Prevailing dietary guidelines have widely recommended diets relatively low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods for the prevention of chronic diseases. However, an ad hoc research group called the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) consortium recently issued “new dietary guidelines” encouraging individuals to continue their current meat consumption habits due to “low certainty” of the evidence, difficulty of altering meat eaters’ habits and preferences, and the lack of need to consider environmental impacts of red meat consumption. These recommendations are not justified, in large part because of the flawed methodologies used to review and grade nutritional evidence. The evidence evaluation was largely based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, which are primarily designed to grade the strength of evidence for clinical interventions especially pharmacotherapy. However, the infeasibility for conducting large, long-term randomized clinical trials on most dietary, lifestyle, and environmental exposures makes the criteria inappropriate in these areas. A separate research group proposed a modified and validated system for rating the meta-evidence on nutritional studies (NutriGRADE) to address several limitations of the GRADE criteria. Applying NutriGRADE, the evidence on the positive association between red and processed meats and type 2 diabetes was rated to be of “high quality,” while the evidence on the association between red and processed meats and mortality was rated to be of “moderate quality.” Another important limitation is that inadequate attention was paid to what might be replacing red meat, be it plant-based proteins, refined carbohydrates, or other foods. In summary, the red/processed meat recommendations by NutriRECS suffer from important methodological limitations and involve misinterpretations of nutritional evidence. To improve human and planetary health, dietary guidelines should continue to emphasize dietary patterns low in red and processed meats and high in minimally processed plant foods such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes.

Individual barriers to weight loss and physical activity goals in the Diabetes Prevention Program, a randomized trial with 3.2 years average treatment duration, have not been previously reported. Evaluating barriers and the lifestyle coaching approaches used to improve adherence in a large, diverse participant cohort can inform dissemination efforts. Lifestyle coaches documented barriers and approaches after each session (mean session attendance = 50.3 ± 21.8). Subjects were 1076 intensive lifestyle participants (mean age = 50.6 years; mean BMI = 33.9 kg/m2; 68% female, 48% non-Caucasian). Barriers and approaches used to improve adherence were ranked by the percentage of the cohort for whom they applied. Barrier groupings were also analyzed in relation to baseline demographic characteristics. Top weight loss barriers reported were problems with self-monitoring (58%); social cues (58%); holidays (54%); low activity (48%); and internal cues (thought/mood) (44%). Top activity barriers were holidays (51%); time management (50%); internal cues (30%); illness (29%), and motivation (26%). The percentage of the cohort having any type of barrier increased over the long-term intervention period. A majority of the weight loss barriers were significantly associated with younger age, greater obesity, and non-Caucasian race/ethnicity (p-values vary). Physical activity barriers, particularly thought and mood cues, social cues and time management, physical injury or illness and access/weather, were most significantly associated with being female and obese (p < 0.001 for all). Lifestyle coaches used problem-solving with most participants (≥75% short-term; > 90% long term) and regularly reviewed self-monitoring skills. More costly approaches were used infrequently during the first 16 sessions (≤10%) but increased over 3.2 years. Behavioral problem solving approaches have short and long term dissemination potential for many kinds of participant barriers. Given minimal resources, increased attention to training lifestyle coaches in the consistent use of these approaches appears warranted.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is an emerging global health concern. It is the most common form of chronic liver disease in Western countries, affecting both adults and children. NAFLD encompasses a broad spectrum of fatty liver disease, ranging from simple steatosis (NAFL) to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and is strongly associated with obesity, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia. First-line therapy for NAFLD includes weight loss achieved through diet and physical activity. However, there is a lack of evidenced-based dietary recommendations. The American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) recommendations that aim to reduce the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease may also be applicable to the NAFLD population. The objectives of this review are to: (1) provide an overview of NAFLD in the context of insulin resistance, and (2) provide a rationale for applying relevant aspects of the ADA recommendations to the nutritional management of NAFLD.