ReviewJACC. Advances2026
A Clinician's Guide for Trending Cardiovascular Nutritional Controversies in 2026.
Review in JACC. Advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Dietary Protein Quantity, Source, and Type on Plasma Lipids and Lipoproteins and Their Roles in Dyslipidemia Management in Humans.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Nonnutritive Sweeteners and Cardiovascular Risk: Correlation Is Not Causation.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Reply: Nonnutritive Sweeteners and Cardiovascular Risk: Correlation Is Not Causation.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- The ABCs of cardiovascular disease prevention: communicating what we know in 2026.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Review
- Providing Nutrition Guidance in the Absence of Conclusive Evidence: What Is a Clinician to Do?JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Why stable dietary guidelines produce different meanings: an interpretive framework for early guideline impact.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Targeting the cardio-neuro axis through nutrition: inflammatory mechanisms linking cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Stevia-derived sweeteners in reduced-sugar foods: formulation strategies, sensory optimization, nutritional evidence, and safety perspectives.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the broad outlines of a healthy diet are clear, controversy has arisen surrounding certain foods and nutrients. This review updates contemporary nutrition controversies and the extent to which they may promote or protect against cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this review, beef tallow, ultraprocessed foods, full-fat dairy, seed oils, medium chain triglyceride oils, seafood, and alternative sweeteners are considered. Three groupings included: 1) evidence of harm with a recommendation to limit or avoid; 2) lacking in evidence for harm or benefit; and 3) evidence of benefit. The evidence of harm category included beef tallow, due to association with increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, ultraprocessed foods associated with worsened cardiometabolic health, and artificial sweeteners owing to correlations with increased CVD. Within the category lacking in evidence were full-fat dairy, medium chain triglyceride, monk fruit, and stevia. Finally, evidence of benefit included seed oils and seafood based on improved CVD outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.