The New Food Pyramid: My Two Cents on What’s Missing, What Works, and What Actually Matters
If you spend any time in healthcare or wellness spaces on social media, you probably saw it last week: the new food pyramid. There has been lots of talk, agreements, disagreements, and celebration for an ‘upgrade’ in nutrition.
If you haven’t seen it yet, go look it up now. I’ll wait.
Okay — now that you’ve seen it, here are my thoughts.
First, some important context: the original food pyramid that many of us grew up with hasn’t been used in over 25 years. Comparing the newest version directly to that old pyramid is misleading. Years ago, we moved to MyPlate, which replaced the pyramid entirely and made several meaningful updates, and it’s been guiding nutrition messaging in the U.S. ever since. So while people are framing this as a dramatic overhaul, a lot of these changes have already been in place for quite some time.
That’s also why I don’t love giving any single administration credit for “fixing” nutrition. This has been a slow, decades‑long evolution — and frankly I am not necessarily going to follow the guidelines set by the USDA and FDA anyway.
A Quick Word on Grains, Subsidies, and the Original Pyramid
The original food pyramid’s recommendation of 12 servings of grains per day didn’t exist in a vacuum.
For decades, U.S. agricultural policy heavily subsidized commodity crops like wheat, corn, and soy. These subsidies created large surpluses, and when a food is abundant, shelf‑stable, and inexpensive, there’s a strong incentive to promote it as a dietary foundation.
Grains became the base of the pyramid not only because they were nutritious, but because they were economically supported and widely available. Over time, this led to a cultural overemphasis on grain‑heavy meals and blurred the line between whole grains and highly processed grain products.
For many people (especially those with blood sugar issues, inflammation, or metabolic conditions) this guidance proved problematic.
This isn’t an argument that grains are “bad.” It is an acknowledgment that placing them at the foundation of everyone’s diet was influenced by economic policy, not individualized physiology.
Later models, including MyPlate and the newer pyramid, quietly corrected this — without much explanation as to why the original guidance fell short.
The Visual Problem
One of my biggest critiques of the new food pyramid is that it’s visually unappealing and hard to understand. It’s also been flipped upside down? — and if you think about the idea of a “foundation,” that sends a confusing message right away.
Things aren’t really divided into intuitive categories, and foods like fresh, frozen, and canned vegetables can appear visually next to meat and cheese without clear context.
MyPlate, while far from perfect, did something really well: it worked for visual learners. People could literally look at their plate and compare it to the image and think, “Okay, half vegetables, a third protein, some grains.” A lot of people don’t actually know what a “serving” is, and that graphic helped them intuitively grasp proportions.
Pyramids look nice conceptually, but they often fail in real life. What does “six servings of grains” actually look like? What does “five servings of protein” mean on a Tuesday when you’re tired, hungry, and standing in your kitchen at 7 pm?
For reference, one reasonable guide many dietitians use is:
A palm‑sized portion of protein per meal
A cupped hand of carbs/starches
A fist or more of vegetables per meal
But most people don’t inherently know this — and graphics don’t teach it.
This is why, in practice, I often recreate pyramid‑style guidance into a plate model for clients-individualized to their specific needs and likes. Not because it’s superior nutritionally, but because it’s easier to understand and easier to follow.
Why Food Categories Still Matter (What My Clients Have Taught Me)
One of the biggest assumptions in healthcare is that people already understand the basics of nutrition — what carbs are, what protein is, what belongs in which food group, what foods are healthy, and which ones aren’t.
In real clinical practice, that assumption simply isn’t true.
Over the years, I’ve learned that you can never assume someone understands food categories or basic nutrition — no matter their age, background, or diagnosis.
I once worked with a client who had diabetes whose medical team had never explained what a carbohydrate actually was. He had been told to “watch his carbs,” but no one had ever clarified what foods that included. The result was confusion, frustration, and unnecessary shame — not better blood sugar control.
Another client believed that eggs were dairy because they’re sold next to milk in the grocery store. When she was told to go dairy‑free for medical reasons, she thought that meant she had to eliminate eggs as well. We spent a long session simply untangling food groups , discussing diary, protein, and what the best diet was for her.
I’ve also had clients argue that fast food meals are “healthy” because they technically hit all the essential food groups: a bun (grains), a burger (protein), lettuce and tomato, and fries (vegetables). When nutrition models lack clarity, people fill in the gaps in ways that make sense to them even if those conclusions aren’t actually supportive of health.
This is why the new food pyramid concerns me.
Foods are visually grouped together without clear categories, labels, or explanation. The message becomes “eat these things,” rather than helping people understand why certain foods belong together, how they function in the body, or how to make informed choices across different contexts.
For people already overwhelmed, busy, or under‑resourced, this kind of ambiguity doesn’t empower — it confuses.
Clear categories aren’t about restriction or rigidity. They’re about education. They give people a framework they can adapt especially when life, budget, or access limits their options.
When nutrition guidance assumes understanding that isn’t actually there, the people who need support the most are the ones left behind.
And the fact that frozen, canned, and fresh vegetables are together, and it doesn’t really explain the differences in when each type is recommended is frustrating. Plus they don’t have differences in fresh vs dried fruit. There is a big difference in eating a single fresh apple and having a dozen dried slices (that might have added sugar and flavoring too).
Let’s Talk About More About Serving Sizes
Serving sizes are rarely explained clearly in the new graphics, and its a problem.
In general I would say many women are simply not eating enough. There is a persistent fear of eating “too much” and gaining weight. But eating adequately from foundational food groups does not inherently cause weight gain.
Under‑eating, chronic restriction, and fear‑based food choices, on the other hand, absolutely contribute to hormone dysregulation, metabolic issues, fatigue, anxiety, and disordered eating patterns.
Nutrition guidance that lacks clarity around portions and adequacy often unintentionally reinforces this fear. So sometimes the conversation is to eat more- and having some basic guidelines on how many vegetables/fruits to aim for is actually helpful. Like sure, its nice to have it be you can eat unlimited quantities of vegetables- but that isn’t necessarily going to increase peoples intake. But explaining that one should be getting at least 6 different vegetables a week and 3-4 different fruits might actually increase intake.
Even Nutrition Education Gets This Wrong
One of the reasons I’m cautious about one‑size‑fits‑all nutrition models is because I’ve seen how flawed nutrition education can be, even in formal medical and clinical settings.
When I took a nutrition class in undergrad, I was actually struggling to gain weight due to health issues. Despite that, the structure of the class assumed that everyone’s goal was weight loss.
One of our first major projects involved tracking food intake, calories, and weight — with the unspoken assumption that success meant eating less and losing weight. There was no meaningful discussion of metabolic diversity, chronic illness, or the reality that some people need more nourishment, not less.
I was told by my instructor to intentionally increase my calorie intake for the assignment to help with weight gain. At the time, one of the simplest ways for me to do that was by drinking hot cocoa (it was winter and I love me a hot drink). So sometimes multiple times a day, just to get enough calories into my body to meet the project requirements I had a cup of packaged hot chocolate mix.
Years later, during a primary care continuing education training, I saw the same oversimplification repeated in a different population.
In a section on supporting geriatric patients who were underweight, the primary recommendation offered was to encourage them to eat more ice cream to increase calories.
While calorie adequacy does matter, this kind of guidance misses the bigger picture. Weight gain alone is not the goal. Nutrient density matters. Muscle matters. Protein matters. Micronutrients matter. It’s about what kind of weight it is, not just that the number on the scale gets bigger.
There are far more supportive options available: nutrient‑dense foods, adequate protein, healthy fats, mineral‑rich meals, and foods that actually support strength, cognition, and resilience.
These experiences reinforced something I see over and over again in practice: nutrition guidance often defaults to the simplest metric — calories — while ignoring quality, absorption, and individual needs.
This kind of thinking reinforces the idea that eating more is inherently risky, that weight gain is failure unless medically “approved,” and that nourishment is secondary to numbers.
For many people, including the elderly, those with chronic illness, and those recovering from disordered eating, the real issue isn’t overeating. It’s not eating enough of the right foods.
Adequate nourishment is not a moral failure. And calories alone are not the same thing as nutrition.
Why I Still Like the Pyramid (With Changes)
Conceptually, I like a pyramid when the foundation actually means foundation.
In my own version:
Protein is the base — because it supports blood sugar stability, muscle, neurotransmitters, and hormone production.
Above that come vegetables, mushrooms, and fruit — daily, varied, and foundational to gut and immune health.
Grains are supportive, not dominant — timing and quality matter.
Healthy fats are essential, not optional.
A small “Other” category exists — intentionally — more on that below.
Where Is the Room for Joy, Flexibility, and Real Life?
One of the most concerning omissions in the new food pyramid is the lack of space for what I call “other” or joy foods.
In the older pyramid models, there was at least a small acknowledgment — a tiny slice — that foods outside the core groups exist. Desserts, treats, celebratory foods, cultural foods, convenience foods. Not everyday staples, but part of real human eating.
The new pyramid removes that entirely.
The implicit message becomes: eat only these foods, all the time.
And that’s a problem.
Because no one eats “perfectly” 100% of the time — nor should they. When nutrition guidance presents health as something that requires constant discipline, constant restraint, and zero flexibility, it creates an all‑or‑nothing mindset.
That mindset is one of the fastest pathways to disordered eating.
People internalize the idea that foods are either “good” or “bad,” that deviation equals failure, and that enjoyment must be earned or punished. This leads to cycles of restriction, guilt, rebellion, and shame — not sustainable health.
From a clinical perspective, this rigidity increases stress, dysregulates the nervous system, and often worsens the very conditions people are trying to heal.
From a human perspective, it removes joy.
Food is not just fuel. It’s connection. Culture. Celebration. Memory. Pleasure. Comfort. Survival.
When we pretend otherwise, we do harm.
This is why, in my own nutrition framework, there is always a small “other” category — intentionally included. Not because ultra‑processed foods or sugary treats are ideal, but because realistic flexibility protects mental health and supports long‑term nourishment.
And this is where one of my core principles comes in:
The only food that is bad for you is the food that makes you sick.
That might be due to an allergy, an intolerance, inflammation, blood sugar dysregulation, or how it interacts with your body — not because a chart told you it was morally wrong.
Health is not about being “good.” Eating is not a test of discipline. And nourishment cannot exist without compassion.
Fermented Foods, Mushrooms, and the Missing Side Conversations
Most nutrition models fail to talk about how food affects the gut.
Fermented foods deserve their own place in the conversation. So do mushrooms, nuts and seeds. These foods support digestion, immune function, and the gut‑brain connection — something we cannot ignore if we’re talking about mental health, inflammation, or chronic illness.
How You Eat Matters Just as Much as What You Eat
Eating rushed, standing up, driving, or stressed significantly impacts digestion and blood sugar regulation.
From a Chinese medicine perspective, eating on the go or while chronically worried overtaxes the Spleen — impairing digestion and nutrient absorption over time.
Ideally, we encourage people to sit down and eat.
However, here’s an important nuance: “undistracted eating” is not accessible for everyone.
For many neurodivergent folks (including those with ADHD), pairing meals with something enjoyable — like watching a show — can actually support consistent eating. This is called dopamine pairing.
Personally, the most consistent, nourishing meals I eat are in the evening with my husband while we watch an episode of a show together. It creates routine, safety, connection, and enjoyment — all of which support digestion.
The goal is not perfection. The goal is nourishment.
Order, Timing, and Real‑Life Eating
Nutrition isn’t just about food groups — it’s about context.
Eating fiber‑rich vegetables first, then protein, then carbohydrates supports steadier blood sugar.
Heavier protein earlier in the day often supports energy and focus. Plus you want to surround your workouts with protein rich meals.
Carbohydrates later in the day can support sleep and nervous system regulation.
Antioxidant‑rich foods (like dark berries) earlier in the day can be especially supportive.
This level of nuance is completely absent from most nutrition models.
Real Food First — Supplements Second
Protein shakes, bars, and fiber supplements can be helpful tools, but they should not replace real food whenever possible.
Smoothies, juices, and liquid meals are not ideal as primary nutrition for most people, especially those with digestive or blood sugar issues.
Chewing matters. Digestive signaling matters. The physical act of eating tells your body how to release enzymes, stomach acid, bile, and insulin.
When most nutrition comes from liquids, especially in people already struggling with digestion or blood sugar regulation, the body misses important cues — and absorption often suffers.
I’m much more interested in helping people get nutrients from food first, then using supplements or convenience products to fill in gaps when needed — not the other way around.
It’s Not Just What You Eat — It’s What You Can Actually Absorb
Another major piece missing from most nutrition models — including the new food pyramid — is the reality of digestion and absorption.
You can eat the “perfect” diet on paper and still be undernourished if your gut is inflamed, irritated, or struggling.
This is something I see all the time in practice.
If someone is dealing with food allergies, sensitivities, chronic inflammation, stress, or gut dysfunction, their body may not be breaking down or absorbing nutrients effectively — no matter how many vegetables or protein sources they’re eating.
This is why blanket nutrition advice often fails.
It assumes that intake automatically equals nourishment. It doesn’t.
Food Access, Scarcity, and Reality
Nutrition guidance often ignores food access.
Food deserts, rising grocery costs, allergies, and medical dietary restrictions all shape what people can realistically eat. Gluten‑free, allergy‑safe, or medically appropriate foods are often significantly more expensive.
Programs exist to help make fresh food more affordable and accessible — but they’re not well‑known.
For example, at many farmers’ markets you can use your SNAP/EBT benefits on fresh produce and, in some places, participate in double‑up or match programs like Market Bucks and SNAP Market Match that stretch your dollars for fruits and veggies.
There are also programs like the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, which provides vouchers for low‑income seniors to buy fresh produce at markets and roadside stands.
There is also a great program here called Hunters for the Hungry. Were you can donate your deer meat to a food pantry.
Programs like these help families get more fresh, healthy food for less — but not enough people know about them.
Programs like SNAP being used for food at markets is important — but let’s also face reality: what if someone doesn’t have a kitchen to cook in? What if they’re unhoused? What if all they can do is get a warm meal? Feeding people matters. And we should still include fast food as part of the Snap Program- even though its ‘unhealthy’. I know this was something that was super controversial but I don’t think helping someone get a hot meal should be.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t expand programs that support access to fresh food. Initiatives like farmers market vouchers for children, elders, and families, or nutrition incentive programs across states, are amazing — and not nearly well‑known enough.
We need both nourishment and compassion.
Final Thoughts
Any diet that removes entire food groups without medical necessity deserves scrutiny. I am talking carnivore diets, grain‑free diets, and yes even vegan diets. Plus trendy and buzz‑word diets like gluten‑free or low‑fat do not inherently make something healthy. And individual preferences, needs, and religious or ethical exemptions need to be accounted for.
Nutrition should be:
Flexible
Contextual
Adequate
Grounded in real life
The food pyramid doesn’t need to be flipped upside down.
It needs foundation, clarity, and humanity.
And if you want help applying this to your life — that’s where individualized care actually matters. Come see me and I’d happily talk to you in depth about nutrition, reading food labels, and how to nourish your body in the way it is craving.
