Several countries have issued dietary recommendations about total and specific fatty acid (FA) intake for the prevention of CHD. For many years until today, controversies have existed especially about the deleterious effect or not of SFA, and the protective effect or not of n-3 PUFA, so that some authors have criticised these recommendations. There are many reasons for these controversies, including the different conclusions of prospective cohort studies compared with randomised clinical trials (RCT), and the contradictory conclusions of meta-analyses depending on the quality, number and type of studies included. The interrelationships between different FA in the diet make it difficult to analyse the specific effect of a particular class of FA on CHD. Furthermore, based on clinical practice and effectiveness of population-based prevention, it is very difficult at the individual level to assess in personal dietary intake the actual percentage and/or amount of SFA contained in each meal or consumed daily/weekly. In this critical narrative review, we try to answer the question of whether it would not be more relevant, in 2020, to promote dietary patterns, rather than FA intake recommendations. We critically analyse past and recent data on the association of FA with CHD, then propose that the Mediterranean diet and Japanese diet should be revitalised for Westerners and Asian populations, respectively. This does not exclude the usefulness of continuing research about effects of FA towards CHD, and accepting that what seems true today might be revised, at least partially tomorrow.
Keywords: Cardiovascular risk; Japanese diet; Mediterranean diet; SFA; Unsaturated fatty acids; n-3 Fatty acids.