This article suggests that the recent changes in dietary recommendations do not really amount to an end to the "war on protein", and cites historic consumption patterns (which are generous in the portion of protein as a portion of daily calories) as a reason to claim that no such thing ever existed.
Well, though I'm not a registered dietician, I have been a reader of some of the literature since childhood, and the reality is a bit more nuanced. The first thing I remember is that from childhood, I always thought that the "four food groups" recommendation of two small servings of meat/protein per day was a little bit on the lean side--that the recommendation should have had sliding scales for the reality of bigger, more active, people.
To be fair to the FDA and USDA, part of the reality is that they were trying to do a "one size fits most" recommendation, and to do a true sliding scale probably requires more math than they felt most Americans would do--and they were probably right.
But that noted, a consistent theme in nutritional literature since at least the 1930s (e.g. Boy's Book of Strength, C. Ward Crampton, 1936) has been that popular diets advocating huge portions of meat, as in boxer Luis Firpo's mostly carnivore diet, were neither necessary nor helpful for health. You'll see the same warnings in advertisements taken out by life insurance companies during the 1950s and 1960s in National Geographic. Yes, it was the actuaries at life insurance companies as much as cardiologists who started warning us about this--and I say "well done".
So the reality is that while there has never really been a war on protein, dieticians have been warning the public for the past century or more not to overdo it on protein. And in the hands of our current Secretary of Health and Human Services, who claims to have recently lost 20 lbs on a carnivore diet, perhaps that qualifies in RFK Jr.'s mind as a "war on protein".
And what's our reality? Well, I think that, Biblically speaking, humans are omnivores, and hence we ought to expect that most of us will do best on an omnivorous diet, starting with the fruits and leaves of Eden, continuing with the grains and legumes after the Fall, and concluding with the meats and such allowed after the Flood. Along the same lines, we're learning more and more that there are big benefits to the flavenoids found in many plants, especially whole ones.
And meats and dairy? B12 is found only in animal products, and it's essential for brain function, so there is that. Meats and dairy are also naturally complete proteins (all 10 essential amino acids), and fats are necessary to digest and process proteins. So far, so good.
Where we get offtrack, in my view, is the biochemical reality that the liver converts saturated fats to low density lipoproteins, a.k.a. "bad cholesterol". To be sure, the correlation is not perfect, and that's because the liver can get saturated fats from steak, bacon, olive oil (about 5-10% saturated fat), or even our guts or tucheses. But that said, what the actuaries of the 1950s found still holds; excess saturated fat intake is correlated with high LDL levels and heart disease.
Side note: regarding Kennedy's diet, my take is that any diet that gets one out of the "standard American diet" high in sugars and fats and low in fiber will tend to help someone eating "SAD". In the "carnivore" case, it also leads to explosive diarrhoea, which can cause one to lose 5 lbs or more alone. Keep the current research about "fecal microbiome" in mind when you consider risking that! Turns out your poop is important for your overall health.
