Protein has become difficult to avoid. It is promoted on cereal boxes, added to snack foods and tracked by people trying to lose weight, build muscle or remain strong as they age. Now, the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans give adults an even higher number to consider.
The 2025-2030 guidelines recommend a daily protein target of 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight. For someone who weighs 150 pounds, that works out to about 82 to 109 grams of protein a day, compared with about 54 grams at the long-standing Recommended Dietary Allowance of 0.8 grams per kilogram.
A new perspective in The Journal of Nutrition argues that the higher range may be useful for some people, particularly during weight loss, but that the evidence does not yet establish it as the best target for every adult at every stage of life.
The paper is not a new clinical trial, systematic review or official reassessment of protein requirements. It is an expert analysis of the evidence and reasoning behind the federal recommendation. Its authors examine how the new guidance compares with previous dietary guidelines, the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s scientific report and existing protein research.
Several authors have financial and professional relationships that are relevant to the subject. Lead author Stefan Pasiakos has received consulting fees and speaking honoraria from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, as well as research funding and consulting fees from the National Dairy Council. Two other authors reported consulting, honoraria or other relationships with the cattlemen’s association. The authors said those organizations had no role in preparing the paper, which received no outside funding.
Several authors also serve or previously served in editorial positions at The Journal of Nutrition and other nutrition journals. Those roles do not determine whether their argument is correct, but they are important context for a perspective published in the journal with which they are professionally affiliated.
The authors do not dispute that protein is essential or that some people may benefit from eating more than the established RDA. Instead, they question whether research conducted in particular populations can support a broad recommendation spanning adults of different ages, activity levels, health conditions and energy needs.
“We acknowledge the strengths of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, particularly the emphasis on high-quality protein foods and the evidence supporting higher protein intakes for weight management,” Pasiakos said.
But he said the central question is whether that evidence is sufficient to support a universal higher-protein recommendation.
“The guidelines fall short of that standard, and what is optimal for one segment of the population should not be considered optimal for all without sufficient evidence,” he said.
The distinction between an RDA and an optimal intake is part of what makes protein guidance confusing.
The adult RDA of 0.8 grams per kilogram is intended to meet the needs of nearly all healthy adults. It should not automatically be interpreted as the ideal amount for every goal or circumstance. Older adults trying to preserve muscle, athletes, people recovering from illness and those losing weight while trying to limit muscle loss may have different needs.
At the same time, evidence that a higher intake benefits one of those groups does not necessarily show that every adult will gain additional health benefits from reaching the same range.
The perspective authors point particularly to research on people with overweight or obesity. Higher-protein diets may improve fullness and help preserve lean mass while someone is eating fewer calories, but those effects occur within a specific weight-management context. The authors argue that such findings do not establish that adults who are not losing weight need the same amount.
The paper also raises questions about whether a single body-weight calculation works equally well across populations. Two people who weigh the same may differ considerably in age, body composition, activity, health status and calorie needs.
Using total body weight can also produce especially high targets for people in larger bodies. At 1.6 grams per kilogram, a person weighing 250 pounds would calculate a goal of about 181 grams of protein per day. Whether that amount offers a meaningful advantage would depend on the individual and the reason for increasing protein, not the calculation alone.
The perspective does not prove that the new range is harmful or inappropriate. It argues that the federal government has not yet assembled enough evidence to characterize 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram as an optimal target for everyone.
That distinction matters because the Dietary Guidelines influence more than individual food choices. They help shape federal nutrition programs, public health messaging and the way food companies market products.
A higher target may also reinforce the impression that more protein is inherently better. It is possible to reach a protein number while overlooking other parts of the diet, including fiber-rich foods, fruits, vegetables and whole grains.
Protein source matters as well. Beans, lentils, nuts, seeds, fish, poultry, eggs, dairy and meat all provide protein, but they come with different combinations of fiber, fat, sodium, vitamins and minerals. A protein target alone does not describe the overall nutritional quality of a meal.
The latest guidelines continue to recommend nutrient-dense foods, but critics have questioned whether the stronger emphasis on protein could overshadow other priorities or be interpreted as a reason to consume more meat and full-fat dairy.
The perspective authors call for more research examining protein intake across life stages and in populations beyond those most often represented in weight-loss and performance studies. They also want future research to address chronic disease prevention, functional outcomes and whether potential benefits differ according to age, health status and protein source.
For readers, the paper does not offer a replacement number. It instead challenges the idea that one higher range can capture everyone’s needs.
Someone who is older, highly active, recovering from illness or intentionally losing weight may have a reason to discuss a higher protein intake with a physician or registered dietitian. Someone already eating enough protein and maintaining their health may not need to reorganize every meal around reaching the upper end of the new range.
The larger lesson is not that protein matters less. It is that the right amount depends on what a person needs it to do.
The authors reported no funding for the perspective.
Pasiakos serves as an associate editor for The Journal of Nutrition and Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. He has received consulting fees and speaking honoraria from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, as well as grant funding and consulting fees from the National Dairy Council. He reported that those organizations had no role in preparing the manuscript.
Co-author Teresa Davis has received an honorarium from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, along with research funding from the National Institutes of Health and USDA. She is editor-in-chief of Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition and previously served as editor-in-chief of The Journal of Nutrition.
Co-author Donald Layman serves as an associate editor for The Journal of Nutrition and is a consultant to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. He also reported professional roles with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, The Nutrient Institute and the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences.
Other authors reported editorial roles with The Journal of Nutrition or Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. The authors said none of the disclosed relationships played a role in preparing the manuscript.