food is complicated

[cellio]

My doctor says that my "bad cholesterol" is a smidge high (good's fine) and I should cut down on dairy and red meat. I eat very little red meat (really not much meat at all, though lots of fish), but I did bump up the dairy intake a bit in pursuit of calcium after learning of some family medical history this summer. Ok, fine, I'm perfectly willing to take calcium/D supplements instead, go back to soy milk instead of yogurt for breakfast, etc, but it does raise a question for me.

Presumably it is possible to find the right combination of nutrients in nature, without taking supplements. Sure, our understanding of "right" has changed over time, but for at least several decades I gather that we've grokked the importance of basic vitamins and minerals, and I don't remember supplements being nearly so prevalent a few decades ago as they are now. So how does one get enough good stuff (calcium, protein, vitamins) without getting too much bad stuff (cholesterol, sugar, excess calories), without supplements? What is the canonical modern (wo)man supposed to eat? (The last time I looked at the food pyramid it wasn't very helpful for gleaning details. It also assumed 2000+ calories/day, which a sendentary blob like me shouldn't eat.)

Comments

[gardenfey.livejournal.com]

A book that Ian read last year, "The Omnivore's Dilemma", supposes that the food produced before mono-culture and giant farms was actually healthier.

[cellio]

Interesting. Does the book suggest a dominant cause?

[gardenfey.livejournal.com]

Having the cattle eat mostly corn and corn by-products rather than being free range, if I remember correctly. And consider the manner in which most plants are farmed; by force-feeding them Nitrogen, Potassium, and Phosphorus, with little regard to trace minerals or beneficial organisms.

I also remember reading somewhere that the nation's weight increase shows a direct correlation to the use of high fructose corn syrup.