Issues and Advances in Human and Clinical Nutrition

  • Joseph J. Vitale


As any medical historian will testify, the history of medicine is replete with controversies, many of which are related to nutrition. Webster defines the word controversy as a “discussion of a question in which opposing opinions clash; debate, disputation; a quarrel or a dispute; controversy connotes a disagreement of lengthy duration of a matter of some weight or importance.”1 This definition, while adequate for most purposes, is inadequate for others, since it makes no reference to what should or should not be accepted in a discussion of a question. When should the discussion include theoretical considerations, or universally accepted or proven facts? If we allowed only the latter, there would be no controversy nor would any conference ever have been planned. If on the other hand we allow theoretical considerations, we should insist, I believe, that they be connected by a series of simple logical steps to generally accepted knowledge, and that they be put to the best possible experimental test. For example, antihistamines help mitigate effects of the common cold. High doses of vitamin C have antihistaminic effects; therefore high doses of vitamin C may be beneficial to individuals with colds — logical! To carry this further and believe that high doses of vitamin C may prevent the common cold would be illogical.


High Blood Pressure Sodium Intake Ideal Weight Optimal Diet Antihistaminic Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Webster’s New World Dictionary, College Edition. Cleveland, The World Publishing Company, 1962, p 322.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Webster’s New World Dictionary, College Edition. Cleveland, The World Publishing Company, 1962, p 3.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olson RE: Clinical nutrition, an interface between human ecology and internal medicine. Nutr Rev 36: 161, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mann GV: The influence of obesity in health. NEngl JMed 291: 178; 226, 1974.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Select Committee on Nutritional and Human Needs, US Senate: (Revised) Dietary Goals for the United States. Washington, US Government Printing Office, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harper AE: Dietary goals— a skeptical view. Am J Clin Nutr 31: 310, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Committee of Principal Investigators: A cooperative trial in the primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease using clofibrate. Br Heart J 40: 1069, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pearce ML, Dayton S: Incidence of cancer in men on a diet high in polyunsaturated fat. Lancet 1: 464, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Broad WJ: Nutrition’s battle of the Potomac. Nutr Today 14 (4): 6–13, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hegsted DM: Dietary goals—a progressive view. Am J Clin Nutr 31: 1504, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Dairy Council: Cholesterol Metabolism. Dairy Council Digest 50 (6): 31–35. 1979.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mann GV: Diet-heart: end of an era. N Engl J Med 297: 644, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© John Wright · PSG Inc 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph J. Vitale

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations