Nutrition Controversies

Title: Trending Cardiovascular Nutrition Controversies
Authors: Andrew Freeman, Pamela Morris, Neal Barnard, Caldwell Esselstyn, Emilio Ros, Arthur Agatston, Stephen Devries, James O’Keefe, Michael Miller, Dean Ornish, Kim Williams, Penny Kris-Etherton.
Source: ScienceDirect (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109717300360?via%3Dihub)
Date: 2017
A heart-healthy diet is critical in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Various health-related departments have provided the citizens with food-based dietary patterns and the nutrients contents that would be significant in building a strong body. Nevertheless, there are various controversial dietary patterns which have been given media attention.
Studies have indicated that there is a close relationship between the diet and cardiovascular risk factors. However, there are different limitations that prevent researchers from collecting precise information. For instance, it is hard to have accurate memory or recordings of nutrient intake over a long period. Moreover, the reliance on private funding complicates the research because it might influence the final results and policies that are drafted.
There have been some controversies related to eggs and cholesterol. Furthermore, there has been confusion on the type of vegetables that one can use. The reason is that some vegetables have harmful fats that might affect the body. Nuts have also been cited as a rich source of cholesterol which might have a major impact on the heart.

On the other hand, greens have a significant role in the diet of preventing cardiovascular diseases (Freeman, Morris, Barnard, Esselstyn, Ros, Agatston, … Kris-Etherton, 2017). Gluten and whole plant seeds have a significant part to play in disease prevention. Therefore, in the future, the population must shift towards healthy foods.
References
Freeman, A. M., Morris, P. B., Barnard, N., Esselstyn, C. B., Ros, E., Agatston, A., … Kris-Etherton, P. (2017). Trending Cardiovascular Nutrition Controversies. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 69(9), 1172-1187. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.086