for not being an airbag.
Different tools. Different purposes.
Protein Was NEVER “Under Attack”
One of the loudest claims in this post is that MyPlate somehow deprioritized protein — and that the “new” guidelines heroically fixed this.
False.
The 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines already:
Encouraged lean animal and plant protein
Emphasized protein quality
Supported higher protein needs for older adults
Acknowledged individualized needs across the lifespan
What they didn’t do was slap a universal “1.2–1.6 g/kg” number on the front page — because public health guidelines are written for populations, not fitness influencers.
Also worth noting:
👉 The RDA (0.8 g/kg) was never a “goal” — it was a minimum to prevent deficiency.
Dietitians have been explaining this for years.
The idea that there was a “war on protein” is not science — it’s branding.
Fat Wasn’t Demonized — Saturated Fat Was Limited (For a Reason)
Another recycled talking point: “MyPlate demonized fat.”
No.
It didn’t.
What it did — correctly — was:
Encourage unsaturated fats
Limit excess saturated fat
Avoid promoting ultra-processed fat sources
Which, by the way, is still exactly what the guidelines say now.
The science on saturated fat and cardiovascular risk didn’t suddenly evaporate in 2026.
The recommendations did not magically flip.
What changed was the tone, not the evidence.
Replacing “limit saturated fat” with “focus on whole foods” doesn’t mean saturated fat became heart-healthy overnight.
That’s spin. Not science.
Carbs Were Never “Normalized Garbage”
This post also suggests MyPlate casually endorsed white bread, crackers, and refined carbs.
Again — no.
The actual guidelines consistently emphasized:
Whole grains
Dietary fiber
Limiting refined carbohydrates
Reducing added sugars
What they didn’t do was demonize entire food groups or prescribe low-carb diets to the general population — because that would be irresponsible public health guidance.
Individualization has always existed in dietetics.
We’ve been adjusting carbohydrate intake for diabetes, kidney disease, GI conditions, and metabolic health for decades.
Pretending this is brand-new is insulting to the profession.
Processed Foods, Sugar, and the Microbiome Were Already Addressed
Let’s talk about the biggest sleight of hand in this post.
They claim the “new” guidelines are the first to:
Call out ultra-processed foods
Address added sugars
Discuss gut health and the microbiome
Except…
The 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines already:
Capped added sugars at <10% of calories
Warned against sugar-sweetened beverages
Discussed fiber, gut health, and food quality
Emphasized minimally processed foods
Slapping bolder language on existing recommendations doesn’t make them new.
It makes them louder.
Alcohol: Same Message, Sharper Packaging
Alcohol is another area where the message didn’t change — it just got more explicit.
Previous guidelines:
Recommended moderation
Identified populations who should avoid alcohol
Recommended serving sizes for beer, wine and liquor. Recommended intake for men and women.
Current guidelines:
Emphasize that less is better
Clearly state that some people should not drink at all
That’s not a reversal and no real guideline was given…
So Why Rewrite the Story?
Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Creating an enemy makes policy feel revolutionary.
By portraying MyPlate and previous guidelines as outdated, weak, or complicit in poor health, this narrative:
Fuels distrust in nutrition professionals
Undermines decades of evidence-based work
Pretends we were “wrong” instead of “consistent”
And worst of all?
It confuses the public — again.
Americans didn’t suddenly get healthier because the wording changed.
They need clarity, consistency, and credibility — not manufactured drama.
The Real Issue Isn’t the Plate — It’s the Messaging
MyPlate didn’t fail Americans.
The food environment did.
The lack of education did.
The underfunding of public health did.
The explosion of ultra-processed food did.
Turning MyPlate into a scapegoat doesn’t fix any of that.
At Chasing Your Health, we don’t need to tear down past guidance to move forward.
We build on it.
We individualize it.
We modernize it — without lying about what came before.
Final Word (Because Someone Has to Say It)
You don’t make progress by pretending history was incompetent.
You make progress by being honest about what worked, what didn’t, and what actually needs to change.
The guidelines didn’t “flip.”
They didn’t “admit they were wrong.”
And MyPlate was never the enemy.
But misinformation?
That absolutely is.