The guidelines increased protein recommendations to 1.2-1.6 g/kg body weight (50-100% higher than previous RDA of 0.8 g/kg). Based on current evidence, how would you characterize this recommendation for the general U.S. population?

Answer Explanations

• Not strongly supported—most Americans already consume adequate protein

  user-74194
  Protein is necessary but too much may be problematic. Considerable interpersonal variation in the need for dietary protein exists. One-size-fits-all only in tube socks.  
• Potentially harmful for population health

  user-156266
  The protein guideline of 1.2 - 1.6 g/kg bw is misguided.  The studies used to derive this value looked at total urine nitrogen which is seriously flawed.  The value needs to be much higher, especially for the development of growing children. 
• Not supported—may increase risk of excessive saturated fat/calorie intake

  user-269790
  The amount of daily protein Should be adjusted by age and body size. The amount currently recommended exceed the needs of the average person.
• Not strongly supported—most Americans already consume adequate protein

  user-756315
  The increased protein recommendation of 1.2–1.6 g/kg is not strongly supported for the general U.S. population, because current evidence shows that most Americans already consume sufficient protein without needing such a large increase. Stanford Medicine notes that the new guidelines overemphasize protein despite robust evidence of adequate national intake, making the higher targets unnecessary for the majority of people. 1 Additionally, experts have raised concerns that elevating protein intake to this level may inadvertently increase consumption of saturated‑fat‑rich foods, given the guidelines’ emphasis on animal sources, potentially affecting calorie balance and cardiovascular risk. The Clinical Advisor similarly emphasizes that the higher protein targets go beyond traditional evidence-based recommendations and were not aligned with the scientific advisory committee’s findings.
  
  
• Strongly supported by evidence and addresses widespread deficiency

  user-868575
  The protein requirements for average consumers has not been updated in a long time and there are clear benefits for increased protein intake (satiety, general health, weight etc). If people ate more protein, they may reduce intake of refined carbohydrates and processed foods.
• Not strongly supported—most Americans already consume adequate protein

  user-323548
  This recommendation appears to be built on some evidence of weight loss in high protein diets, and the fact that there is no harmful upper limit set. I also think they are based on a desire to support american protein producers. The recommendation is in excess of need, but perhaps higher protein can displace some UPF or refined carbohydrate intakes?
• Not strongly supported—most Americans already consume adequate protein

  user-573501
  This recommendation appears to be based on a review of studies in which weight loss is the primary health outcome, which is not a logical health outcome for the DGA.  The DRIs are the place to consider adequacy of protein recommendations.
• Somewhat supported by evidence

  user-37602
  Malnutrition in the U.S. results mainly from over consumption of fast foods; with carbohydrates being the main item. Increasing the protein content means modifying the foods which will ultimately reduce the carbohydrates consumed.
• Undecided (please explain)

  user-361025
  What about the physiological status of the consumer? Growing (Young) vs elderly and weight lifter vs an ordinary citizen with sport phobia?
• Not strongly supported—most Americans already consume adequate protein

  user-543438
  My answer speaks for itself.
• Somewhat supported by evidence

  user-64256
  Based on current evidence and expert analysis, the 50-100% increase in protein recommendation (1.2-1.6 g/kg) in the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines is a bold but scientifically controversial shift. It emphasizes protein for potential public health benefits but faces significant criticism regarding its evidence base and practical implementation.  This protein recommendation is a highly ambitious public health intervention with clear theoretical benefits for muscle health and dietary restructuring. However, it is not a straightforward scientific update, as it appears to outpace the current consensus evidence, downplays the importance of protein sources, and introduces practical and safety considerations for a significant portion of the population.
• Somewhat supported by evidence

  user-284488
  There is evidence that at least the older population doesn’t consume enough protein.
• Not strongly supported—most Americans already consume adequate protein

  user-423252
  We need to focus on more fruits and vegetables and less sugar.
• Somewhat supported by evidence

  user-863596
  Already answered in the above question. More details available in our publication.
  Sustainable Diets and Functional Foods for the Prevention of Cardio-metabolic Diseases and Sustainable Development Goals of the UNO. An International Consensus of Scientific Statement of the International College of Nutrition and 28th World Congress on Clinical Nutrition, Bogor, Indonesia.
  .In brief, Traditional foods are feasible and affordable in every country. The use of high-protein substitutes for animal-derived foods, such as soybean products such as tofu and Tempe, millets, beans, lentils, peas (400g/day), green vegetables, fruits, and nuts (400g/day), as well as vegetable oils, low-fat dairy products, and culinary spices, with low meat (sea-foods) may be beneficial in promoting health and preventing NCDs. 
• Strongly supported by evidence and addresses widespread deficiency

  user-206808
  Increased in protein content will reduces the carb load which is a beneficial strategy  
• Somewhat supported by evidence

  user-980128
  Clear benefits for specific groups: Evidence supports higher protein intakes (≈1.2–1.6 g/kg) for older adults, individuals with sarcopenia risk, those pursuing weight loss, and physically active populations.
  General population nuance: Most Americans already meet or exceed the 0.8 g/kg RDA, so the recommendation does not address a population-wide deficiency but rather reframes protein as a tool for metabolic and functional health.
  Source matters more than amount: Benefits are contingent on protein quality and food sources. Emphasis on animal-based proteins could inadvertently increase saturated fat and caloric intake if not paired with guidance on lean and plant-based options.
  Implementation risk: Without explicit substitution guidance (what to replace), higher protein targets may lead to dietary imbalance rather than net benefit.
  Bottom line: The recommendation is evidence-informed but not universally necessary, and its population health impact will depend heavily on food-source framing and dietary context.
• Strongly supported by evidence and addresses widespread deficiency

  user-385373
  The dietary guidelines, and emerging research, suggest increasing protein intake to 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight daily to optimize muscle health, aging, and satiety. This shift emphasizes nutrient-dense,, often animal-based foods, recommending about 100g/day for many adults, particularly for improving body composition and replacing refined carbs.
  
  

  While high protein is generally safe, those with specific, existing kidney conditions should consult a professional. The focus should be on increasing protein while still maintaining a balanced, nutrient-dense diet, not just overloading on protein alone.
  
  
• Not supported—may increase risk of excessive saturated fat/calorie intake

  user-517643
  These protein amounts presume population-wide healthy renal function and cholesterol control, both not happening in the US.
• Somewhat supported by evidence

  user-45601
  Processed foods have increased carb and fat content. Aiming for this level will definitely improve health. One important aspect, FDA ignored is the absorption threshold of protein absorption on one intake.
• Somewhat supported by evidence

  user-420581
  The recommendation is partially supported by current evidence, particularly for specific subgroups such as older adults, physically active individuals, and those aiming to preserve lean mass or improve metabolic health. Evidence suggests that protein intakes above the RDA may confer functional benefits beyond deficiency prevention.

  However, for the general U.S. population, widespread protein deficiency is uncommon, and a uniform recommendation of 1.2–1.6 g/kg may not be necessary for all individuals. The potential benefits depend strongly on physical activity level, energy balance, protein quality, and overall dietary pattern.

  Without adequate contextualization, higher protein targets may unintentionally increase total energy intake or saturated fat intake, depending on food choices. A more stratified, population-specific approach may better reflect the current evidence base.

  
  

  
  
• Strongly supported by evidence and addresses widespread deficiency

  user-566604
   The increased protein recommendation of 1.2–1.6 g/kg/day is considered an optimal, evidence-based target for promoting satiety, weight management, and maintaining muscle mass (sarcopenia prevention), particularly for older adults. It is generally safe for healthy individuals and better supports active lifestyles than the previous 0.8 g/kg minimum.