| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Natural Food of Man - Being an attempt to prove from comparative anatomy, - physiology, chemistry and hygiene, that the original, best - and natural diet of man is fruit and nuts
Author: Carrington, Hereward
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Natural Food of Man - Being an attempt to prove from comparative anatomy, - physiology, chemistry and hygiene, that the original, best - and natural diet of man is fruit and nuts" ***
Transcriber’s Notes
Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations
in hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other
spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.
A paragraph on the Mincopies in Chapter VI refers to the killing of
guianas and bugongs, this may be misspelling of iguana and dugong.
Additionally the Mincopies are referred to as African whereas they were
Andaman Islanders.
The layout of the tables in Chapter IV has been modified to improve
clarity and manage width.
Proteid and protein are both used and have not been standardised.
The index refers to pages 332 and 333, these do not exist.
Footnotes are located at the end of the relevant paragraph.
Italics are represented thus _italic_, and bold thus =bold=.
THE NATURAL FOOD OF MAN
THE NATURAL FOOD
OF MAN
BEING AN ATTEMPT TO PROVE FROM COMPARATIVE
ANATOMY, PHYSIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY AND
HYGIENE, THAT THE ORIGINAL,
BEST AND NATURAL DIET OF
MAN IS FRUIT AND
NUTS
BY
HEREWARD CARRINGTON
AUTHOR OF
“VITALITY, FASTING AND NUTRITION,” “THE COMING SCIENCE,” “DEATH:
ITS CAUSES AND PHENOMENA” (JOINTLY), ETC., ETC.
LONDON
C. W. DANIEL
AMEN CORNER, E.C.
1912
To
MY MOTHER
IN LOVING MEMORY
PREFACE
America has just passed through a great financial crisis—one of the
many which occur from time to time, because of badly adjusted financial
conditions, and as the result of greed—and we hear much talk of “hard
times,” and the lack of money wherewith to buy the necessities of life.
Now, I believe that such “hard times,” and such conditions, could be
largely averted if only the people were taught to live correctly:
taught how to economise their food, and how to take care of their
bodies. There can be no doubt but that much of the waste which occurs
throughout the land is due to ignorance of the great laws of life and
health; and if people were only taught how to reduce their food-supply
scientifically—and not to expend so much money on their bodies, and
especially on their food—there would be but a small amount of suffering
compared with that which has existed in the past. Teach the public
how to preserve the body in a state of health, upon a small amount of
money, and we shall have solved one of the greatest economic factors
confronting us to-day. I believe that this may be brought about, in a
large part at least, by adopting the principles of nutrition outlined
in this book; and I submit it to the public largely with that idea in
mind. But that is only part of my object, none the less. My desire is
to help humanity to secure better health—to teach them how to live
cheaply and economically; above all, how to live so as to preserve the
highest standard of health, strength and energy. We should thus have
a cleaner, a hardier and a happier race of individuals; and I firmly
believe that all true reform—social economic religious—must come
primarily through the body—_i.e._ these reforms can only be effected
by first of all reforming the body, and its habits; and when that has
been rendered clean and pure, the coveted mental and moral reforms will
be found to follow of themselves. External conditions and environment
may count for much, but the internal factor counts for much more. The
internal personality of the man is what we should aim to reach first of
all; and this can be reached most easily and effectually by means if
the body—for in that he is most wrapped; with its feelings and emotions
he is most closely connected. Reform the inner man, and particularly
his body, and trust to man to reform his environment. Make men and
women what they ought to be, and they will soon reform their external
conditions.
I have attempted to deal, in this volume, with the _quality_ of foods,
as I dealt with their _quantity_, in my former book. In this way, the
ground will have been pretty thoroughly covered, from the particular
point of view from which I have attacked these problems. I can only
hope that, as the result of these two volumes, many persons may find
health and a long life, who would otherwise have sunk into a premature
grave. If I could feel that I had in any way helped to accomplish this,
I should be more than satisfied.
H. C.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE 5
I. THE NATURAL FOOD OF MAN 9
II. THE ARGUMENT FROM COMPARATIVE ANATOMY 20
III. THE ARGUMENT FROM PHYSIOLOGY 46
IV. THE ARGUMENT FROM CHEMISTRY 57
V. THE ARGUMENT FROM HYGIENE 96
VI. THE ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE: NATIONS
AND INDIVIDUALS 136
VII. MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS 156
VIII. DAIRY PRODUCTS 167
IX. VEGETABLES 176
X. CEREALS, GRAINS, ETC. 181
XI. CONDIMENTS AND SPICES 187
XII. THE FRUITARIAN DIET 202
XIII. FOOD COMBINATIONS 239
XIV. HYGIENIC FOOD AND HYGIENIC COOKERY 249
XV. THE QUESTION OF QUANTITY 265
XVI. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 274
APPENDIX 279
INDEX 281
The Natural Food of Man
I
THE NATURAL FOOD OF MAN
There can be no doubt that, whatever other function food may or may
not have, it replaces broken-down tissue. The tissue-wastes of the
preceding day are replenished by the food eaten; so the body remains
about the same in weight, no matter how much exercise be taken, or
how much tissue is broken down. These tissues are very complex in
their nature, and a variety of food is consequently necessary to
restore the tissues destroyed—food containing a number of elements
(the counterpart of the elements destroyed), being necessary to
offset the waste. Proteid, fats, carbohydrates, and various salts
are, therefore, necessary in the food; and no food that does not
contain these constituents, in larger or smaller quantities, can be
used by the body, or can be classed as a true “food.” Other things
being equal, therefore, it may be said that _a food is nutritious and
capable of sustaining life in proportion to its complexity—the best
food being one that most nearly supplies the wastes of the tissues_.
If an article of diet contains only one of the essential elements
necessary for supporting life, the body, if fed upon it, will waste
away and die—no matter _how much_ of that food be eaten. In certain
experiments conducted upon dogs, it was found that, when they were fed
upon fat—_e.g._ they became round, plump, _embonpoint_, and yet died of
inanition! The same would be true of any other single article of diet.
If an animal were fed upon it, he would surely die, sooner or later.
Proteids are supposed to supply most of the muscle-forming elements,
and a part of the energy expended by the body; fats and carbohydrates
are supposed to be of use chiefly in supplying heat and energy to the
system. The mineral salts that are contained in the foods do not fulfil
any definite function, so far as is known; but they are very essential,
nevertheless. If a diet lacks these salts entirely, the body wastes
away and dies of “saline starvation.” It will thus be apparent that
foods very rapidly and very forcibly affect the state of the health,
and even the life of the individual. Food, it must be remembered,
_makes blood_; and the blood is absolutely dependent upon the food
supply for its character and composition. If the food be poisonous in
character, the blood soon becomes tainted, and the mind, no less than
the body, shows the effects of this poisoning process. On any theory we
may hold of the nature of mind, and its connection with the body, it
is certainly _dependent_ upon the body for its manifestation, in this
life; and is coloured and influenced by the state of the body, and by
the condition of the blood. This I have shown more fully in another
place. We shall also see the effects of diet upon the mind, more
clearly, as we proceed in the present volume.
From what has been said, it will at all events be apparent that this
question of the food supply is a very important one—indeed one of
the most important before the world to-day. The first thought, the
first instinct, of any animal, is to search for and secure food;
self-preservation is the most powerful instinct in the world, and the
nutrition of the body occupies first place, as one means of preserving
life. In the lower organisms, we see this very clearly; they spend
almost the whole of their lives in searching for and devouring food;
but as we ascend the scale of evolution, we find less and less space
devoted, in the body, to the digestive organs, and more and more to the
brain, and instruments of the mind. It would appear, therefore, that
the higher we ascend in the scale of evolution, the less proportionate
space in the body is devoted to the purely animal processes, and the
more to the mental and spiritual sides of man. _As the mentality
increases, the need for food decreases_: this is a very significant
law—for such I believe it to be. It would seem to indicate that man
attained the highest level, so far as his physical or physiological
structure was concerned; and that evolution thenceforward tended to
develop that side of man which rendered possible the increased mental
and spiritual characteristics. However, I shall not dwell too strongly
upon that point now.
Although an adequate supply of food is very necessary to all organisms,
there is but little danger that anyone in a civilised community would
run the risk of starving to death, because of the lack of food. The
tendency is all the other way, and most persons eat, not too little,
but far too much, food. Even the very poor, and especially the babies
of the very poor—eat too often, and too much. This may seem strange,
but it becomes more rational and intelligible when we take into account
the fact that the human body needs _so little food_, in reality, to
supply the wastes of the day, that the very poor, even if they have
far less food than the majority, still have too much. The average
person eats at least three times more food than his system really
requires; and it is due to this very fact, I earnestly believe, that
much of the suffering and of the insanity, and many of the diseases,
are so constantly with us. In his recently published works, Professor
Chittenden has shown with great detail that the average standard
“dietary tables” of the physiologists have been far too high; and that
the average man can cut down his proteid intake fully one third,
without detriment, but, on the contrary, with added benefit to himself.
The majority of persons eat far more than the physiologists have said
to be necessary; and now it has been shown that the physiologists have
set the standard three times too high! It would appear, therefore, that
most persons eat more than three times too much proteid; and the same
has been found to hold good of the fats and carbohydrates, in a lesser
degree, also. But while the fats and carbohydrates can be eliminated by
the system, or stored up within it, without positive danger, proteid
in excess creates an abundance of uric acid, and causes much harm to
the system throughout. It is the excess of proteid that is the chief
cause of many of the diseases from which mankind suffers; and, if
health is to be maintained, we must see to it that this great excess
is not ingested into the body. While keeping up the due allowance, we
must be careful not to eat those foods which tend to introduce this
excess into the system; and, by avoiding them, it will be seen that we
thereby avoid all danger of creating an undue amount of uric acid, and
consequently of suffering from the induced diseases.
Now, it is a well-known fact that meat contains a large proportion of
protein; and further, that it has a great tendency to create uric acid
in the system, owing to the decaying cell-nuclei that form a large
part of its structure. Meat is by no means a clean article of diet,
but on the contrary a very unclean one; and many foods, supplying an
equal amount of proteid matter, are to be preferred, for the reason
that they supply less toxic material—which invariably accompanies
flesh-meat. It must be remembered that the tissues of all animals
contain a certain amount of poisonous material—simply by reason of the
fact that the animal has lived at all—since all animals are constantly
creating poisons within their bodies, by the very process of living.
These poisons are being thrown off by the body every minute throughout
the day; and it is because of that fact the animal is enabled to
remain alive at all. Were this process of elimination checked for a
few hours, death by poisoning would inevitably result—in consequence
of the poisons formed by the body itself. All animals, then, create
these poisons; and it would be impossible to find an animal body
without them. So that, when we eat the flesh of any animal, we must
eat, together with the nutritious portions, these poisons—which are
practically inseparable from all animal tissue. That is, whenever we
eat meat, we invariably eat, at the same time, a certain quantity of
poison—which it is impossible to avoid! I shall elaborate this idea at
considerable length in my chapter on the hygiene of diet. In this place
I shall only call attention to that fact—the strongest argument of all,
to my mind, for abstaining from flesh; and shall point out that, if any
diet furnishes all the nutritious properties of meat, without these
poisons, it is certainly to be preferred, on that account. We shall
see, when we come to the chapter devoted to the chemistry of foods,
that all the elements contained in meat are also contained in a purer
and better form in other substances—grains, some vegetables, and in
nuts—and in as large or larger proportions than they are in meat.
It will thus be seen that certain foods are better for us than others—a
fact which daily observation confirms. Everyone knows that certain
articles of diet are indigestible, others not so much so: that some are
nutritious, and others hardly of any food value at all. Some foods are
better for us than others, therefore; and, if we wish to maintain our
health, it is obvious that we should eat those foods, and only those
foods, as a general thing, which can be shown to be of use and benefit
to the body. If some foods are thus more wholesome than others,
does it not behove everyone interested in the health and care of his
body—and especially all those interested in hygiene, or the improvement
of the race—to endeavour to ascertain what these foods are, those most
natural and best for the human body; and, having found them, to advise
all who wish to maintain their bodies in the highest state of health,
to live upon these foods—or at least to make them the staple articles
of their diet? Believing this to be most certainly true, I shall devote
myself, in the present volume, to a careful search through the records
and evidences of science, and endeavour to ascertain in what man’s
natural food consists; and, having found the food which is indicated by
nature as the best and most natural for man, I shall proceed to give
my reasons for thinking that this food is the most wholesome, and why
it is that all other foods must be more or less harmful to the system.
This done, we shall be in a position to define what foods are “natural”
for man, and indicate why it is that they are the most wholesome.
In order to clarify the problem, then, and clear away any
misconceptions that may arise in the reader’s mind, I shall state
here what my conclusions are, and my reasons for thinking them sound.
Assuming that there is an “ideal” diet of some sort—that upon which the
human race originally lived, and which it should still live upon, if
it wishes to maintain the best possible health—I have gone carefully
through the various food-stuffs, and, by careful analysis, have shown
that all meats are injurious to the body, for the reason that they are
not suited to it, by reason of its anatomical structure—and, further,
by the facts of experience and hygiene, which clearly indicate that if
man eats meat, he suffers in consequence. These arguments will be found
in full in the book. I also found that there were many objections to
all vegetables, to cereals, grains and flour of all kinds; to soups,
to bread and eggs, to butter, milk, cheese, and to all dairy products.
Most cookbooks and works devoted to the hygiene of foods have been in
the habit of pointing out all the beneficial and _good_ qualities of
these foods, and saying very little about their _bad_ qualities. In
this book, I have pointed out all the bad qualities, and have insisted
that these so far offset their good qualities as to show them utterly
unfitted for human food, and consequently to be discarded from any
truly hygienic diet. Thus, by a process of elimination, we are forced
to the conclusion that the only foods that are really natural to man,
those best suited to his organism, are fruits and nuts—the diet of
his anthropoid brethren, and man’s own natural diet, as is clearly
indicated by his anatomical structure. Fruits and nuts will alone
suffice to maintain the human body in the highest state of health; and
are the foods which should be adopted, and eaten, by mankind, to the
exclusion of all others. From them, he can obtain all the elements
necessary for the upbuilding of a healthy body; and from them he can
derive the greatest amount of health and strength, and the greatest
amount of energy.
Many persons would be willing to concede, I fancy, that man can
live without meat—indeed, there is no escaping this conclusion,
since thousands of persons are actually doing so. But not very many
would be willing to concede, probably, that all breads, grains, and
vegetables are to be abandoned as unfit for human food also! They
would be unwilling to admit that! And yet I think it can be shown very
conclusively that none of these foods are intended for the human being,
any more than is the grass of the field. Each _genus_ has its own
particular food, allotted by nature; and man’s food consists—or should
consist—of fruit and nuts. Further, these fruits and nuts should be
eaten uncooked—in their original, primitive form. I am convinced that
cooking ruins nearly all foods treated in that manner—my arguments for
this will be found in full in the chapter on “The Fruitarian Diet.”
If this be true, as I most firmly believe it is—it will be seen that
practically all other foods are naturally barred out, by the very
nature of the case. Certainly no one would care to eat his meat raw;
and all vegetables, with very few exceptions, would also fall under the
ban, for but few of them can well be eaten without cooking. Grains,
also, are very unappetising, when eaten raw, and it is now well known
that but a small amount of their starch is converted properly, in the
body, unless the grains are well cooked; so that all these foods would
be eliminated from the diet, and practically nothing left but fruits
and nuts! Although this may seem appalling to the average reader, it
is the logical outcome of the theory, and I am convinced the right
interpretation of the facts. The fruitarian diet is the one best suited
for man; and the one upon which he can live best and longest. I myself
have lived upon this fruit and nut diet almost exclusively for several
years, and I may perhaps say that I am always in excellent spirits and
condition, and a source of constant surprise to my friends in that I
seem to possess an untiring energy and ability for work. I say this,
not to boast, but to show that a diet of this character is perfectly
compatible with health and strength; and I believe that almost any
person could double his energies, his health, and his self-respect by
adopting a diet of this character. For it has a tremendous effect upon
the mental and moral, no less than upon the physical life, as I shall
presently endeavour to show.
With the invention of fire, however, many articles of food became
edible which had not been edible before. Finding that grains and
roots, and certain weeds (vegetables) could be eaten, when cooked,
although they were uneatable when raw, man took to cooking his food,
and substituting this food for a portion of his original diet—which was
probably scarce at the time. In this way, the cooking of food probably
originated. It began in the far-off ages, and has been handed down to
us—a legacy of barbarism, to which man rigidly clings, in the vain
effort to preserve a distinction between himself and other animals—who
do not cook their food—because of this fact! He prides himself that he
is the only “cooking animal”! If man would only learn that it is owing
to this very process of cooking that much of the suffering, and many of
the ills from which mankind suffers, are due!
Many persons imagine that, if they returned to a primitive diet of
this character, they would become as the savages—wild and uncivilised.
They “don’t want to become like the animals,” they will say. They
wish to remain “civilised,” and not return to a state of savagery
and barbarism! There is no logic in this argument—indeed, no sense.
Because a man lives upon fruits and nuts, it is, of course, no reason
why he should return to a primitive state, _mentally_; indeed, there
is far less evidence for this than there is that man becomes like the
carnivorous animals by eating meat. There is evidence for that! But
living upon fruits and nuts has no other effect than to elevate the
tone and character of the body; to increase its energies and to render
the mind clearer and more active. If these objectors to the fruitarian
diet would only study physiology and human nature before passing any
such absurd judgment upon the facts, their arguments would have more
force—but then, in that case, they would not raise the arguments at
all! Of course, this whole idea is conclusively proved to be erroneous
by the facts in the case.
There is one other point I should like to touch upon, though briefly,
before passing on to the main argument of the book. The usual position
with regard to food, and its functions in the body is this. Food has
three functions: (1) The replacement of tissues which have been broken
down as the result of the day’s work; (2) the maintenance of the bodily
energy; and (3) the maintenance of the bodily heat. Now, in my former
book,[1] I advanced a number of facts tending to show that food has but
_one_ function—replacing broken-down tissue. It supplies no heat and no
energy whatever to the body, at any time, or under any circumstances.
Both the heat and the energy are due to another source altogether,
and not to the food ingested.[2] I cannot enumerate the arguments in
support of this position here; they will be found in full in the work
referred to; but I would point out that, if this theory were true,
it would cause us to modify very largely the views entertained as
to the necessary amount of food required by the body. Now, a large
percentage of the food eaten is supposed to create heat and energy,
or at least liberate it, and is eaten for that express purpose. But
if it be true that food has no other function than to supply the body
with material for the rebuilding of its structures and tissues, it
will be apparent that far _less_ food is necessary than is usually
thought to be necessary by the physiologists; and this would account
for the enormous differences in quantity said to be necessary by the
various physiologists. The truth of the matter doubtless is, that the
_smallest_ amount of food is that which is necessary, and all amounts
over and above this are passed through the body at an expense of the
vital energies, and to the detriment of the vital economy. However, I
shall not dwell unduly upon this point, in this place; partly because
Dr Rabagliati and myself are, as yet, practically alone in our belief
that the energy of the body does not come from the food; and partly
because this book is devoted to the _quality_ of the various foods,
rather than to their _quantity_—as was my former book. Both—quantity
and quality—are of great interest and importance; but as I have already
said all that is necessary regarding one aspect of this question—that
of quantity—I feel that a somewhat detailed discussion of the “quality”
of food could not fail to be of interest. I accordingly turn to this
aspect of the problem; and shall devote the remaining pages of this
book to a discussion of the relative qualities and proportions of the
various foods.
[1] “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition.”
[2] At first sight this position seems, of course, absurd, and opposed
to the well-known facts of calorimetry: but such is not the case. All
the known facts as to the equivalence of energy, heat, work, etc.,
can be accounted for just as readily on my theory of the relations
of food and bodily energy—viz. that the energy is restored by sleep
(the nervous system, like an electric motor) and not by combustion,
as in the steam engine. As to the equivalence noted, this can be
accounted for by assuming that as energy acts upon matter, it wastes;
and this waste is made good by a proportionate amount of food. There
is therefore an equivalence, a relation, but it is not that of cause
and effect. For the details of this theory, however, see “Vitality,
Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 225-303 _et seq._ necessary by the
various physiologists. The truth of the matter doubtless is, that
the _smallest_ amount of food is that which is necessary, and all
amounts over and above this are passed through the body at an expense
of the vital energies, and to the detriment of the vital economy.
However, I shall not dwell unduly upon this point, in this place;
partly because Dr Rabagliati and myself are, as yet, practically
alone in our belief that the energy of the body does not come from
the food; and partly because this book is devoted to the _quality_ of
the various foods, rather than to their _quantity_—as was my former
book. Both—quantity and quality—are of great interest and importance;
but as I have already said all that is necessary regarding one aspect
of this question—that of quantity—I feel that a somewhat detailed
discussion of the “quality” of food could not fail to be of interest.
I accordingly turn to this aspect of the problem; and shall devote the
remaining pages of this book to a discussion of the relative qualities
and proportions of the various foods.
II
THE ARGUMENT FROM COMPARATIVE ANATOMY
Perhaps the most important factor of all, in considering this question
of man’s natural diet, is the anatomical argument—the argument, that
is, which says that man must or should naturally eat certain foods,
for the reason that he belongs to the class or _genus_ of animals
which lives upon that class of foods—and that, consequently, he
should live upon them also. Comparative anatomy affords us one of
the most tangible and at the same time one of the most forceful and
convincing arguments that can be furnished in favour of man’s natural
diet (whatever that may prove to be)—for the reason that its _facts_
are so well-attested that they cannot be gainsaid by anyone who is in
possession of them; and only the _inferences drawn from these facts_
can be disputed—which is a question that will be considered later. As
before stated, this line of argument is in many ways the most important
with which we shall have to deal; it will tend either to condemn or
to confirm my argument most strongly. From a scientific standpoint,
the study of this subject is founded upon the fact that the diet of
any animal, in its natural state, is always found to agree both with
its anatomical structure and with its several digestive processes and
general bodily functions. So clearly is this fact recognised, indeed,
by comparative anatomists and scientists generally, that animals have
been divided, according to their dietetic habits, into four great
classes—herbivorous, frugivorous, carnivorous and omnivorous. There are
various sub-and minor-divisions that can be and in fact are made—such
as the gramnivora, or grain-eaters; the rodentia, or gnawers; the
ruminants, or cud-chewers; and the edentata or creatures without teeth.
These subdivisions need not concern us here, however; and I shall not
discuss their anatomical structure or food-habits at any length. Their
names sufficiently classify them—in a work of this nature, which deals
with _foods_, and is not a natural history. For practical purposes,
the gramnivora may be included in the class of frugivora—since most
frugivorous animals eat grains to some extent. This understood, we can
proceed to a consideration of the facts; and we shall see to which of
these classes man belongs.
In order to classify an animal, and place him in his proper division,
it is necessary first of all to make a careful examination of his
physical structure, and examine his organs in turn and severally, with
the utmost care; when, by a comparative study of his organs, and by
comparing them with those of other animals, living upon other foods,
we shall be enabled to classify man properly—at least, so far as the
evidence afforded by comparative anatomy enables us to reach a decisive
conclusion one way or the other. There are numerous other facts and
arguments to be taken into consideration; but, as said before, the
argument drawn from comparative anatomy is the most complete and
convincing of all—since that alone practically settles the case for all
other animals. Let us, therefore, consider the structure or anatomy of
man, from this point of view; and see how far these arguments lead us,
and to what class we should naturally assign man, from a study of these
facts alone. I shall take up for discussion first of all the teeth.
THE TEETH
_The Herbivora._—Let us consider first the teeth of the herbivorous
animal. The horse, the ox, and the sheep are typical of this class of
animals—living, as they do, almost entirely upon grass and herbs. The
character of their food is peculiar. It is bulky, coarse, and covered
with sharp, cutting edges—ill suited for tender mouths and gums. It
must be mashed and ground thoroughly between the teeth and in the mouth
before it is fit to be swallowed; and teeth of a peculiar construction
and mutual relation are necessary in order properly to perform this
function. Just such teeth they possess. There are twenty-four molars,
six on each side in each jaw; and in the lower jaw, in front, eight
incisors, or cutting teeth, with none on the upper jaw. In place of any
of these teeth on the upper jaw, there is simply a horny plate upon
which the long incisors of the lower jaw impinge when the jaws are
closed. This renders possible the tearing, grinding motions necessary
for biting off and masticating the food upon which these animals live.
Not only that. The actual _structure_ of their teeth is peculiarly
suited to their food and its mastication. Unlike our teeth, they are
not covered with enamel, but are composed of alternate layers of enamel
and dentine—a soft, bony substance lying between the layers of enamel,
and wearing away more rapidly than it does. The result is that there
is soon formed a series of jagged edges, which form cutting, grinding
surfaces, and are especially adapted for the food which these animals
feed upon. No such formation is present in any other class of animals,
since their food is different from that of the herbivora. It is a wise
provision of nature, precisely adapted to the desired ends.
_The Insectivora._—The insect-eaters are more nearly related to the
Rodentia than to the Carnivora. The form of teeth varies with the
species. The incisors and canines are not especially prominent, but the
molars are always serrated with numerous small-pointed eminences, or
cusps, adapted to crushing insects. The three leading families of the
Insectivora are the moles, the shrew-mice, and the hedgehogs. They are
of small size, and are found in all countries, except in South America
and Australia.
_The Rodentia._—The Rodentia is a peculiar order of animals,
characterised by two very long and strong teeth in each jaw, which
occupy the place of the incisors and canines in other animals. Back
of these there is a toothless space, and then four or five molars,
which, when they have a roughened crown, indicate a vegetable, but when
pointed, an insectivorous, diet. Their principal foods are grains and
seeds of all kinds, and with these, often, fruits, nuts and acorns. To
this order belong the families of the squirrel, marmot, all species of
mice, the beaver, porcupine, hare, and others.
An especial dietetic subdivision of the Rodentia is the Rhizophaga,
or root-eaters, which includes some species of the Marsupials, and of
mice. The food often consists exclusively of the roots of the beet,
carrot, celery and onion.
_The Edentata._—Occasionally, though rarely, animals of this class have
rudimentary back teeth. Their food consists of leaves, blossoms, buds,
and juicy stalks. Some also devour insects, especially ants. To this
order belong the sloth, armadillo, pangolin, and great ant-eater.
_The Omnivora._—Omnivorous animals have very distinctive teeth. The
canines are markedly developed, forming regular tusks at the side of
the mouth. These are used for attack and defence, and also to dig up
roots, upon which these animals largely feed. The hog is typical of
omnivorous animals of this character, and we all know his disposition
no less than his anatomy! Animals of this class can live upon both
animal and vegetable food, and _man_ is supposed to be included
in this category! The great argument brought forward by those who
recommend a “mixed” diet (_i.e._ one composed of flesh, vegetables,
fruits, roots, grains, etc.), is that man can live on all these foods,
and retain life and some degree of health, and that therefore he is
omnivorous. We shall come to consider this argument somewhat at length
presently. For the moment, it is enough to say that (so far as his
teeth are considered, at any rate) man is in no way similar to the hog,
or to any omnivorous animal whatever, but totally different from all of
them. The most casual glance at the mouth and teeth of the hog should
convince us that we are not in _that_ class! The other considerations
we shall come to later.
_The Carnivora._—The next great class that we must consider is the
_carnivora_. Their teeth are very distinctive, and their shape and
arrangement are entirely different from those of any of the other
animals. There are the incisor teeth in front, and molars behind; but
the most distinctive teeth are the canine, which especially distinguish
this class of feeders. There are four of these—two in each jaw, placed
upon the sides, and they are long, sharp, and pointed. The more nearly
the animal is purely carnivorous, the more are these teeth developed,
and the less meat the animal eats, the less are they developed. Thus,
the feline species, which is perhaps the most typically carnivorous
of all, have canine teeth very well developed; in them, they are most
marked. In such animals, the canine teeth are also set considerably
apart from other teeth. In the dog, however, the teeth are less
prominent than they are in the cat; his claws, eyes, etc., are also
less distinctly carnivorous, and it will be observed that his habits
are decidedly less like those of the preying animal than are those of
the cat: he sleeps at night instead of in the daytime; does not adopt
the stealthy methods for catching birds, etc., which the cat follows.
All this has its significance when it is remembered that dogs are much
more easily weaned away from a flesh diet, on to one of milk, bread,
biscuits, etc., than are cats, who are very difficult to wean from
their carnivorous habits. This, however, is by the way.
In the bear family, again, the carnivorous characteristics are still
less marked. The canine teeth are less and the molars and incisors
more developed—the latter having a flat but roughened crown. All this
indicates a still nearer approach to a vegetable and fruit diet—as is
actually the case. The bear, as is well known, is fond of berries,
fruits of all kinds, milk and honey.
* * * * *
Man, has, of course, two “eye teeth,” which are more or less pointed,
and that I do not deny. But these teeth are comparatively so small,
when compared with the corresponding canines of the real carnivora, as
to be altogether insignificant. When we examine the mouth of a person
with normal teeth, we find that the teeth are almost exactly similar
in size and shape—so much so, in fact, that any person ignorant of
the fact that we have “carnivorous teeth” in our heads (supposedly)
cannot pick them out from the others! He does not experience any such
difficulty in selecting the carnivorous teeth of the tiger or the cat!
Strange, is it not? Even the omnivorous hog has teeth so much larger as
to be totally dissimilar to those of man. Man’s teeth are so uniform
that all traces of his carnivorous nature have entirely disappeared.
The only reply that can be made to this criticism is that, although
man’s carnivorous teeth are considerably smaller than those of the pure
carnivora, they are still _there_, none the less, and consequently man
is entitled to live upon a _certain amount_ of meat—though not to make
it his chief or exclusive diet, as do the pure carnivora. The very
fact that he has such teeth in his head at all is proof positive, it
will be urged, that man should, or at least _can_, without injury, live
upon flesh to some extent. For otherwise how came these teeth into his
head?
The answer to this is very simple. The gorilla—a typical example
of the frugivorous animal—has these teeth much more strongly and
markedly developed than man; and yet he does not feed upon flesh to
any appreciable extent; and in fact lives almost entirely upon fruits,
nuts, roots, etc. If we were to argue that man must eat meat, because
of the carnivorous teeth in his head, _much more_ must we insist that
the orang and the gorilla should live upon flesh-food—and yet we know
that these animals in their natural state do not eat flesh-foods at
all, or only when they cannot obtain their own food in abundance!
_They_ are clearly frugivorous by nature; and, inasmuch as their
eye-teeth are far more developed than are the same teeth in man’s head,
we must come to the conclusion that man is certainly not adapted to
a flesh diet, on account of his teeth or because of them. He is more
certainly frugivorous than the gorilla—were we to judge by the teeth
alone! They are mere rudiments—atrophied relics of bygone ages. Their
use has ceased to be. Orangs and gorillas have some need of their teeth
for purposes of cracking nuts, for digging up roots, for attack and
defence, and perhaps other purposes in extreme necessity. But _we_ have
no need of teeth for any of these reasons, and hence the teeth are not
developed in us, to any such great extent. All reason and analogy,
therefore, clearly indicate that our teeth are far more indicative of a
frugivorous diet than any animal living.
“I can never mention vegetarianism to a flesh-eating medical
gentleman,” said Dr Trall,[3] “who does not introduce the teeth
argument as the conclusion of the whole matter, as he asks
triumphantly, ‘What were carnivorous teeth put in our jaws for if not
to eat flesh?’
[3] “Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism,” pp. 25-26.
“I have an answer. They were never put there at all! If they really
exist in particular cases, it must be by some accident. They were no
part of the original constitution of humanity. And in truth, they have
no existence at all, except in the imaginations of medical men—in
medical books and journals, in the public newspapers, and the jaws of
carnivorous animals....
“And now I propose to put this matter of teeth to the proof. Hearing
may be believing, but seeing is the naked truth. I ask medical men to
show their teeth; to open their jaws and let their teeth be seen. Let
us have the light to shine in upon this dark and perplexing question.
I appeal from their statements to their faces; from their books and
schools to their own anatomy.
“Is there a person here who believes that, in the anatomy of his
teeth, he is only part human? that he is a compromise of human and
brute? Let him come forward and open his mouth.... I think, if we
make a careful examination, we shall readily discover that he is,
‘toothically considered,’ neither perdaceous nor beastial; that he is,
dietetically, neither swinish nor tigerocious; neither dogmatical nor
categorical; nor is he exactly graminivorous, like the cattle; he is
not even sheepish—but simply, wholly, and exclusively human!
“True, there are some resemblances between the teeth of men, women
and children, and the teeth of cats, dogs, lions, tigers, hogs,
horses, cattle, crocodiles, and megalosauruses. But there are
differences, too! And the differences are just as significant as are
the resemblances. There is a resemblance between a man’s face and the
countenance of a codfish. There is also a striking difference. There
is some resemblance between a man’s features—especially if he does not
shave—and the features of a bear. There is some resemblance between a
woman’s hair and a peacock’s feathers; between a man’s finger-nails
and a vulture’s talons; between his eye-teeth and a serpent’s fangs.
But, luckily for us, they are not the same, nor precisely alike. Man
resembles, more or less, every animal in existence. He differs, too,
more or less, from all animals in existence....
“There is one class of scholars who are competent and qualified by
their studies to give an opinion on the question of the natural
dietetic character of man. I mean naturalists, who have studied
comparative anatomy with a special reference to this question. And
it gives me pleasure to inform medical gentlemen that all of them
without a single exception, with the great Cuvier at their head, have
testified that the anatomical conformation of the human being, teeth
included, is strictly frugivorous.
“There are indeed specimens of the human family who very closely
resemble carnivorous animals, not only in their teeth, but also
in their expressions of face and habits of eating—the Kalmuck
Tartars, for example. But it is precisely because they have for many
generations fed on the grossest animal food and offal, that their
forms and features became coarse, brutal and revolting. No such
example can be found in any nation or tribe whose dietetic habits
have long been wholly or even chiefly vegetarian. I repeat, if these
persistent advocates of a flesh-diet based on the anatomical argument
will but come forward and let us look into the interior of their
countenances, we will show them that they are much better than they
supposed themselves to be. We will prove that they are higher in the
scale of being than they have given themselves credit for. They have
been altogether too modest in their pretensions. In consequence of a
little mistake in the anatomy of their masticators, they have humbled
themselves quite unnecessarily. Instead of ranking themselves high
above the highest, of the animal kingdom, and close on to the borders
of the angel kingdom, where God placed them, they have degraded
themselves to the level of the scavengers....”
Further, it is interesting in this connection to note that anthropoid
apes, as soon as they are deprived of their natural food and their
natural life, soon become diseased and die. Says Dr Hartmann:
“Anthropoids when kept in confinement suffer from caries of the teeth,
and jaws, from chronic and acute bronchial catarrhs, from inflammation
and consumption of the lungs, from inflammation of the liver, from
pericardial dropsy, from parasites of the skin and intestine, etc.”[4]
[4] “Anthropoid Apes,” p. 284.
This is interesting as an illustration of the effects of perverted
living upon apes; and suggests that man cannot depart from his natural
food to any great extent, either, without dire consequences to himself.
The thousands of sick and dying in every part of the country, the
well-filled hospitals and overflowing graveyards unfortunately prove
this to be the case!
Moreover, the eye-teeth of the anthropoid apes are of a totally
different character from the canine teeth of the carnivora. The former
are small and stout, and somewhat triangular; while the latter are
long, round and slender. It is a noteworthy fact that the anthropoid
eye-tooth is rough and cartilaginous at the point of contact between
the external tooth and the gum, while that of the carnivora at the same
point is smooth and sharp. The eye-tooth of the anthropoids is adapted
for use in cracking nuts and the like, while those of the carnivora are
exclusively employed in seizing and tearing flesh. Professor Nicholson,
in his “Manual of Zoology,” pp. 604-605, says of the anthropoid apes:
“The canine teeth of the males are long, strong and pointed, but this
is not the case with the females. The structure, therefore, of the
canine teeth is to be regarded in the light of a sexual peculiarity,
and not as having any connection with the nature of the food.”
The teeth of man are inferior in strength to those of the anthropoid
apes, but the cause of this is to be sought not so much in their
original character as in the fact that they have been weakened and
degenerated by the use of cooked food for thousands of years.
It may perhaps be objected that anthropoid apes, which have been cited
as typical frugivorous animals, are not so much so as I have contended;
that, while their _chief_ food is doubtless fruits and nuts, they do
occasionally feed upon all kinds of substances—roots, insects, small
animals when they can catch them, etc. Thus Professor Robert Hartmann
in his “Anthropoid Apes” p. 255 says:
“Although they are for the most part content with vegetable diet,
gibbons sometimes eat animal food, such as lizards; and Bennet saw a
siamang seize and devour one of these animals whole.... They do not,
however, display the keenness of scent and quickness of sight which
distinguish some animals of a lower order; such as canine beasts of
prey and ruminants manifest in many different ways.” (p. 256).
Now, it will be noticed in the above connection that (1) these
apes are, by reason of their peculiar anatomical and physiological
construction, incapable of competing with the carnivora for food of
that character—and hence naturally disqualified to live upon it; and
(2) these animals do not _naturally_ live upon this food by choice,
when other and, to them, more natural food is forthcoming. Only in the
last stages of hunger do they resort to food of this nature, which they
are obviously driven to by extremity, and are disqualified to eat by
reason of their peculiar construction. An animal can be driven to eat
anything if he is hungry enough. That does not prove that what he eats
is his natural food, nevertheless! Instinct, and other considerations,
must determine that.
_The Frugivora._—The orang and the gorilla are perhaps the best
examples of this class of animals. Some bats and kangaroos may be
included in it also. Animals belonging to this class have thirty-two
teeth—sixteen in each jaw; four incisors or cutting teeth; two pointed
teeth, known as cuspids, four small molars, known as bicuspids, and six
molars. The eye-teeth project somewhat beyond the others and fit into a
blank space in the lower row, the other teeth articulating uniformly. I
have referred to the uses of this large eye-tooth elsewhere (p. 29).
_The Teeth of Man._—Now when we come to consider the teeth of man,
we are at once struck by the fact that they correspond, in almost
every particular, with the teeth of the gorilla and other frugivorous
animals; and the fact they do not at all resemble or correspond to
the teeth of any other animal! To the teeth of the herbivora, the
carnivora, the omnivora, etc., they bear but the slightest resemblance,
while they agree in almost every respect with the teeth of frugivorous
animals. If we compare the teeth of man with those of the orang, the
gorilla, or other frugivorous animal, we find that the number, the
arrangement, the structure, the nature, and the size of the teeth are
almost identical; while they bear but the smallest resemblances to
the teeth of any other animal or _genera_. The complete absence of
intervening spaces between the human teeth characterises man as the
highest and purest example of the frugivorous animal. Man possesses no
long, canine tooth, capable of catching and holding a captured prey;
he possesses no tusks, like the omnivorous animals, and in every other
way bears no resemblance whatever to any other animal—while his teeth
do bear the very greatest and most detailed resemblance to the teeth of
the apes and frugivorous animals generally. Bearing all these facts in
mind, then, we surely can have no hesitation in classifying man as a
frugivorous animal—so far as his teeth are concerned. Considered from
that point of view, man must be classed with the pure frugivora.
* * * * *
Not only in the number and structure of the teeth, but also in the
manner of masticating the food—in the movements of the teeth and jaws
themselves—there is a distinct resemblance between man and the apes and
other frugivora, and a radical distinction between him and all other
animals. In herbivorous animals the jaws have three distinct motions—a
vertical, or up-and-down motion; lateral or sidewise; and forward and
backward. These movements are frequent and free, the result being that
food eaten by these animals undergoes a thorough grinding process well
suited to the nature of their food. In the carnivorous animals, on the
other hand, the movements of the jaws are in one direction only—they
open and shut “like a pair of scissors,” as one author said, and are
well adapted for tearing and biting off food that is to be swallowed
more or less _en masse_, to be acted upon by the powerful gastric
juices of the stomach. No such limited action is the case with man.
With him also the jaws can move in three directions—as in the case of
the herbivora—but the extent of such motion is much more limited. In
other words, the jaws of man are adapted to a diet necessitating more
or less grinding, and he may be classed with the herbivora on that
account. Whatever might be said, however, by way of associating man
with the herbivora, he is certainly as distinct as possible from the
carnivora, and resembles other animals far more than he resembles them.
He is certainly _not_ carnivorous, whatever else he may be!
Having thus passed in review the evidence presented by the teeth for
the naturally frugivorous nature of man, we must now turn and examine
the evidence afforded by the other organs of the body; and see how
far comparative anatomy affords proof of the nature of man’s diet—as
derived from a study of the other portions of his bodily frame. I shall
review these in turn. First let us consider the _extremities_.
* * * * *
_The Extremities._—According to Huxley, there are three great divisions
in the animal kingdom, as regards the extremities—viz. those which
possess hoofs, those possessing claws, and those possessing hands. To
the first division belong the herbivora and the omnivora. Almost all
animals possessing claws are carnivorous, while animals possessing
hands are almost invariably frugivorous. To this rule there are very
few exceptions. Since man certainly belongs to the class possessed
of hands, he is certainly frugivorous by nature. The reason for this
becomes apparent when we stop to consider the habits of the various
animals. The herbivora have no need for hands; they have merely to
walk about the grassy plains, and partake of what nature has offered
to them in abundance. The carnivorous animal, on the other hand, takes
his food by violence—suddenly springing upon some defenceless and
unresisting animal, and tearing it to pieces with its sharp teeth and
claws. For this reason they are developed to the size and extent we
see—capable of inflicting such terrible injuries. And here I would
again call attention to what I said before—as to the carnivorous
traits and characteristics of the cat as compared with those of the
dog. The teeth and claws are far more developed in the former than
in the latter. In man, of course, his teeth and claws are entirely
unfitted for any such office. The soft, yielding nails are absolutely
unlike the long, sharp claws of the carnivora: nothing could be more
dissimilar. But if we compare the hands and extremities of man with
those of other frugivorous animals, there is a very close similarity
between them. The reason for this is that man (like the apes) can and
should go out into the open fields and forests and pick his food off
the trees. The human hand is eminently adapted to this end and for this
purpose; but is quite _un_adapted for any such purposes as the claws
of the carnivora are adapted for. I may remark here, incidentally,
that all carnivorous animals _drink by lapping up the water_ or other
liquid with their tongues; while man, and all vegetarian animals,
_drink by suction_—by drawing up the fluid directly into the mouth.
This is a very distinguishing characteristic, to which there are few
if any exceptions. Needless to say, since man drinks by suction, he is
eminently a vegetarian animal, and is quite distinct from the carnivora
in _this_ respect, as in all others.
_The Alimentary Canal._—“One of the most interesting comparisons,”
says Dr Kellogg,[5] “which has been made by comparative anatomists
is the length of the alimentary canal. This is very short in the
carnivora, and long in the herbivora. When compared to the length of
the body of the different classes of animals, the proportion is found
to be as follows:—In the carnivora, the alimentary canal is three
times the length of the body; in the herbivora, as the sheep, thirty
times the length of the body; in the monkey, twelve times; in the
omnivora ten times; in man, as in the frugivora, twelve times. Here,
as before, we see that anatomy places man strictly in the frugivorous
class. Some writers have made the amusing blunder of making the
proportionate length of the alimentary canal in man 1 to 6, instead of
1 to 12, by doubling the height through measuring him while standing
erect. This measurement is evidently wrong, for it includes the length
of the lower extremities, or hind legs, whereas in other animals
the measurement is made from the tip of the nose to the end of the
backbone. In omnivorous animals, the alimentary canal is shorter than
in the apes and in man, thus affiliating this class more nearly with
the carnivora than with the herbivora.
[5] “Shall We Slay to Eat?” pp. 28-29.
“A curious fact had recently been observed by Kuttner, as related by
him in an article published in Virchow’s _Archives_. This author has
made extensive anatomical researches respecting the lengths of the
small intestine in different classes of persons. He finds that in
the vegetarian peasants of Russia, the small intestine measures from
twenty to twenty-seven feet in length, while among Germans, who use
meat in various forms quite freely, the length of the small intestine
varies between seventeen and nineteen feet. The author attributes
the difference in these two classes of persons to the difference in
diet. Of course differences of this sort must be the influence of the
diet exerted through many generations. This observation would seem to
suggest that the special anatomical characteristic of the carnivorous
class of animals is due to the modifying influence of their diet,
acting through thousands of years. If the length of the intestine in
man may be shortened by the use of flesh, with other foods, for a few
hundred years, more extensive modifications may easily result from
the longer experience of animals that subsist upon an exclusively
carnivorous diet.”[6]
[6] I would point out, in this connection, however, that, apart
from this possible shortening of the small intestine, _no anatomical
changes whatever_ have resulted from a partially carnivorous diet
for the hundreds of years that have preceded us, and upon which man
still largely subsists. Doubtless this is partly due to the fact that
much _other_ food was always eaten with the meat consumed; and also
the fact that the poorer classes—the peasantry, etc.—were unable to
purchase large quantities of meat at any time—and hence to eat it.
With them it was always an occasional luxury, rather than a steady
article of diet. The interesting fact is, however, that, in spite of
these hundreds of years of abuse, the human alimentary tract still
maintains all the characteristics of the frugivorous animal, and in
no way resembles the carnivorous alimentary tract! Had our hundreds
of years of flesh-eating enabled us to subsist upon such a diet with
impunity—or even adapted the human body to the diet in any degree—as
is frequently contended—then our alimentary tract would indicate that
fact by its evolutionary modifications. As this is not the case,
however, what becomes of the argument that meat is a necessary article
of diet, because man has subsisted largely upon it for hundreds of
years?
_The Stomach._—The position and form of the _stomach_ are also of
significance. In the carnivora, it is only a small roundish sack,
exceedingly simple in structure; while in the vegetable feeders it
is oblong, lies transversely across the abdomen, and is more or less
complicated with ringlike convolutions—according to the nature of the
food. This appears conspicuously in the primates, which include man, in
the Rodentia, Edentata, Marsupials, and, above all, in the Ruminants.
In the latter, it presents a series of from four to seven wide,
adjoining and communicating sacks.
At a first superficial glance at the exteriors of the stomachs of
the carnivora and that of man, we apparently perceive a far closer
resemblance than between man’s stomach and that of a herbivorous
animal. In one sense, there can be no question that there is a
closer similarity; in another sense, it is not so. In man this organ
is simple, but is divided into a cardiac and pyloric portion—thus
occupying, as in many other anatomical respects, a middle line between
the carnivorous and herbivorous mammalia. The inner surface of the
stomach is covered with _rugæ_, or wrinkles, formed by the mucous
membrane, which lines the whole intestinal canal, and which forms
valvular folds; while in the carnivora the stomach is a simple globular
sac, without these corrugations. As Dr Trall observed[7]:
[7] “Fruits and Farinacea,” pp. 82-83.
“Some may imagine, at a first glance, a closer resemblance between
the human stomach and the lion’s than between the human and that
of the sheep. But when they are viewed in relation to their proper
food, their closer resemblance will vanish at once. It should be
particularly observed that, so far as mere bulk is concerned, there
is a greater similarity between the food of frugivorous animals and
carnivorous animals than between frugivorous and herbivorous. The
digestion and assimilation of coarse herbage, as grass, leaves, etc.,
requires a more complicated digestive apparatus than grains, roots,
etc., and these more so than flesh and blood. The structure of the
stomach, therefore, in such cases, seems precisely adapted to the food
we assume Nature intended for it.”[8]
[8] “Fruits and Farinacea,” p. 84.
_The Liver._—Dr John Smith, in calling attention to the many
distinctions between the bodily structure of man and that of the
carnivora, pointed out the following differences among others:—
“In the carnivora and rodentia, which present the most complex form of
liver among the mammalia, there are five distinct parts; a central or
principal lobe, corresponding with the principal part of the liver in
man; a right lateral lobe, with a lobular appendage, corresponding to
the ‘lobulus Spigelii’ and the ‘lobus caudatus,’ and a small lobe or
lobule on the left side. Through the whole animal series, however, the
magnitude of the liver varies in inverse ratio to the lungs.
“In man, the liver is much less developed than the same organ in many
other mammalia; and presents, as rudimentary indications, certain
organs which are in other animals fully developed. Europeans, and
the inhabitants of Northern climes, who partake more of animal food,
have the liver much larger, and its secretions more copious, than the
inhabitants of warm climates. Perhaps this, in some measure, depends
upon the amount of non-azotised articles taken along with the flesh of
animals, by which means the system is supplied with more carbon than
is needed. So that the enlarged liver is attributable to gross living
on mixed diet, rather than to an exclusively animal diet.”
This author also says elsewhere (p. 79):
“The temporal and masseter muscles, by which the motion of the lower
jaw is effected, are of immense size in carnivorous animals. The
temporal muscle occupies the whole side of the scull, and fills the
space beneath the zygomatic arch, the span and spring of which are
generally an index of the volume of this muscle; while the extent
and strength of the arch indicate the development of the masseter
muscle. On the contrary, the pterygoid muscles, which aid the lateral
movement of the jaw, are extremely small. The zygoma is of great size
and strength in the carnivora; consisting of a long process of the
masseter bone, overlaid by the usual process of the temporal bone,
which is equally strong. The arch extends not only backward but
upward, by the bending down of the extremity; the line of anterior
declination falling precisely on the centre of the carnassière
tooth—the point in which the force of the jaws is concentrated, and
where it is most required for cutting, tearing, and crushing their
food. In ruminants, the zygomatic arch is short, and the temporal
muscles are small; but the masseter muscle on each side extends
beyond the arch, and is attached to the greater part of the side of
the maxillary bone. The pterygoid fossa is ample, and its muscles are
largely developed. The arch is small in man, the temporal muscles
moderate, and the force of the jaws comparatively weak.”
_The Placenta._—Let us now turn to another important distinction
between the carnivorous and non-carnivorous animals. Of these, perhaps
the most important is the character of the _placenta_—one of the most
distinguishing marks or characteristics of any species of animal. This
subject has been so well and ably summed up by Professor Schlickeysen,
in his “Fruit and Bread” (pp. 48-57), that I cannot do better than
quote the main portion of the argument, as stated by this learned and
able author. He says:
“We now come to consider the peculiar structure, form and size of
the placenta, as well as the exact method by which, through it, in
different species of animals, the nourishment is effected. One of
the most striking differences presented in placental animals relates
to the method of union between the mother and the fœtus. There are
two very distinct types of the placenta, and, according to Professor
Huxley, no transitional forms between them are known to exist. These
types are designated as follows:—
1. The non-deciduate placenta of the Herbivora.
2. The deciduate placenta, of which there are two kinds:
(_a_) The zonary deciduate placenta of the Carnivora.
(_b_) The discoidal deciduate placenta of the Frugivora.
“The deciduate placenta is a distinct structure, developed from
the wall of the uterus, but separated from it at parturition, and
constituting what is known as the ‘after birth’; of this the human
placenta is regarded by Huxley as the most perfect example; while, of
the non-deciduate placenta, that of the pig and horse are the typical
representatives. The word ‘decidua’ signifies ‘that which is thrown
off.’
“_The Non-Deciduate Placenta._—This form is thus described by
Professor Huxley: ‘No decidua is developed. The elevations and
depressions of the unimpregnated uterus simply acquire a greater size
and vascularity during pregnancy, and cohere closely to the chorionic
villi, which do not become restricted to one spot, but are developed
from all parts of the chorion, except at its poles, and remain
persistent in the broad zone thus formed throughout fœtal life. The
cohesion of the fœtal and maternal placentæ, however, is overcome by
slight maceration; and at parturition the fœtal villi are simply drawn
out, like fingers from a glove, no vascular substance of the mother
being thrown off.’ To this class belong all the ruminants and Ungulata
(hoofed quadrupeds); the camel, sheep, goat and deer; the ant-eater,
armadillo, sloth, swine, tapir, rhinoceros, river-horse, sea-cow,
whale, and others.
“_The Zonary Deciduate Placenta._—A zonary placenta surrounds the
chorion, in the form of a broad zone, leaving the poles free. This
form characterises all the land and sea carnivora, and thus includes
the cat, hyena, puma, leopard, tiger, lion, fox and wolf; the dog
and bear, the seal, sea-otter and walrus. It includes, also, certain
extinct species, as the mastadon and dinotherium, which, although not
wholly carnivorous, were, to judge from their teeth, partially so. The
elephant, the only living species of these ancient animals, is also of
this class.
“_The Discoidal Deciduate Placenta._—The discoidal placenta is a
highly developed vascular structure, lying on one side of the fœtus,
in the form of a round disc, leaving the greater part of the chorion
free. It is thus united only on one side, at one circular point,
with the mucous membrane of the uterus, from which, as already
mentioned, it is separated at parturition. The orders of the animals
characterised by this form of placenta are the rodentia, ant-eaters,
bats, and various species of apes, and man. All these are very
closely united by homologous anatomical forms. The human placenta
does not differ, in its general character, from that of the others,
and there is no good reason for separating man from his placental
classification.”
_Relations between placental forms and Individual
Characteristics._—From our entire knowledge of the development of
races and of individuals, we may conclude, upon the basis of Huxley’s
classification, that an intimate relation exists between the form and
character of the placenta and the entire nature of the individual. We
find among the non-deciduata, besides the toothless sloths, only the
Ungulata, or hoofed quadrupeds, and others developed from them. The
arrangement of their teeth, as of their entire digestive apparatus,
marks them as belonging to a single family—namely, the herbivora.
The zonary placenta characterises a very large family of animals whose
peculiarities are distinctly marked, especially with regard to their
teeth and digestive apparatus. These belong to the widely diffused
and numerous orders of the carnivora. But the most interesting
and important group, with reference to our present study, is that
characterised by the discoidal placenta; for, since it includes man and
the fruit-eating apes, it gives occasion for the comparison between
these and other placental animals from the standpoint of dietetics.
We observe here at once that the majority of animals having a discoidal
placenta subsist chiefly upon fruits and grains, and that the typical
representatives of this class, namely, those whose plactental formation
is most distinctly discoidal, are also the most exclusively frugivorous.
* * * * *
Here, as elsewhere in nature, an exact line cannot be drawn.
Transitional forms exist everywhere, and to this the placenta is no
exception. The most striking accordance, however, exists between the
placenta of man and that of the tailless apes—namely, the gorilla,
orang, chimpanzee and gibbon. Between other discoidal species, the
differentiation, though minute, is clearly marked; but between man and
these apes the resemblance is so exact as to stamp them plainly as
members of the same family.
The completely developed placenta is in the form of a circular disc,
about eight inches broad, one inch thick and weighing about two pounds.
Its manner of development is identical in the human subject and that of
the above-named anthropoid apes. Its exact formation is thus described
by Huxley:
“From the commencement of gestation, the superficial substance of
the mucous membrane of the human uterus undergoes a rapid growth and
textural modification, becoming converted into the so-called decidua.
While the ovum is yet small, this decidua is departable into three
portions: The _decidua vera_, which lines the general cavity of the
uterus; the _decidua reflexa_, which immediately invests the ovum;
and the _decidua serotina_, a layer of especial thickness, developed
in contiguity with those chorionic villi which persist and become
converted into the fœtal placenta. The _decidua reflexa_ may be
regarded as an outgrowth of the _decidua vera_ the _decidua serotina_
as a special development of a part of the _decidua vera_. At first,
the villi of the chorion are loosely implanted into corresponding
impressions of the _decidua_; but, eventually, the chorionic part of
the placenta becomes closely united with and bound to the uterine
_decidua_, so that the fœtal and maternal structures form one
inseparable mass.”
The fœtus thus united to the mother is nourished by means of numerous
arterial and venous trunks, which traverse the deeper substance of
the uterine mucous membrane, in the region of the placenta. These
are connected with the placenta by means of the umbilical cord,
which consists of two arteries and two veins. The length of this
cord is greater in the case of man and the anthropoid apes than in
any other animals, reaching in them a length of about two feet. The
strict accordance which thus appears between the placental structure
of man and the ape indicates, upon the basis of Huxley’s principles
of classification, the same physiological functions _and the same
dietetic character_. There exists a complete similarity between the
corresponding organs in each: Their extremities end in hands and feet.
Their teeth and digestive apparatus indicates a frugivorous diet.
Their breasts and manner of nursing suggest the same tender care of
the new-born creature; while the brain and mental capacity are also
of a like character—differing only in degree; indeed, the difference
between the ape and animals of the next lower grade is much greater
than between the ape and man; there being in the latter case really no
essential anatomical or physiological differences.
The fact that man has four cuspid teeth affords no evidence whatever
that he is either partially or wholly carnivorous as regards his
dietary. If in diet he is naturally omnivorous, his teeth should
have the structure and arrangement of those of omnivorous animals—as
exhibited in the hog, for example.
That the cuspid teeth do not indicate a flesh dietary, either in whole
or in part, is shown by the presence of the so-called cuspids in
purely herbivorous animals—as in the stag, the camel and the so-called
“bridle-teeth” of the horse.
I am convinced that no animals were created to eat flesh, but that
so-called carnivorous animals were originally nut-eating animals (see
p. 55). The squirrel eats birds as well as nuts, which closely resemble
meat in composition. This view readily explains the close resemblance
in many particulars existing between the human digestive apparatus
and that of the so-called carnivorous animals. It is reasonable to
suppose that these nut-eating animals were at some remote time forced
by starvation to slay, and eat, by the failure of their ordinary food
supply—just as the horses of the Norwegian coast have been known to
plunge into the sea and catch fish, when driven to this extremity by
starvation. Suppose the carnivorous animal’s natural diet to be nuts,
in the absence of his normal food he would find nothing else so closely
resembling his ordinary food as the flesh of animals, since the two
have about the same proteid percentages.
Dr Kellogg, in his excellent little book, entitled “Shall We Slay to
Eat?” (pp. 30-32), sums up a number of remarkable facts in favour of a
fruitarian diet, or at least in favour of a non-flesh diet, as follows:—
“In carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous animals, the mammary
glands are located upon the abdomen, while in the higher apes and man
they are located on the chest. This is an interesting anatomical fact
to which there is no exception.
“In carnivorous animals the colon is smooth and non-sacculated. In
the higher apes and man the colon is sacculated. In herbivorous
animals the colon is sacculated, as in man.” (The great importance and
significance of this fact will be apparent presently, when we come to
consider the physiological arguments against flesh-eating.)
“In carnivorous animals the tongue is very rough, producing a rasping
sensation when coming in contact with the flesh. In the higher apes
and man the tongue is smooth.
“In carnivorous animals the skin is not provided with perspiratory
ducts—hence the skin does not perspire in the dog, the cat, and allied
animals. In the ape, the skin is provided with millions of these
glands, and in man they are so numerous that if spread out, their
walls would cover a surface of eleven thousand square feet. In the
pig, an omnivorous animal, only the snout sweats. In horses, cows and
other vegetable-eating animals, the whole skin sweats, as it does in
man.” (The great importance of this fact will be apparent when we come
to consider the physiological arguments against a flesh-diet: see p.
55.)
“Carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous animals are all supplied with
an extension of the backbone—a tail. In the higher apes, as well as in
man, the tail is wanting.
“Carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous animals go on all fours,
and their eyes look on either side, while many of the higher apes
walk nearly or entirely upright, as does man, and their eyes look
forward.[9]
[9] Dr Woods Hutchison and other writers upon the subject have
contended that all flesh-eating animals have their eyes set in the
front of their heads, and all herbivora on the side. Because man’s
eyes are set in the front of his head, it is contended, therefore he
is carnivorous! This argument is completely disproved by the fact
(among others) that the higher apes, which, in a state of nature, are
pure frugivora, have their eyes set in the front of their heads—as has
man. This is consequently no argument whatever in favour of a flesh
diet.
“Carnivorous animals have claws, herbivorous and omnivorous have
hoofs, while apes and men have flat nails, not found in any other
animal. Carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous animals are all
quadrupeds, or four-footed, while the higher apes and man are provided
with two hands and two feet. The hinder or lower extremities of the
ape are sometimes erroneously called hands; according to Dr Huxley,
they are, from both bony and muscular structure, properly classified
as feet, and not as hands.
“In carnivorous animals, the salivary glands are small, and the saliva
which they secrete has little effect upon starch, while in the apes
and man the glands are well developed and the saliva is active” (see
pp. 47-48).
In addition to all the facts that have been pointed out, there
are others of lesser interest, but all of which, nevertheless, go
to confirm the fact that man is closely related to the apes, and
consequently intended for a fruitarian diet, and that he is in no wise
related to the carnivora or _their_ diet. Metchnikoff has summarised
many of these facts, extending the work of Darwin, Huxley, Haekel, etc.
These other, minor, facts might perhaps be summarised as follows:—
There is an exact agreement between the skeleton of man and the
higher apes—all the bones corresponding, each to each, while there
is a great dissimilarity between man and any other animal whatever.
The nerves, the viscera, the spleen, the liver, the lungs, the brain,
the skin, nails and hair—all present the closest possible analogy and
similarities. The eyes are strikingly similar, while the chemical and
microscopical character of the blood is also very similar in man and
the higher apes. This fact is of especial importance and significance,
when we bear in mind that only apes and men are subject to certain
blood diseases—to which all other animals are impervious. In structure,
as in habits, man and the apes are in many respects remarkably alike,
and proportionately dissimilar to all other animals.
CHAPTER III
THE ARGUMENT FROM PHYSIOLOGY
“After structure—function!” Having seen in the last chapter that man is
constructed throughout for a diet composed entirely of fruits, nuts,
grains, and other non-flesh foods, we now turn to a consideration
of the functions of the various organs of the body—the chemical
composition of the organic tissues, secretions, etc.—in order to see
if these will further bear us out in our argument. There can be no
question that the most important argument of all, on this subject
of diet, is the argument based upon comparative anatomy—since that
argument places man in his right class immediately, and in a manner
that cannot be evaded by any amount of argument. But other aspects of
the question are also of importance, and afford strong proof of the
natural character of man’s diet. The next argument we should consider,
therefore, is the physiological, and we shall first of all consider the
_secretions_.
* * * * *
_The Saliva._—The differences between the saliva of man and that
of any of the carnivora is striking. In man, this secretion is
_alkaline_—though only slightly so, in a healthy man. Nevertheless,
that is its normal reaction, and to this there is no exception. In the
carnivora, on the other hand, the reaction is _acid_, and because of
this fact is capable of dissolving the food more or less whole, and
without the long process of mastication necessary for the herbivora and
frugivora. The saliva in the human being effects many chemical changes
in the food—notable among these being the conversion of starch. Were
man intended to live on flesh, the saliva would be acid also—instead
of alkaline as it is.
* * * * *
_The Gastric Juice._—Dr Schlickeysen says of this:[10]
[10] “Fruit and Bread,” pp. 108-109.
“A leading element of the gastric juice is lactic acid. This excites
a slight fermentation of the chyme, and thus exerts an influence upon
the digestion of vegetable, but not upon that of animal, food. It is
far too weak to act upon the fibres of animal flesh. All fats are
insoluble in water, spirits of wine, and acids. Flesh, when eaten
by man, tends to undergo a process of decay in the stomach, causing
a scrofulous poisoning of the blood. In this unnatural action lies
the cause of many complaints and disturbances of the system: as
bad breath, heartburn, eructions and vomiting. In the case of the
carnivora, the gastric juice exerts a decomposing influence upon
flesh, and causes its assimilation and excretion. Since the pancreatic
juice of the duodenum, into which the chyme passes from the stomach,
bears a close resemblance to the saliva, it follows that the chyme
here, also, can have only a slightly acid property, which it indeed
can only have when it is of a vegetable character. Bile, which is
here poured into the intestines, has only a slight alkaline reaction,
and its use seems to be limited to the prevention of decay; which,
however, can only occur in the case of flesh-food; so that the effort
of nature to maintain flesh-food in its proper condition by the
secretion of bile must be excessive, and must eventually cause an
excitement and weakening of the whole organism.”
And Dr Kellogg has pointed out[11]:
[11] “Shall We Slay to Eat?” p. 35.
“Another property possessed in a high degree by the gastric juice of
carnivorous animals is its antiseptic or germicidal quality. When
exposed to the conditions of warmth and moisture, flesh, whether that
of mammals birds or fish, readily decomposes or decays, giving rise
to poisonous substances of the most offensive character. The gastric
juice of the dog is capable of preventing this putrefactive change
while the food is undergoing the process of stomach digestion. That
such changes occur later, however, while the food residue is lying in
the colon previous to expulsion from the body, is evidenced by the
extraordinarily offensive character of the fæcal matters of this class
of animals.”
In man, this secretion is very weak, comparatively speaking, and
hence of small value in preventing such putrefactive changes as those
mentioned above. Take any piece of meat, and expose it for some
considerable period to an environment of heat and moisture, and see the
result! Putrefaction soon occurs—except where the meat is “embalmed”
or preserved by powerful chemicals—thus rendering it unfit for human
food. But it will be seen that just such conditions prevail in the
human alimentary tract as are most suitable for the speedy and deadly
decomposition of the food eaten; and, in the case of flesh-foods, the
resulting products are poisonous in the last degree. The gastric juice
of the human stomach being so far weaker than that of the carnivorous
animal, the flesh is far less completely acted upon and digested in
the stomach—much more work being passed on to the intestines, in
consequence. Now comes in a most important factor. The bowel of the
carnivorous animal is, as we have seen, _short_, (three times the
length of the body) when compared to the frugivora, whose alimentary
tract is about twelve times the length of the body. That is, the
digestive tract in man is, roughly, about four times as long as in the
carnivorous animal. The result of this is that any food eaten would
take, _ceteris paribus_, four times as long to pass through the tube in
the one case as in the other. This fact alone is sufficient to condemn
the use of flesh-foods in any form for frugivorous animals, since
the less active antiseptic and germicidal properties of the gastric
juice in these animals render unsafe the long retention of such easily
decomposable substances as flesh.
But more than that, and worse still; the character of the internal
structure of the tract is not alike in the two cases! In the carnivora,
this is smooth, and offers but few impediments to the free passage of
the food through it. In man, on the contrary, as with the higher apes
and the herbivora, the intestine is corrugated or sacculated—this being
for the express purpose of retaining the food as long as possible in
the intestine, and until all possible nutriment has been abstracted
from it. This is admirably suited to such foods as the herbivora
and frugivora enjoy, but is quite _un_suited for flesh-foods of all
kinds—being, in fact, the worst possible receptacle for such foods.
The intestine, in the carnivora, is suited for its particular food—it
is short and smooth, and well adapted to dissolve the food quickly and
pass it out of the system as rapidly as possible; while in frugivora,
on the other hand, the intestine is adapted to retain the food a
much longer time—the sacculated surface retaining the food as long
as possible. The result of this is that, when flesh-foods are eaten,
disastrous results are sure to follow.
As previously shown, the _liver_ is much larger, proportionately,
in the carnivora; and not only is this the case, but the amount of
bile secreted is far greater in the carnivora than in man. It has
been found, by careful experiments upon dogs, that the quantity of
bile might increase fifty per cent., and even more, under a purely
meat diet; but rapidly decreased when the quantity and proportion of
the meat was reduced. Thus it appears that the use of a meat diet
requires a far greater degree of activity on the part of the liver than
any other diet. This is amply provided for in the carnivore by the
increased size and power of that organ, but in man and the frugivora
such is not the case, and the result is that if meat be eaten by man,
the liver is called upon to do an extra amount of work, and this may
ultimately result in its premature breakdown.
The _kidneys_ also are greatly affected by the diet. It is now well
known that uric acid is created in large quantities by a flesh diet—the
measured excretions showing that from three to ten times as much uric
acid is secreted when flesh is eaten as when no meat is ingested; and
when we bear in mind the exceedingly disastrous effects of uric acid
upon the system, and what a powerful disease-producing agency it is, I
think that we must conclude that this symptom is strongly suggestive,
and strongly indicative of the fact that man cannot eat meat without
running grave chances of diseasing and ruining his organism.
* * * * *
_The Excretions._—There is also a marked difference in the excretory
products of the various animals. While, in the carnivora, the action
of the urine is acid, it is alkaline in the herbivora (or should be).
In man it is frequently acid—though this varies with the nature of the
food. Thus, if the diet be largely one of flesh, the urine will become
far more acid, and will also become very offensive; the perspiration
will also be tainted, and very noticeable to those with a keen sense
of smell, and who do not eat meat themselves! This has frequently been
observed, and may account for the fact that flesh-eating animals will
always eat a horse or a sheep in preference to man, if it be possible.
Doubtless, their keen sense of smell detects the fact that man is
(usually) largely carnivorous in his habits, and their instinct teaches
them that the flesh of the purely herbivorous animal is for this reason
superior to that of man. Has anyone thought why it is that a cat will
kill a mouse, _and eat it_, while a dog will kill a cat, but will _not_
eat it? It is because the mouse is a vegetarian animal, and the cat
is a carnivorous animal. Instinct teaches the cat that the tissues of
the mouse’s body are more or less pure and inoffensive—owing to the
nature of the diet; while the same instinct teaches the dog that the
cat’s body is impure and more or less poisonous, for the reason that
_its_ flesh is tainted and full of poisons, because of its diet. If any
animal lives upon flesh, that animal’s body is bound to be tainted more
or less in consequence; and those animals which prey upon others know
that fact, by reason of their sense of smell and instinct. This is a
remarkable and most instructive fact; a rule which will rarely be found
to fail. Its significance and interpretation is obvious. Professor
Schlickeysen also informs us that “the overloading of the blood with
flesh-food causes, in order to effect their decomposition, an excessive
consumption of oxygen, and hence the difficulty of breathing, and
asthmatical affections of many flesh-eaters, and their excessive
excretion of carbonic acid.” I have referred to some of these poisons,
formed within the system, and the harm they must doubtless exert upon
the organism, elsewhere.
In addition to all these arguments, there are other forcible reasons
for considering man as one of the non-flesh-eating animals—which
reasons may be included in this chapter. The _habits_ of any animal are
distinctive; and they, collectively, indicate man’s position—though
this argument must always be confirmatory, and not proof in itself.
For instance, all naturally carnivorous animals sleep in the daytime,
and prowl about in search of their prey at night; while with the
vegetarian animals (man included) this is not the case. The manner of
eating and especially of drinking, is also highly characteristic—all
carnivorous animals _lapping_ their liquids—while the herbivora and
frugivora drink—as I have previously pointed out. The peculiar mode of
functioning of various organs might also be pointed out and insisted
upon. But one of the most striking arguments is that based upon the
anatomical structure of the _skin_. As before stated, this perspires,
in the case of all vegetarian animals, while the glands are atrophied
and inactive in all carnivora. Let us now consider the significance of
this fact.
“Recent researches show us that uric acid arises from the decay of
cell nuclei. That portion of uric acid which has its origin in the
digestive organs is, like other alloxanic bases, changed into urea—or
rather should be. But a diseased liver (or a healthy one which is
overworked, owing to an excessive ingestion of food containing cell
nuclei, and therefore an excessive amount of uric acid) is unable to
transform all the uric acid formed into urea. The quantity of uric
acid arising from the normal decay of the tissue is small; in fever,
when there is a more rapid decay of cells, the quantity of uric acid
and other related alloxanic bodies is considerably increased. The
greater the quantity of useless body-material, and the worse (more
dysæmic) it is in quality, the greater is the danger of a more rapid
decay of cells, and a precipitation of uric acid and related products
taking place.... The uric acid, passing through the liver, may perhaps
be transformed into urea by a special action of the cells; but the
uric acid drawn directly from the digestive canal, and that formed
directly from the assimilated food or from the body-material, has to
be oxidised, in order to be excreted in the innocuous form of urea. An
organism possessed of the faculty of oxidation is protected against
a precipitation of uric acid, but in a dysæmic organism, the faculty
of transforming uric acid into urea is lessened.... It is a fact well
worth considering that the urine of carnivorous animals—_e.g._ dog
and cat—is often quite free from uric acid, while human urine varies
in this respect according to the food taken: if vegetable food alone
is consumed, the urine will contain, like the urine of herbivorous
animals, only traces of uric acid (from ·2 to ·7 grammes in 24
hours); but if a large proportion of flesh-food be taken, the urine
will contain 2 grammes or more. Man is the only creature which suffers
from the uric acid diathesis; is it not likely that this arises from a
wrong choice of food?
“Now, if the excretion of the uric acid always took place easily,
we should not have much trouble about its formation, but it is this
excretion which constitutes the difficulty. Uric acid and the acid
salts of the uric acid dissolve with difficulty in cold water; but
more easily in warm; still, one gramme of uric acid requires from 7 to
8 litres of water at the temperature of the body for its solution. The
acid urate of soda dissolves in 1100 parts of cold and 124 parts of
boiling water. The ammonia salts and the salts of the alkaline earths
do not dissolve nearly so easily.
“The ‘warm water’ which keeps the uric acid and the uric acid salts
dissolved in the body is the blood and tissue fluids. Serious
disturbances must take place if this fluid becomes cooler or
diminished in quantity; for a deposit of crystalline uric acid would
occur in the body.
“A person who has to daily excrete 2 grammes of uric acid, is
constantly liable to this precipitation, as he may at any time lose
large quantities of water through perspiration. It is, therefore,
undoubtedly safer to have the uric acid combined with soda, as an
acid urate; but where is soda to be obtained if it is absent from the
blood, owing to dysæmia?
“The more acid the urine is, the more easily will a precipitation
of the uric acid occur in the organism—for instance, in the kidneys
or bladder. The urine of a person eating flesh contains a large
amount of uric acid, as we have seen before; it is also strongly acid
in reaction whereas the urine of herbivorous animals is generally
alkaline in reaction....
“A very acid urine rich in uric acid is also produced by salt meat and
salt fish, because in the process of salting, the basic salts (basic
alkaline phosphates and carbonates) pass into the pickle water and
neutral common salt takes their place. Russian physicians have told
me that in certain parts of Russia, where the people eat a great deal
of salt fish, urine stones are frequent.... Now, if we wish to prevent
by the use of alkalies the formation of uric acid sediments, or
gradually to dissolve such concretions as have already formed in the
bladder, it is certainly more rational to prescribe a diet of fruits
and potatoes than to order alkaline mineral waters—which, when taken
constantly, may produce all sorts of disturbances.
“If, then, it is true that our ordinary diet consists chiefly of foods
rich in albumen and phosphoric acid but poor in soda, and that in
consequence of this a tendency towards the accumulation of uric acid
in the body is pretty generally found, the very slightest extra strain
on the system will be sufficient to cause a precipitation of uric acid
and uric acid salts in the body. This result is very often brought
about by a chronic acid catarrh of the stomach, which in its turn
depends upon dysæmia, and is in 95 out of 100 cases the predecessor
of gout. The fermentation acids, especially oxybutyric acid (which
is found in the urine both in acid catarrh of the stomach and in
diabetes mellitus), combine with some of the alkalies of the blood,
and thus lessen its alkalescence (basic character); and as catarrh of
the bowels and periodic diarrhœas are frequently associated with acid
catarrh of the stomach, these bases may be even directly excreted in
the stools, and thus the quantity of alkalies in the blood be further
diminished.
“Now we find that men consuming vegetable food form only small
quantities of uric acid, herbivorous animals as well as carnivorous
hardly any, but men living on flesh-food very large quantities,
we must come to the conclusion that _men cannot properly manage
flesh-food_. The organism of the flesh-eating animal has the faculty
of completely digesting flesh-food, whereas the organism of man is
unable to accomplish this. Consequently man cannot be classed as
carnivorous and cannot eat flesh unpunished....
“To illustrate this further, we may mention another important point
here. Carnivorous animals have atrophied, inactive sweat glands,
whilst man and herbivorous animals possess well-developed sweat
glands. There is no doubt, therefore, that _the herbivora must have
preceded the carnivora in point of time_—the carrion feeders being
the connecting link between them.[12] The carnivora have retained
the sweat glands as atrophied (rudimentary) organs, and as a sign
of their origin, but have given up the habit of sweating, or, in
other words, have adapted their skin to the changed conditions of
feeding. An animal whose food contains large quantities of urea as
well as of creatin, creatinin, xanthin, hypoxanthin, guanin, etc.
(the early stages of uric acid), and thus increases the quantity
of urea and uric acid already present in the body, must take care
always to keep these substances in solution. But the urea and uric
acid can only be dissolved in comparatively large quantities of warm
water (blood). Such an animal must, therefore, be exempt from the
possibility of suddenly losing a large part of its blood and tissue
fluid by sweating—or else a precipitation of the above substance will
take place. Nor should an organism allow of any sudden cooling down
of portions of the skin—such as might be caused by evaporation of the
sweat, or else a precipitation would again take place. In a word,
such an animal must not be subject to sweating, or else it would be
troubled with acute and chronic rheumatism, gout, etc....
[12] This is most interesting. It shows conclusively that at one time
there were _no_ carnivora on this globe: they merely developed through
countless ages, as the result of deprivation and lack of their proper
and natural food.
“Now as man _is_ subject to sweating, it is evident that he was not
intended to live on flesh, but on vegetables, or rather on fruits, for
he was never meant to live on cereals.... Man may eat a limited amount
of meat and cereals without doing himself much harm; but he must
always remember that they ought never to form his principal food.
“As soon as it is really understood that we were never intended to
live on flesh and cereals, the uric acid diathesis as a trouble of
mankind will disappear. We must, of course, not forget to restrict
the consumption of common salt and to use such vegetable foods as are
rich in food salts, and not those which are rich in albumen; for a
diet consisting of bread, pulses, and cereals, and potatoes will tend
to produce gout just as much as a diet consisting of flesh, fish and
_caviare_....”[13]
[13] “Natural Hygiene,” by H. Lahmann, M.D., pp. 76-85.
It is only by reason of the excessive functioning of the liver that
we are not soon poisoned, as the result of such food, and when this
organ is constantly over-taxed, as it often is, for a lifetime, it is
apparent that it must sooner or later break down, and be ruined from
overwork.
IV
THE ARGUMENT FROM CHEMISTRY
Having seen in the preceding chapters that man is adapted by nature of
his constitution to live upon vegetable foods (meaning by this latter
term not only vegetables, but fruits and nuts as well), we must next
turn to a consideration of the question as to whether these foods would
supply all the necessary elements for the nutrition of the human body.
The bodily tissues being in a constant state of flux—worn-out particles
of the body being continuously thrown off by means of the various
eliminating organs, and fresh material constantly taking their place
and being built into living tissue—it is obvious that the nature of
this material supplied to the body should be of the best in quality;
and that best adapted to maintain its structural integrity. If certain
elements are lacking in the food material supplied, these elements will
be lacking throughout every stage of the process of digestion, and the
tissues ultimately become impoverished because of the lack of them.
The chief reason why we eat meat (apart from mere custom), is that it
contains a fairly large percentage of proteid—that material from which
the muscles are largely built, and which physiologists have lately come
to believe is one of the true sources of the bodily energy. Meat being
a highly concentrated article of food, and, as before said, containing
a large percentage of this proteid, it has always been considered
necessary that more or less of it should be consumed in the course
of the day in order to offset or replace the wastes necessitated by
physical exercise and other causes. Professor Russell H. Chittenden,
in speaking of the value of proteid in the human body says:
“The organic substance of all organs and tissues, whether of animals
or plants, is made up principally of proteid matter.... Proteid
substances occupy, therefore, a peculiar position in the nutrition of
man and of animals in general. They constitute a class of essential
food-stuffs without which life is impossible. For tissue building,
and for the renewal of tissues and organs, or their component cells,
proteid or albuminous food-stuffs are an absolute requirement. The
vital part of all tissue is proteid, and only proteid food can serve
for its growth or renewal; hence, no matter how generous the supply
of carbohydrates and fats, without some admixture of proteid food,
the body will weaken and undergo ‘nitrogen starvation....’ It is
thus quite clear that the true proteid foods are tissue builders in
the broadest sense of the term, and it is equally evident that they
are absolutely essential to life, since no other kind nor form of
food-stuff can take their place in supplying the needs of the body.
Every living cell, whether of heart, muscle, brain or nerve requires
its due allowance of proteid material to maintain its physiological
rhythm. No other food-stuff stands in such intimate relationship to
the vital processes; and, so far as we know at present, any form of
true proteid, whether animal or vegetable, will serve the purpose.”[14]
[14] “The Nutrition of Man,” pp. 4-5.
It will be seen from the above, therefore, that proteid is doubtless
the most essential element in our diet; and a lack of proteid material
in the food ensures more disastrous consequences to the organism than
any other single deviation from a normal diet. Meat, as we have said,
contains a large percentage of proteid, and, this being the case, it is
evident that, if we are to discard it as an article of diet, we must
replace it by other foods which contain an equal amount of proteid, or
must eat a proportionate bulk of foods which contain proteid, in order
to maintain that physiological equilibrium which ensures health.
The simplest, and in fact the _only_ way to settle this question,
therefore, is to compare the chemical analyses of the various
food-stuffs, and see if any non-flesh foods contain as much proteid
as meat does. If they do, and if it can be shown, further, that their
proteid is as easily assimilable and as nutritious as animal proteid,
then the case will have been won—for the reason that there will no
longer be any grounds for defending flesh-eating, upon the basis that
that is the only article of diet capable of supplying the body with the
requisite amount of proteid. I shall take these chemical analyses from
the latest official bulletins—those issued under the supervision of the
U. S. Department of Agriculture, and corrected up to 1908. The bulletin
from which I quote these tables is entitled “The Chemical Composition
of American Food Materials,” and is written jointly by Professors W. O.
Atwater and A. P. Bryant. These authors first of all define what they
mean by the “composition of food materials,” as follows:—
COMPOSITION OF FOOD MATERIALS
“Ordinary food materials, such as meat, fish, eggs, potatoes, wheat,
etc., consist of:
”_Refuse._—As the bones of meat and fish, shells of shellfish, skin of
potatoes, bran of wheat, etc.
“_Edible portion._—As the flesh of meat and fish, the white and yolk
of eggs, wheat flour, etc. This edible portion consists of water
(usually incorporated in the tissue and not visible as such), and
nutritive ingredients or nutrient.
“The principal kinds of nutritive ingredients are protein, fats,
carbohydrates, and ash or mineral matters.
“The water and refuse of various foods and the salt of salted
meat and fish are called non-nutrients. In comparing the values of
different food materials for nourishment they are left out of account.
”_Protein._—This term is used to include nominally the total
nitrogenous substance of animal and vegetable food materials,
exclusive of the so-called nitrogenous fats. Actually it is employed,
in common usage, to designate the product of the total nitrogen by an
empirical factor, generally 6.25.
“This total nitrogenous substance consists of a great variety of
chemical compounds, which are conveniently divided into two principal
classes, proteids and non-proteids.
“The term proteid, as here employed, includes (1) the simple
proteids—_e.g._ albuminoids, globulins, and their derivations, such
as acid and alkali albumins, coagulated proteids, proteoses, and
peptones; (2) the so-called combined or compound proteids; and (3)
the so-called gelatinoids (sometimes called “glutinoids”) which are
characteristic of animal connective tissue.
“The term albuminoids has long been used by European and American
chemists and physiologists as a collective designation for the
substances of the first two groups, though many apply it to all
three of these groups. Of late a number of investigators and writers
have employed it as a special designation for compounds of the third
class.[15]
[15] U. S. Dept. Agr., Office of Experimental Stations Bul. 65, p. 118.
“The term non-proteid is here used synonymously with non-albuminoid,
and includes nitrogenous animal and vegetable compounds of simpler
constitution than the proteids. The most important animal compounds of
this class are the so-called “nitrogenous extractives” of muscular and
connective tissue, such as creatin, creatinin, xanthin, hypoxanthin,
and allied cleavage products of the proteids. To some of these
the term “meat bases” has been applied. The latter, with certain
mineral salts (potassium phosphates, etc.), are the most important
constituents of beef tea and many commercial “meat extracts.”
“The non-proteid nitrogenous compounds in vegetable foods consist
of amids and amido acids, of which asparagin and aspartic acid are
familiar examples.
“The ideal method of analysis of food materials would involve
quantitative determinations of the amounts of each of the several
kinds or groups of nitrogenous compounds. This, however, is seldom
attempted. The common practice is to multiply the percentage of
nitrogen by the factor 6.25 and take the product as representing the
total nitrogenous substance. For many materials, animal and vegetable,
this factor would be nearly correct for the proteids, which contain,
on the average, not far from 16 per cent. of nitrogen, although the
nitrogen content of the individual proteids is quite varied. The
variations in the nitrogen of the non-proteids are wider and they
contain, on the average, more than 16 per cent. of nitrogen. It is
evident, therefore, that the computation of the total nitrogenous
substance in this way is by no means correct. In the flesh of meats
and fish, which contain very little of carbohydrates, the nitrogenous
substance is frequently estimated by difference—_i.e._ by subtracting
the ether extract and ash from the total water-free substance. While
this method is not always correct, it is oftentimes more nearly so
than the determination by use of the usual factor.
“The distinction between protein and proteids is thus very sharp. The
latter are definite chemical compounds while the former is an entirely
arbitrary term used to designate a group which is commonly assumed
to include all of the nitrogenous matter of the food except the
nitrogenous fats.
“In the tables herewith the common usage is followed, by which the
protein is given as estimated by factor, _i.e._, total nitrogen
multiplied by 6.25. In the analyses of meats and fish, however, the
figures for protein ‘by difference’ are also given. Where the proteid
and non-proteid nitrogenous matter have been estimated in a food
material the proportions are indicated in a footnote.
“_Fats._—Under fats is included the total ether extract. Familiar
examples of fat are fat of meat, fat of milk (butter), oil of corn,
olive oil, etc. The ingredients of the ‘ether extract’ of animal and
vegetable foods and feeding stuffs, which it is customary to group
roughly as fats, include with the true fats various other substances,
as fatty acids, lecithins (nitrogenous fats), and chlorophylls.
“_Carbohydrates._—Carbohydrates are usually determined by difference.
They include sugars, starches, cellulose, gums, woody fibre, etc. In
many instances separate determinations of one or more of these groups
have been made. The determinations of ‘fibre’ in vegetable foods,
_i.e._, substances allied to carbohydrates but insoluble in dilute
acid and alkali, and somewhat similar to woody fibre, are given in
a separate column. The figures in parenthesis in the crude-fibre
column show the number of analyses in which the fibre was determined.
The figures for ‘total carbohydrates’ include the fibre, as well
as sugars, starches, etc. Where the sugars or starches have been
determined separately footnotes are added giving the average results.
“_Ash or Mineral Matters._—Under this head are included phosphates,
sulphates, chlorides, and other salts of potassium, sodium, magnesium,
and other metallic elements. Where analyses of the mineral matters
have been found they are added in the form of footnotes. These results
usually give the percentage composition of the ash as produced by
incineration rather than the proportions in which the different
mineral ingredients occur in the food material.
“_Fuel Value._—By fuel value is meant the number of calories of heat
equivalent to the energy which it is assumed the body would be able
to obtain from one pound of a given food material, provided the
nutrients of the latter were completely digested. The fuel values of
the different food materials are calculated by use of the factors of
Rubner, which allow 4.1 calories for a gram of protein, the same for
a gram of carbohydrates, and 9.3 calories per gram of fats. These
amounts correspond to 18.6 calories of energy for each hundredth
of a pound of protein and of carbohydrates, and 42.2 calories for
each hundredth of a pound of fat in the given food material. In the
following table the fuel value per pound has been calculated by use
of these factors. In these calculations the values of protein by
factor have been used in all cases with the exception of salt cod and
hens’ eggs, in which the value of protein by difference was used.”
I now present a few extracts from these lengthy tables of the chemical
composition of food materials—mentioning, first, some typical meats,
then fishes, vegetables, grains, flours, etc., dairy products, fruits,
nuts, and various sundries. I take but a few of each, in order to show
the typical proteid value of the various foods, without making these
tables too long; and the reader can readily see, by referring to the
column of proteid percentage, that many articles of diet contain a
far _larger_ percentage of proteid than the best meats! I present the
tables, however, before discussing this question at greater length.
Key to Columns:
A Number of analyses F Fat
B Refuse G Total carbohydrates
C Water H Ash
D Protein N=6.25 J Fuel value per pound
E Protein by difference
──────────────────────┬────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬────
Food Materials. │ A │ B │ C │ D │ E │ F │ G │ H │ J
──────────────────────┼────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼────
ANIMAL FOOD. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
BEEF, FRESH. │ │P.ct.│P.ct.│P.ct.│P.ct.│P.ct.│P.ct.│P.ct.│Cals.
Loin, lean: Minimum │ 12 │ — │ 64.6│ 13.4│ 13.1│ 11.4│ — │ .7 │ 735
Edible Maximum │ 12 │ — │ 74.7│ 24.2│ 23.1│ 15.0│ — │ 1.1 │1000
portion Average │ 12 │ — │ 67.0│ 19.7│ 19.3│ 12.7│ — │ 1.0 │ 900
As purchased Min. │ 11 │ 6.7│ 52.1│ 11.9│ 11.6│ 10.0│ — │ .6 │ 650
Max. │ 11 │ 21.0│ 66.2│ 20.8│ 19.8│ 13.0│ — │ 1.0 │ 865
Avge. │ 11 │ 13.1│ 58.2│ 17.1│ 16.7│ 11.1│ — │ .9 │ 785
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Loin, medium Min. │ 32 │ — │ 56.5│ 10.6│ 10.6│ 16.1│ — │ .5 │1040
fat: Max. │ 32 │ — │ 68.3│ 22.0│ 22.0│ 23.7│ — │ 2.2 │1355
Edible portion Avge. │ 32 │ — │ 60.6│ 18.5│ 18.2│ 20.2│ — │ 1.0 │1190
As purchased Min. │ 32 │ 4.1│ 44.4│ 8.5│ 8.5│ 13.7│ — │ .4 │ 860
Max. │ 32 │ 25.8│ 58.1│ 19.3│ 19.1│ 22.7│ — │ 1.9 │1300
Avge. │ 32 │ 13.3│ 52.5│ 16.1│ 15.8│ 17.5│ — │ .9 │1040
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Loin, fat: Min. │ 6 │ — │ 52.1│ 16.0│ 15.8│ 25.1│ — │ .8 │1380
Edible portion Max. │ 6 │ — │ 56.9│ 18.7│ 17.5│ 29.6│ — │ 1.0 │1575
Avge. │ 6 │ — │ 54.7│ 17.6│ 16.8│ 27.6│ — │ .9 │1490
As purchased Min. │ 6 │ 5.9│ 44.3│ 14.1│ 13.8│ 23.6│ — │ .7 │1295
Max. │ 6 │ 15.0│ 53.6│ 16.5│ 16.1│ 25.9│ — │ .9 │1400
Avge. │ 6 │ 10.2│ 49.2│ 15.7│ 15.0│ 24.8│ — │ .8 │1305
Loin, all analyses: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 56 │ — │ 61.3│ 19.0│ 18.6│ 19.1│ — │ 1.0 │1155
As purchased │ 55 │ 13.3│ 52.9│ 16.4│ 16.0│ 16.9│ — │ .9 │1020
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Ribs, lean: Min. │ 6 │ — │ 66.0│ 16.5│ 16.9│ 9.8│ — │ .8 │ 790
Edible portion Max. │ 6 │ — │ 69.5│ 20.9│ 20.8│ 14.0│ — │ 1.1 │ 955
Avge. │ 6 │ — │ 67.9│ 19.6│ 19.1│ 12.0│ — │ 1.0 │ 870
As purchased Min. │ 6 │ 12.8│ 46.7│ 12.1│ 12.4│ 6.8│ — │ .6 │ 555
Max. │ 6 │ 32.6│ 60.7│ 17.5│ 17.1│ 11.0│ — │ .9 │ 750
Avge. │ 6 │ 22.6│ 52.6│ 15.2│ 14.8│ 9.3│ — │ .7 │ 675
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Ribs, Min. │ 15 │ — │ 49.9│ 16.2│ 15.9│ 18.0│ — │ .7 │1110
medium fat Max. │ 15 │ — │ 63.0│ 18.8│ 18.1│ 32.9│ — │ 1.1 │1700
Edible portion Avge. │ 15 │ — │ 55.5│ 17.5│ 17.0│ 26.6│ — │ .9 │1450
As purchased Min. │ 15 │ 15.3│ 40.2│ 12.2│ 12.0│ 12.8│ — │ .4 │1790
Max. │ 15 │ 28.7│ 49.9│ 14.9│ 14.6│ 26.5│ — │ .9 │1370
Avge. │ 15 │ 20.8│ 43.8│ 13.9│ 13.5│ 21.2│ — │ .7 │1155
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Ribs, fat: Min. │ 9 │ — │ 47.4│ 12.0│ 13.8│ 33.9│ — │ .6 │1710
Edible portion Max. │ 9 │ — │ 51.7│ 16.8│ 16.5│ 36.8│ — │ .9 │1845
Avge. │ 9 │ — │ 48.5│ 15.0│ 15.2│ 35.6│ — │ .7 │1780
As purchased Min. │ 8 │ 14.3│ 34.3│ 11.4│ 10.4│ 26.8│ — │ .5 │1325
Max. │ 8 │ 22.0│ 47.8│160 │ 15.6│ 39.9│ — │ .7 │1790
Avge. │ 8 │ 16.8│ 39.6│ 12.7│ 12.4│ 30.6│ — │ .6 │1525
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
BEEF, COOKED │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cut not given, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
boiled, as purchased │ 1 │ — │ 38.1│ 26.2│ 26.1│ 34.9│ — │ .9 │2805
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Scraps, as Min. │ 2 │ — │ 4.5│ 16.3│ 19.0│ 27.7│ — │ .7 │1660
purchased Max. │ 2 │ — │ 41.9│ 26.4│ 24.2│ 75.8│ — │ 6.2 │3500
Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 23.2│ 21.4│ 21.6│ 51.7│ — │ 3.5 │2580
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Roast, as Min. │ 7 │ — │ 38.7│ 15.1│ 14.5│ 19.6│ — │ .7 │1210
purchased Max. │ 7 │ — │ 59.5│ 29.0│ 29.7│ 41.4│ — │ 2.7 │2030
Avge. │ 7 │ — │ 48.2│ 22.3│ 21.9│ 28.6│ — │ 1.3 │1620
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Pressed, as purchased │ 1 │ — │ 44.1│ 23.6│ 26.7│ 27.7│ — │ 1.5 │1610
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Round steak, Min. │ 18 │ — │ 53.5│ 19.4│ 20.3│ 3.3│ — │ 1.1 │ 615
fat removed, Max. │ 18 │ — │ 72.3│ 34.1│ 34.1│ 16.9│ — │ 3.1 │1170
as purchased Avge. │ 18 │ — │ 63.0│ 27.6│ 27.5│ 7.7│ — │ 1.8 │ 840
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Sirloin steak, baked, │ 1 │ — │ 63.7│ 23.9│ 24.7│ 10.2│ — │ 1.4 │ 875
as purchased │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Loin steak, Min. │ 6 │ — │ 42.7│ 19.8│ 20.6│ 11.8│ — │ 1.0 │ 925
tenderloin, Max. │ 6 │ — │ 64.5│ 26.7│ 26.6│ 35.7│ — │ 1.4 │1875
broiled: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion Avge. │ 6 │ — │ 54.8│ 23.5│ 23.6│ 20.4│ — │ 1.2 │1300
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Sandwich meat, Min. │ 3 │ — │ 56.3│ 27.1│ 27.2│ 8.0│ — │ 2.5 │ 870
as purchased Max. │ 3 │ — │ 61.2│ 28.6│ 28.8│ 13.6│ — │ 3.1 │1075
Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 58.3│ 28.0│ 27.9│ 11.0│ — │ 2.8 │ 985
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Corned beef, all │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
analyses: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 10 │ — │ 53.6│ 15.6│ 15.3│ 26.2│ — │ 4.9 │1395
As purchased │ 10 │ 8.4│ 49.2│ 14.3│ 14.0│ 23.8│ — │ 4.6 │1271
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Spiced beef, │ 1 │ — │ 30.0│ 12.0│ 11.8│ 51.4│ — │ 6.8 │2390
rolled, as purchased │ │ — │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ — │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Tongues, Min. │ 2 │ — │ 50.9│ 8.3│ 8.0│ 15.3│ — │ 3.1 │ 800
pickled: Max. │ 2 │ — │ 73.6│ 17.8│ 17.0│ 25.8│ — │ 6.3 │1410
Edible portion Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 62 3│ 12.8│ 12.5│ 20.5│ — │ 4.7 │1105
As purchased Min. │ 2 │ 2.1│ 45.8│ 8.2│ 7.8│ 15.0│ — │ 3.1 │ 785
Max. │ 2 │ 10.0│ 72.0│ 15.6│ 15.3│ 23.3│ — │ 5.6 │1275
Avge. │ 2 │ 6.0│ 58.9│ 11.9│ 11.6│ 19.2│ — │ 4.3 │1030
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Tripe, as Min. │ 4 │ — │ 84.0│ 7.1│ 7.2│ .9│ 0.4│ .1 │ 185
purchased Max. │ 4 │ — │ 91.1│ 18.6│ 18.3│ 1.8│ .5│ .4 │ 335
Avge. │ 4 │ — │ 86.5│ 11.7│ 11.8│ 1.2│ .2│ .3 │ 270
──────────────────────┴────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴────
A Number of analyses F Fat
B Refuse G Total carbohydrates
C Water H Ash
D Protein N=6.25 J Fuel value per pound
E Protein by difference
──────────────────────┬────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬────
Food Materials. │ A │ B │ C │ D │ E │ F │ G │ H │ J
──────────────────────┼────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼────
VEAL, FRESH. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Leg, all analyses: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 19 │ — │ 71.7│ 20.7│ 20.5│ 6.7│ — │ 1.1 │ 670
As purchased │ 18 │ 11.7│ 63.4│ 18.3│ 18.1│ 5.8│ — │ 1.0 │ 585
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Leg, cutlets: Min. │ 3 │ — │ 67.3│ 20.1│ 20.1│ 3.3│ — │ 1.0 │ 515
Edible portion Max. │ 3 │ — │ 75.4│ 20.5│ 21.1│ 10.6│ — │ 1.2 │ 830
Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 70.7│ 20.3│ 20.5│ 7.7│ — │ 1.1 │ 705
As purchased Min. │ 3 │ 2.1│ 64.3│ 19.6│ 19.6│ 3.3│ — │ .9 │ 505
Max. │ 3 │ 4.5│ 73.8│ 21.1│ 20.2│ 10.1│ — │ 1.2 │ 790
Avge. │ 3 │ 3.4│ 68.3│ 20.1│ 19.8│ 7.5│ — │ 1.0 │ 690
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
LAMB, FRESH. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Breast or chuck: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 56.2│ 19.1│ 19.2│ 23.6│ — │ 1.0 │1350
As purchased │ 1 │ 19.1│ 45.5│ 15.4│ 15.5│ 19.1│ — │ .8 │1090
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Leg, hind, Min. │ 2 │ — │ 63.1│ 18.7│ 18.1│ 15.3│ — │ 1.1 │1010
medium fat: Max. │ 2 │ — │ 64.7│ 19.7│ 18.9│ 17.6│ — │ 1.2 │1090
Edible ptn. Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 63.9│ 19.2│ 18.5│ 16.5│ — │ 1.1 │1055
As purchased Min. │ 2 │ 17.0│ 52.4│ 15.5│ 15.0│ 12.6│ — │ .9 │ 830
Max. │ 2 │ 17.7│ 53.3│ 16.2│ 15.5│ 14.6│ — │ 1.0 │ 905
Avge. │ 2 │ 17.4│ 52.9│ 15.9│ 15.2│ 13.6│ — │ .9 │ 870
Leg, hind, fat: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 54.6│ 18.3│ 17.1│ 27.4│ — │ .9 │1495
As purchased │ 1 │ 13.4│ 47.3│ 15.8│ 14.8│ 23.7│ — │ .8 │1295
Leg, hind, very │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
fat: Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 51.8│ 17.6│ 17.2│ 30.1│ — │ .9 │1595
As purchased │ 1 │ 7.0│ 48.2│ 16.4│ 16.0│ 28.0│ — │ .8 │1485
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Leg, hind, all │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
analyses: Edible │ 4 │ — │ 58.6│ 18.6│ 17.8│ 22.6│ — │ 1.0 │1300
portion │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased │ 4 │ 13.8│ 50.3│ 16.0│ 15.3│ 19.7│ — │ .9 │1130
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
LAMB, COOKED. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Chops, broiled: Min. │ 4 │ — │ 43.4│ 19.2│ 19.2│ 24.3│ — │ 1.1│1495
Edible portion Max. │ 4 │ — │ 50.4│ 25.2│ 23.6│ 34.7│ — │ 1.7│1860
Avge. │ 4 │ — │ 47.6│ 21.7│ 21.2│ 29.9│ — │ 1.3│1665
As purchased │ 1 │ 13.5│ 40.1│ 18.4│ 18.5│ 26.7│ — │ 1.2│1470
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cut not given, │ 1 │ — │ 47.1│ 23.7│ 22.1│ 29.4│ — │ 1.4│1680
as purchased │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Leg, roast │ 1 │ — │ 67.1│ 19.7│ 19.4│ 12.7│ — │ .8│ 900
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Leg, hind, Min. │ 3 │ — │ 66.6│ 19.3│ 18.5│ 11.9│ — │ 1.0│ 875
lean: Max. │ 3 │ — │ 68.3│ 20.2│ 19.6│ 13.0│ — │ 1.2│ 920
Edible portion Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 67.4│ 19.8│ 19.1│ 12.4│ — │ 1.1│ 890
As purchased Min. │ 3 │ 3.4│ 51.0│ 14.7│ 14.1│ 9.3│ — │ .8│ 665
Max. │ 3 │ 23.7│ 65.0│ 19.5│ 19.0│ 11.5│ — │ 1.1│ 850
Avge. │ 3 │ 16.8│ 56.1│ 16.5│ 15.9│ 10.3│ — │ .9│ 740
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Leg, hind, Min. │ 11 │ — │ 58.4│ 17.4│ 17.3│ 14.6│ — │ .9│ 955
medium fat: Max. │ 11 │ — │ 65.3│ 19.4│ 19.0│ 22.5│ — │ 1.0│1295
Edible ptn. Avge. │ 11 │ — │ 62.8│ 18.5│ 18.2│ 18.0│ — │ 1.0│1105
As purchased Min. │ 11 │ 9.8│ 48.0│ 13.8│ 13.4│ 11.0│ — │ .7│ 730
Max. │ 11 │ 26.0│ 55.7│ 17.5│ 17.1│ 19.3│ — │ .9│1105
Avge. │ 11 │ 18.4│ 51.2│ 15.1│ 14.9│ 14.7│ — │ .8│ 900
Leg, hind, fat: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 55.0│ 17.3│ 17.0│ 27.1│ — │ .9│1465
As purchased │ 1 │ 12.4│ 48.2│ 15.2│ 14.8│ 23.8│ — │ .8│1290
Leg, hind, all analyses: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 15 │ — │ 63.2│ 18.7│ 18.3│ 17.5│ — │ 1.0│1085
As purchased │ 15 │ 17.7│ 51.9│ 15.4│ 15.1│ 14.5│ — │ .8│ 900
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Hind quarter Min. │ 10 │ 9.8│ 36.5│ 11.9│ 11.6│ 17.7│ — │ 0.6│1020
as purchased Max. │ 10 │ 22.4│ 50.0│ 15.7│ 14.7│ 41.5│ — │ .8│1975
Avge. │ 10 │ 17.2│ 45.4│ 13.8│ 13.5│ 23.2│ — │ .7│1235
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Side, incl. Min. │ 25 │ — │ 47.2│ 14.5│ 14.0│ 14.7│ — │ .7│ 965
tallow: Max. │ 25 │ — │ 55.9│ 18.9│ 18.4│ 38.0│ — │ 1.0│1860
Edible ptn. Avge. │ 25 │ — │ 54.2│ 16.3│ 16.0│ 28.9│ — │ .9│1520
As purchased Min. │ 25 │ 13.0│ 40.7│ 12.2│ 11.7│ 11.2│ — │ .6│ 730
Max. │ 25 │ 22.8│ 55.2│ 14.9│ 14.4│ 33.1│ — │ .8│1625
Avge. │ 25 │ 18.1│ 45.4│ 13.0│ 12.7│ 23.1│ — │ .7│1215
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Side, not incl. Min. │ 10 │ — │ 38.8│ 12.6│ 12.3│ 23.3│ — │ .7│1295
tallow: Max. │ 10 │ — │ 58.8│ 17.4│ 17.4│ 48.2│ — │ .9│2265
Edible portion Avge. │ 10 │ — │ 53.6│ 16.2│ 15.8│ 29.8│ — │ .8│1560
As purchased Min. │ 10 │ 12.9│ 33.8│ 11.0│ 10.7│ 18.1│ — │ .6│1005
Max. │ 10 │ 22.7│ 47.3│ 14.7│ 13.8│ 42.0│ — │ .8│1975
Avge. │ 10 │ 19.3│ 43.3│ 13.0│ 12.7│ 24.0│ — │ .7│1255
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
MUTTON, COOKED. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Mutton, leg Min. │ 2 │ — │ 50.8│ 23.3│ 23.2│ 20.5│ — │ 1.2│1380
roast: Max. │ 2 │ — │ 51.0│ 27.8│ 27.4│ 24.6│ — │ 1.3│1470
Edible portion Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 50.9│ 25.0│ 25.3│ 22.6│ — │ 1.2│1420
──────────────────────┴────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴────
A Number of analyses F Fat
B Refuse G Total carbohydrates
C Water H Ash
D Protein N=6.25 J Fuel value per pound
E Protein by difference
──────────────────────┬────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬────
Food Materials. │ A │ B │ C │ D │ E │ F │ G │ H │ J
──────────────────────┼────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼────
PORK, FRESH. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Ham, fresh, Min. │ 2 │ — │ 55.6│ 19.8│ 18.8│ 13.0│ — │ 1.0│1035
lean: Max. │ 2 │ — │ 64.4│ 30.2│ 30.2│ 15.8│ — │ 1.6│1110
Edible portion Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 60.0│ 25.0│ 24.3│ 14.4│ — │ 1.3│1075
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased Min. │ 2 │ — │ 55.6│ 19.4│ 18.5│ 13.0│ — │ .9│1015
Max. │ 2 │ 1.8│ 68.3│ 30.2│ 29.8│ 15.5│ — │ 1.6│1110
Avge. │ 2 │ .9│ 59.4│ 24.8│ 24.2│ 14.2│ — │ 1.3│1060
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Ham, fresh, Min. │ 10 │ — │ 37.3│ 9.9│ 12.8│ 21.2│ — │ .6│1225
medium fat: Max. │ 10 │ — │ 60.3│ 20.3│ 22.0│ 39.4│ — │ 1.3│2070
Edible ptn. Avge. │ 10 │ — │ 53.9│ 15.3│ 16.4│ 28.9│ — │ .8│1505
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased Min. │ 10 │ 4.6│ 34.1│ 8.7│ 11.3│ 19.4│ — │ .6│1120
Max. │ 10 │ 14.2│ 54.7│ 18.5│ 20.0│ 36.0│ — │ 1.2│1890
Avge. │ 10 │ 10.7│ 48.0│ 13.5│ 14.6│ 25.9│ — │ .8│1345
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Ham, fresh, Min. │ 5 │ — │ 30.4│ 10.7│ 8.0│ 43.8│ — │ .5│2030
fat: Max. │ 5 │ — │ 44.3│ 14.2│ 12.1│ 61.1│ — │ .8│2825
Edible portion Avge. │ 5 │ — │ 38.7│ 12.4│ 10.6│ 50.0│ — │ .7│2345
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased Min. │ 5 │ 9.7│ 25.9│ 9.5│ 6.8│ 37.8│ — │ .4│1790
Max. │ 5 │ 16.3│ 40.0│ 12.2│ 10.4│ 52.2│ — │ .7│2410
Avge. │ 5 │ 13.2│ 33.6│ 10.7│ 9.2│ 43.5│ — │ .5│2035
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Ham, fresh, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
average all analyses:│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Ham, luncheon, Min. │ 2 │ — │ 47.8│ 19.5│ 22.8│ 19.4│ — │ 5.0│1290
cooked: Max. │ 2 │ — │ 50.6│ 25.5│ 25.1│ 22.7│ — │ 6.7│1320
Edible portion. Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 49.2│ 22.5│ 24.0│ 21.0│ — │ 5.8│1305
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased Min. │ 2 │ 1.5│ 46.5│ 19.0│ 22.2│ 19.1│ — │ 4.9│1270
Max. │ 2 │ 2.8│ 49.7│ 25.1│ 24.8│ 22.0│ — │ 6.5│1280
Avge. │ 2 │ 2.1│ 48.1│ 22.1│ 23.5│ 20.6│ — │ 5.7│1280
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
POULTRY AND GAME, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
COOKED. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Capon: Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 59.9│ 27.0│ 27.3│ 11.5│ — │ 1.3│ 985
As purchased │ 1 │ 10.4│ 53.6│ 24.2│ 24.5│ 10.3│ — │ 1.2│ 885
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Capon, with stuffing: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 62.1│ 21.8│ — │ 10.9│ 3.8│ 1.4│ 935
As purchased │ 1 │ 7.7│ 57.2│ 20.1│ — │ 10.3│ 3.5│ 1.2│ 875
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Chicken, fricasseed: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 67.5│ 17.6│ — │ 11.5│ 2.4│ 1.0│ 855
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Turkey, roast: │ 1 │ — │ 52.0│ 27.8│ 28.4│ 18.4│ — │ 1.2│1295
Edible ptn. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Turkey, roast, light │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
and dark meat and │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
stuffing: Edible │ 1 │ — │ 65.0│ — │ 17.1│ 10.8│ 5.5│ 1.6│ 870
portion │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
FISH, FRESH. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Bass, striped, Min. │ 6 │ — │ 75.8│ 17.1│ 16.9│ 1.6│ — │ 0.9│ 405
whole: Max. │ 6 │ — │ 79.6│ 19.5│ 19.3│ 4.6│ — │ 1.4│ 530
Edible portion Avge. │ 6 │ — │ 77.7│ 18.6│ 18.3│ 2.8│ — │ 1.2│ 465
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased Min. │ 5 │ 48.6│ 32.5│ 7.4│ 7.2│ .7│ — │ .5│ 175
Max. │ 5 │ 57.1│ 39.7│ 9.8│ 9.7│ 1.6│ — │ .6│ 255
Avge. │ 5 │ 55.0│ 35.1│ 8.4│ 8.3│ 1.1│ — │ .5│ 200
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cod, whole; Min. │ 5 │ — │ 80.7│ 15.5│ 14.9│ .3│ — │ 1.0│ 300
Edible portion Max. │ 5 │ — │ 83.5│ 18.3│ 17.6│ .5│ — │ 1.4│ 370
Avge. │ 5 │ — │ 82.6│ 16.5│ 15.8│ .4│ — │ 1.2│ 325
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased Min. │ 2 │ 48.5│ 35.1│ 8.0│ 7.7│ .1│ — │ .6│ 155
Max. │ 2 │ 56.5│ 42.3│ 8.7│ 8.3│ .3│ — │ .6│ 175
Avge. │ 2 │ 52.5│ 38.7│ 8.4│ 8.0│ .2│ — │ .6│ 165
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Salmon, whole; Min. │ 6 │ — │ 60.1│ 19.4│ 19.1│ 10.2│ — │ 1.1│ 790
Edible portion Max. │ 6 │ — │ 69.5│ 25.2│ 24.5│ 15.0│ — │ 1.6│1035
Avge. │ 6 │ — │ 64.6│ 22.0│ 21.2│ 12.8│ — │ 1.4│ 950
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
SHELLFISH, ETC., │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
FRESH. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Lobster, whole: Min. │ 5 │ — │ 68.6│ 11.6│ — │ 1.5│ — │ 1.6│345
Edible portion Max. │ 5 │ — │ 84.3│ 25.4│ — │ 2.5│ 0.9│ 4.0│555
Avge. │ 5 │ — │ 79.2│ 16.4│ — │ 1.8│ .4│ 2.2│390
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased Min. │ 5 │ 44.0│ 18.0│ 4.4│ — │ .5│ — │ .6│115
Max. │ 5 │ 73.7│ 47.2│ 6.7│ — │ .9│ .4│ 1.0│165
Avge. │ 5 │ 61.7│ 30.7│ 5.9│ — │ .7│ .2│ .8│140
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Mussels in shell │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 84.2│ 8.7│ — │ 1.1│ 4.1│ 1.9│285
As purchased │ 1 │ 46.7│ 44.9│ 4.6│ — │ .6│ 2.2│ 1.0│150
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Oysters, in Min. │ 34 │ — │ 81.7│ 4.2│ — │ .6│ 1.8│ 1.2│135
shell: Max. │ 34 │ — │ 91.4│ 10.0│ — │ 1.9│ 6.7│ 2.8│370
Edible portion Avge. │ 34 │ — │ 86.9│ 6.2│ — │ 1.2│ 3.7│ 2.0│235
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased Min. │ 34 │ 74.0│ 10.7│ .7│ — │ .1│ .2│ .2│ 15
Max. │ 34 │ 88.3│ 23.1│ 1.8│ — │ .4│ 1.3│ .6│ 65
Avge. │ 34 │ 81.4│ 16.1│ 1.2│ — │ .2│ .7│ .4│ 45
──────────────────────┴────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴────
A Number of analyses F Fat
B Refuse G Total carbohydrates
C Water H Ash
D Protein N=6.25 J Fuel value per pound
E Protein by difference
──────────────────────┬────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬────
Food Materials. │ A │ B │ C │ D │ E │ F │ G │ H │ J
──────────────────────┼────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼────
Oysters, Min. │ 9 │ — │ 82.2│ 4.5│ — │ .5│ 1.5│ .7│ 135
solids, Max. │ 9 │ — │ 92.4│ 7.3│ — │ 1.8│ 6.2│ 2.5│ 325
as purchased Avge. │ 9 │ — │ 88.3│ 6.0│ — │ 1.3│ 3.3│ 1.1│ 230
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Scallops, Min. │ 2 │ — │ 77.8│ 14.5│ — │ — │ 1.1│ 1.3│ 305
as purchased Max. │ 2 │ — │ 82.8│ 15.1│ — │ .3│ 5.6│ 1.5│ 385
Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 80.3│ 14.8│ — │ .1│ 3.4│ 1.4│ 345
Terrapin: Edible │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
portion │ 1 │ — │ 74.5│ 21.2│ 21.0│ 3.5│ — │ 1.0│ 545
As purchased │ 1 │ 75.4│ 18.3│ 5.2│ 5.2│ .9│ — │ .2│ 135
Turtle, green, whole: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 79.8│ 19.8│ 18.5│ .5│ — │ 1.2│ 390
As purchased │ 1 │ 76.0│ 19.2│ 4.7│ 4.4│ .1│ — │ .3│ 90
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
EGGS. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Hens’, Min. │ 60 │ — │ 67.2│ 11.6│ 11.4│ 8.6│ — │ .6│ 660
uncooked: Max. │ 60 │ — │ 75.8│ 16.0│ 17.4│ 15.1│ — │ 1.6│ 910
Edible portion Avge. │ 60 │ — │ 73.7│ 13.4│ 14.8│ 10.5│ — │ 1.0│ 720
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased │ — │ 11.2│ 65.5│ 11.9│ 13.1│ 9.3│ — │ .9│ 635
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Hens’, boiled: Min. │ 19 │ — │ 68.6│ 10.0│ 10.3│ 9.1│ — │ .6│ 575
Edible portion Max. │ 19 │ — │ 79.9│ 15.6│ 16.8│ 14.7│ — │ 1.1│ 880
Avge. │ 19 │ — │ 73.2│ 13.2│ 14.0│ 12.0│ — │ .8│ 765
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased │ — │ 11.2│ 65.0│ 11.7│ 12.4│ 10.7│ — │ .7│ 680
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Hens’, boiled Min. │ 11 │ — │ 83.1│ 11.6│ 12.3│ — │ — │ 0.4│ 235
whites: Max. │ 11 │ — │ 87.1│ 14.8│ 15.4│ 0.3│ — │ 1.0│ 295
Edible portion Avge. │ 11 │ — │ 86.2│ 12.3│ 13.0│ 0.2│ — │ .6│ 250
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Hens’, boiled Min. │ 11 │ — │ 48.4│ 15.3│ 15.5│ 32.2│ — │ 1.0│1685
yolks: Max. │ 11 │ — │ 50.2│ 16.8│ 18.0│ 34.4│ — │ 1.4│1745
Edible portion Avge. │ 11 │ — │ 49.5│ 15.7│ 16.1│ 33.3│ — │ 1.1│1705
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
DAIRY PRODUCTS, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
AS PURCHASED │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Butter │ — │ — │ 11.0│ 1.0│ — │ 85.0│ — │ 3.0│3605
Buttermilk │ — │ — │ 91.0│ 3.0│ — │ .5│ 4.8│ .7│ 165
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cheese, American, pale│ 1 │ — │ 31.6│ 28.8│ — │ 35.9│ 0.3│ 3.4│2055
Cheese, American, red │ 1 │ — │ 28.8│ — │ 29.6│ 38.3│ — │ 3.5│2165
Cheese, Boudon │ 1 │ — │ 55.2│ 15.4│ — │ 20.8│ 1.6│ 7.0│1195
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cheese, California flat 4 │ — │ 34.0│ 24.3│ — │ 33.4│ 4.5│ 3.8│1945
Cheese, Cheddar │ 6 │ — │ 27.4│ 27.7│ — │ 36.8│ 4.1│ 4.0│2145
Cheese, Cheshire │ 1 │ — │ 37.1│ 26.9│ — │ 30.7│ 0.9│ 4.4│1810
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cheese, cottage Min. │ 2 │ — │ 67.0│ 16.1│ — │ .4│ 3.7│ 1.6│ 435
Max. │ 2 │ — │ 77.0│ 25.7│ — │ 1.6│ 4.9│ 2.0│ 585
Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 72.0│ 20.9│ — │ 1.0│ 4.3│ 1.8│ 510
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cheese, Crown brand │ 1 │ — │ 31.4│ 5.2│ — │ 58.0│ 2.2│ 3.2│2585
cream │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cheese, Dutch Min. │ 2 │ — │ 27.6│ — │ 29.6│ 16.3│ — │ 8.7│1240
Max. │ 2 │ — │ 42.7│ — │ 44.7│ 19.0│ — │ 11.4│1630
Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 35.2│ — │ 37.1│ 17.7│ — │ 10.0│1435
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cheese, Fromage │ 1 │ — │ 60.2│ 15.9│ — │ 21.0│ 1.4│ 1.5│1210
de Brie │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cheese, full Min. │ 25 │ — │ 27.0│ 17.9│ — │ 24.5│ 1.2│ 2.5│1790
cream Max. │ 25 │ — │ 44.1│ 37.0│ — │ 44.6│ 4.0│ 4.9│2430
Avge. │ 25 │ — │ 34.2│ 25.9│ — │ 33.7│ 2.4│ 3.8│1950
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cheese, imitation │ 1 │ — │ 37.9│ — │ 25.9│ 31.7│ — │ 4.5│1820
full cream, Ohio │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cheese, imitation │ 1 │ — │ 20.7│ 30.1│ — │ 42.7│ 1.3│ 5.2│2385
old English │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cheese, Limburger │ 1 │ — │ 42.1│ 23.0│ — │ 29.4│ .4│ 5.1│1675
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cheese, Min. │ 2 │ — │ 42.7│ 15.1│ — │ 22.3│ .2│ 2.3│1275
Neuchatel Max. │ 2 │ — │ 57.2│ 22.3│ — │ 32.5│ 2.9│ 2.5│1790
Avge.│ 2 │ — │ 50.0│ 18.7│ — │ 27.4│ 1.5│ 2.4│1530
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cream │ — │ — │ 74.0│ 2.5│ — │ 18.5│ 4.5│ .5│ 910
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Koumiss Min. │ 8 │ — │ 88.8│ 2.6│ — │ 1.7│ 5.1│ .4│ 215
Max. │ 8 │ — │ 90.0│ 3.0│ — │ 2.4│ 5.9│ .4│ 265
Avge.│ 8 │ — │ 89.3│ 2.8│ — │ 2.1│ 5.4│ .4│ 240
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Milk, condensed, Min. │ 24 │ — │ 21.6│ 6.0│ — │ .4│ 44.4│ 1.5│1270
sweetened Max. │ 24 │ — │ 37.3│ 10.5│ — │ 10.6│ 56.9│ 2.1│1650
Avge.│ 24 │ — │ 26.9│ 8.8│ — │ 8.3│ 54.1│ 1.9│1520
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Milk, condensed, Min. │ 6 │ — │ 66.3│ 8.6│ — │ 7.8│ 10.4│ 1.5│ 740
unsweetened, Max. │ 6 │ — │ 69.6│ 10.5│ — │ 10.4│ 12.2│ 2.1│ 835
“evaporated” Avge.│ 6 │ — │ 68.2│ 9.6│ — │ 9.3│ 11.2│ 1.7│ 780
cream │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Milk, skimmed │ — │ — │ 90.5│ 3.4│ — │ .3│ 5.1│ .7│ 170
Milk, whole │ — │ — │ 87.0│ 3.3│ — │ 4.0│ 5.0│ 0.7│ 325
Whey │ — │ — │ 93.0│ 1.0│ — │ .3│ 5.0│ .7│ 125
──────────────────────┴────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴────
A Number of analyses F Fat
B Refuse G Total carbohydrates
C Water H Ash
D Protein N=6.25 J Fuel value per pound
E Protein by difference
──────────────────────┬────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬────
Food Materials. │ A │ B │ C │ D │ E │ F │ G │ H │ J
──────────────────────┼────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼────
VEGETABLE FOOD. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
—FLOURS, MEALS, ETC.│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Barley, granulated │ 1 │ — │ 10.9│ 7.5│ 0.9│ 79.8│ 0.7│ 0.9│1660
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Barley meal Min. │ 3 │ — │ 9.9│ 9.0│ 1.5│ 70.4│ 5.9│ 1.6│1535
and flour Max. │ 3 │ — │ 13.6│ 12.7│ 3.2│ 74.5│ 7.0│ 3.8│1680
Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 11.9│ 10.5│ 2.2│ 72.8│ 6.5│ 2.6│1640
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Barley, pearled Min. │ 3 │ — │ 9.8│ 7.0│ .7│ 77.3│ — │ .6│1635
Max. │ 3 │ — │ 12.9│ 10.1│ 1.5│ 78.1│ — │ 1.6│1675
Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 11.5│ 8.5│ 1.1│ 77.8│ .3│ 1.1│1650
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Buckwheat flour Min. │ 17 │ — │ 11.2│ 3.9│ .5│ 71.6│ .2│ .5│1560
Max. │ 17 │ — │ 17.6│ 10.4│ 2.3│ 81.5│ .7│ 1.8│1650
Avge. │ 17 │ — │ 13.6│ 6.4│ 1.2│ 77.9│ .4│ .9│1620
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Corn flour Min. │ 3 │ — │ 12.0│ 5.9│ 1.0│ 76.9│ .6│ .5│1630
Max. │ 3 │ — │ 13.0│ 8.5│ 1.8│ 79.6│ 1.2│ .8│1665
Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 12.6│ 7.1│ 1.3│ 78.4│ .9│ .6│1645
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Corn meal, Min. │ 19 │ — │ 8.8│ 6.7│ 1.0│ 68.4│ — │ .5│1550
granular Max. │ 19 │ — │ 17.9│ 11.5│ 5.3│ 80.6│ — │ 1.9│1720
Avge. │ 19 │ — │ 12.5│ 9.2│ 1.9│ 75.4│ 1.0│ 1.0│1655
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Corn meal, Min. │ 7 │ — │ 10.9│ 7.8│ 4.5│ 71.9│ — │ 1.2│1720
unbolted: Max. │ 7 │ — │ 12.4│ 9.3│ 5.2│ 75.4│ — │ 1.4│1740
Edible portion Avge. │ 7 │ — │ 11.6│ 8.4│ 4.7│ 74.0│ — │ 1.3│1730
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased Min. │ 7 │ 4.2│ 9.2│ 6.5│ 3.5│ 55.7│ — │ 1.0│1305
Max. │ 7 │ 24.1│ 10.8│ 8.0│ 4.5│ 72.2│ — │ 1.3│1670
Avge. │ 7 │ 10.9│ 10.3│ 7.5│ 4.2│ 65.9│ — │ 1.2│1545
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Pop corn Min. │ 2 │ — │ 4.1│ 10.3│ 4.7│ 78.6│ 1.3│ 1.3│1870
Max. │ 2 │ — │ 4.4│ 11.1│ 5.4│ 78.7│ 1.4│ 1.4│1880
Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 4.3│ 10.7│ 5.0│ 78.7│ 1.4│ 1.3│1875
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Oatmeal Min. │ 16 │ — │ 2.0│ 12.9│ 6.0│ 63.8│ .6│ 1.5│1810
Max. │ 16 │ — │ 8.8│ 20.8│ 8.8│ 70.2│ 1.2│ 2.2│1875
Avge. │ 16 │ — │ 7.3│ 16.1│ 7.2│ 67.5│ .9│ 1.9│1860
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Oatmeal, boiled │ 1 │ — │ 84.5│ 2.8│ .5│ 11.5│ — │ .7│ 285
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Oatmeal gruel Min. │ 2 │ — │ 87.5│ 0.9│ 0.2│ 2.9│ — │ 0.3│ 80
Max. │ 2 │ — │ 95.7│ 1.6│ .5│ 9.6│ — │ .8│ 230
Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 91.6│ 1.2│ .4│ 6.3│ — │ .5│ 155
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Oatmeal water Min. │ 2 │ — │ 94.0│ .4│ .1│ 1.3│ — │ .1│ 35
Max. │ 2 │ — │ 98.1│ .9│ .1│ 4.5│ — │ .5│ 105
Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 96.0│ .7│ .1│ 2.9│ — │ .3│ 70
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Oats, other Min. │ 20 │ — │ 5.5│ 13.6│ 5.6│ 62.8│ 1.2│ 1.6│1755
preparations: Max. │ 20 │ — │ 11.2│ 19.1│ 8.8│ 70.8│ 1.4│ 4.7│1885
Rolled oats Avge. │ 20 │ — │ 7.7│ 16.7│ 7.3│ 66.2│ 2.3│ 2.1│1850
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Miscellaneous Min. │ 26 │ — │ 6.4│ 13.7│ 6.1│ 63.9│ .6│ 1.3│1830
Max. │ 26 │ — │ 9.2│ 18.4│ 8.2│ 70.5│ 1.7│ 1.9│1890
Avge. │ 26 │ — │ 7.9│ 16.3│ 7.3│ 66.8│ .9│ 1.7│1855
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
All analyses, │ 46 │ — │ 7.8│ 16.5│ 7.3│ 66.5│ 1.0│ 1.9│1850
average │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Rice Min. │ 21 │ — │ 9.1│ 5.9│ .1│ 75.4│ .1│ .2│1600
Max. │ 21 │ — │ 14.0│ 11.3│ .7│ 81.9│ .4│ .5│1690
Avge. │ 21 │ — │ 12.3│ 8.0│ .3│ 79.0│ .2│ .4│1630
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Rice, boiled Min. │ 3 │ — │ 52.7│ 1.6│ — │ 15.5│ — │ .1│ 330
Max. │ 3 │ — │ 82.7│ 5.0│ .1│ 41.9│ — │ .3│ 875
Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 72.5│ 2.8│ .1│ 24.4│ — │ .2│ 510
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Rice, flaked Min. │ 2 │ — │ 9.4│ 7.5│ .3│ 81.4│ .1│ .3│1680
Max. │ 2 │ — │ 9.7│ 8.3│ .5│ 82.2│ .2│ .4│1690
Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 9.5│ 7.9│ .4│ 81.9│ .2│ .3│1685
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Rice flour Min. │ 4 │ — │ 3.7│ 4.7│ 1.7│ 58.3│ 9.1│ 6.6│1635
Max. │ 4 │ — │ 10.9│ 12.0│ 10.4│ 79.2│ 28.3│ 10.7│1765
Avge. │ 4 │ — │ 8.5│ 8.6│ 6.1│ 68.0│ 16.1│ 8.8│1680
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Rye flour Min. │ 8 │ — │ 11.9│ 4.9│ .2│ 77.6│ .4│ .6│1615
Max. │ 8 │ — │ 13.6│ 8.8│ 1.3│ 80.2│ .5│ .9│1650
Avge. │ 8 │ — │ 12.9│ 6.8│ .9│ 78.7│ .4│ .7│1630
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Rye meal │ 1 │ — │ 11.4│ 13.6│ 2.0│ 71.5│ 1.8│ 1.5│1665
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Wheat flour, Min. │ 3 │ — │ 12.4│ 7.2│ 1.2│ 73.9│ — │ .4│1590
California Max. │ 3 │ — │ 15.6│ 8.8│ 1.6│ 77.8│ — │ .5│1660
fine Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 13.8│ 7.9│ 1.4│ 76.4│ — │ .5│1625
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Wheat flour, Min. │ 9 │ — │ 6.4│ 12.2│ 1.5│ 69.5│ .5│ .6│1635
entire wheat Max. │ 9 │ — │ 13.1│ 14.6│ 2.1│ 77.0│ 1.2│ 1.5│1760
Avge. │ 9 │ — │ 11.4│ 13.8│ 1.9│ 71.9│ .9│ 1.0│1675
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Wheat flour, Min. │ 5 │ — │ 10.5│ 12.8│ 1.1│ 69.6│ — │ .5│1635
gluten Max. │ 5 │ — │ 13.0│ 15.0│ 2.4│ 72.8│ .6│ 1.3│1690
Avge. │ 5 │ — │ 12.0│ 14.2│ 1.8│ 71.1│ .6│ .9│1685
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Wheat flour, Min. │ 13 │ — │ 9.9│ 8.5│ 1.5│ 66.0│ 1.8│ 1.0│1615
Graham Max. │ 13 │ — │ 13.7│ 17.7│ 3.6│ 75.8│ 2.0│ 2.7│1710
Avge. │ 13 │ — │ 11.3│ 13.3│ 2.2│ 71.4│ 1.9│ 1.8│1670
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Wheat flour, Min. │ 29 │ — │ 8.0│ 8.0│ .6│ 67.4│ .4│ 1.5│1550
prepared Max. │ 29 │ — │ 13.0│ 13.3│ 2.2│ 78.6│ .5│ 7.1│1730
(self-raising) Avge. │ 29 │ — │ 10.8│ 10.2│ 1.2│ 73.0│ .4│ 4.8│1600
──────────────────────┴────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴────
A Number of analyses F Fat
B Refuse G Total carbohydrates
C Water H Ash
D Protein N=6.25 J Fuel value per pound
E Protein by difference
──────────────────────┬────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬────
Food Materials. │ A │ B │ C │ D │ E │ F │ G │ H │ J
──────────────────────┼────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼────
VEGETABLES. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Beans, dried, Min. │ 11 │ — │ 9.6│ 19.9│ 1.4│ 57.2│ 3.2│ 2.7│1540
as purchased Max. │ 11 │ — │ 15.5│ 26.6│ 3.1│ 63.5│ 7.2│ 4.4│1690
Avge. │ 11 │ — │ 12.6│ 22.5│ 1.8│ 59.6│ 4.4│ 3.5│1605
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Beans, frijoles Min. │ 4 │ — │ 6.3│ 20.9│ 1.0│ 60.7│ — │ 4.0│1625
(N. Mexico), Max. │ 4 │ — │ 9.9│ 24.4│ 1.5│ 66.9│ — │ 4.4│1695
as puchsd. Avge. │ 4 │ — │ 7.5│ 21.9│ 1.3│ 65.1│ — │ 4.2│1675
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Beans, Lima, Min. │ 4 │ — │ 8.3│ 12.8│ .6│ 61.6│ — │ 3.6│1600
dried, Max. │ 4 │ — │ 12.2│ 24.5│ 1.9│ 70.1│ — │ 4.7│1645
as purchased Avge. │ 4 │ — │ 10.4│ 18.1│ 1.5│ 65.9│ — │ 4.1│1625
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Lentils, dried, Min. │ 3 │ — │ 6.4│ 24.5│ .7│ 58.6│ — │ 3.2│1595
as purchased Max. │ 3 │ — │ 10.7│ 26.6│ 1.5│ 59.8│ — │ 8.6│1635
Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 8.4│ 25.7│ 1.0│ 59.2│ — │ 5.7│1620
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Peas, dried, Min. │ 8 │ — │ 6.9│ 20.4│ .8│ 58.0│ 1.2│ 2.2│1570
as purchased Max. │ 8 │ — │ 15.0│ 28.0│ 1.3│ 67.4│ 7.9│ 4.3│1670
Avge. │ 8 │ — │ 9.5│ 24.6│ 1.0│ 62.0│ 4.5│ 2.9│1655
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cowpeas, dried, Min. │ 13 │ — │ 10.0│ 19.3│ 1.1│ 53.1│ 3.4│ 2.9│1450
as purchased Max. │ 13 │ — │ 20.9│ 23.0│ 1.6│ 65.4│ 5.0│ 3.8│1650
Avge. │ 13 │ — │ 13.0│ 21.4│ 1.4│ 60.8│ 4.1│ 3.4│1590
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Potatoes, Min. │136 │ — │ 67.8│ 1.1│ — │ 13.5│ 0.2│ 0.5│ 285
raw or fresh: Max. │136 │ — │ 84.0│ 3.0│ 0.2│ 27.4│ .9│ 1.9│ 570
Edible ptn. Avge. │136 │ — │ 78.3│ 2.2│ .1│ 18.4│ .4│ 1.0│ 385
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased │ — │ 20.0│ 62.6│ 1.8│ .1│ 14.7│ — │ .8│ 310
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Potatoes, Min. │ 3 │ — │ 4.8│ 7.3│ .4│ 79.5│ — │ 2.7│1640
evaporated, Max. │ 3 │ — │ 8.7│ 9.5│ .4│ 82.2│ — │ 3.6│1725
as purchased Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 7.1│ 8.5│ .4│ 80.9│ — │ 3.1│1680
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Potatoes, Min. │ 11 │ — │ 69.7│ 1.8│ .0│ 16.1│ — │ .7│ 340
cooked, boiled, Max. │ 11 │ — │ 81.0│ 3.1│ .4│ 26.5│ — │ 1.4│ 545
as puchsd. Avge. │ 11 │ — │ 75.5│ 2.5│ .1│ 20.9│ .6│ 1.0│ 440
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
FRUITS, BERRIES, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
ETC., FRESH. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Apples: Edible Min. │ 29 │ — │ 77.3│ .1│ .1│ 8.8│ 0.9│ .2│ 175
portion Max. │ 29 │ — │ 90.9│ .8│ 1.4│ 21.3│ 1.4│ .6│ 420
Avge. │ 29 │ — │ 84.6│ .4│ .5│ 14.2│ 1.2│ .3│ 290
As purchased │ — │ 25.0│ 63.3│ .3│ .3│ 10.8│ — │ .3│ 220
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Apricots: Edible │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
portion, average │ 11 │ — │ 85.0│ 1.1│ — │ 13.4│ — │ .5│ 270
As purchased │ — │ 6.0│ 79.9│ 1.0│ — │ 12.6│ — │ .5│ 255
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Bananas, yellow Min. │ 6 │ — │ 66.3│ 1.0│ .0│ 16.3│ — │ .5│ 330
Edible portion Max. │ 6 │ — │ 81.6│ 1.6│ 1.4│ 29.8│ — │ 1.1│ 640
Avge. │ 6 │ — │ 75.3│ 1.3│ .6│ 22.0│ 1.0│ .8│ 460
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased │ — │ 35.0│ 48.9│ .8│ .4│ 14.3│ — │ .6│ 300
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Blackberries, Min. │ 9 │ — │ 78.4│ .9│ .5│ 7.5│ — │ .4│ 245
as purchased Max. │ 9 │ — │ 88.9│ 1.5│ 2.9│ 16.7│ — │ .9│ 455
Avge. │ 9 │ — │ 86.3│ 1.3│ 1.0│ 10.9│ 2.5│ .5│ 270
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cherries: Min. │ 16 │ — │ 76.9│ .7│ .8│ 11.4│ — │ .5│ 820
Edible portion Max. │ 16 │ — │ 86.1│ 1.1│ .8│ 20.6│ — │ 1.0│ 430
Avge. │ 16 │ — │ 80.9│ 1.0│ .8│ 16.7│ .2│ .6│ 365
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased │ — │ 5.0│ 76.8│ .9│ .8│ 15.9│ — │ .6│ 345
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cranberries, Min. │ 3 │ — │ 87.6│ .4│ .4│ 9.3│ 1.2│ .2│ 200
as purchased Max. │ 3 │ — │ 89.5│ .5│ .9│ 10.9│ 1.7│ .2│ 245
Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 88.9│ .4│ .6│ 9.9│ 1.5│ .2│ 215
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Currants, as purchased│ 1 │ — │ 85.0│ 1.5│ — │ 12.8│ — │ .7│ 265
Figs, fresh, as │ 28 │ — │ 79.1│ 1.5│ — │ 18.8│ — │ .6│ 380
purchased, average │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Grapes: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion, avge │ 5 │ — │ 77.4│ 1.3│ 1.6│ 19.2│ 4.3│ .5│ 450
As purchased │ — │ 25.0│ 58.0│ 1.0│ 1.2│ 14.4│ — │ .4│ 335
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Huckleberries: │ 1 │ — │ 81.9│ .6│ .6│ 16.6│ — │ .3│ 345
Edible portion │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Blueberries, Min. │ 3 │ — │ 84.9│ 0.4│ 0.4│ 12.2│ — │ 0.2│ 260
as purchased Max. │ 3 │ — │ 86.4│ .8│ .9│ 13.8│ — │ .5│ 280
Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 85.6│ .6│ .6│ 12.8│ — │ .4│ 275
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cherries, as purchased│ 1 │ — │ 77.2│ 1.1│ .1│ 21.1│ — │ .5│ 415
Cherry jelly: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
1st quality, │ 1 │ — │ 21.0│ 1.1│ — │ 77.2│ │ │
2nd quality, │ 1 │ — │ 38.4│ 1.2│ — │ 59.8│ — │ .6│1135
as purchased │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Figs, stewed, │ 1 │ — │ 56.5│ 1.2│ .3│ 40.9│ — │ 1.1│ 785
as purchased │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Grape butter, │ 1 │ — │ 36.7│ 1.2│ .1│ 58.5│ — │ 3.5│1115
as purchased │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Marmalade (orange │ 1 │ — │ 14.5│ .6│ .1│ 84.5│ — │ .3│1585
peel), as purchased │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Peaches, Min. │ 3 │ — │ 81.4│ .5│ — │ 5.3│ — │ .3│ 115
as purchased Max. │ 3 │ — │ 93.7│ .9│ .2│ 17.3│ — │ .4│ 340
Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 88.1│ .7│ .1│ 10.8│ — │ .3│ 220
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Pears, Min. │ 4 │ — │ 79.6│ — │ .1│ 15.6│ — │ .2│ 300
as purchased Max. │ 4 │ — │ 83.6│ .5│ .9│ 19.5│ — │ .3│ 400
Avge. │ 4 │ — │ 81.1│ .3│ .3│ 18.0│ — │ .3│ 355
──────────────────────┴────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴────
A Number of analyses F Fat
B Refuse G Total carbohydrates
C Water H Ash
D Protein N=6.25 J Fuel value per pound
E Protein by difference
──────────────────────┬────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬────
Food Materials. │ A │ B │ C │ D │ E │ F │ G │ H │ J
──────────────────────┼────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼────
Pineapples, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
as purchased │ 1 │ — │ 61.8│ .4│ .7│ 36.4│ — │ .7│ 715
Prune sauce, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
as purchased │ 1 │ — │ 76.6│ .5│ .1│ 22.3│ — │ .5│ 480
Strawberries, stewed, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
as purchased │ 1 │ — │ 74.8│ .7│ — │ 24.0│ — │ .5│ 460
Tomato preserves, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
as purchased │ 1 │ — │ 40.9│ .7│ .1│ 57.6│ — │ .7│1090
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
NUTS. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Almonds: Min. │ 11 │ — │ 2.0│ 16.6│ 48.9│ 12.8│ 1.6│ 1.6│2870
Edible portion Max. │ 11 │ — │ 5.3│ 25.3│ 60.0│ 21.4│ 2.5│ 2.5│3145
Avge. │ 11 │ — │ 4.8│ 21.0│ 54.9│ 17.3│ 2.0│ 2.0│3030
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased │ — │ 45.0│ 2.7│ 11.5│ 30.2│ 9.5│ — │ 1.1│1660
Beechnuts: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion, │ 1 │ — │ 4.0│ 21.9│ 57.4│ 13.2│ — │ 3.5│3075
As purchased │ 1 │ 40.8│ 2.3│ 13.0│ 34.0│ 7.8│ — │ 2.1│1820
“Biotes” (acorns): │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 4.1│ 8.1│ 37.4│ 48.0│ — │ 2.4│2620
As purchased │ 1 │ 35.6│ 2.6│ 5.2│ 24.1│ 30.9│ — │ 1.6│1690
Brazil nuts: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 5.3│ 17.0│ 66.8│ 7.0│ — │ 3.9│3265
As purchased │ 1 │ 49.6│ 2.6│ 8.6│ 33.7│ 3.5│ — │ 2.0│1655
Butternuts: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 4.4│ 27.9│ 61.2│ 3.5│ — │ 2.9│3165
As purchased │ 1 │ 86.4│ .6│ 3.8│ 8.3│ .5│ — │ .4│ 430
Chestnuts, fresh: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion Min. │ 9 │ — │ 29.2│ 4.1│ 2.0│ 36.9│ 1.4│ .7│ 895
Max. │ 9 │ — │ 53.8│ 8.0│ 10.8│ 54.0│ 2.5│ 1.8│1480
Avge. │ 9 │ — │ 45.0│ 6.2│ 5.4│ 42.1│ 1.8│ 1.3│1125
As purchased │ 9 │ 16.0│ 37.8│ 5.2│ 4.5│ 35.4│ — │ 1.1│ 945
Chestnuts, dried: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion Min. │ 8 │ — │ 4.8│ 8.2│ 3.9│ 65.7│ 2.4│ 1.5│1815
Max. │ 8 │ — │ 6.6│ 13.5│ 15.3│ 80.3│ 3.0│ 2.9│2085
Avge. │ 8 │ — │ 5.9│ 10.7│ 7.0│ 74.2│ 2.7│ 2.2│1875
As purchased │ 8 │ 24.0│ 4.5│ 8.1│ 5.3│ 56.4│ — │ 1.7│1425
Cocoanuts: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 14.1│ 5.7│ 50.6│ 27.9│ — │ 1.7│2760
As purchased │ 1 │ 48.8│ 7.2│ 2.9│ 25.9│ 14.3│ — │ .9│1413
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Cocoanut without milk,│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
as purchased │ 1 │ 37.3│ 8.9│ 3.6│ 31.7│ 17.5│ — │ 1.0│1730
Cocoanut milk │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
as purchased │ 1 │ — │ 92.7│ .4│ 1.5│ 4.6│ — │ .8│ 155
Cocoanut, prepared, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
as purchased Min. │ 2 │ — │ 2.8│ 6.0│ 51.0│ 24.1│ — │ 1.2│2990
Max. │ 2 │ — │ 4.3│ 6.5│ 63.7│ 39.0│ — │ 1.4│3260
Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 3.5│ 6.3│ 57.4│ 31.5│ — │ 1.3│3125
Filberts: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 3.7│ 15.6│ 65.3│ 13.0│ — │ 2.4│3290
As purchased │ 1 │ 52.1│ 1.8│ 7.5│ 31.3│ 6.2│ — │ 1.1│1575
Hickory nuts: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 3.7│ 15.4│ 67.4│ 11.4│ — │ 2.1│3345
As purchased │ 1 │ 62.2│ 1.4│ 5.8│ 25.5│ 4.3│ — │ .8│1265
Lichi nuts: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 17.9│ 2.9│ .2│ 77.5│ — │ 1.5│1505
As purchased │ 1 │ 41.6│ 10.5│ 1.7│ .1│ 45.2│ — │ .9│ 875
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Peanuts: Min. │ 4 │ — │ 4.9│ 19.5│ 32.3│ 15.3│ 2.0│ 1.9│2415
Edible Portion Max. │ 4 │ — │ 13.2│ 29.1│ 48.8│ 40.4│ 3.0│ 2.4│2885
Avge. │ 4 │ — │ 9.2│ 25.8│ 38.6│ 24.4│ 2.5│ 2.0│2560
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
As purchased │ — │ 24.5│ 6.9│ 19.5│ 29.1│ 18.5│ — │ 1.5│1935
Peanut butter, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
as purchased │ 2 │ — │ 2.1│ 29.3│ 46.5│ 17.1│ — │ 6.0│2825
Pecans, polished: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 3.0│ 11.0│ 71.2│ 13.3│ — │ 1.5│3455
As purchased │ 1 │ 53.2│ 1.4│ 5.2│ 33.3│ 6.2│ — │ .7│1620
Pecans, unpolished: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 2.7│ 9.6│ 70.5│ 15.3│ — │ 1.9│3435
As purchased │ 1 │ 46.3│ 1.5│ 5.1│ 37.9│ 8.2│ — │ 1.0│1846
Pine nuts: Pignolias, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 6.4│ 33.9│ 49.4│ 6.9│ — │ 3.4│2845
Pinjones: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 3.8│ 6.5│ 60.7│ 26.2│ — │ 2.8│3170
As purchased │ 1 │ 41.7│ 2.2│ 3.8│ 35.4│ 15.3│ — │ 1.6│1850
Piñon: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 3.4│ 14.6│ 61.9│ 17.3│ — │ 2.8│3205
As purchased │ 1 │ 40.6│ 2.0│ 8.7│ 36.8│ 10.2│ — │ 1.7│1905
Sabine pine nut: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 5.1│ 28.1│ 53.7│ 8.4│ — │ 4.7│2945
As purchased │ 1 │ 77.0│ 1.2│ 6.5│ 12.3│ 1.9│ — │ 1.1│ 675
Pistachios: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
1st quality, shelled,│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
edible portion │ 1 │ — │ 4.2│ 22.3│ 54.0│ 16.3│ — │ 3.2│2995
2nd quality, shelled,│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
edible ptn. │ 1 │ — │ 4.3│ 22.8│ 54.9│ 14.9│ — │ 3.0│3020
Walnuts, California: │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Edible portion │ │ — │ 2.5│ 18.4│ 64.4│ 13.0│ 1.4│ 1.7│3300
As purchased │ 1 │ 73.1│ .7│ 4.9│ 17.3│ 3.5│ — │ .5│ 885
Walnuts, California, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
black: Min. │ 2 │ — │ 2.5│ 24.9│ 54.7│ 7.4│ 1.6│ 1.8│3070
Edible Max. │ 2 │ — │ 2.5│ 30.3│ 57.8│ 16.1│ 1.8│ 2.0│3140
portion Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 2.5│ 27.6│ 56.3│ 11.7│ 1.7│ 1.9│3105
As purchased │ — │ 74.1│ .6│ 7.2│ 14.6│ 3.0│ — │ .5│ 805
Walnuts, California, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
soft shell: Min. │ 4 │ — │ 2.5│ 14.3│ 60.0│ 14.5│ 1.4│ 1.2│3195
Edible Max. │ 4 │ — │ 2.5│ 20.4│ 67.0│ 19.1│ 3.2│ 1.6│3370
portion Avge. │ 4 │ — │ 2.5│ 16.6│ 63.4│ 16.1│ 2.6│ 1.4│3285
As purchased │ — │ 58.1│ 1.0│ 6.9│ 26.6│ 6.8│ — │ .6│1375
“Malted nuts,” │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
as purchased │ 1 │ — │ 2.6│ 23.7│ 27.6│ 43.9│ — │ 2.2│2240
──────────────────────┴────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴────
A Number of analyses F Fat
B Refuse G Total carbohydrates
C Water H Ash
D Protein N=6.25 J Fuel value per pound
E Protein by difference
──────────────────────┬────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬────
Food Materials. │ A │ B │ C │ D │ E │ F │ G │ H │ J
──────────────────────┼────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼────
MISCELLANEOUS. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Chocolate, Min. │ 2 │ — │ 1.5│ 12.5│ 47.1│ 26.8│ — │ 1.1│2720
as purchased Max. │ 2 │ — │ 10.3│ 13.4│ 50.2│ 33.8│ — │ 3.3│2995
Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 5.9│ 12.9│ 48.7│ 30.3│ — │ 2.2│2860
Cocoa, Min. │ 3 │ — │ 3.2│ 20.6│ 27.1│ 35.3│ — │ 5.4│2235
as purchased Max. │ 3 │ — │ 5.4│ 22.7│ 31.5│ 40.6│ — │ 8.9│2370
Avge. │ 3 │ — │ 4.6│ 21.6│ 28.9│ 37.7│ — │ 7.2│2320
Cereal coffee infusion (1 part boiled in 20
parts water) │ 5 │ — │ 98.2│ 0.2│ — │ 1.4│ — │ 0.2│ 30
Yeast, compressed, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
as purchased │ 1 │ — │ 65.1│ 11.7│ .4│ 21.0│ — │ 1.8│ 625
UNCLASSIFIED FOOD MATERIALS.
ANIMAL AND VEGETABLE.
_Soups, home-made._ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
Beef soup, Min. │ 2 │ — │ 92.3│ 2.7│ — │ 0.3│ — │ 1.1│ 110
as purchased Max. │ 2 │ — │ 93.5│ 6.2│ — │ .5│ 2.2│ 1.2│ 130
Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 92.9│ 4.4│ — │ .4│ 1.1│ 1.2│ 120
Bean soup, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
as purchased │ 1 │ — │ 84.3│ 3.2│ — │ 1.4│ 9.4│ 1.7│ 295
Chicken soup, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
as purchased │ 1 │ — │ 84.3│ 10.5│ — │ .8│ 2.4│ 2.0│ 275
Clam chowder, Min. │ 2 │ — │ 81.6│ .7│ — │ .5│ 2.5│ .6│ 80
as purchased Max. │ 2 │ — │ 95.7│ 2.9│ — │ 1.1│ 11.0│ 3.4│ 305
Avge. │ 2 │ — │ 88.7│ 1.8│ — │ .8│ 6.7│ 2.0│ 195
Meat stew, Min. │ 5 │ — │ 82.6│ 3.7│ — │ 2.0│ 4.3│ 1.0│ 255
as purchased Max. │ 5 │ — │ 87.6│ 5.6│ — │ 6.4│ 7.9│ 1.3│ 445
Avge. │ 5 │ — │ 84.5│ 4.6│ — │ 4.3│ 5.5│ 1.1│ 370
──────────────────────┴────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴────
In the above selections from Atwater and Bryant’s tables, I have
chosen, in every case, the _best parts_ or cuts of the meat, and those
meats which are supposedly most nutritious, to balance against my
selected list of vegetables, etc.—containing the highest percentage
of protein. If the tables be examined carefully, the following
astonishing facts will be brought to light:—That while in lean ribs of
beef (considering only the edible portion) we find that the protein
percentage is but 19.6, with a fuel value per pound of 870; that while
cooked mutton contains a protein percentage of 25.0, with a fuel value
of 1420 cal. per pound, almonds (nuts) contain a protein percentage of
21.0, with a fuel value of 3030! Again, we find a protein percentage of
27.9, with a fuel value of 3165 for butter-nuts; a protein percentage
of 25.8, with a fuel value of 2560 for peanuts; a protein value of 27.6
and a fuel value of 3105 for black walnuts; and a protein value of 16.6
and a fuel value of 3285 for California walnuts (to mention but a few
instances). The protein percentage of ribs of beef is but 17.8! Even
cocoa, as purchased, contains a far greater protein percentage and a
higher fuel value than the choicest portions of almost all meats—for it
contains a protein percentage of 21.6 and a fuel value of 2320! This
is to be compared, be it observed, with, say, a protein percentage of
17.8 and a fuel value of 1330 for ribs of beef—this being the average
for all analyses. Many meats fall far below beef and mutton, which have
been cited as standard and sample meats—while only the lean and edible
portions have been used for purposes of calculation. Were we to compare
the protein percentages and fuel values of other meats, and especially
game and fish, we should find that they fall far below, not only nuts,
but also grains and the legumes, in both protein percentage and fuel
values. For instance, we find that fricasseed chicken, taking the
edible portion only, contains a protein percentage of 17.6 and a fuel
value per pound of but 885; that the edible portion of bass contains
but 18.6 protein, with a fuel value of 465; that cod contains but 16.5
protein percentage, with a fuel value of 325, as against a protein
percentage of 22.5 with a fuel value of 1600 for dried beans—against a
protein percentage of 25.7, and a fuel value of 1620 of dried lentils,
and as against 24.6 protein percentage, and a fuel value of 1655 for
dried peas! The comparison is astonishing. Even evaporated potatoes
contain an average of 8.5 protein percentage, with a fuel value of
1680, as against a protein percentage of 6.2 with a fuel value of 235
for oysters; and a protein percentage of 4.6, with a fuel value of 150
for mussels! Hens’ eggs contain a large proportionate percentage of
protein; the average being 13.4, with a fuel value of 720; but this
must be balanced against a protein percentage of 28.8 for American
cheese, with a fuel value of 2055; or a protein percentage of 25.9 with
a fuel value of 1950 for cream cheese.
As against the figures just quoted, let me cite two or three analyses
of meat soups, which have frequently been administered to invalids
under the idea that they are “strengthening” and “heating”—thus
supporting or maintaining the temperature and the energy of the sick
person. Apart from the fundamental error contained in this theory—that
we _do_ derive our strength and the heat of the body from the food
eaten (which I have endeavoured to prove incorrect in my “Vitality,
Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 225-303; 332-350; 448-459; etc.), there is
the direct evidence afforded by the chemical analysis of these articles
of diet. As opposed to an average of more than 20.0 protein percentage,
and a fuel value averaging more than 1600 calories, we find for beef
soup, as purchased, a protein percentage of 3.2 and a fuel value of
295; a protein percentage of 1.8, and a fuel value of 195, for clam
chowder; and a protein percentage of 4.6 and a fuel value of 370 for
ordinary meat stew! Quite apart, therefore, from the argument based
upon the fact that all meat juices and extracts contain, in addition
to the nutritious principles, a large amount of poisonous or toxic
material, we have here direct evidence of the fact that these meat
soups, so generally administered to invalids, are totally lacking both
in high protein value and in fuel value; and when we consider that, in
addition to all this, they contain a large amount of poisonous matter
in solution, it will be seen how false is the doctrine of administering
soups of this character to patients, under the impression that we are
helping them to sustain their bodily heat, their energies and their
strength!
Let us now make another short list of comparisons. Fresh ham, medium
fat, average edible portion, contains 15.3 protein percentage, with a
fuel value of 1505; dried cow peas, on the other hand, have a protein
percentage of 21.4, with a fuel value of 1590. Leg of veal averages
a protein percentage of 20.7, with a fuel value of 670; as against a
protein percentage of 18.1, and a fuel value of 1625 for lima beans;
leg of lamb, medium fat, edible portion only, averages 19.2 protein
percentage, with a fuel value of 1055; compared with a protein
percentage of 33.9 and a fuel value of 2845 for pignolia-nuts. Again,
we compare a protein percentage of 23.9, and a fuel value of 875, for
sirloin steak, with a protein percentage of 29.3, and a fuel value of
2825 for pea-nut butter, as purchased! If we compare all the analyses
of loin of beef, we find the average for the edible portion to be
19.0 protein percentage, and a fuel value of 1155; while the protein
percentage of this same article of diet, as purchased, would be but
16.4, with a fuel value of 1020, as against a protein percentage of
28.1, and a fuel value of 2945 for Sabine pine-nuts; even “malted nuts”
contain a protein percentage of 22.7, with a fuel value of 2240—this
being far ahead of all but a few meats. And many of the grains are
equal, both in protein percentage and in fuel value, to many of the
best meats. Thus, rolled oats contain a protein percentage of 16.7, and
a fuel value of 1850; gluten wheat flour, a protein percentage of 14.2,
with a fuel value of 1665; while, turning to the vegetables, we find
a protein percentage of more than 20 per cent. (often running up as
high as 25) and a fuel value averaging 1600 calories per pound, for all
the bean and pea family. Practically all the nuts contain a far larger
percentage of protein than any meats, while even such articles of food
as chocolate and yeast, contain an equal amount (12.9 and 11.7)! It
will be seen from the above tables, therefore, that so far as protein
is concerned, the same amount may be extracted from an equal amount of
other foods, and even a far greater amount of protein from a lesser
quantity of other foods. This being the case, it becomes obvious how
absurd it is to talk of the necessity of meat as an article of diet,
because of the large amount of protein it contains. But since, as we
have seen, the chief object (if not the _only_ one) for our eating meat
at all is to obtain this protein in what has always been thought to be
a “readily digestible and condensed” form, it will be seen that there
is no basis whatever for this belief, and that it is, in fact, totally
disproved by the direct evidence in the case. We can obtain all the
protein we need from an equal or lesser quantity of food of non-animal
origin.
Let us now briefly examine the other constituents of food, in order to
see if the requisite amount of fats, carbohydrates, salts, etc., are
supplied. As before stated, our chief reason for eating meat at all
is that it is supposed to contain a larger percentage of protein than
any other article of diet; but we have seen that this is not the case.
It is generally conceded by all those who defend a “mixed,” or partly
flesh diet, that vegetable foods and fruits will supply all the fats
and carbohydrates needed by the system—the percentage of protein being
always the point in dispute.
However, in order to make this perfectly plain to the reader, I shall
adduce a few examples of the various food-stuffs, in order that it can
be seen at once that all these other constituents of food are likewise
contained, in far greater quantities than they are in meat, in almost
all other articles of diet. A few examples will render this clear.
First of all, let us take the fats. In the edible portion of very
fat beef we have a percentage of 32.3 and 27.6 per cent. fat on the
edible portion of fat loin of beef. We find a percentage of 35.6 fat
on fat ribs of beef. But when beef is cooked, as it must be before
eating, we find the amount of this fat greatly reduced. Thus sirloin
steak contains but 10.2 per cent. of fat; the edible portion of
tenderloin averages 20.4 per cent.; roast beef averages 28.6 per
cent.; veal contains an average of but 7.7 per cent., for the edible
portion; fat leg of lamb, edible portion, 27.4 per cent.; but when it
is cooked, there is here, as in all other cases, a great reduction in
the percentage of fat—there remaining but 12.7 per cent. in roast leg
of lamb. The percentage in mutton is somewhat higher, being 22.6 per
cent., as cooked. Ham, of course, contains a large amount of fat; fresh
ham, edible portions, medium fat, averaging 28.9 per cent., the total
average for fresh ham being 33.4 per cent. When ham is cooked, however,
there is the invariable reduction in the percentage, being especially
noticeable in this case—the average of luncheon ham, cooked, being but
21.0 per cent. Poultry and game contain a smaller percentage of fat
than most meats. Capon, chicken, and roast turkey average from 10 per
cent. to 11 per cent. in fat. All fresh fish and shellfish contain very
much less fat, from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. on the average. Eggs
contain about half the percentage contained in meat, as a rule, the
average being 10.5 per cent. for the edible portion. There is a great
disproportion, however, between the white and the yolk of the egg;
there being but .2 per cent. of fat in the edible portion of the white,
while 33.3 per cent. of the edible portion of the yolk is fat.
Now, when we turn to dairy products and to the vegetable kingdom for
our fats, we find that a very large amount of fat is contained in a
number of articles of diet—far greater than in any of the fattest
meats. Thus, butter contains 85 per cent. fat; American cheese, 38.3
per cent. fat; California cheese, 33.4 per cent. fat; cheddar cheese,
36.8 per cent.; cream cheese, 58.0 per cent.; full cream cheese
averages 33.7 per cent.; old English cheese, 42.7 per cent.; etc.
Cream, on the other hand, contains less than we should suppose, being
but 18.5 per cent. fat, and milk only 4.0 per cent. fat.
Our great source of fats, however—leaving out all dairy products,
which, it might be claimed, are indirectly derived from the animal
kingdom—is nuts. The great value of these articles of food will
become apparent to us when we see that not only are they at the head
of the list in protein percentage and in fuel value, but also in
the percentage of their fats. Thus we find almonds average 54.9 per
cent. fat; beech-nuts, edible portion, 57.4 per cent.; Brazil-nuts,
edible portion, 66.8 per cent. fat; butter-nuts, 61.2 per cent. fat;
cocoanuts, 50.6 per cent. fat; filberts, 65.3 per cent.; hickory-nuts,
67.4 per cent.; peanuts, 38.6 per cent.; pea-nut butter, 46.5 per
cent.; pecans, 71.2 per cent.; pine-nuts, 60.7 per cent.; California
walnuts, 64.4 per cent.; black California walnuts, 53.3 per cent.;
soft-shell walnuts, 63.4 per cent. Chocolate also contains 48.7
per cent. fat. If now we compare with these figures those “highly
nutritious” invalid foods, meat soups, etc., we find the fat
percentages to run as follows:—Beef soup, .4 per cent. fat; chicken, .8
per cent.; clam chowder, .8 per cent.; and meat stew, averaging 4.3 per
cent. fat.
Let us now compare the relative percentages of carbohydrates. In the
majority of meats these are so very low that it might almost be said
they contain no carbohydrates at all. In the above tables from Atwater
and Bryant’s analysis, it will be seen that no figures at all appear
in the column for carbohydrate percentages. With the single exception
of tripe, which contains an average of .2 per cent., no mention is
made of a percentage of carbohydrates in any of the meats. Hens’ eggs
also contain practically none. Poultry and game, when cooked, average
from 2 per cent. to 5 per cent.; fish contain practically none, while
shellfish range from 1 per cent. to 3 per cent. This is all the
carbohydrates that the animal kingdom affords us!
Turning now to dairy products, we find that various cheeses furnish
from 2 per cent. to 4 per cent. carbohydrates; milk averages 5 per
cent., but condensed, unsweetened milk, or evaporated cream, average
11.2 per cent. It will be seen, therefore, that dairy products, coming
as they do, indirectly from the animal kingdom, furnish a comparatively
small percentage of carbohydrates.
Let us now turn to the vegetable kingdom, including the grains, and see
the relative percentage obtained from them. Taking first the flours
and the meals, we find: barley, granulated, contains 79.8 per cent.
carbohydrates; buckwheat flour, 77.9 per cent.; corn flour, 78.4 per
cent.; corn meal, 75.4 per cent.; oat meal, 67.5 per cent.; rolled
oats, average 66.2 per cent.; rice, average 79 per cent.; flaked rice,
81.9 per cent.; entire wheat flour, 71.9 per cent.; dried beans, 59.6
per cent.; beans, frijoles, 65.1 per cent.; lima beans, 65.9 per cent.;
dried peas, 62.0 per cent.; cow peas, 60.8 per cent.; potatoes, 18.4
per cent.; evaporated potatoes, 80.9 per cent.
Turning to fruits, we find that some of them contain quite a large
percentage of carbohydrates—from 10 per cent., in the case of
blackberries, cranberries and peaches, to 22 per cent. in the case of
bananas. Other fruits in their fresh condition range between these.
Certain nuts also contain a large percentage of carbohydrates. Thus,
almonds contain an average of 17.3 per cent.; chestnuts, an average
of 42.1 per cent.; dried chestnuts, 74.2 per cent.; cocoanuts, 27.9
per cent.; Lichi-nuts, 77.5 per cent.; peanuts, average, 24.4 per
cent.; malted nuts, 43.9 per cent. Chocolate also contains 30.3 per
cent.; cocoa averages 37.7 per cent.; and yeast, 21 per cent. Again
in comparing with these figures our “nourishing invalid’s food,” beef
soups, etc., we find that meat stew contains an average of 5.5 per
cent. carbohydrates; clam chowder, 6.7 per cent.; chicken soup, 2.4 per
cent.; beef soup, an average of 1.1 per cent.! It is to be noticed in
this connection that bean soup contains a percentage of 9.4 per cent.
carbohydrates.
Turning now to the column marked “ash” in the various tables, we find
that all meats contain an average of about 1 per cent. Corn beef,
pickled tongue, etc., cannot be fairly included in the list, because
of the mineral salts injected into the tissues of the animal. But in
all other cases 1 per cent. will be found a most liberal allowance for
this ash. It will be remembered that our authors classified under the
heading of “mineral matters,” all phosphates, sulphates, chlorides,
salts of potassium, sodium, etc. These are very essential articles of
diet, though the part they play in digestive processes is not yet fully
understood. They must be considered, however, valuable portions of all
food-stuffs; and, other things being equal, the larger percentage of
salts contained in organic compound (not as separate mineral elements)
the better. Now, when we come to compare the articles of food derived
from the vegetable world, with animal products, we find a very much
larger percentage of all mineral matters, in these foods. A few
references will make this clear. Rolled oats contain 2.1 per cent.;
rice flour, 8.8 per cent.; wheat flour, 4.8 per cent.; dried beans,
3.5 per cent.; dried lentils, 5.7 per cent.; evaporated potatoes,
3.1 per cent.; almonds, 2 per cent.; beech-nuts, 3.5 per cent.;
Brazil-nuts, 3.9 per cent.; butter-nuts, 2.9 per cent.; chestnuts, 2.2
per cent.; peanuts, 2 per cent.; pignolia nuts, 3.3 per cent.; Sabine
pine-nuts, 4.7 per cent.; pistachio-nuts, 3.2 per cent. Most fruits
contain a small percentage of mineral matter, averaging perhaps, .5
per cent. Chocolate contains 2.2 per cent. and cocoa, 7.2 per cent.
These percentages might, however, be vitiated by the fact that foreign
ingredients are used in the preparation of these foods. Beef soups,
etc., average from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent.
In thus giving the total percentage of ash contained in any food,
however, it must not be forgotten that this is but a crude and
imperfect method of arriving at a just estimate of the value of
that food, so far as its ash percentage is concerned. Although
the percentage of mineral matters contained in the various foods
is very small, the part they play in the economy is exceedingly
important—altogether disproportionate to the relatively small quantity
of this matter. It is well known that if we feed animals (or, for that
matter, human beings), upon certain foods, lacking in salts, these
individuals will ultimately die of “saline starvation”—no matter how
much food may have been eaten, or how well proportioned the proteids,
fats and carbohydrates. This is an astonishing fact. These mineral
elements, contained in organic compound, must not be confused, however,
with the same elements in _in_organic form—in which condition they are
quite unusable by the system. This is a question, however, into which
I do not desire to enter now. It is very necessary, however, to point
out and insist upon this fact—that giving the total percentage of ash
constitutents or mineral matter, in any given article of food, is of
small value to us when attempting to balance a diet, unless we know
_in what_ this percentage of mineral matter consists. That is, 1.7 per
cent. ash of a given food may be composed of five different mineral
elements (in organic form) and the proportion of each would vary
largely. It is quite possible, therefore, for there to be a larger
percentage of any one mineral element in a certain food, containing
a lesser _total_ ash percentage than in one containing a greater ash
percentage. That is, supposing there to be two articles of diet, one
containing 1.5 per cent. and the other 2 per cent. of ash. The article
of food containing the 1.5 per cent. of salts might contain 1 per
cent. of potash, while the article containing 2 per cent. of total
ash would contain but 5 per cent. of potash. It would be seen from
this that an article of food containing less total ash percentage
might contain relatively more of a certain element; and if we wish to
obtain and supply to the system certain organic salts, it will only
be necessary for us to pick out those articles of diet which contain
the largest percentage of the required salt, and supply it to the
body, as food, for a longer or shorter period. In this manner saline
starvation, and the many ills that result indirectly from it, may be
avoided. It will be evident from the above, therefore, that any tables,
giving the _total_ ash percentage of the various foods are practically
valueless, so long as they do not carry the analysis a step further,
and tell us in what this total percentage consists. Only in this manner
can any definite results be obtained; but it will be evident, at all
events, that any of the articles of diet containing such organic salts
would be preferable to meats, so far as this aspect of the problem is
concerned—since meats contain practically none. It will be of interest
to consider, briefly, this question of the relative proportion of each
organic salt in the total ash percentage.
So far as I have been able to discover, only two authors have paid
particular attention to this question of minute ash percentages: Dr
H. Lahmann, in Germany, and Mr Otto Carqué, in America. Both of these
authors have gone to considerable trouble to obtain exact figures upon
this question.[16] Let us consider Dr Lahmann’s argument first: Taking
milk (of the human species) as the standard with which to compare
analyses of all foods—since it is to be supposed that this would
contain all organic salts as well as proteid, fats and carbohydrates in
exactly the right proportion for the upbuilding of the healthy human
body—he found, by comparison, that the quantities of soda and lime
contained in our ordinary food are far below the quantities necessary
to maintain a healthy existence, whereas the quantities of potash, iron
and phosphoric acid are generally too high. Although his conclusions
may not be accepted in full, it is evident that some of them, at least,
are correct; and one of the most important conclusions to be drawn from
his argument is that, generally speaking, anæmia has nothing to do
with want of iron in the blood. It is due to other causes—principally
over-feeding, as I have endeavoured to show in my “Vitality, Fasting
and Nutrition,” pp. 604-605.
[16] In a letter to Mr Carqué, on this subject, Dr Wiley writes:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY
WASHINGTON, D. C.
MR OTTO CARQUÉ, _1st August 1904_.
765 N. CLARK ST., CHICAGO, ILL.
DEAR SIR,—I regret to say that no one in this country has undertaken
a complete analysis of all the mineral constituents of foods.
An analysis usually relates to the nutritive value and general
composition, but does not give, as a rule, the composition of the ash.
I think it is highly desirable that the composition of ash be
carefully studied and hope that some chemist will take that matter up
in the near future. Respectfully,
(_Signed_) H. W. WILEY, Chief.
Dr Lahmann shows us that we may replace any quantity of meat or
lentils, as well as bread and flour, by fruits or green vegetables,
and that the amount of lime and other bone-forming salts will be
increased thereby. As a general thing it may be said that there is a
superabundance of potash in vegetable food. A large number of diseases
were found to be due to a disproportion of the organic salts—this
argument running throughout Dr Lahmann’s book. The following table
will show clearly the percentage of the various mineral salts in
food-stuffs, and will prove conclusively that certain salts, lacking
in the human system, can never be supplied by any amount of meat; and,
further, that a number of these salts cannot be supplied in proper
quantities by any other articles of food than _fruits_. These, and
these alone, contain many salts in solution which the system needs. I
shall, however, consider this question at greater length when I come
to discuss the value of the fruitarian dietary. For the moment, let us
turn our attention to the tables of ash percentages.
Now, if we compare the figures in the following tables, we find that
in practically every case the quantity of any given food-salt is
greater in all fruits, and practically in every other article of diet
than it is in meat. Taking potassium, for example, we find that meat
averages (out of the total percentage of mineral matter) 41.30 per
cent., while blueberries average 57.1 per cent.; and olives, 80.9 per
cent. If we compare the quantity of sodium, we find that meat contains
3.6 per cent.; while apples contain 26.1 per cent.; strawberries, 28.5
per cent.; dried figs, 26.2 per cent. As some of these, however, are
percentages of smaller _total_ ash percentages, the disproportion is
not so great as would at first appear, though it is evident that the
fruits contain much more, even allowing for this. Making the same
reservations, we find that while meat contains, of iron, an average of
.7 per cent., strawberries contain 5.9 per cent.; gooseberries 4.56 per
cent.; prunes, 2.5 per cent.; while spinach contains 3.35 per cent.;
asparagus, 3.4 per cent.; and lettuce, 5.2 per cent.
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Composition of Food Products │
│ _PER CENT._ │
│ I II III IV V │
├───────────────────┬───────┬───────────┬───────┬─────────┬─────────┤
│ │ Water │ Protein │ Fat │ Carbo- │ Mineral │
│ │ │ (Albumen) │ │ Hydrates│ Matter │
│ │ │ │ │ (Sugar, │ │
│ │ │ │ │ Starch) │ │
├───────────────────┼───────┼───────────┼───────┼─────────┼─────────┤
│ Human Milk │ 87.02 │ 2.36 │ 3.94 │ 6.23 │ 0.45 │
│ Cow’s Milk │ 87.20 │ 3.55 │ 3.70 │ 4.88 │ 0.71 │
│ Meat (Average) │ 72.00 │ 20.00 │ 5.00 │ 0.40 │ 1.10 │
│ Blood of the Ox │ 80.80 │ 18.10 │ 0.20 │ 0.03 │ 0.85 │
│ Eggs │ 73.70 │ 12.55 │ 12.10 │ 0.55 │ 1.10 │
│ Seafish │ 81.00 │ 17.10 │ 0.34 │ — │ 1.60 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ =_Fruits._= │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Apples │ 84.80 │ 0.40 │ — │ 13.00 │ 0.50 │
│ Strawberries │ 87.70 │ 0.50 │ — │ 7.70 │ 0.80 │
│ Gooseberries │ 85.70 │ 0.50 │ — │ 8.40 │ 0.40 │
│ Prunes │ 81.20 │ 0.80 │ — │ 11.05 │ 0.71 │
│ Peaches │ 83.00 │ 0.40 │ — │ 11.80 │ 0.30 │
│ Blueberries │ 78.40 │ 0.80 │ — │ 5.90 │ 1.00 │
│ Cherries │ 79.80 │ 0.70 │ — │ 12.00 │ 0.70 │
│ Grapes │ 78.20 │ 0.60 │ — │ 16.30 │ 0.50 │
│ German Prunes │ 84.90 │ 0.40 │ — │ 8.20 │ 0.66 │
│ Dried Figs │ 31.20 │ 1.34 │ 1.45 │ 65.90 │ 2.86 │
│ Olives │ 30.07 │ 5.24 │ 51.90 │ — │ 2.34 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ =_Nuts._= │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Walnuts │ 4.70 │ 16.40 │ 62.90 │ 7.90 │ 2.03 │
│ Chestnuts, Dried │ 7.30 │ 10.80 │ 2.90 │ 73.80 │ 3.00 │
│ Almonds │ 6.00 │ 23.50 │ 53.00 │ 7.80 │ 3.10 │
│ Cocoanuts │ 46.60 │ 5.50 │ 35.90 │ 8.10 │ 1.00 │
│ Beechnuts │ 9.09 │ 21.70 │ 42.50 │ 19.20 │ 3.86 │
└───────────────────┴───────┴───────────┴───────┴─────────┴─────────┘
Key to Mineral Matter
K Potassium P Phosphorous
Na Sodium S Sulphur
Ca Calcium Si Silicon
Mg Magnesium Cl Chlorine
Fe Iron
┌─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ Composition of Mineral Matter │
│ │ _AS GIVEN IN THE 5th COLUMN_, _PER CENT._ │
│ │ K │ Na │ Ca │ Mg │ Fe │ P │ S │ Si │ │
│ │ K₂O │ Na₂O │ CaO │ MgO │Fe₂O₃ │ P₂O₅ │ SO₃ │ SiO₂ │ Cl │
├─────────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼──────┼─────┼──────┼──────┤
│Human Milk │ 33.80│ 9.12│ 16.70│ 2.16│ 0.22│ 22.66│ 0.95│ 0.02│ 18.38│
│Cow’s Milk │ 24.67│ 9.70│ 22.05│ 3.05│ 0.55│ 28.45│ 0.30│ 0.04│ 14.28│
│Meat (Avge) │ 41.30│ 3.60│ 2.80│ 3.21│ 0.70│ 42.50│ 1.60│ 1.10│ 3.85│
│Blood of Ox │ 7.60│ 45.00│ 1.10│ 0.60│ 9.40│ 5.25│ 3.05│ 0.8 │ 34.40│
│Eggs │ 17.40│ 22.90│ 10.90│ 1.10│ 0.40│ 37.60│ 0.30│ 0.30│ 9.00│
│Seafish │ 21.80│ 14.90│ 15.20│ 3.90│ — │ 38.16│ — │ — │ 11.40│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│=_Fruits._= │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Apples │ 35.70│ 26.10│ 4.10│ 8.75│ 1.40│ 13.70│ 6.10│ 4.30│ — │
│Strawberries │ 21.10│ 28.50│ 14.20│ — │ 5.90│ 13.80│ 3.15│ 12.05│ 1.70│
│Gooseberries │ 38.65│ 9.90│ 12.20│ 5.85│ 4.56│ 19.70│ 5.90│ 2.60│ 0.75│
│Prunes │ 48.50│ 9.05│ 11.50│ 3.60│ 2.50│ 16.00│ 3.20│ 3.15│ 0.40│
│Peaches │ 54.70│ 8.50│ 8.00│ 5.20│ 1.00│ 15.20│ 5.70│ 1.50│ — │
│Blueberries │ 57.10│ 5.16│ 8.00│ 6.10│ 1.10│ 17.40│ 3.10│ 0.90│ — │
│Cherries │ 51.85│ 2.20│ 7.50│ 5.50│ 2.00│ 16.00│ 5.10│ 9.00│ 1.35│
│Grapes │ 56.20│ 1.40│ 10.80│ 4.20│ 0.40│ 15.60│ 5.60│ 2.75│ 1.52│
│German Prunes│ 59.20│ 0.50│ 10.00│ 5.50│ 3.20│ 15.10│ 3.70│ 2.40│ — │
│Dried Figs │ 28.36│ 26.27│ 18.91│ 9.21│ 1.46│ 1.30│ 6.75│ 5.93│ 2.70│
│Olives │ 80.90│ 7.53│ 7.46│ 0.18│ 0.92│ 1.33│ 1.05│ 0.65│ 0.18│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ =_Nuts._= │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Walnuts │ 31.10│ 2.25│ 8.60│ 13.00│ 1.32│ 43.70│ — │ — │ — │
│Chestnuts │ 56.70│ 7.12│ 3.87│ 7.47│ 0.14│ 18.10│ 3.80│ 1.50│ 0.50│
│Almonds │ 28.00│ 0.20│ 8.80│ 17.66│ 0.50│ 43.60│ 0.37│ — │ — │
│Cocoanuts │ 43.90│ 8.40│ 4.60│ 9.40│ — │ 17.00│ 5.09│ 0.50│ 13.40│
│Beechnuts │ 17.15│ 5.20│ 18.40│ 14.15│ 1.00│ 30.50│ 2.45│ 2.70│ 2.44│
└─────────────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴─────┴──────┴─────┴──────┴──────┘
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Composition of Food Products │
│ _PER CENT._ │
│ I II III IV V │
├───────────────────┬───────┬───────────┬───────┬─────────┬─────────┤
│ │ Water │ Protein │ Fat │ Carbo- │ Mineral │
│ │ │ (Albumen) │ │ Hydrates│ Matter │
│ │ │ │ │ (Sugar, │ │
│ │ │ │ │ Starch) │ │
├───────────────────┼───────┼───────────┼───────┼─────────┼─────────┤
│ _=Vegetables.=_ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Spinach │ 88.50 │ 3.50 │ 0.60 │ 4.44 │ 2.10 │
│ Savoy-Cabbage │ 87.10 │ 3.30 │ 0.70 │ 6.00 │ 1.64 │
│ Red-Cabbage │ 90.06 │ 1.83 │ 0.20 │ 5.86 │ 0.77 │
│ Onions │ 76.00 │ 1.70 │ 0.10 │ 10.80 │ 0.70 │
│ Carrots │ 87.05 │ 1.00 │ 0.20 │ 9.40 │ 0.90 │
│ Horse Radish │ 76.70 │ 2.70 │ 0.35 │ 16.00 │ 1.50 │
│ Asparagus │ 93.75 │ 1.80 │ 0.25 │ 2.60 │ 0.54 │
│ Radishes │ 93.30 │ 1.20 │ 0.15 │ 3.80 │ 0.74 │
│ Cauliflower │ 90.90 │ 2.50 │ 0.30 │ 4.55 │ 0.83 │
│ Cucumbers │ 95.60 │ 1.20 │ 0.10 │ 2.30 │ 0.44 │
│ Lettuce │ 94.30 │ 1.40 │ 0.30 │ 2.20 │ 1.03 │
│ Potatoes │ 75.09 │ 2.08 │ 0.15 │ 21.00 │ 1.10 │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ _=Legumes &=_ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ _=Cereals.=_ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Lentils │ 12.35 │ 25.70 │ 1.90 │ 53.30 │ 3.04 │
│ Peas │ 15.00 │ 22.85 │ 1.80 │ 52.40 │ 2.58 │
│ Beans │ 14.76 │ 24.30 │ 1.60 │ 49.00 │ 3.26 │
│ Whole Wheat │ 13.40 │ 13.60 │ 1.90 │ 69.10 │ 2.00 │
│ Superfine Flour │ 12.60 │ 10.20 │ 0.90 │ 74.70 │ 0.50 │
│ Rye │ 15.06 │ 11.50 │ 1.80 │ 67.80 │ 1.81 │
│ Barley │ 13.80 │ 11.10 │ 2.20 │ 64.90 │ 2.70 │
│ Oats │ 12.40 │ 10.40 │ 5.20 │ 57.80 │ 3.02 │
│ Corn │ 13.10 │ 9.85 │ 4.60 │ 68.50 │ 1.51 │
│ Rice, _Unpolished_│ 13.10 │ 7.85 │ 0.88 │ 76.50 │ 1.00 │
└───────────────────┴───────┴───────────┴───────┴─────────┴─────────┘
┌─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ Composition of Mineral Matter │
│ │ _AS GIVEN IN THE 5th COLUMN_, _PER CENT._ │
│ │ K │ Na │ Ca │ Mg │ Fe │ P │ S │ Si │ │
│ │ K₂O │ Na₂O │ CaO │ MgO │Fe₂O₃│ P₂O₅ │ SO₃ │ SiO₂ │ Cl │
├─────────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼─────┼──────┼─────┼──────┼──────┤
│=Vegetables.=│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Spinach │ 16.60│ 35.30│ 11.90│ 6.40│ 3.35│ 10.25│ 6.90│ 4.50│ 6.30│
│Savoy-Cabbage│ 27.50│ 10.20│ 21.40│ 3.60│ 1.70│ 14.75│ 8.20│ 4.78│ 7.90│
│Red-Cabbage │ 22.10│ 12.10│ 27.90│ 4.44│ 0.10│ 3.90│15.30│ 0.50│ 13.65│
│Onions │ 34.00│ 2.50│ 22.90│ 4.65│ 2.30│ 17.35│ 5.68│ 8.50│ 2.40│
│Carrots │ 36.90│ 21.20│ 11.30│ 4.40│ 1.00│ 12.80│36.45│ 2.40│ 4.60│
│Horse Radish │ 30.76│ 4.00│ 8.20│ 2.90│ 1.94│ 7.70│30.80│ 12.70│ 0.90│
│Asparagus │ 24.00│ 17.10│ 10.85│ 4.30│ 3.40│ 18.60│ 6.20│ 10.10│ 5.90│
│Radishes │ 32.00│ 21.15│ 14.00│ 3.10│ 2.80│ 10.90│ 6.50│ 0.90│ 9.15│
│Cauliflower │ 44.36│ 5.90│ 5.60│ 3.70│ 1.00│ 20.20│13.00│ 3.70│ 3.40│
│Cucumbers │ 41.20│ 10.00│ 7.30│ 4.15│ 1.40│ 20.00│ 6.90│ 8.00│ 6.60│
│Lettuce │ 37.60│ 7.50│ 14.70│ 6.20│ 5.20│ 9.20│ 3.80│ 8.10│ 7.65│
│Potatoes │ 60.01│ 3.00│ 2.60│ 4.93│ 1.10│ 16.90│ 6.53│ 2.00│ 3.50│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│_=Legumes &=_│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ _=Cereals.=_│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Lentils │ 34.80│ 13.50│ 6.30│ 2.50│ 2.00│ 36.30│ — │ — │ 4.63│
│Peas │ 43.10│ 1.00│ 4.80│ 8.00│ 0.80│ 35.90│ 3.40│ 0.90│ 1.60│
│Beans │ 41.50│ 1.10│ 5.00│ 7.15│ 0.50│ 38.90│ 3.40│ 0.65│ 1.80│
│Whole Wheat │ 31.20│ 2.10│ 3.25│ 12.10│ 1.30│ 47.20│ 0.40│ 2.00│ 0.30│
│Superfine Flr│ 34.40│ 0.80│ 7.50│ 7.70│ 0.60│ 49.40│ — │ — │ — │
│Rye │ 32.10│ 1.50│ 2.90│ 11.22│ 1.20│ 47.70│ 1.30│ 1.40│ 0.50│
│Barley │ 16.30│ 4.10│ 0.70│ 12.50│ 1.70│ 32.80│ 3.00│ 28.70│ — │
│Oats │ 17.90│ 1.70│ 3.60│ 7.10│ 1.20│ 25.60│ 1.80│ 39.20│ 0.90│
│Corn │ 29.80│ 1.10│ 2.20│ 15.50│ 0.80│ 45.60│ 0.80│ 2.10│ 1.90│
│Rice, Unpold.│ 25.00│ 4.20│ 3.70│ 11.10│ 1.40│ 53.76│ 0.50│ 2.60│ 0.10│
└─────────────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴─────┴──────┴─────┴──────┴──────┘
It is evident that, making all allowances for a smaller total ash
percentage, these articles of diet contain a far greater percentage
of iron than does meat, and the same is true of practically all other
salts, as can be seen by referring to the tables. It is evident,
therefore, that other food-stuffs, and particularly fruits, will supply
us with more mineral matter than will the best of meats, and are to be
preferred in consequence.
It will not be necessary for us to compare the columns headed “Refuse”
and “Water,” since these are practically the same in all food-stuffs,
on the average, and they do not effect, appreciably, the food-value of
any article of diet.
There remains only one valid objection to my argument, and that is
based upon the supposed fact that a larger percentage of animal proteid
is appropriated by the system than is the case in vegetable foods.
That is, given a certain quantity of animal and vegetable foods, both
containing an equal amount of proteid, more will be appropriated from
the animal than from the vegetable food-stuffs. A great many writers,
such as Miss Leppel, in England, have taken this ground. But I would
point out, first of all, that, even if it were true, it would not
invalidate the argument in the least, for the reason that a far larger
percentage of proteid is contained in a smaller amount of non-flesh
food, such as nuts; and for that reason it would be easy enough to
supply the system with the same amount of proteid from an equal, or
even a lesser, bulk of food—even granting the validity of the argument.
But I dispute the fact itself. Professor Russell H. Chittenden, of
Yale University, one of the most famous physiologists in America, and
director of the Sheffield Scientific School, writes in his “Nutrition
of Man” as follows:—
“In the digestion of proteid food-stuffs by the combined action
of gastric and pancreatic juice in the alimentary tract, a large
proportion of the proteid is destined to undergo complete conversion
into amino-acids; and, from these fragments, the body, by a process
of synthesis, can construct its own peculiar type of proteid. This
latter suggestion is worthy of a moment’s further consideration; as
is well known, every species of animal has its own peculiar type of
proteid, adapted to its particular needs. The proteids of one species
directly injected into the blood of another species are incapable of
serving as nutriment to the body, and frequently act as poison....
The availability or digestibility of food can be determined only by
physiological experiment. By making a comparison, for a definite
period of time, of the amount of the different food ingredients, and
the amount that passes unchanged through the intestines, an estimate
of its digestibility can be made.... In a general way it may be stated
that with animal foods, such as meats, eggs, and milk, about 97 per
cent. of the contained proteid is digested, and thereby rendered
available to the body. With ordinary vegetables, on the other hand,
as they are usually prepared for consumption, only about 85 per cent.
of the proteid is made available. With a mixed diet, with a variable
admixture of animal and vegetable foods, it is usually considered
that about 92 per cent. of the proteid contained therein will undergo
digestion.”
At first sight, it would appear that this runs counter to the argument
that has been advanced; but we must take into account the fact that
Professor Chittenden is here speaking only of vegetable proteid, and
has made no mention of _nuts_; and, as we have seen from the tables,
nuts contain a far larger percentage of protein than meats. When we
take into consideration the small disproportion in the percentage
assimilated, and find that when meat is mixed with other articles
of food, as it invariably is, the percentage of its availability is
reduced to 92 per cent., while vegetable foods are proportionately
raised to the same figure, we see that the apparent discrepancy
practically vanishes to nothing. And when we further take into account
the fact that an equal amount of proteid can be obtained from a far
_less_ quantity of non-flesh food, we see that, from an equal bulk
of food material, a far larger _proportionate_ percentage would be
assimilated from the vegetable foods than from the animal.
Another great argument which has always been advanced in favour of
meat-eating, or the ingestion of proteid in the form of animal, as
opposed to vegetable food, is that the proteid derived from the
animal is far more quickly and readily assimilated by the system than
vegetable proteid. The _rapidity_ of the digestion of animal food has
always been urged as one of the strongest arguments in its favour,
and it is largely for this reason that it has been administered to
invalids, and to patients in a depressed and weakened state of body.
But now we find that physiological research has completely disproved
this old dogma! Professor Chittenden, on p. 30 of his “Nutrition and
Man,” says:
“It is evident from what has been stated that the gastric digestion
of proteid foods _is a comparatively slow process_, involving several
hours of time; and further, that food material in general remains
in the stomach for varying periods, dependent upon its chemical
composition.... It is a mistake to assume that the digestion of
proteid foods is complete in the stomach. Stomach digestion is to be
considered more as a preliminary step, paving the way for further
changes to be carried forward by the combined action of intestinal and
pancreatic juice in the small intestines.... The importance of gastric
digestion is frequently overrated.”
Dr Sylvester Graham, writing on this subject years ago in his “Science
of Human Life,” said:
“In vain have they attempted to regulate the diet of man on the
chemical principles, and insisted on the necessity for certain
chemical properties in the human element to sustain the vital economy.
That economy has shown them that it can triumph over the chemical
affinities and ordinary laws of organic matter, and bend them to its
purposes at pleasure; generating and transmuting from one form to
another, with the utmost ease, the substance which human science calls
elements; and while the living organs retain their functional power
and integrity, elaborating from every kind of element on which an
animal can subsist, a chyle so nearly identical in its physical and
chemical character, that the most accurate analytical chemists can
scarcely detect the least appreciable difference.... Though, while the
health and integrity of the assimilating organs are preserved, the
physical and _chemical_ character of the chyle are nearly identical,
whatever may be the elementary substance from which it was elaborated,
yet the _vital_ constitution of the chyle and blood, and consequently
of the solids, is greatly affected by the quality of the food. When
chyle is taken from the living vessels, the vital constitution of
that which is elaborated from flesh meat is capable of resisting
the action of bacterial decomposition only a short time, and will
begin to putrefy in three or four days at the longest; while the
vital constitution of that which is elaborated from pure and proper
vegetable elements, will resist this decomposing action for a much
larger period, yet it will in the end putrefy with all the phenomena
of that formed from flesh meat.”
The bearing of these facts on physical training, the health of the
body, and the decomposition of the body after death, need only be
pointed out.
It is really extraordinary how writers on dietetics, seem to
take a delight, as a rule, in making as many mis-statements and
misrepresentations as possible. Take, for example, the following
passage in Dr C. S. Read’s Book, “Fads and Feeding”:—
“It is necessary, with the vegetable products, to take the nitrogenous
product as Nature gives it to us, which is a drawback; and secondly,
vegetable foods are relatively much poorer in this respect than
animal foods.... A vegetable diet must needs be bulky, because of
its wateriness, especially when cooked, and the large amount of
indigestible matter it contains. This tends to abnormally distend
the stomach and bowels. The capacity of the stomach becomes greater,
more food can be taken, but the distention produces a feeling of
satiety before sufficient nourishment has really been ingested. The
dealing with such a bulk internally means the expenditure of much
nervous energy which might have been better utilised. The wateriness
of vegetable foods is extremely disadvantageous, since on absorption
it tends to render all the tissues flabby. The individual who leads a
sedentary life will feel the disadvantage of vegetarianism more than
the active worker.”
Now, not a sentence in the above quotation is correct. If Dr Read
had studied vegetarians at first hand, he would have found out his
mistakes, and would not have written such rubbish. As a matter of
fact, vegetable foods _do not_ supply less nitrogen than meat, but on
the contrary more; a vegetable diet _need not_ be bulky, if properly
selected—_less_ of it need be eaten than of a mixed diet, because of
its greater nutritive value; while the notion that the absorbtion
of water from the foods make the tissues “flabby” is, of course,
absurd. Altogether, this is almost the greatest string of inaccuracies
regarding diet that I have ever come across.
There is one aspect of this question which it might be well to touch
upon in this place. The air that we breathe, as we know, contains
a large percentage of nitrogen. Might it not be possible for the
system to utilise some of this nitrogen, when the body is in a state
of nitrogen starvation? Dr De Lacy Evans, surgeon to St Saviour’s
Hospital, in London, contended that this might be the case, and in his
“How to Prolong Life,” pp. 76-80, wrote:
“It has been argued that fruits will not sustain life, because they
do not contain sufficient nitrogen; this argument is founded upon a
_theory_ which is demonstrably incorrect, and it is an ascertained
_fact_ that fruits alone will support life and good bodily health....
By experiments on ourselves, on friends, and on natives of tropical
regions, we find a comparatively small quantity of nitrogen necessary
to sustain life; in fact, fruits, taken as a class, contain sufficient
nitrogen to sustain human life.... Now fruits will sustain life, and
all fruits contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, and most of them a
small quantity of nitrogen; and if these fruits which will sustain
life do not contain sufficient nitrogen, may not man, who breathes and
is in contact with an atmosphere (four-fifths of which is nitrogen),
by means of his lungs, the surface of which is supposed to be more
than twenty times that of the whole body, _absorb the necessary
nitrogen directly from the atmosphere_? From careful observation of
the diet of natives in tropical regions, and from direct experiments
in England, we may state that this is positively the case. This is
often observed in the herbivora: their natural food contains little
nitrogen, still it is found in their flesh in about the same ratio
as in the carnivora. Further, the carnivora live on food rich in
nitrogen—yet one is as well nourished as the other.... Man may
live entirely upon fruits, in better health than the majority of
mankind now enjoy. Good, sound, ripe fruits are never a cause of
disease; but the vegetable acids, as we have before stated, lower
the temperature of the body, decrease the process of combustion and
oxidation—therefore the waste of the system—less sleep is required,
activity is increased, fatigue or thirst hardly experienced: still
the body is well nourished, and as a comparatively small quantity of
earthy salts are taken into the system, the cause of ‘old age’ is in
some degree removed, the effect is delayed, and life is prolonged to a
period far beyond our ‘three score years and ten.’”[17]
[17] “On one occasion, when living for five days entirely upon
oranges, our temperature was lessened, still we felt a pleasant glow
throughout the system; but to other individuals we felt cold; animal
heat is therefore only _relative_. We further found that only three or
four hours sleep was required in the twenty-four hours.”
The consensus of modern opinion, however, seems to be against any such
supposition. Chittenden, for example, writes:[18]
[18] “Nutrition of Man,” p. 4.
“Man lives in an atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen. He can and does
absorb and utilise the free oxygen of the air he breathes; indeed, it
is absolutely essential for his existence, but free nitrogen likewise
drawn into the lungs at each inspiration is of no avail for the needs
of the body.”
As, however, all bodies contain more or less nitrogen in excess,
there would be no need to call upon the air for its supply. It would
be interesting to note the effects in cases of nitrogen starvation;
but the simple fact that animals _do die_ when sufficient nitrogen is
subtracted from their food, would seem to indicate that but little
nitrogen, if any, can be extracted from the air, even under these
circumstances.
* * * * *
After the above lengthy argument, which endeavours to show that
sufficient proteid can be supplied the body from vegetable foods,
it is somewhat amusing to find that, as a matter of fact, _far too
much proteid_ has invariably been eaten by practically all civilised
peoples—and that so far from there being any danger of nitrogen
starvation, or lack of sufficient proteid, the danger is all the other
way, and four-fifths of all the maladies from which mankind suffers
are due to the very fact that an excess of proteid has been eaten!
All physiologists agree that the majority of people eat far more, not
only of proteid, but of all kinds of food, than is required, according
to their tables; and Professor Chittenden has recently shown, as the
result of an elaborate series of experiments conducted at Yale, that
the average proteid standard set by physiologists, as being necessary
for the maintenance of health, is at least _three times too high_! That
is, the majority of persons eat considerably more than three times too
much proteid! In view of these facts, it is amusing to find so much
fear exhibited on all hands in case the proteid supply should not be
sufficient in quantity.
These Yale nutrition investigations are now so widely known that it
would be useless to do more than refer to them in this place. As the
results of experiments upon University professors, upon athletes, and
upon a squad chosen from the United States army, it was definitely
proved that the proteid standards were far too high: the men
flourishing, improving in every direction, and even doing a _greater_
amount of physical work than usual on a diet averaging, in proteid
value, about a third said to be necessary by the physiologists. When
we take into account the fact that most people eat far more proteid
than the physiologists said was necessary, it will be seen at once
the tremendous disproportion which exists between the amount actually
consumed, and the amount really needed by the body; and how absurd it
is, in face of these facts, to persist in demanding an excess of those
foods which contain such high proteid percentages! Chittenden says:
“There is no question, in view of our results, that people ordinarily
consume much more food than there is any real physiological necessity
for, and it is more than probable that this excess of food is in the
long run detrimental to health, weakening rather than strengthening
the body, and defeating the very objects aimed at.... One-half of
the 118 grams of proteid food called for daily, is quite sufficient
to meet all the physiological needs of the body, certainly under the
ordinary conditions of life; and with most individuals, especially
persons not living an active outdoor life, even a smaller amount will
suffice.”[19]
[19] “Physiological Economy in Nutrition,” pp. 274-275.
The figures and calculations throughout his works, however, show that
the proteid intake may be reduced to fully one-third of that said to be
necessary in standard physiologies, with nothing but increased health
and strength.
In summing up this question of the necessity of meat-eating, one
important fact must not be lost sight of, which, in a sense, may be
said to settle the argument in favour of the vegetarian dietary without
further additional evidence of any kind. It is this: That the bodies
of all animals are built from vegetable foods, and consequently,
when we eat those animals, we merely eat the vegetable foods, upon
which _they_ have subsisted, at second hand! We appropriate or
obtain the _same_ chemical elements in organic compound that they
originally obtained from their food, _but we obtain nothing else_.
Animals have the power to create nothing. The single fact that all
nutritive material is formed by vegetables—animals having the power
to appropriate but never to form or create food elements—is proof
positive, to my mind, that we can derive all the nutriment we need
directly from the vegetable world, and that the best food, and that
which is most conducive to man’s highest development—bodily, mentally
and spiritually—is found in the use of these vegetables themselves.
Those who eat animal food do not get a single element of nutrition,
save that which those animals have obtained from vegetables. Hence man,
in taking his nutrition indirectly, by the eating of animals, must of
necessity get the original nutriment more or less deteriorated from the
unhealthy conditions and accidents of the animal he feeds upon—with
the impurities and putrescent matters mingled with the blood and in
the viscera of animal substances, which are invariably present. Apart
from this aspect of the problem—which is one rather of hygiene than of
chemistry, and hence will be discussed in the following chapter—it is
evident that man can derive no single element of nutrition from the
bodies of animals, which he cannot also obtain from suitable vegetable
foods. He need not eat grass and herbs, as do the cows and sheep, in
order to obtain this material—since chemical analysis of the foods
will readily show us that these same elements are contained in fruits,
nuts and other substances suited to his economy. This argument alone
should, therefore, as a matter of fact, settle the whole case in favour
of vegetarianism as against flesh-eating, without any further or
additional proof being necessary.
V
THE ARGUMENT FROM HYGIENE
We have seen in the preceding pages that it is perfectly possible for
man to live upon vegetable and kindred foods without necessitating
the eating of animal foods of any character—which merely confirms the
evidence afforded us by a study of comparative anatomy and physiology.
Having thus seen that it is _possible_ for man to live and thrive
upon these foods, the question at once arises: Can man thrive _best_
upon such foods? Can he maintain a _higher_ level of vital and bodily
health, and of mental and moral powers, upon these foods than he can
upon the usual mixed diet of to-day—including meat and its various
products? If it can be shown that this is the case—that a man cannot
only live, but improve in health and bodily strength on the vegetarian
régime—then it will be pretty obvious that this is the diet best suited
for man, and the diet upon which he can thrive best. It would, in fact,
confirm the argument drawn from comparative anatomy, physiology, and
chemistry, and would conclusively prove that man can live and thrive
best upon a diet devoid of flesh.[20]
[20] “ ... The American must be educated in the principles of the
frugivorous diet. ‘Its never too late to learn,’ and ‘now is the
appointed time.’ Unquestionably man can live on a diet of fresh
meats—proof of which is amply afforded by the very fact that the
larger part of the people of the North American continent of to-day
are living almost wholly or largely on such a diet. When it comes to a
discussion of the relative merits of the two diets ... we need go no
further than to chemistry and physiology, which show that the flesh
meats do not begin to contain the same amount of nutriment as do the
nuts, and some of the other articles of vegetable origin.” “The Art of
Living in Good Health,” p. 197. By Daniel S. Sager, M.D.
In order to understand the evil effects of flesh-eating thoroughly, it
will be necessary for us, first of all, to consider the normal body
when living, and the process of death. When the body of any animal
is living, two processes are simultaneously going on within it—viz.
the constructive and the destructive (Anabolism and Catabolism). The
former of these processes feeds and bathes the tissues, while the
latter is that process whereby the dead matter is thrown off, and
conveyed, by means of the venous blood, to the various eliminating
organs. The arterial blood conveys the food material to the bodily
tissues; the venous blood conveys the dead, worn-out, effete material
from the various tissues to the eliminating organs. If either of these
two processes ceases, or is in any way interfered with, grave results
follow—which, if persisted in long enough, will result in the death
of the organism. It must be remembered that all the poisons which are
thrown off by the cells, throughout the body, are not really eliminated
until they have been conveyed to the depurating organs, and been
completely dissipated in that way. If they are still in the venous
blood or in the tissues, they are still _in the animal_, and a part
of its flesh. These waste substances are poisonous, and are produced
very rapidly by an animal in movement, or even by the very process of
living, so that every animal, no matter how healthy, must and does
contain a vast amount of these poisons, the accumulation of which
would soon kill the animal if not removed—as has often been proved
by varnishing the surface of the body, _e.g._ When the action of the
skin is stopped in this manner the animal soon dies. Again, when a man
is strangled, and the blood forced to pass through the lungs several
times without being oxidised and purified by contact with the oxygen of
the atmosphere, the blood soon becomes almost _black_ in appearance
(due to retained poisons), and the man dies as the result of the rapid
formation of poisons within his system. These facts must be borne in
mind, in what follows. This constant formation of deadly poisons, as
the mere result of living, is a most important factor in the problem,
as we shall soon see; and is one that cannot be overlooked when
considering this question of the propriety and wisdom of flesh-eating.
Having grasped the above facts, let us now proceed to apply them to the
problem before us. When an animal is killed in any manner whatever,
it does not instantly die. It loses consciousness, its heart ceases
to beat, its conscious and somatic life end, but its _tissues_ still
continue to live—for several hours, in the case of warm-blooded
animals, for several days in the case of cold-blooded animals, like
the snake and the turtle. During the time which elapses between death,
so-called, and the actual death of the cells and tissues of the body,
the activity of the animal tissues consumes the soluble food material
which is in contact with these cells and tissues—at the same time
continuing to produce those waste substances, which, during life, are
rapidly removed from the body through the kidneys, lungs, and other
excretory organs.
It is by the accumulation of these poisons after death that the tissues
are killed. During life, the tissues are washed by a pure stream of
blood, which not only bathes but feeds them, and at the same time
gathers up the waste substances and carries them to the liver for
distribution to the kidneys, lungs and skin, for elimination. “When the
heart ceases to beat, this cleansing process ceases, and the poisons
which are ever forming, accumulate at a rapid rate until the vital
fluids are so saturated that every living structure is killed. The
arteries continue to contract after death until all the blood which
they contain is forced on into the tissues, and still farther on into
the veins, so that the flesh of a dead animal contains nothing but
venous blood and poisonous juices, in addition to the organised tissues
which have not yet been broken down.
From the foregoing, it will be apparent why it is that meat-eating is
so destructive. In addition to the useful and necessary nitrogenous
products that are contained within the flesh of the animal, there are
also, contained within its tissues, these poisons created during life,
and retained within the body of the animal after its death. It is
almost impossible to extract these poisons by any process which will
also leave the tissues of the animal free from them, and wholesome
in consequence. By long continued washing, it is possible to extract
the greater proportion of them; but this is never done, as a matter
of fact, and even if it were it would leave behind a tough, elastic
substance, almost tasteless, which would be quite unappetising to the
person attempting to eat the meat. It would no longer have any charms!
This, then, is the greatest objection that can be raised against
meat-eating (from this particular aspect)—viz. that, in addition to the
nutritious portion of the meat, there are and must always remain, and
go along with it, these poisons which are consequently eaten with it.
Now, I ask, would it not be better to eat that food which provides us
with the useful material (proteid) for the upbuilding of the body; but
food in which these poisons are not present, and which we consequently
escape? Such being the case, why not eat only those foods which supply
the nutriment, without the poisons?
I have observed above that certain poisons are invariably retained
in the tissues of an animal which has died; and that these poisons
may be, to a certain extent, washed out by water—they, of course,
remaining in the water into which they have been washed. This is the
case with “beef tea”—the boiling having the effect of washing out all
these poisons, and dissolving them in the water in which the meat
has been cooked. Instead of throwing away this water, however, it is
carefully preserved, and given to patients, as valuable and precious
nutriment! Instead of regarding it as so much poison and filthy
excreta in solution, it is given to patients as a restorative tonic!
It is really amazing that patients ever get well at all under such
treatment. It is certain that none of the real goodness of the meat can
be extracted by any process of boiling or washing, for the reason (1)
that all the arterial blood has been converted into venous blood soon
after the death of the animal; and (2) because animal tissue is _per
se_ indissoluble in water. Were this not so—if our tissues dissolved
in water in this manner—then we should melt and dissolve like a lump
of sugar whenever we went out in the rain, or when we happened to fall
into the water; but we know that such is not the case. It is obvious,
therefore, that only the excrementitious products can be washed away
in this manner; and these are the parts of the tissue which are soaked
and boiled into the water. In beef tea, therefore, we obtain; only the
refuse and poisonous excreta of an animal—and very little, if any, of
its real nutritive qualities.
But it may be contended that beef tea _does_ benefit sick persons:
they really do feel better after taking it! Quite possibly; but this
feeling of elation is due to _stimulation_. If the public understood
what stimulation really is, they would not urge any sick patient to
eat or drink anything that in any way stimulated him; but would on
the contrary forbid him to eat or drink anything which affected him
in this way! If they understood the _rationale_ of stimulation, they
would never urge or suggest that any stimulating food be administered
to the patient again. For how do stimulants stimulate? What is the
_rationale_ of their “action”?
When we see a horse plodding slowly along the street, and the driver
suddenly cuts it across the back with his whip, the horse jumps, and
reaches the end of the street more quickly than if he had not been so
whipped. In such a case, does anyone suppose that any strength has
been _imparted_ or _given to_ the horse; or is it not rather that the
energy already present in the horse has been forced, and expended a
little more quickly? Of course, the latter. In other words, the energy
has been extracted _from_ the horse, and not imparted _to_ it. It is
the same with all stimulants whatever. In every case, their action is
the same. It is not that energy has been imparted to the organism, but
rather that it has been abstracted from it—in the process of resisting
and expelling the stimulant. Stimulation does not impart strength; it
wastes it. Vital power does not go out of the brandy into the patient,
but occasions vital power to be exhausted from the patient in expelling
the brandy. The system expends its force to get rid of the alcohol,
but never derives any force, great or small, good, bad or indifferent,
_from_ the alcohol. Stimulants merely occasion the expenditure of
strength and energy; they do not impart either _to_ the system.[21]
[21] “See pp. 34-44 of my “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition,” where
this question is discussed at length.
From the above facts, it will readily be seen why it is that beef tea
is a stimulant of the highest order; and for that reason an apparent
supporter of strength. In fact, it is now becoming to be realised
in many quarters that beef tea is more of a stimulant than a food;
and, if you believe in the one, you cannot accept the other. These
facts will also enable us to understand the stimulating character
of meat—a quality which has gained for it the reputation of being
“strengthening,” and consequently “good food” for the weak invalid!
But it so happens, unfortunately, that _because_ of this very fact
it is really disqualified as a food for the invalid; and this would
be seen clearly enough if the true _rationale_ of stimulation
were properly understood. The fact of the matter is that the more
stimulating a food, the less nutritious, and _vice versa_. Perhaps I
cannot do better than quote Dr Trall in this connection. He says:
“Medical men teach us that animal food is more stimulating. Here, for
once, the premise is true. But stimulation and nutrition happen to be
antagonistic ideas. Just so far as a thing stimulates, it does not
nourish. Just so far as it nourishes, it does not stimulate.
“There is no more widespread delusion on earth than this, which
confounds stimulation and nutrition. This is the parent source of that
awful error—or, rather multitude of errors—which are leading all the
nations of the earth into all manner of riotous living, and urging
them on in the road to swift destruction. This terrible mistake is
the prime cause of all the gluttony, all the drunkenness, all the
dissipation, all the debauchery in the world—I had almost said, of all
the vice and crime also.
“But what is this stimulus of animal food? Let us see if we cannot
understand it. What is a stimulant? It is anything which the vital
powers resist with violence and expel with energy. The disturbance of
the organism which denotes this resistance, constituting a kind of
feverishness, is stimulation. It is a morbid process. It is disease,
hence a wasting process. Medical books have a class of medicines which
are called stimulants. They are all poisons, and not foods. Among them
are alcohol, phosphorus, ammonia, cayenne pepper, etc. Anything which
is foreign to the organism may provoke vital resistance, and in this
sense be called a stimulant.
“But how does animal food stimulate? It always contains more or less
effete materials—the debris of the disintegrated tissues, the ashes
of the decayed organism—with more or less of other excrementitious
matters. These impurities cannot be used in the organism, and
therefore must be expelled; and this expulsive process, amounting
to a feverish disturbance, this vital resistance, is precisely the
_rationale_ of the stimulating effects of animal food. And thus we
prove that animal food is impure precisely in the ratio that it is
stimulating, and for this reason objectionable.
“All that can be alleged in favour of flesh-eating because of its
stimulating properties can be urged, and for precisely the same
reasons, in favour of brandy-drinking or arsenic-eating.”[22]
[22] “Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism,” pp. 23-24.
There is nothing more certain than that the eating of meat, even if the
meat be clean and wholesome, and the eating of it be not excessive,
will in time produce grave results and diseases of the foulest and
worst type. Not invariably, of course, but almost invariably. The rapid
increase in uric acid which results from a flesh diet has previously
been pointed out, and is now well known. In addition to this, there
are numerous other poisons that are formed, or introduced into the
body, as the result of flesh-eating—as Bouchard and others have proved
conclusively. These poisons and their effects were carefully studied
by Bouchard, and the results of his experiments are very interesting
and convincing. He succeeded in isolating a number of poisons from the
urea of flesh-eaters, and injecting them into animals, and noted the
results. “One of the poisons in most minute doses produces death with
violent spasms; another causes rapid fall of temperature until death
occurs; another influences animal temperature in another direction;
still another produces death with most profound coma.”
The basis of the demonstration is this. The urine is really an
extract from the tissues; the kidneys do not manufacture poisons _de
novo_, but simply separate from the blood poisons found in solution
therein, which have been washed by the blood-current from the tissues
which it bathes in passing through the capillary network of systemic
circulation. Bearing these facts in mind, Bouchard and his assistants
injected into live rabbits certain known quantities of these poisons,
and noted the results. Death invariably resulted—frequently in a very
short time, and as the result of taking an extremely small dose of the
poison. It was also found that, by increasing the amount of meat in the
diet, the amount of these toxins could be increased accordingly, and
proportionately; the greater the amount of meat consumed, the greater
the amount of toxin given off by the animal in its urine, and the more
deadly its effects. It was even found that a person living almost
exclusively upon a flesh diet increased these toxins to fourfold the
normal limit!
Again, it is now well known that in all infectious and contagious
diseases there are created within the system certain poisons which play
a large part in the disease—they are a factor of immense importance.
This being the case, it becomes obvious how important it is to keep
out of the system all other and unnecessary poisons—such as might be
introduced into the system by foul air, bad water, food containing
poisons, etc. Since meat and beef tea contain these poisons in excess,
it is certain that they should not only form _no_ part of the diet of
invalids, but should be strictly _forbidden_, just as any other poison
is.
Metchnikoff has recently pointed out, with great emphasis, the immense
influence upon health of intestinal putrefaction. He insists that it
shortens life; is one of the chief causes of premature old age and
death, and is the cause of many diseases and much misery during life—in
all of which he is doubtless quite right. The method of checking this
intestinal putrefaction, however, does not appeal to me as other than
a palliative measure. Lactic acid is, for him, the great preventive of
putrefaction of this type; but is it not obvious that such a treatment
is merely one that aims at _results_, rather than at _causes_? one
which attempts to patch up existing conditions, instead of trying to
find out what gave rise to those conditions, and checking _them_? M.
Metchnikoff has apparently failed to realise the fact that there is no
need whatever for the human intestine being in any such diseased and
disgusting condition as it is generally; that, in certain cases, it may
be rendered absolutely sweet and clean—with virtually no putrefaction
going on in the bowel at all. In the case of Mr Horace Fletcher, for
instance (and in many of his disciples), no such conditions are present
or possible. Mr Fletcher, writing in his “New Glutton or Epicure,” says
(pp. 144-145):
“One of the most noticeable and significant results of economic
nutrition, gained through careful attention to the mouth treatment of
food, or buccal-digestion, is not only the small quantity of waste
obtained but its inoffensiveness. Under best test conditions the ashes
of economic digestion have been reduced to one-tenth of the average
given as normal in the best text-books on physiology. The economic
digestion ash forms in pillular shape, and, when released, these are
massed together, having become so bunched by considerable retention
in the rectum. There is no stench, no evidence of putrid bacterial
decomposition, only the odour of warmth, like warm earth or ‘hot
biscuit.’ Test samples of excreta, kept for more than five years,
remain inoffensive, dry up, gradually disintegrate, and are lost.”
To my mind, it has always been so obvious that, if we supplied no food
to decompose, there could be no decomposition, that I hardly thought
the question was open to debate at all. It would appear to me to be
axiomatic that if we only supplied the body with as much food as it
really needed, and of the proper quality, there would be virtually no
food left to decompose, or to offer pabulum for germs of any character
whatever. Certainly this is the case outside the human intestine,
and why not in it? One can quite easily see why it should be—why
putrefaction should take place, if the amount of food ingested were
excessive in quantity, or poisonous in quality; _but not otherwise_.
The former of these two questions I have discussed at length in my
former volume on fasting; the latter aspect of the problem is the one I
propose to discuss in this book.
If we compare the decomposition of various articles of food, we find
there is a very great difference (both as to the quality and the
quantity) in the various food-stuffs. Under the same conditions, and
during the same period of time, the extent of the decomposition, and
its character, will be very different, in the two cases. Compare the
decomposition of a pear, a peach or a plum, _e.g._, with that of a
piece of beef or mutton! Animal tissues and products, when undergoing
the process of decay or decomposition are particularly offensive; and
this fact is well borne out by a comparative study of the excreta of
the various animals. As before pointed out, that of the herbivora and
frugivora is comparatively inoffensive, while that of the carnivora is
very offensive, and dangerous also. This is particularly the case with
man, when he eats meat of any character. His fæces at once assume a
characteristic odour and character; and clearly indicate that he has
wandered away from his natural diet, and is living upon food altogether
foreign and unnatural to him. His tissues also take on the chemical
composition of the resulting mass—being coloured and influenced by it.
Meat and all animal products easily decomposing, and being in a moist,
warm place, where they might easily decompose at once, they assume a
most offensive character; and it does not require much imagination to
see that the results would be disastrous in a very short time, under
such circumstances; and clearly indicate that the individual is living
on food unsuited to his needs and his organism.
Even when an animal is perfectly healthy, its tissues begin to
decompose as soon as the animal is really dead—as soon as _rigor
mortis_ has passed away. Even when meat is kept at a very low
temperature, it has been found that it decomposes after the first
twenty-four hours; so that the amount of decomposition present in
all animals whose carcasses have been hanging up for hours, and even
days, in a shop may easily be imagined! In the case of game, the
carcasses are frequently green and blue with decomposition, and the
chemicals injected into the animal in order to preserve it from such
decomposition. For only in this manner can meats be preserved; and
it has been proved time and time again that meats are treated and
“doctored” with drugs and chemicals of all kinds in order to delay
their decomposition. To think that we really eat such stuff, and give
it to our children, and even _prescribe_ it for invalids, is too
revolting for words! It passes all comprehension! Dr Kellogg, in his
excellent little book on this subject, says, when speaking of the
deadly effects of the poisons formed within the body:
“Physiologists sometimes, for experimental purposes, separate from its
bony attachments one of the muscles of a frog’s leg, and arrange it
in such a manner, in connection with a battery and a suitable device,
that by a repetition of electric shocks the muscle may be made to
contract and lift a small weight. After being thus made to work for a
longer or shorter period, the muscle becomes fatigued to such a degree
that it no longer contracts in response to the electric stimulus. This
is shown to be due to the accumulation of the waste matters, of which
mention has been made. If at this point the muscle is washed with a
weak saline solution, it at once recovers its ability to work. If now
a _fresh_ muscle is thus prepared, and strong beef tea or solution
of beef extract applied to it, the muscle at once becomes expanded
or unable to contract, the same as if it had been working for a long
time, but without having done any work whatever! The reason for this
is that the beef tea or beef extract is simply a solution of the
same poisons which are developed in the muscles by work, and to the
paralysing effect of which its fatigue and inability to contract are
due.... By injection of the fluid obtained by compressing a piece
of beef steak or so-called beef juice into the veins of a rabbit,
it has been proved to be highly deadly in character. The quantity
of beef juice required to kill a rabbit of given weight is _less_
than the amount of urine required to produce the same effect.... The
juice obtained from the flesh of a dog was twice as poisonous as that
obtained from ox flesh; in other words, it required twice as much beef
juice to kill an animal of given weight as the juice obtained from the
flesh of a dog....”[23]
[23] “Shall We Slay to Eat?” pp. 53-56.
Upon this subject of beef tea, Dr Tibbles says:
“Beef tea, mutton broth, chicken broth, and other meat infusions are
useful for sick persons, for they are stimulating and restoring, but
they are recognised now chiefly as stimulants to tissue change or to
metabolism rather than as foods proper. They do not prevent wasting
of the body; indeed, when given alone, _they cause more rapid wasting
than no food at all. Dogs fed on beef tea die sooner than when they
are not fed at all._”[24]
[24] “Food and Hygiene,” p. 138.
In the U. S. Dept. of Agr. Bulletin, No. 102, “Experiments on Losses in
Cooking Meat,” we read:
“Beef which has been used for the preparation of beef tea or broth
has lost comparatively little nutritive value, though much of the
flavouring material has been removed” (p. 64).
It will thus be seen that beef tea extracts practically nothing from
the meat; and that the bulk of the nutriment, such as it is, remains in
the meat. This, however, is invariably thrown away! We thus see that
neither the beef tea nor the remaining mass of meat is of any use;
while both are certainly harmful. So much for beef tea!
It is now a well-known fact that meat-eating is the more or less
direct cause of various diseases. Tapeworm is one of these, most
easily and directly traceable to meat; and a very serious disease it
can become. Beef and pork are two great carriers of the cysts, or
tapeworm embryos; and they develop in the intestine, whence it is most
difficult to extract them. Fish is another great cause of tapeworm; and
no matter how fresh these meats may be, this same danger is run, and
can never be completely guarded against. These facts are now so well
known that it is unnecessary to quote authority in support of them.
The deadly trichina, found mainly in pork, but also in fish, fowls,
and in other meats, is the direct cause of trichinosis—a disease so
closely resembling cerebro-spinal meningitis that it is impossible to
distinguish between the two at first, and without a detailed diagnosis.
The history of the infection is said to be somewhat as follows:—rats
visit a cemetery, and become infected with trichinæ. After a time, the
rat dies of infection. The hog—the universal scavenger—eats it. Man—the
greatest of all scavengers—eats the hog, and thus becomes infected in
turn! It is not a very pleasant thought, or one calculated to elevate
man to a position “a little lower than the angels!”
Tuberculosis is another disease that is very frequently communicated to
the human organism from the carcasses of dead cattle. In his “Human and
Bovine Tuberculosis,” Dr E. F. Brush contends most strenuously that
phthisis is very frequently contracted in this manner, and advances
strong evidence in support of his claim. He says (pp. 9-10):
“The total number of cows in the United States for the year 1887 was
14,522,083—that is, one cow to every four and three-fourths (4.7)
persons. There exists, according to Lynt, a true parallel between
human and bovine phthisis; the curves of double mortality are the same
for different districts in the Duchy of Baden. Now this must mean that
a larger proportion of the bovine race dies from phthisis than of the
human race, because of the difference in the length of life between
the races. We have no statistics of this kind in the United States,
but Professor R. A. McLean tells me that, where cows are affected
by tuberculosis in great numbers, the death rate from phthisis is
correspondingly large in the human race in the same districts. This is
his observation from his large experience among diseased cattle.”
It would be useless for me to enumerate in full all the numerous
diseases that are traceable to meat-eating. That alone would occupy
an extensive volume. Typhoid fever has frequently been traced to the
eating of oysters. A disease closely related to hog-cholera has been
known to be contracted by the human being, as the result of eating
pork. Meat-eating is known to be one of the chief and most direct
causes of the decay of the teeth—the small fibres of the meat becoming
wedged in between them, and, decomposing, cause rapid decay of the
teeth. It is probable that this is one of the chief causes of the bad
teeth we see about us. Gout and rheumatism are now well known to result
from the eating of meat. The reasons for this might perhaps be given.
As the result of excessive meat-eating, and eating _too much_ food, the
body becomes choked with an excess of mal-assimilated food material,
and particularly with uric acid—a product of the meat. The blood, being
surfeited with this material, deposits some of it in the vicinity of
the joints, and this gives rise to the various symptoms of gout. It is
beginning to be realised that this disease, formerly thought to be the
direct result of the drinking of wine and other alcoholic beverages,
is due to “good old English beef.” Rheumatism is largely due to the
same cause. Meat poisoning shows itself in various forms; but the cause
is the same. It is now known that meat-eating is the chief cause of
Brights disease; and to all unprejudiced minds, it will be obvious that
this _must_ be so. The excess of albumen in the system cannot well be
due to any other cause: and the mode of cure thus becomes apparent also.
It is certain, to anyone who has studied the facts carefully,
that meat-eating predisposes the body to all forms of disease. In
pestilences of any character—statistics, so far as they have been
kept, conclusively show that the vegetarians escaped the disease, and
that the meat-eaters were the chief sufferers. The excess of poisons
introduced into the system predispose it to any form of disease to
which it may be exposed at the time; the general tone of the system
being lowered, owing to the lessened resistance, it becomes a ready
prey to any contagious disease which might be prevalent at the time.
In further support of this, it has long been known that wounds heal
far more rapidly in vegetarian soldiers and in all others who live
upon foods of this character, than in those who live largely upon
meat. Carnivorous animals are far more subject to blood poisoning than
are vegetarian animals. These latter may be very badly wounded, and
escape with a scar; but lions and tigers and other carnivorous animals
frequently die from blood poisoning, though but slightly wounded. There
can be no reason for this, beyond that indicated above. The tissues of
the animal’s body are more or less saturated with poison, in the first
place; and it required but a small amount in addition, to turn the
scale against the animal, and cause its death. It is surely the same,
to a great extent, in the case of human beings.
Epilepsy is another disease which has been more or less directly
traced to meat-eating. A few years ago, Dr Warner, of the Eastern
Illinois Insane Asylum, called attention to the profound influence of
flesh dietary upon epileptics. He found that it had a most pernicious
influence. By experiment he also ascertained that cats fed upon meat,
or allowed to eat the mice they caught, frequently become epileptic.
It has been ascertained, further, that a strictly vegetarian diet is
the best possible preparation that can be made for a surgical operation
of any kind; and that vegetarians die less frequently, as the result
of severe operations, than do meat-eaters. Paget, in his “Lessons
on Clinical Surgery,” states that there is a higher death rate from
operations in cities than in rural districts; and he considers that
this is largely due to the greater amount of meat consumed in the
cities.
Of late years much attention has been devoted to the relations of
cancer and meat-eating. Several authors have called attention to
this fact; Dr Alexander Haig, in his “Uric Acid in the Causation of
Disease,” strongly contends that the consumption of flesh is one of the
chief causes of cancer, and points out that any irritant to the tissues
will invariably be one of the chief factors in the causation of this
disease. As he showed that meat-eating created much uric acid in the
system, and that this uric acid acts as an irritant upon the tissues,
it is obvious that the consumption of flesh-foods is one of the chief
causes of this dreaded disease. Lately, the Hon. Rollo Russell, in
his book, “The Reduction of Cancer,” has defended this view very
strongly, and has gathered together a great deal of evidence bearing
upon this problem—showing that there is a definite connection between
the amount of flesh consumed and the number of cases of cancer, in any
one locality. He has also advanced strong reasons for supposing that
the one is directly _caused_ by the other. As a result of comparing the
food habits and the mortality tables of a large number of countries
and districts, it was found to be the invariable rule that when, in
any locality, meat-eating was excessive, the cancer rate was high; and
where meat-eating was small, it fell to a comparatively low figure. A
number of other authorities could be quoted in this connection. Thus Dr
Lambe remarks:
“The effects of animal food, and other noxious matter, in inducing
and accelerating fatal disease, are not immediate, but ultimate
effects. The immediate effect is to engender a diseased habit or state
of constitution; not enough to impede the ordinary occupations of
life, but, in many, to render life itself a long-continued sickness;
and to make the great mass of society morbidly susceptible to many
passing impressions which would have no injurious influence on healthy
systems.”
Drs Clarke, Buchan, Abernethy, Sir Edward Berry, Drs Sigmond, Copland,
Alphonus Lercy, Graham, Wardell, Trall, and many other of the older
writers were of the same opinion; and a number of recent authorities
have taken the same stand. It is beginning to be realised that
meat-eating is one of the most potent of all the causes of deadly and
fatal diseases of many kinds—all more or less directly traceable to it.
But, in addition to these varied diseases, there are induced states
of the body which must rightly be looked upon as diseased—though they
are not actual diseases, in the sense generally understood by that
term. Meat-eating is, however, one of the most potent of all factors
in inducing that state of the body known as “predisposition” to
disease—and in deadening and lowering the vitality, and in enfeebling
the senses. I shall now proceed to adduce evidence in support of these
various statements, and show that the effects of meat-eating are far
more insidious and widespread than is generally believed; and that the
effects of this practice, even among the supposedly healthy, are indeed
baneful and disease-engendering.
In the first place it must be pointed out and insisted upon that
meat is a highly _stimulating_ article of food, and for that reason,
innutritious. Stimulation and nutrition invariably exist in inverse
ratio—the more the one the less the other, and _vice versa_. The very
fact, then, that meat is a stimulant, as it is now universally conceded
to be, shows us that it is more or less an innutritious article of
diet, and that the supposed “strength” we receive from the meat is due
entirely to the stimulating effects upon the system of the various
poisons, or toxic substances, introduced into the system, together with
the meat. It is for this reason that those who leave off meat, and
become vegetarians, experience a feeling of lassitude and weakness, for
the first few days—they lack the stimulation formerly supplied, and now
notice the reaction which invariably follows such stimulation. This
feeling of weakness, or “all-goneness,” is therefore to be expected,
and is in no wise a proof that the diet is weakening the patient. Let
him persist in his reformed manner of living for some time, and he will
find that this reaction wears off, and that a general and continued
feeling of energy and well-being follow.
It is commonly supposed that only by eating large quantities of animal
foods can the bodily heat be maintained in cold climates. Such is
by no means the case. Although the Esquimaux, and the inhabitants of
Greenland and Iceland, do subsist almost entirely upon fats and animal
substances, many of the peasants of Northern Russia and other parts of
the globe, eat very little meat—for the reason that they cannot secure
it. Dr Graham, in his “Lectures,” went so far as to say that: “All
other things being precisely equal, the man who is fully accustomed
to a pure vegetable diet, can endure severer cold, or bear the same
degree of cold much longer than the man who is fully accustomed to a
flesh diet.” The truth probably is, as Dr Trall pointed out, that,
“the ordinary farinaceous foods and fruits contain all the carbon and
hydrogen requisite to sustain the animal heat in all climates, and
under all circumstances of temperature; and if ever surplus carbon or
hydrogen is taken into the system, it is, of course, thrown off; and
when a large amount of surplus carbon and hydrogen is taken, the labour
of expelling it is attended with a feverish excitement—which, instead
of warming the body permanently, only wastes its energies, and renders
it colder in the end.” The body is, in other words, continually in a
more or less feverish condition.
In discussing this question in my “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition”
(Book III., ch. 4, “Bodily Heat”) I said:
“There can be no doubt that the oxidation of the tissues throughout
the system, and the combination of the oxygen with the carbon are
sources of animal heat, in common with all the organic functions and
chemical changes which take place in the body. All the conditions
requisite for the due regulation of the animal temperature are:
good digestion, free respiration, vigorous circulation, proper
assimilation, and perfect depuration; in two words—_good health_.”
It is thought by many that “stamina” can only be maintained upon a diet
derived largely from flesh, but this is not at all the case. In the
chapter on the experience of nations and individuals, I shall adduce
a considerable quantity of evidence tending to show that a _greater_
amount of endurance can be secured upon a vegetarian than upon a mixed
diet! But many persons do not mean by the word “stamina,” endurance
alone. It is often difficult to get a definition of this word, as it
varies with individual conceptions. If, however, by “stamina,” is meant
stoutness of person, and fullness of blood, such “stamina” constitutes
the very food of disease, and the person in such a state is not only
more liable to febrile and epidemic attacks, but is also in much
greater danger while labouring under them, than one whose development
is such as to allow all the secretary functions to be performed
with ease, and whose blood is not so charged with either natural or
extraneous elements. How frequently do we hear of those who are said
to be looking well and healthy being suddenly cut off by apoplexy, or
some malignant disorder! The fact is, we are deceived by appearances,
by what we erroneously consider the indications of health; for those
whom we are taught to regard as healthy and robust are generally the
farthest from safety, and only need a slight exciting cause to bring
on a fatal disease. It is not the apparent disease which is the real
cause of death, but men die because the body is worn out; the tone of
the fibres is destroyed, and the principle of motion fails. The obvious
disease is the mask under which the condition is concealed.
I have referred before to the protection against epidemics afforded
by a strictly hygienic life, and particularly by the vegetarian
diet. There is an abundance of testimony on this point to which it
is impossible to more than refer. Bush, in his “Works,” vol. iv.,
p. 55, observed that the negroes of the West India Islands, were at
that time almost wholly exempt from yellow fever, which cut off the
resident upper classes in large numbers. Mr Hardy, a noted Scotch
philanthropist, escaped the yellow fever in New York, he asserts, by
his course of living; while Mr Whitlaw, of New Orleans, Dr Rush, of
Philadelphia, and Dr Copeland, also assert that they escaped yellow
fever by abstinence. The poet Shelley, in his “Vindication of Natural
Diet,” p. 18, says:
“There is no disease, bodily or mental, which adoption of vegetable
diet and pure water has not infallibly mitigated, wherever the
experiment has been fairly tried. Debility is gradually converted
into strength, disease into healthfulness; madness, in all its
hideous variety, from the ravings of the fettered maniac, to the
uncontrollable irrationalities of ill-temper, that makes a hell of
domestic life, into a calm and considerable evenness of temper—that
alone might offer a certain pledge of the future moral reformation
of Society. On a natural system of diet, old age would be our last
and our only malady: the term of our existence would be protracted;
we should enjoy life, and no longer preclude others from enjoyment
of it. All sensational delights would be infinitely exquisite and
perfect; the very sense of being would then be a continued pleasure,
such as we now feel in some few and favoured moments of our youth. By
all that is sacred in our hopes for the human race I conjure those
who love happiness and truth to give a fair trial to the vegetable
system. Reasoning is surely superfluous on a subject whose merits
and experience of six months would set for ever at rest. But it is
only among the enlightened and benevolent that so great a sacrifice
of appetite and prejudice can be expected—even though its ultimate
excellence would not admit of dispute.”
Another argument in favour of the vegetarian dietary, as against
meat-eating, is found in the fact that such a diet is conducive to
symmetry and normal development of the human frame. We shall see (p.
142) how the abdomens of the pigmies were greatly reduced, as a result
of abandoning their exclusive flesh diet. Many men are said to have
reduced their weight from ten to one hundred and fifty pounds by an
abstemious, non-flesh diet. The body also assumes a more symmetrical
form, and the skin and complexion a ruddier and more healthful glow. It
must be admitted, however, that the flesh of meat is not, of itself,
a fat-forming food; and many persons are put upon a diet of minced
beef and hot water, in order to reduce their weight. This they do,
generally, however, at the expense of the general bodily health. In
the Banting cure, and the various cures which are followed in America
and in England, the weight is reduced, but with doubtful benefit to
the patient. The large amount of beef creates an excess of acid within
the system, which has a tendency to eat away the fatty tissues; and it
is in this manner that they are destroyed. The excess of acid which is
thus manufactured, however, remains in the system, and is the chief
cause of resulting diseases of various kinds.
In addition to all these arguments, it can be shown that a vegetarian
diet improves and renders more acute the various senses. Sight and
smell, taste and hearing—all are influenced—in some cases more than
in others. Frequently patients are enabled to see distances or to
smell odours, after living on this diet for some weeks, which they
have never been able to do before. The appetite no longer craves the
highly-seasoned and stimulating articles of food formerly desired, but
is content with the simpler foods. The general acuteness and sense of
well-being will more than compensate for any feeling of deprivation
that may at first follow the abolition of meat from the diet. There can
be no question that the food exerts a tremendous influence over the
mental, moral, and emotional life. Says Dr Haig[25]:
[25] “Life and Food,” pp. 8-9.
“I believe that as the result of a rational, natural and proper diet,
producing the best circulation in the great power-house of the human
body, we shall get not only freedom from gross disease, but that
we shall get, developing gradually, conditions of mind, thought,
judgment, and morality, which will, in the future be as different from
what they have been in a diseased and degraded past as the light of
Heaven is different from the darkness of the dungeon; and that while
there are to-day many things in human nature which all believers in
the great, and good, and true, can only most heartily deplore, I
believe that in the future there will be more harmony, more strength,
more beauty, more unselfishness, more love—in a word, a truer and
greater and more complete _sanity_.”
It can be shown, further, that the length of individual life as well
as its usefulness and freedom from disease, are dependent largely upon
the character of the diet. Longevity, properly so-called, is not a
prolongation of the period of decrepitude and helplessness, as some
imagine; but an extension of that period of life when men can fully
appreciate the blessings of existence. It has been proved that any
animal should live, roughly speaking, five times as long as it takes to
mature. The dog matures at two, and lives, on an average, until it is
ten; and so on, throughout the animal world. Man, who matures at (say)
twenty, should live to be at least one hundred, and probably more,
without showing any of the signs of decrepitude and imbecility which
at present frequently accompany old age. As a matter of fact, we find
that the average length of life is a fraction over forty-two years;
and, in addition to this, these forty-two years are filled with diverse
diseases and miseries, which should at no time afflict the individual.
_Something_, therefore, is wrong, producing this result. In some way we
are consciously or unconsciously perverting the laws of Nature. Now, in
no way do we so flagrantly and so continually pervert her laws as in
this question of food; and we can for this reason account both for the
sicknesses which occur—these being engendered by depraved conditions of
the body—and for the shortening of life, which we perceive about us on
every hand. Philosophically, as well as practically, this should be so.
As Dr Graham pointed out years ago: “A life cannot be both _in_tensive
and _ex_tensive.” And the more it approaches the one, the less can it
approach the other. Anything which tends to rapid living—or, what is
perhaps the same thing, rapid bodily consumption or combustion—will
consequently tend to shorten life. All stimulants would, of course,
produce this effect; and, as meat is a highly stimulating article of
food, it will be seen that its consumption, if long continued, will
ultimately tend to devitalise and wear out the body—for the reason
that it hastens the vital wear and tear, and consequently shortens
life. This is, further, in agreement with the fact that “the heart
of the habitual meat-eater beats from 72 to 80 beats a minute, while
that of the person living on a pure diet of fruits, nuts, etc., will
beat ten times less per minute. Fifteen hundred extra heart strokes
every twenty-four hours makes a very appreciable strain upon the vital
forces.”[26]
[26] “Food Value of Meat,” p. 45. By W. R. C. Latson, M.D.
These conclusions are further borne out by the fact that the average
standard of longevity is higher among those peoples and nations who
subsist largely upon a vegetarian diet, than among the meat-eating
races.
There is an additional argument against meat-eating which might be
mentioned in this place. It is this: That meat, being a highly
stimulating article of diet, has a tendency to make us eat _too much_,
both of meat, and of other foods, which are before us at the time.
When the meal consists largely of simple, non-stimulating food-stuffs,
it will be found that this tendency is absent, and there will be no
temptation to overeat, or eat to excess, as is the case when meat is
largely indulged in. _Less_ food, and not more, will be eaten—which
corresponds with the argument drawn from physiology and chemistry—which
shows us that we can abstract the same amount of nutriment from less
food of another character. Instead of eating more food, when we adopt
a vegetarian diet, therefore, we should eat less! And, as a matter of
fact, most vegetarians _do_ eat less than meat-eaters. Thus, Mr Henry
Salt, in his “Logic of Vegetarianism,” p. 63, says:
“If the chemist were a man of action, and not merely a man of study,
the practical aspects of this question might, at the outset, give him
pause. Had he known vegetarians, lived among vegetarians, and talked
with vegetarians, instead of regarding them theoretically, he would
have been aware that the average vegetarian eats decidedly _less_ in
bulk than the average flesh-eater.”
This agrees with our argument advanced elsewhere—that meat is not as
nutritious as other articles of food; and, further, when we come to
consider the question of a fruitarian diet, we shall find that cooking
also destroys a large amount of the vital properties of food, and that
less raw food may be eaten than cooked food. For further discussion on
this point, I would refer the reader to the chapter on the quantity of
food necessary to sustain life.
The question of the influence of the diet upon the mental, emotional
and moral life should, perhaps, be insisted upon a little more fully.
Many of the older writers have insisted on this fact very strongly,
and furnished numerous examples and illustrations of the effects of the
diet upon this side of man—either for better or worse. Judge Woodruff,
writing on this subject, says:
“On my return to Smyrna, I stopped at Syra.... I there became
acquainted with Dr Korke, an eminent teacher from Switzerland. He
had charge of the principal school at Syra, containing from two
hundred to three hundred pupils.... I can truly say that these Greek
children manifested a capacity for learning which exceeded anything
I had ever before or have since witnessed. Dr Korke attributed this
extraordinary ability in his pupils, mainly to their habits of living,
which were exceedingly simple. Coarse, unbolted wheat-meal bread, with
figs, raisins, pomegranates, olives, and other fruit, with water,
constituted their diet. Figs and other fruit composed a large portion
of their food; but I am confident they did not consume an ounce of
flesh meat in a month.”
It is generally conceded that the eating of large quantities of meat
tends to make the consumer pugnacious and animal-like in nature. This
has been insisted upon over and over again, and innumerable cases
could be adduced in support of this contention, if necessary. The
Tartars, who live principally on animal food, possess a degree of
ferocity of mind and fierceness of character which form the leading
feature of all carnivorous animals. On the other hand a vegetable diet
gives to the disposition, as in the Brahmin, a mildness of feeling
directly the reverse of the former. To many, it would appear that, if
a choice had to be made, it would be better to resemble the former
class than the latter—since the one conquers and controls and the
other is conquered and controlled. This is not invariably the case,
however. The pigmies of Africa, and the Esquimaux do not possess this
fierce disposition, but are frequently cowardly, and easily overruled
by other European nations. It would appear, therefore, that dietetic
considerations cannot settle this question—which is too largely a
matter of philosophy, on the one hand, and of personal idiosyncrasy, on
the other, to allow of any definite conclusions being drawn therefrom.
If we desire to arrive at definite results, we must experiment upon
different individuals of the _same_ race; and then, by observing the
_same_ individuals, while upon a meat diet, and while upon a vegetarian
diet, some definite results might be obtained.
There are two consequences of meat-eating which should be noted, in
this place, however—the influence upon the passional nature, and the
influence upon the desire for alcohol. Meat, being a stimulant, excites
the bodily functions unduly—stimulating and irritating them in an
unnatural manner, and exciting the individual to acts which he would
not think of performing, were his body less stimulated and more under
control. This is not saying that a vegetarian diet destroys or lowers
the sexual powers, or the tone of the animal nature—far from it. But
it does not keep the sexual organs in a more or less constant state of
irritation, as is the case upon a meat diet. The potential energy is
there; but the desire to expend it so frequently is not noted. Here is,
at all events, a very important factor in civilisation—how important,
few realise (see Sanger’s “History of Prostitution”). At all events
this is one very strong argument in favour of the vegetarian diet, and
should by no means be overlooked.
The relation between meat-eating and the consumption of alcohol is now
becoming widely known and recognised. No sooner does the amount of meat
consumed, _per capita_, rise, than the quantity of alcohol consumed
rises also. The two—meat-eating and alcohol-drinking—invariably go
hand in hand; and the reason is obvious. Meat is a highly-stimulating
article of food. All stimulants call, after a time, either for an
increase in the amount of the stimulus, or for a stimulant of another
character—in order to produce the desired result. Now, of all solid
foods, there is no stimulant which is more powerful than meat; and for
that reason liquid stimulant is sought. One stimulant craves another.
And another reason for the invariable accompaniment of the two is this.
It would be practically impossible to create a desire for alcoholic
beverages while eating fruits, nuts and vegetables. They do not call
for alcohol, and there would be no desire for it manifested. In every
way we see, therefore, that drunkenness would be largely abolished by
the simple introduction of vegetarianism as a diet—and this has been
confirmed by the fact that in certain sanatoriums, where the vegetarian
diet has been introduced as a cure for inebriety, it has been found to
work to perfection; and the patients, while on this diet—and although
allowed all the alcohol they craved at first—soon ceased to want it,
and the craving left them after a few days—never to return, so long as
they maintained their reformed habits of living.[27]
[27] See, in this connection, H. P. Fowler: “Vegetarianism, the
Radical Cure for Intemperance”; Dr Jackson’s “How to Cure Drunkards,”
etc.
In conclusion, I wish to call special attention to the very great
effects of a properly regulated vegetarian dietary upon the body
(1) when diseased; and (2) to its power to _prevent_ such diseased
states. In any form of chronic or acute disease—no matter what its
nature may be—only good will follow the adoption of a vegetarian
regimen; and the more closely this is followed, and the more sparing
and abstemious the diet—the sooner will the patient mend and get well.
And if the vegetarian diet be adopted when the patient _is_ well, and
conscientiously followed, there can be no question whatever that he
will _stay_ well—provided he does not eat _too much_, and that he pays
reasonable attention to the general laws of health. The preventive
influence of the diet is very profound and far-reaching.
But now, it may be asked, if all this be true; if these diverse and
grievous diseases that afflict man result from the eating of meat; how
comes it about that it is such a universal article of diet? How is
it that everyone believes in its value so thoroughly? The answer to
this is simple. The majority simply follow where custom leads, without
further thought, and without stopping to inquire into the _reasons_
for the course of life they daily pursue. But the scientists, and the
physiologists? They surely ought to know better! They ought, indeed;
but they do not seem to! It would really appear as though this whole
doctrine of meat-eating could be traced back to the old and fallacious
dogma that we have canine teeth in our heads! _They_ have been the
source and the cause of all the trouble! But, as Dr Trall said years
ago, in writing of this very question:
“Sometimes, when I think how perfectly ridiculous as well as sad this
carnivorous tooth blunder is, on the part of doctors of learning and
unlearned people, I am reminded of that very beautiful experiment of
a dog running after his own tail. Take a dog, give his head a sudden
twist round towards his tail, at the same time holding his tail in
the line of his mouth, and say ‘catch it,’ and the poor, deluded dog
will run round and round with all his might, till he falls down dizzy
and exhausted, all the while fancying himself going the straightest
possible road in pursuit of his tail. And after he has rested a
little, and recovered a little breath, he will up and at it again.
“It is very much so with our flesh-eaters. The doctors have given
their heads a roundabout twist; told them they had carnivorous teeth;
set them agoing; pointed to the beasts of the field, the fowls of the
air, and the fishes of the sea, and said ‘catch them.’ And the whole
world has gone to hunting and fishing and fattening and butchering
and salting and pickling, and smoking and broiling, and frying and
eating, until they have become filled with morbid humours, scrofula,
cancer, erysipelas, gout, rheumatism, biliousness and putrid fevers;
then they have rested a while, lived on vegetable food until they have
measurably recovered, and then resumed their carnivorous raid in the
animal kingdom!
“And sickness has not taught them the lesson it ought to have done.
Instead of regarding their maladies as the necessary consequences
of their eating habits, they have looked upon them as the arbitrary
inflictions of chance, or of a mysterious Providence. Even when, in
the middle ages, the great pestilences prevailed over Europe, at a
period of the world’s history when for three hundred years the people
literally rioted and revelled in the abundance of flesh blood and
alcoholic beverages; and when, during those three centuries, the
terrible plague—the ‘Black Death’ and the ‘Great Mortality,’ as it was
then called—desolated London, Paris, and other great cities—sweeping
off one hundred millions of the earth’s inhabitants—the medical
profession, and the people with them, wholly mistook the lesson it
taught.
“And so it is now. People eat all manner of animal products, with
their morbid humours, foul secretions, diseases, impurities and
corruptions; and when their bodies become so obstructed and befouled
that they retch, and vomit, and spit, and expectorate, and go into
fever and inflammation, and gripes and spasms, they wonder what the
matter is! And then they send for the family physician, and he wonders
also. Why, the only wonder is that they are not all matter!”
Throughout the whole of the above argument, I have assumed that the
meat eaten is from _healthy_ animals, and have assumed that no
diseased meat finds its way upon the table of the average meat-eater—an
assumption which is certainly not warranted by facts. I wished,
however, to give my adversaries every advantage in this discussion,
and for that reason have assumed throughout that the meat was obtained
from healthy animals, and was not adulterated before coming to the
table. As a matter of fact, however, neither of these two conditions
are invariably fulfilled. We might say that the second condition is
very rarely fulfilled. It is generally known that meat is inoculated
with chemicals of all kinds before it is placed upon the market, and
for that reason it is enabled to be shipped from place to place, and
to hang in the butcher’s shop by the hour without being kept upon
ice—for how, otherwise, could this be? We know that meat decomposes
very rapidly—especially in moist or warm weather—but it is apparently
enabled to hang, nevertheless, for hours at a time in the butcher’s
shop! If chemicals of various kinds were not injected into the meat,
this would be impossible. Most graphically does Upton Sinclair describe
this process of “pickling” in his book, “The Jungle,” where he says:
“Jonas has told them how the meat that was taken out of pickle would
often be found sour, and how they would rub it up with soda to take
away the smell, and sell it to be eaten on free lunch counters;
also of all the miracles of chemistry which they performed, giving
to any sort of meat, fresh or salted, whole or chopped, any colour
and any flavour which they chose. In the pickling of hams they had
an ingenious apparatus, by which they saved time, and increased the
capacity of the plant—a machine consisting of a hollow needle attached
to a pump; by plunging this needle into the meat and working with his
foot, a man could fill a ham with pickle m a few seconds. And yet, in
spite of this, there would be found ham spoiled, some of them with
an odour so bad that a man could hardly bear to be in the room with
them. To pump into these the packers had a second and much stronger
pickle which destroyed the odour—a process known to the workers as
‘giving them thirty per cent.’ Also, after the hams had been smoked,
there would be found some that had gone to the bad. Formerly these had
been sold as ‘Number Three Grade,’ but later on, some ingenious person
had hit upon a new device, and now they would extract the bone, about
which the bad part generally lay, and insert in the hole a white-hot
iron. After this invention there was no longer Number One, Number Two,
and Number Three Grade—there was only Number One Grade! The packers
were always originating such schemes. They had what they called
‘boneless hams,’ which were all the odds and ends of pork stuffed into
casings; and ‘California Hams,’ which were the shoulders, with great
knuckle joints, and nearly all the meat cut out; and fancy ‘skinned
hams,’ which were made of the oldest hogs, whose skins were so heavy
and coarse that no one would buy them—that is, until they had been
cooked, and chopped fine and labelled ‘head cheese’!”
This question of _diseased meat_ is, therefore, one which deserves our
close attention, largely because it has been treated so ineffectually
in the past, in other books dealing with this subject. The defect has
been due to the fact that, until recently, no definite _facts_ have
been available; and, although everyone knew in a general way that
much of the meat said to be “inspected” and found free from disease
was, as a matter of fact, unfit for human food, there were no data to
which the vegetarian could point, and say: “Here are facts and figures
incontrovertible! What have you to say in defence now?”
Lately, however, several such exposures have been published. It would
be well for us to summarise the facts; and I cannot do better, in this
connection, than to turn to Dr Albert Leffingwell’s book, “American
Meat.” (I would refer all those interested to its fascinating pages.) A
very brief summary must suffice. This will be enough, however, for our
purpose:
“During the period of 1901-1906 inclusive, over 660,000 _post-mortem_
inspections were made of animals, which before slaughter had been
rejected in the stock yards as apparently diseased. Of these, only
85,000—_less than one in eight_—were finally condemned as wholly unfit
for food purposes.... What is it that the United States inspector
is required by his regulation to condemn as unfit for human food?
The carcasses of animals which he might find affected by cancer
or malignant tumours? No. He is directed to condemn _the tumour_,
the part of the carcass which was affected, the organ which was
infiltrated by disease! The remainder of the carcass—what becomes
of that? Is there anything which prevents it from being turned into
the food supply of the poorer classes? There is sometimes a silence
which accords assent.... Suppose the entire liver of a hog to be a
mass of cancerous disease; what is there in these regulations of the
Department of Agriculture to prevent transmuting the muscular tissues
and unaffected organs into various food delicacies or food products,
which in due time should find their way to the tables of rich and poor
in England and America? Not a word!...
“The United States Department of Agriculture advances yet another
step, and, under certain circumstances, _requires_ the inspector’s
approval of the flesh of tuberculous animals as fit food for human
beings:
”_Rule C._—The carcass, if tuberculous lesions are limited to a single
or several parts or organs of the body (except as noted in Rule A)
without evidence of recent invasion of tubercle bacilli into the
systemic circulation, SHALL BE PASSED, after the parts containing the
localised lesions are removed and condemned.”
The following table affords matter of interest:—
_Number of Carcasses (Approximately) found on inspection to be
affected with tuberculosis, of which “parts” were condemned, and the
remainder passed as wholesome food._[28]
YEAR CATTLE HOGS
1900 85 1,061
1901 256 44
1902 152 4,700
1903 250 52,006
1904 703 118,820
1905 647 142,105
1906 1,114 113,491
1907 10,530 364,559
1908 27,467 628,462
—————— ————-———
Total 41,204 1,425,248
[28] Abstract from the Annual Report of the Bureau of Animal Industry.
The significance of these figures should not escape the reader. Here is
the proof, based upon official statistics, of the utilisation for food
purposes of animals suffering from tuberculous disease!
But the figures prove far more. They illustrate the terrible
indifference to public interests which governed the inspection of
meat, especially before the legislation of June, 1906. Note the vast
difference which obtains between the number of animals found “partly”
diseased in 1907, and the number of preceding years. For instance, the
total number of beef carcasses inspected in 1907 showed an increase of
precisely 10 per cent. above the figures of 1906. Yet the number of
cattle, of which the carcasses were “in part” condemned increased—not
10 per cent.—but _over_ 800 _per cent._ above the figures of the year
before. Almost as many hogs were condemned in one year (1907) as “in
part affected” by this disease, as during the entire seven years that
preceded it! Was there any noteworthy sudden increase in the prevalence
of this disease among animals intended for human food? There is no
hint of it in the official report. The only conclusion we can reach
is that, following the agitation and legislation of 1906, thousands
of hogs and cattle were at least partly condemned, which in preceding
years, without even the condemnation of a part, _passed into the food
supply of the world_.
During eight years, 1900-1907, there were slaughtered, under Government
Inspection, over 203,000,000 hogs. Since there can be no doubt that
the trichina was as common among all the animals as among those whose
carcasses were examined, it follows that, during this period of eight
years, over 5,000,000 carcasses of hogs, or about 1,000,000,000 _pounds
of pork_, infested by trichinæ—at least half of which at the time of
slaughter were potent for mischief—were turned into the meat supply of
an unsuspecting world!
The following “Government Regulations,” in this connection, are
certainly remarkable and well worth quoting. It is hardly likely that
the general public suspects what is given to them in the form of meat;
and the following quotations will probably help to open their eyes:
_“Malignant Epizootic Catarrh._—The carcasses of animals affected with
this disease, and showing general inflammation of the mucous membranes
with inflammation, shall be condemned. If the lesions are restricted
to a single tract, or if the disease shows purely local lesions, the
carcass _may be passed_.”
_Skin Diseases._ Section 16.—“Carcasses of animals affected with mange
or scab, in advanced stages, or extension of the inflammation of the
flesh, shall be condemned. When the disease is slight, the carcass
_may be passed_.”
Section 21.—“Hogs affected with urticaria (diamond skin disease) tinea
tonsurans, demodex folliculorum, or erythema, _may be passed_, after
detaching and condemning the skin, if the carcass is otherwise fit for
food!”
_Caseous Lymphadenitis._ Section 12.—“When the lesions of caseous
lymphadenitis are limited to the superficial lymphatic glands, or to a
few nodules in an organ, involving also the adjacent lymphatic glands
(N.B.), and the carcass is well nourished, the meat _may be passed_,
after the affected parts are removed and condemned.”
_Tapeworm Cysts._—“Carcasses of animals slightly affected with
tapeworm cysts may be rendered into lard or tallow, but extensively
affected carcasses shall be condemned” (p. 15).
Section 17. Par. 3.—“Carcasses or parts of carcasses found infected
with hydatid cyst (echinococcus) _may be passed_ after condemnation of
the infected part or organ.”
Similar quotations could be supplied _ad libitum_; but the above
will doubtless suffice for our purposes. From them we see that—all
statements to the contrary notwithstanding—a very great deal of
diseased meat _does_ get into the market—so much, in fact, that it
becomes highly probable that a large percentage of it is diseased; and
that we probably run more chance of buying diseased meat than we do of
obtaining meat clean and free from infection.
These facts and figures relate only to the meat slaughtered under
Federal Inspection, it must be remembered; and represent the best
possible condition in which our meat is obtained. This meat is passed
by expert Government Inspectors; the packing houses are considered the
best and the cleanest in the country, etc. What, then, of the meat
killed by local butchers, on farms, and _without_ Federal Inspection
altogether? The reader may think that there are but few cattle and
hogs killed in this way; and that their flesh is not disposed of upon
the public market to any extent. If he is of this opinion, he is sadly
mistaken, as the following figures will show. I take them from Dr A.
M. Farrington’s Report to the Bureau of Animal Industry, which is
published as Circular No. 154, under the supervision of the U. S.
Department of Agriculture. As we have seen that the tendency of the
Bureau is to under rather than over-estimate the facts in the case, the
following statements will appear all the more impressive. The figures
given below relate to the year 1907, but much the same conditions
prevail to-day, and but little has been done to check the conditions
depicted. The following is the result of a careful statistical inquiry,
in tabulated form:—
────────────────────────────────┬───────────┬────────────┬──────────
ITEM │ CATTLE │ SHEEP │ SWINE
─—─—─—─—————————————————─—─—─—─—┼─——————─—─-┼————————─—─—┼─—————─—─—
Slaughtered under Federal │ │ │
Inspection │ 7,633,365 │ 10,252,070 │ 32,885,377
│ │ │
Estimated Farm Slaughter │ 1,500,000 │ 1,000,000 │ 16,500,000
│ │ │
Slaughtered by Butchers without │ │ │
Federal Inspection │ 4,972,052 │ 7,793,133 │ 10,316,300
─—─—─—─—————————————————─—─—─—─—┴─——————─—─-┴─———————─—─—┴─—————─—─—
It will be seen from the foregoing that practically 5,000,000 cattle,
nearly 8,000,000 sheep, and over 10,000,000 hogs were slaughtered by
butchers in 1907 without Federal Inspection, to which may be added
about 3,000,000 calves. All these 26,000,000 animals were consumed by
the people of the United States, and the responsibility of inspecting
them rested wholly upon the State and local authorities, since they are
beyond the reach of the Federal Inspectors.
And now, how about the sanitary conditions of the slaughter-houses
in which these animals were killed, and how about the state of the
animals themselves? Were they free from disease? were they sick? Were
the surroundings filthy and poisonous in the extreme? If I should give
an account of the real state of affairs in my own words, I should
be accused of exaggeration—to use the very mildest term. I prefer,
therefore, to quote entirely from the Report of the Bureau of Animal
Industry, before referred to. This Report states in part:
“The slaughter-houses, where animals are killed for local consumption,
are usually isolated or scattered about the city or town.... Such
houses, in addition to being unsightly, malodorous, unclean, and
insanitary in the extreme, are actually centres for spreading
disease.... A recent investigation made by the State Board of Health
in Indiana of those slaughter-houses which do not have Federal
Inspection ... states that:
“‘Of the 327 slaughter-houses inspected, only 23, or 7 per cent.,
were found to fulfil the sanitary standards.... At nearly all
slaughter-houses inspected, foul, nauseating odours filled the air
for yards round. Swarms of flies filled the air and the buildings and
covered the carcasses which were hung up to cool. Beneath the houses
was to be found a thin mud, or a mixture of blood and earth, churned
by hogs, which are kept to feed upon offal.... Maggots frequently
existed in numbers so great as to cause a visible movement of the mud.
Water for washing the meat was frequently drawn from dug wells, which
receive seepage from the slaughter-house yards, or the water was taken
from the adjoining streams, to which the hogs had access. Dilapidated
buildings were the usual thing, and always the most repulsive odours
and surroundings existed.’ ...
“One of the butchers was asked what they did with ‘sick’ cattle. He
laughed and answered ‘What do they all do with them?’
“In another large eastern city there are only four slaughter-houses in
the city proper which do not have Federal Inspection. The total kill
at these places is about 1,000 cattle and 2,500 hogs per month. The
only inspection is furnished by one inspector of the board of health,
and this inspector is not a veterinarian. Previous to his employment
by the board of health, he was a hotel porter.”
It need only be added that such strict economy is practised in all
these slaughter-houses that the odds and ends—the “trimmings”—are
now valued by the butchers at about 14 per cent. of the whole. The
trimmings consist of every part of the animal except the actual refuse
it contains, everything else being utilised in one way or another. As
one Chicago packer proudly expressed it, when speaking of hogs, “we use
everything but the squeal!”
This, be it observed, is the meat placed upon the market and eaten by
the American public, to the extent of millions of carcasses yearly!
Is it any wonder that the people have cancer, and tapeworm, and
tuberculosis, and other illnesses, and break down prematurely and
become miserable and die? It would be a wonder indeed if they did
anything else!
It is well known that large quantities of diseased meat are constantly
being introduced and placed upon the market—far more than the public
is aware of. But, for the present argument, it is not necessary that
we should force this conclusion, since we can establish the point,
even assuming that all the meat eaten is from the carcasses of healthy
animals—the actual content of the tissue containing toxic material,
no matter how free the animal may be from what is generally known as
“disease.” This being true, all the arguments advanced above will
remain perfectly valid—no matter how “healthy” the animal may be.
VI
THE ARGUMENT FROM EXPERIENCE
(_Nations and Individuals_)
“There is a difference,” observes Chalmers, “between such truths
as are merely of a speculative nature, and such as are allied with
practice and moral feeling. With the former, all repetition may
be often superfluous; with the latter, it may just be by earnest
repetition that their influence comes to be thoroughly established
over the mind of the inquirer.”
These words are particularly true when applied to the subject matter
before us. No matter how perfect, theoretically, an argument may be,
it will never appeal to the public mind as do a few concrete facts.
The arguments I have presented, drawn from comparative anatomy, from
physiology, chemistry, and from hygiene, would weigh but little in many
minds against the testimony of human experience. They would contend
that, no matter how good the theoretical argument might be, the facts,
nevertheless, would seem to prove the contrary; and show that the
majority of all the more civilised people of the earth, particularly
the ruling and governing nations, _do_, as a matter of fact, eat meat;
and hence, practically, meat is a suitable article of diet. I propose
to consider these arguments in the following chapter, and see how far
they rest upon facts, and how far upon misconception.
Pythagoras, one of the most celebrated philosophers of antiquity, was
one of the first to defend the “vegetable diet.” He not only totally
refrained from animal food himself, but also strictly prohibited the
use of it by his disciples, so that those who abstain from it at the
present time are sometimes known as Pythagorians. Pythagoras flourished
about five hundred years before the Christian era. He was a man of
immense learning, and extraordinary powers of intellect. He was the
first demonstrator of the forty-seventh problem of the first book of
Euclid, and entertained correct views of the solar system. Ovid speaks
of him with great admiration.
Zeno, the Stoic, Diogenes, the Cynic, Plato, Plutarch, Plautus,
Proclus, Empedocles, Socrates, Quintus Sextus, Apollonius of Tyana,
Porphyry, and numerous others, among the ancients, abstained from
animal food and, more recently, Haller, Ritson (celebrated for his
numerous works and varied talents), Dr Cheyne, Dr Lambe, Mr Newton
(who wrote a splendid book, “The Return to Nature”), Shelley, Dr
Hufeland, Sir Richard Phillips, and many others have both advocated and
personally tried for many years a strictly and exclusively vegetable
diet.
Hesiod, the Greek poet, Herodotus, Hippocrates, Pliny, Galen, and many
other writers of antiquity could be quoted as defending a simple,
non-flesh diet. Of late years numerous scientific men and physicians
have come forward in support of this claim; and their testimony will be
found in various parts of this work.
If the past has produced individual giants, mental and physical, who
subsisted upon a vegetarian dietary, the present may also claim its
champions; and there are doubtless more at the present day than ever
before. Many athletes are now adopting a vegetarian diet, largely on
account of the Fletcher-Chittenden experiments before referred to;
largely because of individual study and investigation. The fact that
strength and endurance are greatly increased by a strict vegetarian or
fruitarian dietary cannot be gainsaid. I have adduced some of this
evidence in the chapter on hygiene, and shall adduce further evidence
in the present and following chapters. The frequently quoted case
of the seventy-mile walking match, that took place in Germany some
years ago, should at least be referred to. Fourteen meat-eaters, and
eight vegetarians started on a seventy-mile walking match. All the
vegetarians reached the goal, it is said in “splendid condition”—the
first covering the distance in fourteen and a quarter hours. An hour
after the last vegetarian came in, the first meat-eater appeared, and
he was “completely exhausted.” He was also the last meat-eater to
finish the race, as all the rest had dropped off after thirty-five
miles. A further and almost exactly similar illustration is furnished
by the Dresden to Berlin walk of 1902. For this, eighteen vegetarians
and fourteen meat-eaters started, and ten of the vegetarians, but only
three of the meat-eaters came in. The winner (Karl Mann) was upwards
of seven hours in front of the first meat-eater. It is to be noted
that Mann was a strict fruitarian, and practically never touched the
ordinary vegetarian foods. The last meat-eater only just got in within
the time limit, and was beaten by more than four hours by a man of
fifty-nine, who had been a vegetarian for thirty-eight years. In this
race the championship of Germany was decided, and the winner made two
world’s records. The proceedings were watched, and the organs and
circulation of competitors were measured and recorded by a committee of
physiologists, for the benefit of the German government and army.
Dr Alexander Haig, in his “Diet and Food,” p. 100, says:
“A week or two after the race I had the pleasure of examining the
winner, who had, to a large extent, arranged his diet by the aid of
a previous edition of this book.... His circulation was far better
than that of any meat-eater, which, to a large extent, explains his
victory; and the records show that his heart was smaller at the end
of the race than at the beginning. I have but little doubt that the
meat-eaters who gave up had dilated hearts, owing to their obstructed
circulation.... In my opinion, a few more hard facts like these (and
plenty more of such records will be forthcoming) will quite dispel the
meat-eating delusion that strength and endurance can be attained on no
food but flesh. The truth is that 50 per cent. _more_ endurance and
strength can be obtained with many other foods; and the chief reason
for this can now be seen and gauged in a moment by the rate of the
capillary circulation of the individuals concerned; and this capillary
circulation is proportioned to the uric acid in the blood, and is
therefore slowed and obstructed by meat, which introduces uric acid.”
Professor Baelz, of Tokio, Japan, made some experiments on vegetarian
natives, and, after measuring and recording some of their feats of
endurance, he gave some of them meat, which they took eagerly, and
regarded as a great luxury, because it was used by the “upper classes”;
but after three days they came and begged to be let off the meat,
as they felt tired on it, and could not work as well as before. The
Professor then made some similar experiments on himself, and he found
that he also was sooner tired, and more disinclined for exertion when
he took meat.
Mr Eustace H. Miles, formerly amateur champion of the world and
holder of the gold prize at tennis, amateur champion of the world at
racquets, and of American squash, tennis, etc., is a strong advocate
of vegetarianism, and has written a number of works on this subject,
defending the non-flesh diet—which books are too well known to need
more than a mere reference. Mr Miles, though he must be approaching
middle age, is a remarkably young-looking man, with a brilliant
complexion, and thinks that he will be as good ten or fifteen years
from now as he is to-day. In a conversation with me, Mr Miles stated
that he considered diet the all-important factor, so far as health is
concerned; and exercise, and other forms of health-getting “a luxury.”
I agree with him absolutely, and defended this very position in my
“Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 618-621. I too think that if the
food be regulated in quality, and sufficiently reduced in quantity,
all other factors might be more or less neglected, and perfect health
maintained.
But it would be useless to refer to a large number of individual
cases of this character. However many I might cite, the defenders of
meat-eating would be enabled to cite an equal number of cases in favour
of their argument; and for this reason I do not think that individual
cases are of value in establishing any conclusion beyond this one—viz.
such cases show us conclusively that men _can live_, and _can maintain
a high standard of physical health and mental brilliancy upon a diet
derived exclusively from the vegetable world_. That is an important
point, but would not be conclusive. In order to arrive at a definite
conclusion, far larger numbers of vegetarians and meat-eaters must be
investigated; and the question, therefore, becomes one of statistics
and of the diets of nations, rather than of individuals. I shall
accordingly turn to this aspect of the problem—after mentioning one
additional point that must not be lost sight of, in this connection.
It must be remembered, throughout, that, for every vegetarian in
England or America, there are doubtless 100 or more meat-eaters, so
that the percentage of success in the athletic field and elsewhere
_should be_ at least 100 to 1—and probably a great deal more, if the
balance is to be maintained between the vegetarian and flesh-eating
athletes, and others before the public eye. But, as a matter of fact,
we find that the percentage is very much lower than this; and that,
within the last few years, at any rate, quite as many vegetarian
athletes secured successes and achieved records as did the meat-eating
athletes; and in some instances, where the two ran in competition, it
was found that a _larger_ percentage of vegetarian athletes achieved
success than did the meat-eaters. Inasmuch as the number is so
disproportioned, in the two cases, it would certainly appear that the
vegetarian athletes did, on the whole, achieve a far greater percentage
of successes than did the meat-eating athletes.
* * * * *
The diets of the various nations have so frequently been summarised and
presented by writers upon this subject that it will not be necessary
for me to do more than to mention briefly a few of the most essential
points; and to refer the reader to those works in which these facts and
arguments are to be found in full. Dr Graham, in his “Science of Human
Life”; Dr John Smith, in his “Fruit and Farinacea”; Dr Anna Kingsford,
in her “Perfect Way in Diet,” and, more recently and fully, the Hon.
Rollo Russell, in his extensive volume, “Strength and Diet: A practical
treatise with special regard to the life of nations”—all these writers
have discussed this question of national health, as compared with
national diet, and found, almost invariably, that in every nation whose
diet consisted almost exclusively or even largely of meat, the natives
were small in stature, depraved mentally and morally, and afflicted
with diverse diseases; whereas those nations which were largely
vegetarian did not suffer in the same way from the sicknesses and
pestilences that affected their fellow-men; but were, on the contrary,
more forceful, superior morally and mentally, and in every way higher
in the scale of evolution than those nations which subsisted largely
upon meat.
A striking example of this is to be found in the pigmy races of Central
Africa. In his work, “The Pigmies,” Professor A. de Quatrefages has
shown us that this miniature people, stunted as they are, mentally,
physically and morally, subsist almost entirely upon meat. He says:
“The Mincopies are exclusively hunters and fishermen, living upon the
shore of a sea filled with fishes, close to great forests where boars
run at large, and which furnish them, besides, honey and nuts, they
have not felt the necessity of wringing by labour from the soil, a
supplement to their food supply; and this very luxuriance of food,
perhaps, has been of influence in keeping them at the lowest point
in the social scale. Francis Day informs us that a very small tribe
of Mincopies camped near the English establishments, and receiving
daily rations, took besides, in a single year, five hundred boars,
one hundred and fifty turtles, twenty wild cats, fifty guianas and
six bugongs.... All the descriptions agree in attributing to the
Akkas, men and women, an extreme abdominal development, which causes
the adults to resemble the children of Arabs and negroes.... But it
is evident the abnormal development of the abdomen, among the Akkas,
is not a true race characteristic, but that it is largely due to
their manner of life, the quantity of their food, perhaps also to
the general conditions of their habitat. This fact results from some
observations of Count Minis Calchi, who has seen, after some weeks of
regular and wholesome diet, the extreme development of the abdomen
disappear, and the vertebral column resume its normal state.”
These people are described as cruel, cowardly and wanting in all the
qualities that would raise them in the scale of evolution: yet their
diet consists almost entirely of meat—the supposed “strengthening” and
courage-breeding food of civilised nations! Emaciation is very common
among them, under certain conditions. It cannot be objected to what I
have said that this condition is brought about by their cannibalism,
for we read (“The Pigmies,” p. 155) that: “Far from seeking human
flesh, the Andamanese regard it as a deadly poison.”
The Esquimaux are another race which is very inferior; and in them
nothing is developed, scarcely, save the mere animal nature; hence
their stomachs have all the nervous power, almost, of their whole
constitutions. They have virtually no mental life beyond that necessary
for carrying on the affairs of daily life. One never hears of any
mental achievement coming from an Esquimau; more than this, their
animal nature is itself actually inferior in muscular power to that of
those tribes and races of men whose general régime is comparatively
free from fats and animal oils.
Throughout history the general run of the people—the natives—subsisted
almost entirely upon a vegetarian diet; and any large quantity of
meat was not consumed, for the reason that it could not be procured.
The upper classes subsisted more or less upon meat—which might
have accounted for their eventual degeneracy!—as the whole nation
degenerated when meat-eating became general, as in Greece and Rome. But
in the early stages of the history of these nations, and of others,
meat was a luxury, to be eaten on holidays and fête days, rather than
a steady article of diet; it could by no means be procured every day
or every meal, as is now the case. The principal food of the natives
of Egypt, India, Mexico, Chili, Brazil, Cyprus, Arabia, Bolivia, the
Canary Islands, Italy, Ceylon, Japan, Sierra Leone, Greece, Malta,
Turkey, China, Palestine, Algiers, the African Coast, Poland, Russia,
Norway, Spain, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria,
Sweden, Switzerland, Scotland, Ireland, and, until recently, England—is
some form of vegetarian food—bread, rice, fruits, cheese, and various
grains. The details of these dietaries are to be found in Russell’s
“Strength and Diet,” where a very full summary of all these dietaries
are to be found. I refer my reader to that work for further information
upon these lines. But one or two examples are needed to illustrate
this. Thus we read:
“It is indeed surprising to see how simple and poor is the diet of the
Egyptian peasantry, and how robust and healthy most of them are, and
how severe is the labour they undergo. The boatmen of the Nile are
mostly strong muscular men, rowing, poling and towing continually; but
very cheerful and often the most so when most occupied, for they amuse
themselves by singing.”
The staple food of India is, of course, rice, to which is added a poor
grain called râgi, pulse, roots, fruits, and one or two other articles
of diet. The men from the hilly district are described as tall—being
from five feet ten inches, to six feet high. They used to carry the
mail from Calcutta to Bombay by foot—but twenty-five days being allowed
for this journey, an average of sixty-two miles a day.
Few people surpass the Arabs for longevity, agility, and power of
endurance; yet they subsist largely upon dates, milk, and honey. The
peasants of Italy are a splendid, hardy set, living almost entirely
upon cakes and porridge of chestnut, bread, garlic, and a little wine.
The Greek boatmen are exceedingly abstemious, their food consisting of
a small quantity of black bread, made of unbolted rye or wheat meal, a
bunch of grapes or raisins, figs, etc. They are extremely vigorous and
active, as well as blithesome, jovial and full of hilarity. Sir William
Fairbairn, in his “Report on Sanitary Conditions,” says:
“The boatmen and water carriers of Constantinople are decidedly,
in my opinion, the finest men in Europe, as regards their physical
development, and they are all water drinkers; they take a little
sherbet at times. Their diet is chiefly bread, now and then a
cucumber, with cherries, figs, dates, mulberries, or other fruits
which are abundant there; now and then a little fish.”
In Dr Mackenzie Wallace’s “Russia,” we read:
“Eggs, black bread, milk and tea—these form my ordinary articles of
diet during all my wanderings in northern Russia. Occasionally a
potato could be had, and afforded the possibility of varying the bill
of fare.... The people of Russia generally subsist on coarse black rye
bread, and garlics. I have often hired men to labour for me in Russia,
which they would do from sixteen to eighteen hours, for eight cents
a day. They would come on board in the morning with a piece of their
black bread weighing about a pound, and a bunch of garlics as big as
one’s fist. This was all their nourishment for the day of sixteen or
eighteen hours labour.”
The fare of the Swiss workmen is very frugal.
“They rarely taste flesh, their food being principally, bread, cheese,
potatoes, vegetables and fruit, though in the towns the consumption of
meat is somewhat greater. The middle classes fare pretty much as the
working classes, all consuming large quantities of milk.”
Mr H. Irving Hancock, in his “Japanese Physical Training,” says of
their diet:
“When making their phenomenal marches, Japanese troops often carry no
food except a small bag of rice. When practicable, barley and beans
are issued in small quantities, though this is only done for the sake
of adding variety to the diet.... A bowl of this grain (rice) and a
handful of fish is considered an ample meal for the coolie who is
called upon to perform ten or twelve hours of hard manual work in a
day.”
It would be possible to add quotations and references such as the above
_ad lib._; but it is hardly essential for our argument, since this has
been done so frequently by able writers on the vegetarian diet, that it
hardly needs recapitulation in this place. Anyone may test the value
of the diet for himself, and thus verify from that most satisfactory
of all sources—personal experience—what has been outlined here, as a
theoretical possibility. Before closing, however, I desire to call
attention to one or two aspects of this question which have been more
or less overlooked, or wrong inferences drawn from the facts—apparently
vitiating the argument, and showing that meat-eating has a substantial
basis, and that there are valid objections to the vegetarian dietary
that have hitherto been lost sight of. Let us consider these briefly.
One great argument will always be raised against this theory of
vegetarianism, or non-flesh-eating—at first sight a very rational
objection. It will be said that all the nations who are flesh-eating
are the most progressive and dominating races or nations; and that
those who are largely vegetarian on principle are invariably overruled
by the nations who eat meat. The old case of the Hindu and the
Englishman may be cited here: it being contended that the meat-eating
Englishman dominates and holds in check the vast hordes of India, and
this largely or exclusively on account of his meat diet! Many other
examples of this character might be referred to, and in fact a strong
case apparently made out from these arguments alone. I do not think
that the argument is in any way valid, however; for the following
reasons, among others:—
In the first place, the Hindu is the man he is—peaceful, docile,
kind—more on account of his philosophy than on account of his diet.
He is opposed to killing and bloodshed in any form whatever, and will
not kill any animal (except, very occasionally, a snake) because of
his belief in reincarnation and the transmigration of souls. It can
readily be seen, therefore, that, holding such beliefs as these, and
being naturally of a philosophic and introspective turn of mind, and
being, moreover, a rural, rather than a warlike people, killing their
fellow-men would not appeal to them as it does to us. With them, the
aim and object of life is, not to acquire material possessions, but
true spiritual progress. They look upon material possessions as so much
ephemeral matter, which shall count for very little, when compared
with the ultimate destiny of the human soul. European nations, on the
other hand, who consider the material nature only, cannot understand
that attitude of mind; they are so saturated with materialism and the
materialistic thoughts of the age that they cannot even conceive the
viewpoint of one such as the Hindu, who considers and values only
the immaterial. Both consider the other as dreamers, and as victims
of illusion—people carried away by vain baubles—in the quest of mere
delusions! Holding such views, therefore, it can hardly be wondered at
that Hindus should view with more or less indifference the conquests
and despotism of foreign nations: to them these are mere incidents
in the passing of one life. This argument can, therefore, hardly be
pressed against the Hindus and similar nations; it is invalid, for
these reasons alone.
Again, it must be admitted that the highest evidence of
civilisation—the most advanced evidences of evolution—are hardly
those of war and bloodshed, but rather peace and tolerance! As a
friend of mine expressed it: “If you mean that those nations are the
most advanced and progressive which shoulder a gun and go out and kill
their fellow-man, then I must admit that European nations are the most
advanced; but if you mean anything else, this cannot be said.”
As Dr Trall, when discussing this question, remarked:
“If it be alleged, as an argument against the position I am
endeavouring to occupy, that the milder and more civilised and
peaceful nations are degraded and enslaved by their more ferocious
and warlike neighbours, I can merely reply that human beings may, and
in fact do, like predacious animals, riot upon and tyrannise over the
more amiable and more lovely, as the wolf preys upon the lamb, and the
vulture upon the dove. And I can see no end or remedy for this seeming
cruelty—save in that law of benevolence and progress which permits
suffering for a season, and as a means of development, and overrules
all for good, by that law which, in due process of time, will not only
exterminate from the face of the earth the beasts of prey, but also
all the appetences of human beings for preying upon other animals.”
Lastly, I must contend that it is by no means invariably the case that
vegetarian nations are subservient to the meat-eating; but they are, on
the contrary, almost invariably superior to them physically, as well
as mentally and spiritually. The Japanese have only lately given us an
excellent example of this fact; and it is illustrated in the histories
of all nations. It might almost be said that meat-eating nations have
never stood at the head of the military world until recently. The
Greeks and Romans were not meat-eating, but were strictly vegetarian,
for the most part; when meat-eating and wine-drinking and debauchery
generally were introduced, the Government speedily disintegrated
and went to pieces. The same is true of every nation of which we
have any authentic account. The great mass of the people were always
vegetarian, and must have been. Even a hundred or so years ago meat was
considered a luxury, and was served only on special occasions; bread
and vegetables were eaten the rest of the year. Even in our own day,
the majority of the peasantry in all countries are almost entirely
vegetarian, and only in the large cities can the very poor buy meat.
A brief glance at the “diets” of various nations will confirm this
statement.
There is slightly more excuse for natives of frigid or temperate zones
eating meat than there is for any inhabitant of the tropics; but, as a
matter of fact, when an inhabitant of the temperate zone _does_ visit
the tropics, he still clings to his meat diet—his rich, greasy dishes,
his wines, and his roast beef! Even upon his own showing these should
be largely sacrificed, when visiting the hot countries; and yet, as a
matter of fact, they are not given up—showing the illogical stand taken
by those who defend the flesh diet, and conclusively proving that it is
merely a matter of habit and prejudice rather than bodily requirements.
Mr Salt, in his “Logic of Vegetarianism,” has indeed tersely and
wittily summed up this argument as follows:—
“_British Islander._—Vegetarianism? No thank you; not here! All very
nice in Africa and India, I dare say, where you can sit all day under
a palm tree and eat dates.
“_Vegetarian._—But I have not observed that when you visit Africa
or India you practise vegetarianism. On the contrary, you take your
flesh-pots with you everywhere—even to the very places where you admit
you don’t need them, and where, as in India, they give the greatest
offence to the inhabitants.
“_British Islander._—Oh, well, it’s no affair of theirs, is it, if I
take my roast beef?
“_Vegetarian._—Yet you think it your affair to interfere with the
cannibals when they take their roast man. And have you observed that
it is in the tropical zone, not the temperate zone, that cannibalism
is most rife?
“_British Islander._—Why do you remind me of that?
“_Vegetarian._—To show you that all this talk about vegetarianism
being ‘a matter of climate’ is pure humbug. The use of flesh is a
vicious habit everywhere, and nowhere a necessity, except where other
food is not procurable.
“_British Islander._—But do we not need more oil and fat in northern
climates?
“_Vegetarian._—Undoubtedly; but these can be obtained without recourse
to flesh.
“_British Islander._—Then how do you account for the fact that
northern races have been, to so great an extent, carnivorous?
“_Vegetarian._—Perhaps because in primitive times hunting and
pasturage were less toilsome than agriculture. But I am not called on
to ‘account’ for such a fact. Their past addictedness to flesh food
no more proves the present utility of flesh-eating, than their gross
drinking habits prove the utility of alcohol.
“_British Islander._—Can you quote any scientific authority for your
contention?
“_Vegetarian._—There is one which is all the more valuable because
it is an admission made by an opponent. Sir William Lawrence wrote:
‘That men can be perfectly nourished, and that their physical and
intellectual capabilities can be fully developed in any climate by a
diet purely vegetable, has been proved by such abundant experience
that it will not be necessary to adduce any formal argument on the
subject.’ ‘In any climate,’ mark! And a diet ‘purely vegetable’;
whereas all _you_ are asked to do is to forego the actual flesh foods,
and not the animal products. But come now, let me ask the great
question!
“_British Islander._—What is that? There is only one other I have in
mind. What would become of the Esquimaux?
“_Vegetarian._—Of course! I have always been profoundly touched by
the disinterested concern of the Englishman (when vegetarianism
looms ahead) for the future of that arctic people. Well, perhaps the
question of what ice-bound savages might do or might not do, need
scarcely delay the decision of civilised mankind. For that matter,
what would become of the polar bears? If you cannot dissociate your
habits from those of the Esquimaux, why don’t you eat blubber? At
least they have a better reason for eating blubber than some people
have for eating beef—they can get nothing else.”[29]
[29] “Logic of Vegetarianism,” pp. 67-68.
This whole question of diet, so far as it is decided by experience at
all, can in reality be summed up in a very few words. In the first
place, all that it is necessary for anyone to do is to experiment
upon himself. Let him study the subject sufficiently, first of all—so
that he may be sure he is balancing his diet properly, when the meat
is discarded; and then give up meat, and continue the new dietary for
a year or so—or even a few weeks, for that matter. The result will
soon be apparent. In the next place, it is ridiculous to raise the
question at all, as a matter of fact—as to its “possibility”—when we
consider that seven-tenths of the inhabitants of the whole globe are
vegetarians! They are not the scattered few, here and there, as the
majority suppose; but the great bulk of the people in every country.
The peasantry in every land have always subsisted almost exclusively
upon fruits, grains and vegetables; and it is only recently, when the
price of meat has been so greatly reduced, and the average wages of the
people increased, that they have been enabled to buy meat at all, with
any regularity. Meat-eaters have always been in the minority—and have,
as a rule, shown signs of degeneracy before many centuries or even
generations have passed. To anyone knowing these facts, it is little
less than absurd to speak of the “impossibility” of subsisting without
flesh-foods! It displays the greatest short-sightedness.
Dr Trall, in writing upon this question some years ago, said:
“They say that vegetable food is not sufficiently nutritious. But
chemistry proves the contrary. So does physiology. So does experience.
Indeed, it can be demonstrated that many kinds of fruit are nearly as
nutritious as flesh. Many kinds of vegetables are quite as much so,
and the grains and nuts several times as nutritious. They allege that
human beings cannot have permanent strength without the use of animal
food, right in face of the fact that the hardest work is now being
done, and has always been done, by those who use the least animal
food; and right in the face of the fact, too, that no flesh eating
animals can endure prolonged and severe labour. I should like to see
them try the experiment of working a lion or a tiger, or a hyena
against an ox, a camel, or a mule. Examples exist here and there, all
over the world, of men of extraordinary powers of endurance who do not
use animal food at all; and history is full of such examples in all
ages of the world. And again: the largest and strongest animals in the
world are those which eat no flesh-food of any kind—the elephant and
rhinoceros.”[30]
[30] “Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism,” p. 20. As a matter of fact,
all the work in the world is done by vegetarian animals—the horse, ox,
camel, elephant, etc.
I cannot refrain here from alluding to the most common objection
to vegetarianism we meet with in this country; and I do so for the
purpose of explaining it away. The objection is, that vegetarians
are themselves poor specimens of health. And the answer is that the
great majority of those who are the subjects of notice and comment
are invalids who are restricted to a vegetable diet, because they
can recover health in no other way; and many of them are living on a
strict vegetable regimen because it is the only way they can live at
all. At the various hydropathic establishments in this country the most
desperate cases are put on a vegetable diet, simply because it affords
them the best chance of getting well. The casual observer, who judges
by appearances, will always find an argument in favour of flesh-eating
in the fact that the best-looking persons, physiologically, are those
who eat meat.
There are, however, scattered, in America, in England and elsewhere,
many persons who will not suffer by comparison, either physical or
mental, with the flesh-eaters of any country that can be found. In
bodily vigour and in mental capacity they are equal to any meat-eaters.
Let us consider this a little more fully.
It is usually thought that athletes cannot be developed upon a
non-meat diet (though the fallacy of this argument has long since been
disproved, in reality). It will be well to give a few instances, from
among many, of the success of vegetarians over their opponents. It is
true that these have not been numerous, but then, there are but few
vegetarian athletes; and _proportionately_ their triumphs have been
singularly frequent. A useful summary of some of these successes is
given in Mr Charles Forward’s book, “The Food of the Future.” He says:
“In the latter part of the year 1880 Gaston de Bennet, a young
Austrian, 17 years of age, and a vegetarian of the strictest sect,
using neither eggs nor milk, won the first prize in a grand swimming
contest in Lord Harlick’s Park ... against 11 flesh-eaters, most of
them full-grown men. He also won the first prize in the ‘Cooler’ race,
and, though well drenched, kept his wet clothes on for hours, and
took no harm. As a flesh eater, he had been extremely delicate, very
subject to cold, and constantly taking physic.
“In the year 1884, the Brothers Whatton and Mr A. W. Rumnay, as
representatives of Cambridge, in the inter-university races, carried
all before them—a fact which directed considerable public attention to
their vegetarian dietary.
“The first path race of the vegetarian cycling club took place in
1891, but it was not until 1893 that the performances of Messrs S.
H. Potter, H. Sharp, and W. Kilby, turned out so far in advance of
previous work that the Committee decided upon issuing a Club Challenge
Shield. During 1895, two of its members ... gained first and second
prizes, in the North London Club’s Road Race; and, in the same year,
Mr H. E. Brinning wrested the Club Challenge Shield from Mr Warlow,
who had won it a year previously.
“Since then, Mr Brinning had been to Calcutta, and soon after his
arrival, won from scratch nearly every race he competed in, besides
becoming possessor of three challenge shields put up for competition
in Calcutta, and securing the cycling championship of India.
“The achievements of the members of the Vegetarian Cycling Club
were much discussed in vegetarian circles all over the world; and
particularly among German vegetarians; and when, in 1893, a walking
competition took place from Berlin to Vienna, several vegetarians
were amongst the competitors, who numbered 16 in all. The winner was
Otto Peitz, who reached the judge’s box at 4.40 P.M., on the 4th of
June. About an hour later, another vegetarian, Elsässer, arrived. No
other competitors arrived until about 22 hours later, when, at about
3 o’clock on the following day, Carl Nauhaus passed the post. He was
not a vegetarian, but he expressed the opinion that it was a mistake
to eat much flesh on a long walk. The fourth arrival was a Berlin
university law student, arriving on the sixth of June, at 6.52, whilst
a few minutes later Fritz Goldbach reached the Committee Box. Dr
Heller, a Vienna physician, and an opponent of vegetarianism, partook
of raw flesh on the journey; but on the second day he began to
reconsider the task before him, and he subsequently posted a dispatch
to the Committee, announcing his withdrawal from the contest, and
went on to Vienna by train. Owing to a technical breach of the rules,
Elsässer put in a claim for the gold medal. He had been a strict
vegetarian for over four years, not even using eggs, milk, butter or
cheese. All that he took during his walk was bread, fruit and water,
and, on one or two occasions, a glass of seltzer. He had undergone no
regular training at all. Otto Peitz, who secured the second prize,
consumed bread and butter, and occasionally eggs and milk. He was a
compositor by trade, and being poor, had to ‘rough it,’ not being able
to pay for a bed during the walk....
“On the 21st of January, 1894, the ‘Winter Walk’ of the German Long
Distance Walk Society took place, the route being from Berlin to
Fredericksburg, a distance of about 30 miles. The roads were soft and
muddy, and the weather rainy and windy. Of the first four competitors
who arrived at the winning post, two were vegetarians—namely,
Frederick Bruhn and Carl Harmann. That the result of these walking
matches was no mere ‘fluke’ is clear from the fact that the vegetarian
competitors have repeated their successes on subsequent occasions; and
impartial students of dietetics were ready to admit the soundness of
the vegetarian position.”
VII
MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS
In the five preceding chapters I have advanced a number of reasons for
thinking that the natural diet of man is vegetarian or fruitarian, and
have endeavoured to show why flesh-eating is injurious. We saw that,
from anatomical structure, from physiological function, from chemical
analysis, for hygienic reasons, and because of the past experience of
nations and individuals—for all these reasons man should abstain from
meat. In the present chapter I shall adduce a number of miscellaneous
arguments, tending to show that flesh is not man’s natural food;
and that he cannot make it an article of his diet without violating
many of the laws of his organisation—mental and moral, as well as
physiological. These laws are important, also, and have their rightful
place, just as mental and moral considerations have their place in any
other question; and I shall accordingly consider them here.
There is first of all the humanitarian argument. This argument is
perfectly legitimate, so far as it goes, and a most forceful one. The
idea of taking life unnecessarily is very repellant to some—those
who have not become hardened, and who have thought of this matter at
all. To see a cartload of young animals going to the slaughter-house
is a sad if not a disgusting sight—especially when we consider that
these animals are soon to be cut up, and made into human food! The
ill-treatment which the animals receive, during shipment, is certainly
not in favour of their flesh being in any too good condition when it is
received at the slaughter-house; and, if mental conditions count for
anything, in their effect upon the composition of the blood and tissue
juices, there is very good reason for thinking that their bodies are
pretty well poisoned before they are killed—even if they were healthy
when they left the stock-farm. But, apart from such considerations,
every animal has its right to live; the ox and the calf, and the sheep,
and even the swine, has its mental life, just as man; and there is
a universal life running throughout the animal kingdom, which it is
no part of man’s duty to take needlessly. This brings me to a very
important factor in the argument. It is the taking of life _needlessly_
which the vegetarian protests against so strongly. If it were necessary
to kill these animals; if man could not live without flesh, then
killing and eating would be perfectly justifiable. It would simply
be a case of the survival of the fittest, and man would be entitled
to kill and eat other animals, just as the carnivora do. But it is
not necessary in any degree. Man can live perfectly well without meat
of any kind; and not only live as well, but far better! My arguments
in the chapter devoted to the hygiene of this subject should prove
that to the satisfaction of the reader. Man can live without animal
flesh; consequently the eating of this flesh is purely to gratify an
appetite—and a perverted appetite at that. No normal appetite could
possibly crave flesh of any kind. So that there is no possible excuse
for the killing and eating of animals, than this—except, of course,
ignorance. After all, that is the greatest factor!
It is against this taking of life unnecessarily that the vegetarian
protests not the taking of life at all. Besides, there is a difference
between killing a highly organised and sensitive animal, and one far
lower in the scale of Evolution. Shedding the blood of such animals is
against all normal instincts. Said a lady once, to a gentleman who was
eating beef: “How can you eat a thing that looks out of the eyes?”
The very plaintiveness, coupled with the helplessness of such animals,
should inspire a certain pity in the breasts of all who have any
humanitarian instincts.
This aspect of the controversy throws a different and a more rational
light upon this question. It has frequently been contended, _e.g._,
that, if this humanitarian argument were carried far enough, it would
become absurd, for the reason that every drop of water we drink, and
every breath of air we breathe contains living animals, which we kill
within our bodies! Moreover, every vegetable we cut or pick, takes life
(such as it is) and consequently this argument cannot be carried to its
logical conclusion, and is consequently worthless!
The position I have indicated above answers this objection. If we
cannot live without taking the lives of certain animalculæ, or that
of certain plants, then we must take their lives (for the most part,
be it noted, unconsciously). But there is a great difference between
this and taking the lives of highly organised animals intentionally
and voluntarily. Besides, the one is necessary, the other not. As I
said before, if meat were a necessary article of diet, there could be
no possible objection to making it an article of food; but it is _not_
necessary. That is the _crux_.
Further, it can be shown that, on a fruitarian diet, it is not
necessary to take the life even of the fruit eaten! If a cabbage be
cut, _e.g._, we thereby kill the cabbage—its psychic life, that is.
The same is true of all other vegetables. But it will be observed
that, when fruits are eaten, nothing is destroyed; no life taken
unnecessarily. Fruits, when they are ripe, fall from the tree, and
rot upon the ground—thus exposing the seed, and allowing it to become
buried in the soil. It will be seen that the pulp of the fruit is of
no further use to the seed; it has nourished it up to the time of its
falling to the ground, but thenceforward, it is virtually useless to
the seed. So that we might with justice feel that we were taking no
life at all in eating this pulp of the fruit—which, again, would seem
to indicate that fruit is man’s natural diet.[31] However, as I said
before, I do not think it is necessary to split hairs so finely on this
question. The valid ground to take is that it is wrong and cruel to
take highly organised life uselessly; and I do not think that such an
attitude is in any way open to criticism.
I may as well answer, in this place, one objection that has been
frequently raised against vegetarians by the meat-eaters, which is
that, if we did not eat meat, we should soon be overrun by the various
animals, and there would be no room for man upon the earth! They would
eventually crowd man out! This supposed argument is really absurd.
In the first place, hardly one-tenth of the animals now brought into
the world would be raised. They are now especially bred for eating
purposes, and if the demand decreased, the supply would decrease also.
Further, how is it that we are not overrun by wild animals of all
sorts? We have never been in any danger from _them_, somehow; but it
has invariably been found that they tend to recede before the advance
of civilisation. Many survive, to be sure, but Nature seems to take
care that their numbers are not unduly increased, so as to be a menace
to the human race. If this be true of wild animals—which might really
be a menace to the human race, if their numbers were sufficiently
increased—it is certainly all the more true of the harmless domestic
animals. Nature would
[31] _Cf._ Genesis i. 29, where man is distinctly told that he is a
fruitarian; and not only that, he is told the character of fruit he
must eat. “And God said. Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, _in
the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be
for meat_.” The seed-fruits are here clearly indicated, as well
as man’s originally frugivorous diet. see to it that man was not
overrun by animals of any sort, as she always has in the past. People
need not worry about the future welfare of the bovine race, if they
would only be a little more humane in their treatment of its present
representatives!
There is an ethical and an æsthetic aspect of diet, just as there
is a hygienic and chemical aspect. There is a wider view of this
question of diet than merely that of supplying the body with pabulum
for the tissues; the body itself cannot be built equally well from all
food-stuffs, but the body is cleaner and internally purer on some foods
than upon others. The keeping of the body in a clean, pure state—a
fit tenant for the soul—is in itself an aspect of the diet problem
that should affect us most keenly. It is not as though food had no
effect upon mental life and morals. Far from it. There is the closest
inter-relation. The whole process of ingesting food is disgusting, in
one sense, but that is no excuse for choosing, in consequence, carrion
and offal to feed upon! Think of the condition of a man’s stomach who
has eaten a regular _table-d’hôte_ dinner, and compare it, in the
mind’s eye, with the stomach of a man who has dined on peaches and
Brazil nuts! Were one to stop and think of what meat _is_, and what
it _was_, it is doubtful if one could eat it. It is merely dead and
decaying flesh—flesh from the body of an animal. There is nothing more
repellent to think about than the “scorched corpses,” as Bernard Shaw
calls them, which grace the tables of so-called civilised people. The
sight, the smell, the taste, all are repellent. Only by the fact that
they are covered up, and their true nature concealed by cooking, and
basting, and pickling, and peppering and salting can we eat them at
all. If we were naturally carnivorous animals, we should delight in
bloodshed and gore of all kind! We should go out and kill our dinner,
just as we now eat it; and the one would seem no more repulsive to
us than the other. Carnivorous animals secure their food in this way,
and so should we, if we were naturally carnivorous. We should eat our
flesh warm and quivering—just as it comes from the cow! But instead of
this, what do we find? That the majority of people in civilised nations
will not even consent to go near a slaughter-house! And when they _do_
go, they come away sickened at the sights and the odours which they
encounter. Take for example the following extracts from a diary—the
notes being descriptive of a Chicago meat market:—
“Slithered over bloody floor. Nearly broke neck in gore of old porker.
Saw few hundred men slicing pigs, making hams, sausages, and pork
chops. Whole sight not edifying; indeed, rather beastly. Next went
to the cattle killing house. Cattle driven along gangway and banged
over head with iron hammer. Fell stunned: then swung up by legs, and
man cuts throats. Small army of men with buckets catching blood; it
gushed over them in torrents—a bit sickening. Next went to sheep
slaughter-house. More throat-cutting—ten thousand sheep killed a
day—more blood. Place reeks with blood; walls and floor splashed with
it, air thick, warm, offensive. Went and drank brandy....”[32]
[32] “Logic of Vegetarianism,” p. 55.
And so would anyone else who had witnessed like scenes! I say
_witnessed_ them merely: how would it be if each one had to perform
the actual process of killing, before he could have a piece of his
“delicious beef-steak”? How would our society women like to spend the
morning in a slaughter-house, before they could procure their meat
for the evening dinner? And yet _someone_ has to do this work—work
disgusting and degrading enough to be below the lowest of men, and
fit only for the lowest of animals. The butcher does this, you say;
he is paid for it? Very true, but he only learns to do this work
after many days and even weeks of revulsion; and it is invariably
against his nature to do it. And this brings me to one very important
factor—the degradation of the butcher. Of all recognised occupations
by which in civilised countries a livelihood is sought and obtained,
the work which is looked upon with the greatest loathing (next to
the hangman’s) is that of the butcher. He becomes depraved mentally,
morally and physically. His is a dangerous business, and it is well
known that slight cuts and scratches, which, in the average man, would
amount to very little, frequently cause blood-poisoning and death to
the butcher. Their work brutalises them, too—as it necessarily must.
This is well known; and butchers are forbidden to sit in a jury, in
certain countries, as we know, because of the perversion of their moral
natures. And all this because certain persons, under the delusion that
they “must have meat” demand this from these men! The crime, and the
ugly, dirty work in connection with meat-eating, does not rest upon
the butchers—who are paid for their work, and would doubtless starve,
lacking it—it rests upon the eaters of meat throughout the country!
As the Whitechapel butcher remarked to the flesh-eating gentlemen:
“It’s such as _you_ makes such as _us_!” Yes; the stain rests upon the
flesh-eaters, not upon the flesh providers!
But there is another argument in favour of the vegetarian diet,
and more especially in favour of the fruitarian diet, as against
meat-eating. It is that any given area of land will supply far more
food per acre in the one case than in the other. When the soil is given
up to the feeding of cattle, upon which man is to feed, the given area
of land would supply far less nutriment, so to speak, than would the
same soil, if grains were raised upon it; and that would give less, in
turn, than if fruit-trees were grown upon it. Dr Smith pointed out
this fact in his “Fruits and Farinacea” years ago; and stated that
twenty times the population could be supported upon a diet of grains,
coming from a given limited area, than could be supplied, if that area
were devoted to the raising of cattle. And far more would this be the
case if fruits were grown upon this same area. It is safe to say that,
if one person could be fed from a certain area of land, provided he ate
the meat it produced, ten could be fed from the same area, upon grains
and cereals, and twenty upon the fruits and nuts such an area could
provide. This fact is in itself of great importance and significance.
Although the time is doubtless far distant when man will have to figure
so closely on his land space for feeding the people, that time must
come some day; and it would be well to know that many more persons can
be fed from the same area of ground upon one diet than upon another.
These and many other arguments could be urged against the practice of
meat-eating. They are all valid arguments, though all of them, in my
estimation, subordinate to the hygienic argument. If it were necessary
to kill animals, in order to live, I should have no compunction in
doing so; but as it is not necessary, I must protest against this
useless waste of life; and more especially so since this meat is
positively pernicious and harmful to the system. There is a sort
of half-formulated idea in men’s minds that they must have meat,
because the blood is _red_, and because the blood of their own bodies
is red; and they think that, by eating large quantities of meat,
they can increase the quantity and improve the quality of their own
blood—thereby curing anæmia, etc.! Of course there is no foundation
at all for this superstition. In the first place, the tables of the
chemical values of the various foods show us conclusively that meat
is far _less_ nutritious than many other articles of diet; while it
contains, in addition, certain poisons which are extremely harmful to
the system. Further, all food, no matter what its nature, is converted
into a creamy substance known as chyle before it is appropriated by the
system; and, no matter what the food may be, it is resolved into this
cream-coloured chyle before it is digested. Where, then, is the “good,
red blood” of the meat? And I have previously shown that, although
there are practically no chemical differences between the chyme formed
from vegetable and that formed from animal substances, nevertheless,
the vital properties of the chyme vary greatly—and are in favour of
the vegetable foods. Finally, I would point out that, if this argument
were sound, we should not eat the flesh of animals, for the reason that
“it most nearly resembles our own,” but would become cannibals and
eat _human_ flesh—since _that_ most nearly resembles our tissues! And
yet it has been found by actual experiment, that, so far from being
wholesome food, human flesh is exceedingly indigestible and unwholesome!
If flesh-eating is as harmful as I have been endeavouring to show,
however, how comes it about that the practice is so universal? And
how did the practice of flesh-eating originate, in the first place?
These are questions often asked of vegetarians, and there is a simple
answer to both of them. Flesh-eating is all but universal, simply
because people follow habit and custom blindly, without thinking of
their actions in the least—and, strangely enough, on this most vital
of all questions—food and diet. On most other topics, people are quite
capable of thinking for themselves; but in this question, they take not
the slightest interest! So long as the food _tastes_ nice, that is all
they care to think about it; and the actual preparation of the food,
and all questions concerning its composition and combination with
other foods, they are content to leave to an ignorant Chinaman or Irish
cook, who knows as much about the physiology and hygiene of dietetics
as a cow of the constitution of the moon. It is really amazing that
this should be so. It shows, of course, that people have not really
thought about their food in this light, and realised the tremendous
consequences of a false and perverted diet, or the benefits of a simple
and nutritious one. Flesh-eating doubtless sprang into existence
ages ago, at a time when little or no other food was to be obtained,
and they had to live upon it or starve. But we are not called upon
to explain the origin of meat-eating, as a matter of fact, any more
than we are the origin of alcohol-drinking. We must take conditions
as we find them, and endeavour to better them, as best we can. It is
certain that animals can be taught to eat meat, quite contrary to their
natural dietetic habits—as indicated by their structure, and by the
unperverted dietetic habits of the rest of their species. Thus, horses
have been taught to eat meat and drink beer; and, at certain seasons,
the horses on the coast of Norway are said to dash into the sea, and
endeavour to catch fishes in their mouths. Dogs and cats can be taught
to like alcoholic beverages of all kinds; and similar perversions of
taste in the animal world might be cited by the score. If animals can
thus be trained to like foods and drinks of this character, certainly
man can be taught to like and to eat and drink them also; and it is
doubtless due to this fact that the habit of meat-eating originated.
Once perverted, the appetite would have a tendency to stay perverted,
by reason of heredity; and in any case the environment and education
of the growing child would be quite sufficient to engender the desire
for meat—especially if the individual were brought up under the notion
that he “cannot live” without meat, and that it is a most essential
article of his diet! The medical profession is to blame for much of
this perverted reasoning, and the public for blindly following it,
without investigating its doctrines for themselves. Only when this is
done can we hope for a widespread and radical reform—one which will
revolutionise diet and cookery and spread health and harmony among the
human race and the animal kingdom—as well as restore man to a position
of elevated spiritual insight.
VIII
DAIRY PRODUCTS
Coming, as these do, from the animal world—more or less directly—they
are eschewed by many strict vegetarians and hygienists, as being
open to all those objections which might be urged against the use of
flesh-meat, only in a lesser degree. There is no doubt that this is
the only logical ground to assume, in this question, and the one which
many of us occupy from choice. There can be no question, moreover, that
man can persist, and maintain all his faculties—physical and mental—on
a diet devoid of all these articles of food. They are not open to
any such serious objections as are the flesh-meats, however; and are
certainly to be preferred to them. As found upon the market, they are
all more or less adulterated, unfortunately; and preservatives, in the
shape of salt, etc., introduced, to prevent rapid decomposition. Eggs
are also objectionable, on the ground that they have been kept on ice,
as a rule, for long periods of time, before they are offered for sale.
But, even granting that these articles of diet are fresh, and the best
that can be procured, there are still weighty objections to their use,
as I can readily show. Let us consider them a little more fully, in
turn.
* * * * *
_Milk._—Milk is, of course, the natural food of man for the first year
or so of his life. This is no reason, however, for supposing that man
can continue to eat, or rather drink, milk, for the rest of his life
with impunity—especially when this milk comes from the cow. Milk as
an article of diet has been highly praised by many authorities. For
example, in the pamphlet issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
we read:
“Milk is peculiarly adapted for use as a food by man for several
reasons. It contains all the four classes of nutriments—protein, fats,
carbohydrates and mineral matter—in more nearly the proper proportion
to serve as a complete food than any other food material, although no
one substance can furnish a complete food for an adult.”
While this may be true, the differences that are noted between human
milk and cow’s milk are highly important ones. It is to be remembered,
in this connection, that the blood and chemical composition of
the calf’s body are different from those of man; and its natural
food—milk—must consequently be different, for that reason. The chemical
composition of cow’s milk is therefore not suited exactly for the human
being, and, in order to render it more nearly ideal in composition,
various other ingredients have to be mixed with it, in order to make it
more nearly resemble the milk of the human species.
Mr Otto Carqué, writing in his “Folly of Meat Eating,” said:
“Milk is a nutritious food which is best suited for the new-born
mammal. Only the infant’s digestive apparatus is adapted for the
proper digestion of milk; his salivary glands are not yet developed
and his alimentary canal is almost a straight tube, quite different
from that of the adult. There is a little bulge in the tube, from
which the stomach gradually develops, and during this time very little
gastric juice is formed. When milk enters the stomach of an infant
it goes easily through and down into the intestines where it can be
digested. In the stomach of the adult, which is of different shape and
secretes more acid gastric juice, milk forms large, tough curds which
are not easily digested.
”_Cow’s milk is a splendid food for calves, but it cannot be
recommended very well for human beings._ The natural food-supply
of the infant—mother’s milk—forms very small, soft curds which are
easily broken up and digested. They are entirely different from the
curds formed by cow’s milk which are tough and only adapted to the
four-stomach digestive apparatus of the calf. An exclusive diet of
milk may often increase the weight of a person, but this is due to its
large percentage of water, while it does not contain enough organic
salt for the adult who needs a larger percentage of iron, sulphur and
silicon in his food.
“Cow’s milk is sometimes diluted with water and sweetened with refined
sugar to serve as food for children. Warning cannot be sounded often
enough against this injurious practice of diminishing the percentage
of organic salts in the milk, a circumstance which at once interferes
with the proper oxidation and circulation of the blood, giving rise
to a larger number of infantile diseases. _Refined sugar_ is entirely
deficient in mineral matter and therefore always injurious to health.”
But there is a far greater danger in milk than any we have so far
considered. I refer to the unhealthy condition of cows. Bovine
tuberculosis and other diseases are very prevalent among cows of all
sorts—far more so than is usually believed. E. F. Brush, M.D., in his
book, “Human and Bovine Tuberculosis,” says:
“My occupation brings me into close contact with dairy cattle, and I
have therefore been compelled to devote my attention to the diseases
afflicting dairy stock, and that there is a large number of dairy cows
afflicted with tuberculosis I can affirm; that there has never been
any attempt to exterminate the disease is a fact of which I am also
cognisant.... I have been told by inspectors of the Bureau of Animal
Industry that a much larger percentage of our cows are affected than
is the case in England. Indeed, among the thoroughbred Jerseys in the
Northern states, twenty per cent. are affected, as I have been told
by Professor R. A. McLean, chief of this district from the bureau.”
And in his work on “Milk,” this author says:
“Diseases may be conveyed by milk taken from an animal suffering
from disease, or by milk contaminated in a dairy, or by contact with
diseased or affected persons.”
These words were written some years ago, and it is probably true that
conditions have somewhat improved since that time; but there can be no
question that a large number of diseased cattle still exist and supply
milk to the various cities—their standard being kept somewhat low by
continued in-and-in breeding. And it must not be overlooked, in this
connection, that no matter if the animal be perfectly healthy, the
milk partakes of the nature and general character and composition of
the animal’s body; and while this may not be actually diseased, it is
doubtless in a more or less depraved condition—as are practically all
domesticated animals, particularly the cow—during the confined period
of winter. And the milk, being a secretion, naturally takes on the
conditions of the body of the animal—as would any other secretion.
Indeed, Professor L. B. Arnold, an excellent authority on all dairy
matters, says:
“Milk is the scavenger of the cow’s body.”
But now suppose we have the best of milk, from perfectly healthy
cows, there would still remain several objections to its use. In all
conditions of torpor of the liver, or in all dyspeptic conditions,
or whenever there is a tendency towards biliousness, milk is sure
to cause distress, being unsuited to the organism. Milk contains a
large percentage of liquid (upwards of 90 per cent.) to a very small
percentage of solid; and while this proportionate percentage is right
for the body of the babe, it is not suited for that of the adult. He
should eat more solid food, and, if necessary, drink water separately.
Milk contains a large percentage of fat, and but a small percentage of
proteid and mineral salts, and the adult can usually balance his diet
better by leaving out milk and by ingesting a smaller bulk of more
nutritious food material, which he is able to assimilate, but which the
babe cannot.
* * * * *
_Cream_, if used to the same extent as milk, would doubtless be far
more injurious. Those who partake of large quantities of cream usually
become bilious, as is evidenced by the colour of the complexion, the
whites of the eyes, blotches and eruptions which appear upon the skin,
etc. But, taken in the very limited quantity that it usually is, it is
probably less harmful than milk, on that account. Both milk and cream,
if taken at all, should be considered a food rather than a drink, and
should be thoroughly masticated before being swallowed—since important
chemical changes take place in the mouth, and the milk is also
prevented from curdling in the excessively large clots that would form,
were milk drunk in quantity, without being separated in the mouth.
* * * * *
_Butter._—If we dispense with milk—that is, leave it to the calf,
for whom nature intended it—there will, of necessity, be no butter;
and, from a sanitary point of view, the absence of it would perhaps
be no great loss, it being by no means as wholesome an article of
diet as either milk or cream. Like other oils, it is, to a degree,
indigestible; not that it gives “a pain in the stomach,” as a
general thing, but it does not enter into those vital changes which
are necessary to convert food into chyle proper. It mixes with the
pancreatic juice in the form of an emulsion, simply, and goes into the
blood in that crude condition; and being carried through the system by
the capillaries, it is deposited _as fat_ in the various tissues, and
largely in the skin. From the very nature of its constituents, butter
has but little nutritive value It usually contains 3 to 5 per cent. of
casein (due to the presence of the milk) and about twice that amount of
water; the other substances are oils, fixed and volatile. These readily
decompose upon exposure to the atmosphere, and butyric and other fat
acids are set free.
Persons who live largely upon butter emit a strong odour from the skin,
very perceptible to those who do not use animal foods. The salt which
has to be mixed with it to make it “keep” is not, to the hygienist,
a desirable addition, for reasons which will be hereafter stated.
Pereira says: “Fixed oil or fat is more difficult of digestion and more
obnoxious to the stomach than any other alimentary principle.” Indeed,
in some more or less obvious or concealed form, I believe it will be
found the offending ingredient in nine-tenths of the dishes which
disturb weak stomachs. Many dyspeptics, who have religiously avoided
the use of fat in its obvious or ordinary state (as fat meat, marrow,
butter, and oil) unwittingly employ it in some more concealed form,
and, as I have frequently witnessed, have suffered therefrom. Such
individuals should eschew the yolks of eggs, livers (of quadrupeds,
poultry and fish) and brains, all of which abound in oily matter. Milk,
and especially cream, disagree with many persons, or, as they term it,
“lies heavy on the stomach,” in consequence of the butter it contains.
Rich cheese, likewise, contains butter, and on that account is apt to
disturb the stomach.
Schlickeysen, in speaking of the use of butter, eggs, and cheese,
remarks:
“These cause an excess of fat in the system, and an offensive, slimy,
condition of the mucous secretions of the mouth and nose, quite
apparent to those who, contrary to their usual habit, eat them. Their
effects are apparent also in eruptions upon the skin, especially upon
the face.”
_Eggs._—Eggs are pretty generally conceded to be a “bilious diet”;
and if eaten freely at each meal for a few weeks, the whites of the
eyes usually show the presence of bile. They contain an excess of
sulphur. The albumen (whites of the eggs) cooked soft, would be less
objectionable than the yolks, which contain about 30 per cent. of oil.
If eggs are eaten they should be fresh, their use not too frequent,
and confined to cool weather. The fowls should be allowed plenty of
clean territory to run over, and an abundance of fresh pure water, pure
air, and good grains. Unfortunately, the habits of the bird are not
the cleanest; it will pick up and eat almost anything that comes in
its way. This is why country eggs and country fowl (provided there are
good and healthful surroundings) are always to be preferred. In towns
or cities the chickens are necessarily confined to the house and yard;
whereas in the country they have access to the open fields, and feed
largely on grains.
Persons who are subject to torpor of the liver would do well to refrain
from the use of either eggs or butter; and those who have sound
livers—and desire to keep them so—can take a hint!
A great many vegetarians are strong advocates of dairy products, and
particularly eggs. They claim, rightly enough, that they contain a
large amount of proteid, and hence are valuable meat substitutes. But
this same proteid can be obtained from nuts and vegetables, as we have
seen—without the necessity of resorting to eggs in order to secure it.
From the ethical point of view, there is no excuse whatever for the
eating of eggs; and there are many objections to their use on purely
hygienic grounds. It is remarkable, in this connection, to find so
strong a belief in egg-eating, when we take into account the fact that
these eggs are all intended to be chickens by nature, and we are really
eating chickens _in embryo_—a very disagreeable thought, when we come
to consider it. All other eggs—swallow’s eggs, ostrich’s eggs, robin’s
eggs, etc.—we think of as existing only for the purpose of bringing
into the world little swallows or ostriches or robins: but the hen’s
egg we consider, for some mysterious reason or other, laid for our
especial benefit—as a suitable and even necessary food! It is really
remarkable that such curious ideas should have originated in the human
mind. Doubtless they originated in the days of savagery, when but
little else could be obtained for food, but which culture and modern
ideals should have outgrown long ago.
* * * * *
_Cheese._—“The fresh curd of milk is perfectly wholesome, and pot
cheese is also a practically harmless article of diet. Green cheese
is not very objectionable, but old, strong cheese, is one of the most
injurious and indigestible things in existence. It is also one of the
most constipating articles of food that can be found. It is a common
fancy among medical men, and a common whim among the people, that old,
strong, rank cheese, though itself very indigestible, stimulates the
stomach to digest other things. Hence almost all the medico-dietetic
works quote the old adage:
“‘Cheese is a mity elf,
Digesting all things but itself.’
“There is more poetry than truth in the doggerel quoted. Old cheese
occasionally undergoes spontaneous decomposition, during which process
acrid and poisonous elements are developed, as is frequently the case
with bacon and sausages.”[33]
[33] “Hydropathic Cook Book,” p. 107.
Although cheese is, in one sense, a valuable article of diet, in that
it contains a large percentage of fat and proteid, it is nevertheless
objectionable in many ways. The fact that it is derived from milk,
and hence indirectly from the animal world, necessitates the same
objections to its use as have been raised against all the other animal
products. The same proteid may be obtained from nuts and purely
vegetable substances, without the injurious admixture of possible toxic
materials, impurities, and adulterants. In this connection it may be
added that the common salt which is generally introduced into cheese
in order to preserve it, renders it an unhygienic article of diet; and
hence it is to be debarred, since other substances (containing the
same amount of proteid, etc.) can be obtained, in which these mineral
ingredients are lacking.
IX
VEGETABLES
_Peas, Beans, Lentils, etc._—It can be seen by referring to the
tables of foods that these articles of diet contain a large amount of
proteid, and are consequently good substitutes for meat; and, if the
ordinary vegetarian diet be adhered to, they should form the staple
foods in place of the meat that has been omitted. They are very hearty
articles of diet, however, and contain a large amount of proteid in a
concentrated form, and for that reason should be eaten in the winter
months, if at all. These articles of food, moreover, all contain
a certain percentage of uric acid-forming materials, and for this
reason should be avoided whenever possible. Dr Haig, throughout his
writings, has argued very strongly against the legumes as food for
man, and has shown that an excessive consumption of such foods tends
to create uric acid—and results in the evil consequences which follow
from its presence, whenever eaten in large quantities. He recommends
in their place nuts, cheese, and milk. Cheese and milk we have already
considered, and the value of nuts we shall ascertain when we come to
the chapter on the fruitarian diet. On the whole, then, it cannot be
said that peas, beans, and lentils are desirable articles of food,
whenever they can be avoided. Their chief value consists in the amount
of proteid they contain, and this can be supplied by nuts, as we have
seen, and shall see further. In addition to this, we now know that
large amounts of proteid are not required by the system, and are
detrimental rather than beneficial to it.
“In the early spring,” says Dr Dodds, in her “Health in the
Household,” p. 40, “when we have grown tired of ‘last year’s
leavings,’ the tender vegetables fill our markets, and delight our
eyes in glad anticipation of a change in the repast. The young beets,
the spinach, and asparagus, the early cauliflower, and even the
lettuce and onions have charms for us then. As summer draws nigh,
the varieties of choice vegetables multiply, giving us green peas,
tomatoes, string beans, summer squashes, and an almost endless variety
of products. Then come the autumn days, and with them the great
lima beans, the hubbard squashes, and the sweet potatoes. Nor does
the supply fail us when winter approaches; there are still turnips,
potatoes, cabbage, winter squashes, and other good things. Really it
is little less than wonderful what varieties of vegetable products
there are even in a single latitude of climate.”
Although vegetables are capable of supporting life, and contain many of
the nutritious properties most necessary for bodily sustenance, there
are, nevertheless, objections to be raised against almost every one
of these foods. Personally, I do not believe that they are suitable
articles of diet for the human race. When we come to the chapter on
the fruitarian diet, I shall endeavour to show that fruits and nuts in
their uncooked, primitive form, are the suitable and proper diet for
mankind; and I believe that, although he can subsist upon vegetables,
and even maintain a certain degree of health upon the ordinary
vegetarian diet, I do not think that it begins to compare in excellence
with the fruitarian or raw-food diet. Throughout this book, I have been
used to speaking of “vegetarian” as opposed to a “mixed” diet—including
meat—and I certainly think it preferable to that generally followed;
but the diet I would advocate is as far superior to the ordinary
vegetarian diet as _that_ is superior to the mixed diet. It consists
almost exclusively of fruits and nuts. The fruitarian diet, then, is,
in my estimation, the ideal diet, and the reasons for this I shall
endeavour to give in full in Chapter XII.
All vegetables, to be rendered fit articles for human food, must
be _cooked_, in the first place, and this fact alone renders the
ordinary vegetarian diet less nutritious and less wholesome than
the fruitarian or raw-food diet. With few exceptions, moreover, the
vegetables contain but little nutritive matter. Those which _do_
contain a high percentage of proteid are open to the same objections
as were raised against meat—namely, that they create uric acid. But
the majority of vegetables supply nothing that cannot be derived in
simpler and in better form from the fruit and nut dietary; and they
contain, moreover, a large percentage of indigestible and fibrous
material—refuse—from which the other foods are free. A brief glance
at each of the vegetables individually will confirm this. _Potatoes_
are nearly all starch; they contain practically no proteid, fats, or
mineral substances of value, and are, generally speaking, constipating
articles of food. The objections to _peas_, _beans_ and _lentils_
we have discussed. _Asparagus_, _spinach_, and similar vegetables
contain but little nutriment, and much waste, and on the whole can
be considered little better than weeds. _Cabbages_ of various sorts,
_brussels sprouts_, _cauliflower_, _broccoli_, etc., are also open to
these objections. They contain a large amount of fibrous, indigestible
matter, with but a small amount of nutriment. Cabbage, eaten raw, is
not such a bad article of diet, but cooked in the way in which it
usually is, the iron, and its valuable salts, pass into the water in
which it is cooked—so that there is, in one sense, more nutriment
in the water than there is in the mere “skeleton” that is left, and
which we eat! _Onions_, _leeks_, and _garlics_ may have their uses in
certain diseases, when eaten raw, but they would doubtless lose these
properties when cooked, and many persons cannot eat them. They are
very strong articles of food, and it is doubtful if they are intended
for human aliment at all. _Turnips_ and _parsnips_ consist almost
entirely of water, and are practically valueless as food. They contain
a very small percentage of carbohydrates, but they are spongy and
fibrous, and frequently hard to digest. The same objections would apply
more or less to _carrots_, _beetroots_, and _artichokes_. _Mushrooms_
should by all means be avoided. They are exceedingly indigestible, in
a large number of cases, and there is, in addition, a great danger
of becoming poisoned by toadstools, or other fungi. _Corn_ is an
exceedingly indigestible food—especially if insufficiently masticated,
as it invariably is. The proteid it contains can be supplied in many
other more wholesome foods. _Celery_ consists almost entirely of fibre,
and cannot rightly be considered as suitable for human food. _Endives_,
_cresses_, _capers_, _dandelions_, _radishes_, etc., are all weeds,
and, if uncultivated, would be totally unfit for the human stomach.
_Lettuce_ contains a certain amount of opium; and _cucumber_ is widely
known for its great indigestibility.
Summing up the nutritive values of these various vegetables, then,
we can fairly say that none of them contain the essential properties
suitable for human food. The majority of them are indigestible and are,
by their innate composition, improper foods for the human race. All the
nutritive materials which they contain can be supplied in a purer and
better form by the various fruits and nuts, while the tough, fibrous
nature of most of the vegetables necessitates an enormous outlay of the
energy of digestion, which should be conserved and utilised for other
and better purposes. The fact, further, that these various food-stuffs
have to be cooked in order to render them palatable and edible, is
another objection to their use. Even Dr Tibbles, who strongly insists
on the value of vegetables as human food, is forced to write in his
“Food and Hygiene,” p. 193:
“Persons in robust health with healthy stomachs, and leading active
lives may eat all kinds of vegetables, however cooked, without injury,
except when they are taken in excess.... Those who are only able to
digest vegetables, especially green vegetables, with difficulty should
have them in the form of consommé or purée. In their preparation, the
cooked vegetable is minced and pounded in a mortar until it is reduced
to a pulp, and then rubbed through a hair sieve to remove skin and
rough fibres.”
In other words, it is practically admitted that vegetables are hard
to digest at all times, and that as soon as the energy of digestion
is lowered, this fact is immediately apparent! This is evident from
the directions that are given to remove the skin and tough fibres. On
the fruitarian diet none of these objections would be encountered—the
bland, soothing, cooling, antiseptic properties of the fruit juices
being readily seen, and practically never cause indigestion, no matter
how enfeebled it may be, or how sick the patient—provided eating be
possible at all—and provided that they do not contain an excess of
acids and other substances injurious to the body in its then state of
health. Vegetables are, further, a very _bulky_ food, and for this
reason, also, I consider them objectionable.
X
CEREALS
There is much dispute as to the relative value of wheat, and other
cereal foods, as articles of diet. Numbers of authors contend that
they are in very truth the “staff of life ”; others, on the contrary,
maintain that they are totally unsuited for human food, and that
it would be far better for the human race if cereals of all kinds
were replaced by other articles of food, containing somewhat similar
constituents. We shall examine these opposite opinions a little later
on. Let us first of all consider these foods, their functions, and
how far they may be supported to nourish the body and maintain the
health. Let us take first of all _wheat_. The five outer layers of the
bran contain very little except cellulose—a woody, fibrous substance,
forming the cell walls. When burned, the ash of bran is found to
contain a large proportion of phosphoric acid, potash, and a small
amount of other mineral matters. The cereal layer is, of all parts of
the grain, the richest in nitrogenous substances—the chief of which is
the creatine, from which it takes its name. Gluten is one of the most
important constituents of the wheat.
Unfortunately, this is separated from the grain, as is well known,
and adheres to the husk, when this is removed; and for this reason
“superfine” white flour contains but very little nutriment, and a large
quantity of starch—a very constipating food and one which necessitates
a large amount of vital expenditure when converting it into bodily
tissue. As is well known, all starch must go through several processes
or stages of digestion before it can be used by the system. The body
can never use starch _as starch_. It must be converted into glucose
sugar before the body can make use of or appropriate it. It must
first of all be converted into various substances—dextrose, maltose,
etc.—before it is finally transformed into glucose—in which form the
body can utilise it. _Starch, then, must be converted into sugar
(glucose) before the body can use it_; and must be transformed into
this substance at the expense of the bodily energy, of which a great
amount has to be expended in these varied processes of conversion. Now,
this being the case, _why would it not be easier and better for us to
eat those foods that supply this glucose or grape-sugar direct_—without
necessitating any of these energy-wasting transformations? Were we to
take this grape-sugar directly into the system (stomach) as an article
of food, we should thereby save all the energy of digestion, which
would otherwise be wasted in useless processes of conversion. There
can be no valid reason why this should not be the case.[34] And, since
fruits contain this very grape-sugar in a free and natural state, it
becomes obvious that we can obtain from fruits all that we derive from
grains and cereals (with the exception of proteid matter, which we can
get from nuts) and in a far better state—because more appropriable by
the system. I am strongly convinced that nothing is to be derived from
wheat or similar grains and cereals that cannot be derived equally well
or better from fruits and nuts of various kinds. And this applies to
all other grains—rye, barley, oats, etc.—as well as to wheat. They are
all objectionable for the same reason; and a properly balanced diet of
fruits and nuts is superior to any diet of grains and cereals.
[34] It is important to note, in this connection, that but a small
percentage of the starch is ever converted into sugar, even by the
most thorough mastication. I say this on the authority of Dr John
Goodfellow, F.R.C.S., author of “The Dietetic Value of Bread,” etc.,
who conducted a number of careful experiments on this very point. (See
his letter to Dr Densmore, in “How Nature Cures,” pp. 237-239.) In
raw cereals, only about one per cent. was converted! As this process
of conversion cannot go forward in an acid medium—_i.e._ in the
stomach—it is evident that the bowels must be called upon to effect
this conversion—a useless tax upon them, and a cause of constipation
as well.
It is well known that toast is more wholesome than ordinary bread: it
is given to invalids, when bread is debarred. The reason for this—which
comparatively few persons know—is that a portion of the starch
contained in the flour is converted into dextrine, by this process of
toasting. In this manner, a portion of the original starch contained in
the bread is “predigested,” and hence saves the vital energies so much
tax—when it comes to the digestion of this starch. But would it not be
better to give the patient fruits, in which _all_ these processes of
conversion have already been performed by nature—and hence save far
more of the bodily energies than even the giving of toast? It must be
remembered that starch contains nothing that is useful to the system
except this grape-sugar, which can also be obtained from fruits of all
kinds, in a natural and appropriable form. This being so, why not give
fruits in the first place—thus saving all this useless expenditure of
energy? There is also the additional argument that fruits of all kinds
are cleansing and slightly laxative—instead of being constipating—and
have also powerful germicidal properties. However, I shall consider
this question more at length in the chapter devoted to the fruitarian
diet.
Many writers upon the subject of dietetics are very laudatory of
wheat and other cereal foods. Dr Tibbles, indeed, in his “Food and
Hygiene,” p. 229, says that “so large a part do they fulfil in domestic
preparations that it is almost safe to say that if the entire crop of
cereals failed for one year nearly 90 per cent. of the inhabitants of
the earth would die”! This might be true in a certain sense, for there
would be no article of food to take the place of the cereals destroyed;
but if nuts and fruits had been cultivated instead, it would be found
that all the cereals could be dispensed with easily enough, and that
none of the inhabitants would die; but, on the contrary, that they
would retain a high degree of health—far higher than they now possess.
If the whole wheat, containing all the grain—the nutritious gluten as
well as the (comparatively speaking) innutritious starch—were supplied
to the body, there would be far less objection to the use of grains and
cereals; but as a matter of fact, this is rarely the case, and only
health-reformers insist upon having bread made of whole wheat flour
or gluten bread. The majority eat bread made of white, “superfine”
flour—flour totally divested of its nutritious elements. Such flour
contains none of the valuable salts which the whole grain contains;
it is devoid of the proteid matter; it is constipating, and in other
ways objectionable. And a practical proof of the correctness of this
position is afforded by the fact that dogs, fed by Magendie upon
superfine white flour, _all died_; while those dogs which were fed upon
whole-wheat flour lived and retained their health. Such an experiment
is worth any amount of theorising, for or against.
Dr S. Rowbatham, writing some years ago on this subject, said:
“Bread [from wheaten flour], when considered in reference to the
amount of nutritious matter it contains, may with justice be called
the staff of life; but in regard to the amount of earthy matter, we
may with equal justice pronounce it the staff of death.... It is quite
right to suppose that nutritious food is necessary to support and
strengthen the fœtus; but the nutritious and the solid earthy matter
in food are very different substances. Wheaten flour, on account of
its containing so much earthy matter, is the most dangerous article a
female can live upon, when pregnant. The other grains are bad enough,
but better than wheat.... Persons of a dull, cadaverous appearance,
with harsh rough skins, who are thin and bony and continually
troubled with some complaint or other, I have always found to be
greatly attached to a food of a solid, earthy nature, such as bread,
puddings, pies, tarts, cakes, and flour preparations in general....
Heavy, clumsy persons, whose movements—when they do move—are stiff and
awkward are always great consumers of solid food, especially of bread
and pastry of all kinds.... Among children and young persons too, it
may be seen that the dull, heavy, ill-tempered ones are mostly great
consumers of solid grain foods; while the more active and lively are
less anxious for food of a solid character, but mostly fond of light,
fluid, saccharine substances.... These facts and many others which
could be advanced, all tend to support and prove the position that
food and drink alone are the source of the calcareous earthy matter
which is generally deposited in the body, and which by degrees brings
on a state of induration, rigidity and consequent decreptitude—which
ends in a total cessation of consciousness, or death. We have seen
that different kinds of food and drink contain these earthy elements
in different proportions; and we cannot avoid the conclusion that the
more we subsist upon such articles as contain the greatest amount,
the sooner shall we choke up and die; and the more we live upon such
substances as are comparatively free, the longer will health, activity
and life continue.”
In the twenty-second and twenty-third chapters of the third book of
Herodotus, describing a visit of some Persian ambassadors to the
long-lived Ethiopians (Macrobii), the Ethiopians asked what the Persian
king was wont to eat, and to what age the longest-lived Persians had
been known to attain. They told him that the king ate bread, and
described the nature of wheat—adding that eighty years was the longest
term of man’s life among the Persians. Hereat, he remarked: “It did
not surprise him, if they fed on _dirt_ [bread] that they died so
soon! Indeed he was sure that they never would have lived so long as
eighty years, except for the refreshment that they got from that drink
[meaning the wine], wherein he confessed that Persians surpassed the
Ethiopians.”
From what has been said, it will be apparent why I do not consider
grains and cereals valuable articles of food—far less the indispensable
articles they are usually supposed to be. As generally purchased,
these flours and grains are innutritious, clogging, and particularly
unwholesome articles of food; but even at their best, and taking the
whole grain, they contain nothing that cannot be supplied in a better
state by an exclusive fruit and nut diet. We must remember Magendie’s
experiments on dogs. One died in forty days, while fed upon fine wheat
and flour, while another dog, fed upon brown bread, lived without any
disturbance, and in good health. This should show us conclusively
that the fine flour upon the market—the flour invariably consumed—is
practically useless as food; but since all the nutritive properties of
grains may be derived in a better form from fruits, nuts, etc., the
only remaining reason for eating grains and cereals vanishes.
XI
CONDIMENTS, SPICES, ETC.
We now come to consider the various “food accessories,” as they
are called—meaning the various condiments, etc., which go to make
unappetising food palatable! If the food were natural to the organism,
it should need no such appetisers: but I let that pass. Let us consider
the relative values of these articles of diet, and see how far each
of them may be considered as necessary and beneficial to the human
organism. I shall begin with the one in most common use, and one that
the majority think they cannot live without—salt!
* * * * *
_Salt._—The arguments in favour of salt-eating, as found in the books,
may be summarised thus:
1. It is natural to man, the habit being universal.
2. It is necessary to life. Human beings deprived of it die.
3. Wild and domestic animals crave and seek it.
4. It is an invariable constituent of the solids and fluids of the
body; hence it must be supplied.
5. Cattle, when given it, increase greatly in weight, so that if not
itself food, it may take the place of food by making it “go further.”
6. It retards the waste of the system, and in this way may prolong life.
7. It is essential to promote the secretion and flow of saliva and bile.
8. It promotes appetite by rendering the food more palatable.
The first three of the above propositions constitute what may be styled
the prescriptive or old-fashioned argument. The next four, grouped
together, are the chemical theory of the value of salt, and are of
more recent origin. The last, though seldom advanced as a scientific
reason, partakes of the character of science as well as of tradition.
In regard to No. 1, let us see how far it is borne out. To destroy
logically the value of the proposition it would only be necessary to
establish the case of a single individual who does not and has not used
salt—raw salt—in his food. The universality, that which it rests upon,
would then be broken. We ought not to be content with that, however. I
think it would not be difficult to show that there are whole nations
and tribes of people who do not eat salt. I am told by an Italian, who
has lived among them, that the Algerians do not. I was myself informed,
while in that region, that the Indian tribes inhabiting the banks of
the Columbia River and Puget Sound do not. It is noteworthy also that
those tribes are among the most peaceful, intelligent and industrious
tribes in North America, and are of fine personal appearance. I
think there is little doubt that the inhabitants of the islands of
the Pacific Ocean lived from a period of vast antiquity, until their
discovery by Europeans, without putting salt crystals on their food.
It has continually happened that hunters, tourists, soldiers and
explorers have been left for weeks, months and years without a supply
of salt, by accident or otherwise, and have survived without apparent
injury. Finally, there are many persons in the United States who have
voluntarily abandoned the use of salt for periods ranging from one to
twenty years (and for aught I know longer), not only without injury
but with increased health, strength and activity. So far from being
natural to man, the instincts of children, especially when born free
from an inherited bias in its favour, go to show by their rejection of
it that it is _un_natural. Like the taste for coffee, tea and various
seasonings, it is an acquired one. Few if any children do not prefer
unsalted food.
It should not be overlooked that the manufacture and distribution of
salt as an article of commerce is a thing of history, and has attained
its enormous dimensions within the past century and a half. It is
inconceivable that in past times the population of the world, made
up as it was largely of pastoral and nomadic people inhabiting the
interior of the great continents, should have supplied themselves with
salt as an ingredient of food, as we do. The omission of any mention
of it in the older chronicles and even among the more perfect records
of the classics, except at the luxurious tables of the rich, goes to
confirm this supposition.
Propositions Nos. 2 and 3 are of the same character, and have a like
origin. It is discouraging to discover how little thorough sifting
of beliefs there is among mankind—especially concerning matters of
such primary importance as their daily diet—a neglect for which their
hair-splitting casuistry on topics of faith and morals in no way
atones. The foundation of the notion that men die when deprived of salt
(and the inference therefrom that it is because of it), so far as I
have been able to trace it, rests on an experience related in the older
works on physiology, and copied with childlike confidence into the
later ones, to the effect that, more than one hundred years ago, during
the wars waged by England on the Continent, several thousand British
soldiers, being shut up as prisoners of war in the low countries—at
the Hague, I believe—and after an incarceration of many months, all
died of disease, induced, it is stated, by being deprived of salt! The
same cry, it will be remembered, has been charged to modern nations
in more recent wars, and notably during the American Civil War, when
the mortality was so great in the southern prisons. It needs no great
natural acumen nor book learning to discover that there are other and
far more potent disease-inducing causes at work to account for the
dreadful mortality—even in these days of superior civilisation and
greater humanity. Observation satisfies me that inattention to ordinary
sanitary precautions—partly incident to confinement and partly to the
rooted superstition in the minds of those who had charge of them, that
disease is a something to be fought out with specific medicines after
it has appeared, rather than prevented from making its appearance—will
abundantly reconcile the facts, if they be facts; and in this I am
confirmed by a comparison of the appalling ratio of mortality recorded
in some of the most famed of London and Paris hospitals, where gangrene
and fevers alone did their deadly work, in spite of the attentions of
doctors, without appreciable aid from those inevitable attendants of
war-prisons—homesickness, filth and bad diet. Such evidence as this
would hardly be received in a trial for larceny; and yet it is solemnly
repeated generation after generation by those who should be teachers of
teachers.
The third proposition, in regard to the wild and domestic animals, is,
like the preceding, not formidable when examined. I have diligently
inquired of old hunters and pioneers for confirmation of the story
that deer and buffalo are in the habit of visiting regularly the salt
springs or “licks,” in order to eat the salt. I have not been able
to find one who has ever seen the licking process himself. There is
reason to believe that hunters do take their positions at certain
brine-springs to find their game, and that the deer at certain seasons
of the year resort to them—precisely why is not determined. Nothing
of the kind is now claimed of the buffalo; that is a tradition.
But suppose it were all true, as claimed, does that justify man in
sprinkling the solid residue of the brine on his food? Is there not
here too lofty a structure upon too slight a foundation? It is
notorious that all the salt springs hold in solution (sometimes found
encrusted on their sides) large amounts of lime, sulphur, iron, and
commonly other ingredients.
The very purest of our table salts of commerce contain from 2 to 4
per cent. of the sulphate of lime, after they are supposed to have
been purified and larger amounts of it removed. May it not be that at
certain seasons, as in the winter when the herbage is covered by snow,
or during pregnancy, when the fœtus requires it, the deer (or buffalo,
if you will) repair to these spots instinctively for that which nature
denies them at the time? We know that cows on a scant pasture, at
such times, will chew and partly dissolve an old bone; yet it would
be equally reasonable to put ground bones on our food as an inference
from this trait; indeed, more so, as the latter is an admitted fact of
everyday occurrence, while the other is somewhat in doubt; and besides
the economy of lime in the system is patent.
In regard to domestic animals we are on more solid ground; only it is
constantly necessary to remember that we are dealing with creatures
domesticated and subdued in some degree to the will of man. It is a
common notion that salt is necessary to the well-being, if not the
preservation, of horses and horned cattle. It is, I am persuaded, a
great mistake. In the first place, although it is undoubtedly true
that some domestic cattle will eat salt, and follow impatiently to get
it, it is not true of wild cattle. I am assured by many of the great
herders in Texas, Colorado and California, that the native cattle are
not fed salt, never see it, and will not eat it if offered. Of course
it is a transparent absurdity that salt could be hauled hundreds of
miles to feed these great inland herds; and it is not done, as is
supposed. They derive salt enough from the grass of the plains to
supply nature’s demand, if any there be. This, if it furnishes any
analogy at all, points to the food itself as the true source of supply
for the human species.
But in regard to the craving of horses and cows kept within fences,
enclosures and buildings, it is susceptible of proof, and has been
proved many times, that it is an artificial and not a natural appetite.
I have seen both horses and cows which will not eat salt if offered
to them. The parents, when the supply was cut off, did not suffer
perceptibly, and in a short time unlearned the habit. Neither the old
ones nor their progeny will touch it now. I have not space here to
enter into the question of the great injury done to the health, and
consequently to the wholesomeness of the flesh of both improved and
native or Texas varieties of cattle, by the pernicious practice of
thrusting salt into their food, while preparing for, or on the way to,
market, in order that the weight may be increased. It is worth the
while of the State to institute an inquiry to see if this be not one of
the provoking causes of the cattle diseases, and rinderpests of America
and Europe.
The tendency in the human mind—the more so with the untrained
intellect—to find the class of facts it is seeking for, and to overlook
or ignore the class which makes against its preconceived notion or
desire, is always to be guarded against. It is a little singular
that the advocates of the salt habit should have selected the one or
two species of wild animals, and the two or three allied species or
varieties under domestication which do or can be made to eat salt,
while the vastly greater number of both classes of animals which do
not and cannot be made to, are overlooked. True enough, a hungry cow
will eat what is called “salt hay,” whereon the brine from the sea has
crystallised, but invariably the same cow will turn from it to good
well-cured meadow hay. Hunger is a terrible temptation, hence many of
our animals (and the same is true of children) acquire their taste for
salt by its mixture with their food; and a reprehensible practice has
begun of mixing salt, or lime, with the new hay in the stack in order
to “cure” it—that is, to prevent its decay by excess of moisture—on
the theory that the hay is improved thereby. Surely no argument can
properly be drawn from appetites so engendered. On the same principle
might we sprinkle sawdust with a horse’s oats, because, if kept up, he
will gnaw away the boards within reach. For this, by the way, there are
good physiological reasons.
Look, however, at the other side of the argument as drawn from the
lower animals. How numerous are they by whom salt is rejected or to
whom it is hurtful? The whole of the birds avoid salt. It is fatal
to chickens and tame birds, as every housewife knows. Indeed, there
is strong ground for supposing that much of what is called “chicken
cholera,” “gapes,” and the like, is in part due to the presence of
salt—not always in minute quantities—in the food taken from the table.
Wild birds have no such epidemic diseases affecting the mucous linings
of their organs. It is also fatal to the hog, that foulest and hardiest
of omnivora, which, out of some stress of famine, or from its peculiar
prolificacy, men have been led to dwell with and propagate as a food
supply. I believe it is well ascertained that when hogs get a moderate
amount of brine, or pickled salt meat, it is impossible to save them.
To vary the phrase a little: that which will make a hog sick cannot,
_prima facie_, be good food for his owner. Of all the range of wild
animals, clean or unclean, it is yet to be shown that a single one eats
salt voluntarily as food. Why should man be the exception?
It is further claimed that salt is a necessary constituent of the
diet, for the reason that, when the body is examined, _post-mortem_,
a certain amount of salt is found therein. From this it is argued
that salt is therefore necessary to the human body! It is queer logic.
Were opium or nicotine found in the body of the dead man, would it be
argued that _therefore_ opium or nicotine were necessary to the body in
health? Yet the argument is just as logical, and the conclusion just as
warranted.
All that can be urged, logically, is that salt is a necessary article
of diet; and that, no one would deny. Certainly I would not. But
I must insist that this salt can be supplied to the body in its
_organic_ form—just as any other salt can. It is contained in fruits
and vegetables, together with other salts: why not eat it in that way,
just as we eat those other salts? To be sure, we need common salt, just
as we need iron, and potash, and sulphur, and lime, and other mineral
salts; but no one thinks of sprinkling lime and potash and iron filings
over his food, just the same! There is no more reason why we should
sprinkle sodium chloride, or common salt, over our food, than there
is why we should sprinkle any of these other salts. Both are equally
mineral elements: both are inorganic substances; and hence both are
equally unusable by the system. Salt can have no more effect upon the
economy than iron filings can; and there is no more reason for taking
the one into the system in this crude form than there is for taking the
other. Only habit and prejudice sustain the custom.
It is urged, again, that salt preserves the waste of the tissues, and
that animals, fed upon salt, become fat. There is but little evidence
for this; but I shall grant its truth, for the sake of argument.
Granting it to be true, what then?
We know that the antiseptic property of salt, its affinity for
moisture, makes it valuable in the arts for some purposes, among which,
of course, are conspicuous the preservation of dead animal meats.
We see its effect in the beef or pork barrel, or on dried fish. It
hardens and keeps dry the fibrous tissue so that oxygen enough cannot
be reached to oxidate and break down the tissue by what is known as
decomposition. If the salt were all withdrawn by solutions of water
(whatever might be the effect on the meat itself) there would ensue no
harm in its use in preserving food. Notoriously it is not done, and
even greater is the necessity for removing the nitrate of potash with
which the curing is assisted.
Is not the action of the salt in the system on the effete or dying
tissues the same, in kind, as upon those in the brine barrel? I
see nothing in the vital economy to negative the presumption. The
particles of dead and oxidised tissue on their way out of the body,
so far as they are brought within the influence of the salt—and this,
as it floats in solution all over the body with the blood, must be
general—are robbed of their moisture, dried, hardened, pickled, and
their passage along the finer canals made more difficult. They lodge
and remain, and hence account, in part, for the increased weight of
the body. The added weight represents in part filth which ought to be
outside of the body, not inside.
Many other objections might be urged to the use of salt, in this place;
but space forbids. When anyone examines the evidence carefully and
impartially, he will find that there is not one solitary argument in
favour of the habit that will stand the test of criticism; while there
are many arguments, on the contrary, which conclusively prove it to
be injurious and unphysiological. The single argument, based upon the
undoubted _fact_ that many hundreds of people in the United States
and elsewhere, have totally abandoned salt, and have not depreciated
themselves in consequence, but have on the contrary, improved their
health and general physical condition, is proof in itself that
salt-eating is a habit— is not necessary, but is, on the other hand,
positively injurious. When we take these facts into consideration, we
can come to no other conclusion but that salt-eating is a _habit_,
pure and simple, which is not only unnecessary, but is exceedingly
detrimental to the physical health of the individual who continually
eats it.
* * * * *
_Pepper_ is not, like salt, a mineral substance; it is a vegetable
poison. Flies will not touch it, neither will they eat salt. Black
pepper, if taken upon an empty stomach in the moderate quantity of a
teaspoonful, will either be promptly ejected, or it will cause great
disturbance in the stomach and bowels, and also in the heart’s action,
after it enters the circulation. It is in no sense a food, but in every
sense a stimulant, which is but another name for a substance non-usable
by the vital organs, and therefore to be thrown out of the vital
domain. Red or black pepper is a prolific cause, as are all stimulants,
of enlargement of the blood vessels, and ultimately of disease of the
heart. Its immediate effect upon the tongue, throat, stomach and bowels
is to cause an increased action, not only of the capillaries, causing
temporary congestion and even inflammation of the mucous surfaces, but
also of the organs which secrete the digestive fluids. Its ultimate
effect is to weaken and deaden these organs, by repeated stimulation,
to abnormal action; it also impairs or destroys the organs of taste
within the mouth, together with the gastric or other nerves which aid
in the process of digestion. When these are weakened by stimulants, the
functions themselves are necessarily impaired, and confirmed dyspepsia,
with its attendant train of bad symptoms, brings up the rear.
It is needless to say that _ginger_, _spices_, _nutmeg_, _cinnamon_,
and all that class of condiments, however much they may vary in
quality, are stimulating to a greater or a less degree, and must
be put in the list of “things forbidden” in the hygienic dietary.
The habit, every year increasing, of using spices and condiments in
almost every article of food, and in such large quantities, cannot be
too severely condemned. The end must be hopeless indigestion, with
prostration of the nerves which supply the digestive organs, and
detriment or ruin to the entire system.
In the language of Sylvester Graham:
“The stern truth is, that no purely stimulating substance of any kind
can be habitually used by man, without injury to the whole nature.”
Nor does Dr Graham stand alone in his views upon this subject. Pereira
says:
“The relish for flavouring or seasoning ingredients manifested by
every person, would lead us to suppose that these substances serve
some useful purpose beyond that of merely gratifying the palate. At
present, however, we have no evidence that they do. They stimulate,
but do not seem to nourish. The volatile oil they contain is absorbed,
and then thrown out of the system, still possessing its characteristic
odour.”
Dr Beaumont is essentially of the same opinion. He remarks:
“Condiments, particularly those of a spicy kind, are non-essential to
the process of digestion in a healthy state of the system. They afford
no nutrition. Though they may assist the action of a debilitated
stomach for a time, their continued use never fails to produce an
indirect debility of that organ. They affect it as alcohol and other
stimulants do—the present relief afforded is at the expense of future
suffering.”
In doing away with spices and condiments we must also dispense with
_pickles_; there is nothing in a pickle to redeem it from hopeless
condemnation. The spices in it are bad, and the vinegar is a seething
mass of rottenness, full of animalculæ, and the poor little innocent
cucumber, or other vegetable, if it had a little “character” in the
beginning, must now fall into the ranks of the “totally depraved.”
* * * * *
_Mustard._—Dr William Tibbles, in his “Food and Hygiene,” p. 213, says:
“Mustard is a greenish yellow powder, without smell, when it is dry,
but when moist, having a pungent taste and penetrating odour, which
is irritating to the nose and eyes. Mustard is the most familiar of
all condiments. It produces a sensation of warmth in the mouth and
stomach and augments the digestive secretions, by increasing the
circulation in the blood-vessels in the alimentary canal. It increases
the appetite and the desire for food, and assists in its digestion.”
In other words, what really happens is this: Mustard is an irritant and
a stimulant to the mucous membranes at all times, and for that reason,
harmful. Delicate membranes, such as those of the nose and eyes, detect
and resent this irritation at once; but the throat and stomach, being
rendered more or less inert and unresponsive, because of years of
perverse living on cooked foods, spices, stimulants, and irritants,
do not resent and react against this particular irritant as forcibly
as do the other membranes. The fact, however, that the secretion
is increased, and that the circulation in the blood vessels of the
stomach is augmented, clearly indicates that nature is endeavouring
to offset and rid the system as speedily as possible of this irritant
poison. When any poison is introduced into the alimentary canal, the
system immediately pours out its secretions, in an attempt to liquefy,
antidote, and wash through the invading poison as rapidly as possible.
That is the _rationale_ of the action of all purgatives, and is the
reason why increased secretion and circulation is noted whenever
stimulants or irritants are introduced into the alimentary canal. The
very fact that these physiological disturbances take place indicates
clearly that the substance that has been ingested is poisonous, and
detrimental to the vital economy. For that reason, and because of these
symptoms, mustard must be debarred from any hygienic diet; and for the
same reason, white, black, and cayenne pepper, paprika, cloves, nutmeg,
curry powder, garlic, salt, and similar substances must be eliminated
from any diet that is to be considered wholesome, and in accordance
with the laws of nature.
Indeed, in writing of all condiments, Dr Tibbles himself was forced to
admit that:
“Healthy individuals with normal digestion do not need them, and they
should most certainly be withheld from children.”
I would add to this that if they are to be withheld from healthy
individuals and children, they should most certainly and more
particularly be withheld from invalids, and from the debilitated and
enfeebled. Were the true _rationale_ of the action of stimulants
understood, this would be so apparent as to render further comment
unnecessary. If it were once fully understood that stimulants, instead
of adding energy _to_ the system, merely called it forth _from_ the
system, there could no longer be any excuse for their use, upon
the ground that they are necessary and suitable articles of food.
Condiments and spices of all kinds might easily be eliminated from a
hygienic diet, and nothing but increased health and energy would follow
the results of this process of elimination.
* * * * *
_Vinegar._—So far from being a true article of food, or an alimentary
substance, vinegar, like alcohol, is a product of vegetable decay, and
is always injurious to the human stomach. In addition to this, it
contains a large number of germs which, introduced into the system, are
liable to cause great havoc. If acid is required, it may be obtained
in a variety of forms, and is readily supplied by all acid fruits, and
particularly by lemons. The citric acid of the lemon is appropriable
by the system, and is one of the most wholesome acids known to us. It
will readily take the place of vinegar—on occasions where we have been
in the habit of using the latter substance. It should be noted in this
connection that lemon juice, when ingested into the human system, is
invariably split up, in the course of a few hours, and the all-day
effects of the acid is to _decrease_ the acidity of the system, and
to increase the alkalinity of the blood. This was conclusively proved
by Dr Haig, in England, and now forms a large part of his treatment
for all uric acid diatheses. The immediate effect of the acid is to
increase the acidity; but, owing to the fact that it is split up, as
stated, the all-day effects are invariably to decrease the acidity,
and rid the system of its uric acid. No such beneficial results are
observable from the practice of drinking vinegar.
* * * * *
_Oils—Olive Oil._—Under “oils” may be classed, roughly speaking,
all fats, animal and vegetable, such as suet, lard, tallow, marrow,
grease, butter, blubber, and the oils of various nuts. Animal oils are
amongst the least nutritious, and most injurious kinds of alimentary
substances. The oils from the vegetable kingdom are far more wholesome,
and, to a normal stomach, almost innocuous. If oils or fatty matter
of any kind are desired in the diet, these might just as well be
supplied from the vegetable world as from the animal; and the oils are
obtained free from the impure materials, which invariably accompany
animal fats. In other words, the same amount of fatty materials may be
obtained, without ingesting at the same time the toxic substances which
invariably accompany the fats derived from the animal kingdom. Of those
fats which are derived from the animal world, more or less directly,
butter and cream are doubtless the most wholesome; but there are many
objections to both of these, as I have pointed out elsewhere.
Olive oil, when obtained pure, is doubtless the best form of oil that
we know. The chief difficulty is in obtaining it in a pure state.
Cotton seed oil is generally sold on the market in place of olive oil,
and is in many ways detrimental to the organism. “Sylmar” olive oil
is a pure oil of the first quality, made from ripe olives, and can
heartily be recommended. A few of the best French and Italian oils are
also excellent, if they are obtained direct and unadulterated.
The ripe olive contains just what an ordinary vegetarian—especially
fruit—diet lacks. In being a wholesome source of fat they materially
add to the value of other vegetarian dishes. Nuts also supply oils in
a healthful form. Those oils are serviceable in nervous disorders,
rheumatism, diabetes, and other diseases.
XII
THE FRUITARIAN DIET
Anyone who has followed me through the preceding chapters will probably
have come to the conclusion that there is no article of diet left which
he can live upon and eat without detriment! Apparently everything has
been condemned in turn. Meat, game, fish, shellfish, soups of all
kinds, vegetables, grains, flours, cereals, milk, cheese, butter, eggs
and dairy products of all kinds, stimulants, spices, jellies—all have
been examined in turn, and found unsuitable for human food. But man
must live, and the question remains: Are there _any_ foods which he can
eat freely and live—not only without detriment to himself, but with
positive benefit—feeling assured that they are upbuilding his body, his
mind, and his energies, and sustaining his physiological integrity,
throughout, in a wholesome and natural manner? It will be seen in
going over the list that two important articles of diet have been
omitted—viz. fruits and nuts. These, and these alone, supplemented,
perhaps, by one or two other articles of diet, can, I contend, sustain
man in a perfect state of health; can supply all the needs of his body,
and preserve the highest standard of health and energy; while the diet
is in accord with his physiological mechanism, and his anatomical
structure. The one or two articles of diet that might be added (though
I do not consider it necessary that they should be added) are honey,
olive oil, and, occasionally, perhaps, whole-wheat bread. It is an
interesting fact that there are only two articles of diet in the world,
apparently, made exclusively for food—milk and honey. The milk is to
nourish the young of the animal which secretes it, and normally the
supply would be terminated when the animal was weaned—if nature were
not perverted, and the process of milking instituted. But we have
considered milk as an article of diet in the former pages. Honey is
manufactured by the bees for the express purpose of supplying them
with food during the winter months, and man only obtains his supply
by robbing the bees of their hard-earned food, and substituting other
food in its place. Honey contains a large amount of valuable saccharine
material, and I have endeavoured to show on a previous page that a
certain amount of saccharine matter, or sweet-stuff, is necessary for
the maintenance of health—probably a larger quantity than we are in the
habit of supposing. This, honey will supply. It may be noted, however,
that certain sweet fruits, notably dates, also contain large amounts
of sugar, and if a quantity of dates were eaten, they would doubtless
supply all the demands of the system for sugar, without recourse to
honey at all. Olive oil is a suitable and nutritive food, when pure.
Its chief value, of course, consists in the large amount of oil or
fatty matter it contains, but this is also contained in nuts of various
kinds in a pure form, and hence is not a necessary article of diet. As
found on the market, moreover, it is generally impure and adulterated.
Whole-wheat bread has certain advantages, but is also open to numerous
objections, as before pointed out; and, if made from the whole grain,
including the husk, it acts as an irritant on the mucous membrane of
the bowel, and hence exercises a slightly purgative action; the same
action, however, may be induced by a plentiful supply of non-irritating
fruit juices, and for that reason they are consequently to be
preferred. We thus come to the conclusion that, although these few
remaining articles of diet are not positively pernicious, as are the
general run of foods, they are, nevertheless, of secondary importance,
and can readily be dispensed with, and their place taken by simple
fruits and nuts.
If any lingering doubt exists in the minds of those upholding a strict
fruitarian dietary, as to its sufficiently nutritive value, these
doubts have been cleared away by the investigations of Professor M. E.
Jaffa, of the University of California. His researches, published by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, make an epoch in the history of
dietetics, and his researches are most conclusive. In his “Nutrition
Investigations Among the Fruitarians and Chinese,” he says, in part:
“It would appear upon examining the recorded data and comparing the
results with commonly accepted standards, that all the subjects were
(_i.e._ should have been) decidedly under-nourished, even making
allowances for their little weight. But when we consider that the two
adults have lived upon this diet for 7 years, and think they are in
better health and capable of more work than they ever were before,
we hesitate to pronounce judgment. The three children, though below
the average in height and weight, had the appearance of health and
strength. They ran and jumped and played all day like ordinary healthy
children, and were said to be unusually free from colds and other
complaints incident to childhood.”[35]
[35] It is an error—though a common one—to suppose that the fruitarian
diet causes a loss of weight. My own weight has remained about the
same for ten years, no matter what I eat, or how much. On this
diet the weight will go _to normal_—and, generally speaking, it is
necessary that some weight should be lost, in order to effect this.
Professor Jaffa then showed that N. was actually _stored_ on this
diet, although these fruitarians were eating but two meals a day, in
place of the usual three of civilised people. He stated (what I have
invariably found to be the case) that _less food_ was required and
was eaten, than is the case with ordinary cooked foods. Further, many
of his subjects were found actually to _gain_ weight—one patient seven
pounds in less than three months! Professor Jaffa was forced to the
conclusion that fruits must be considered as _true foods_, and not mere
food accessories; and was bound to admit that they alone (with nuts)
can sustain a healthy and vigorous life.
“While it is true that 10 cents will buy more animal protein than
fruit protein, it will on the average purchase fully as much energy,
when spent for fresh fruits, and more in the case of dried fruits than
when expended for lean meats. When considering nuts, it is readily
observed that 10 cents will buy about the same amount of nut protein
as of animal protein, except in the case of cheese and skim milk. If
spent on peanuts, it will furnish more than twice the protein and six
times the energy that could be bought for the same expenditure for
porterhouse steak.”[36]
[36] “Further Investigations Among Fruitarians,” etc., p. 79.
I would also refer the reader to Professor C. F. Longworthy’s “Fruit
and its Uses as Food” (Yearbook, U.S. Dept. of Agr.).
Speaking of the value of fruit, Dr Tibbles, in his “Food and Hygiene,”
p. 174, says:
“The value and importance of fresh fruit, especially to dwellers in
towns, cannot be too freely written about.... The organic salts in
fruit arouse the appetite, and aid digestion, by increasing the flow
of saliva, and, indirectly, of the gastric juice; they are stimulants
and sialagogues. As the fruit reaches the intestines, the acids
increase the activity of the chyme, and stimulate the secretions of
the liver and the pancreas, the intestinal glands and muscles; their
influence upon the blood is marked: they render it less alkaline, but
_never acid_. By combining with a portion of the alkaline salts of
the serum, the phosphoric acid increases the phosphates in the red
blood cells; they are anti-scorbutic and of value in anæmia, general
debility, and convalescence from acute illness. Fruits containing
oxalates, as tomatoes, gooseberries and strawberries, are useful in
amenorrhœa and for persons subject to bronchitis and asthma; such
as contain salicylic acid—as strawberries, raspberries, currants,
blackberries, and oranges—are a valuable addition to the dietary of
rheumatic persons. The final stage in the digestion of fruit is the
conversion of fruit acids and salts into alkaline salts, chiefly
carbonates; they are therefore useful in scurvy, rheumatism, gout, and
other diseases of the uric acid diathesis; they increase the secretion
of the urine and its alkalinity—indeed they are one of the most
certain agents to render it alkaline, to stimulate the kidneys, and
indirectly the skin, and thereby increase the total excretion of salts
and other materials. Briefly, fresh fruit is cooling, refreshing, and
tends to correct constipation.”
Only recently, at the Congress of Surgery, Paris, 1909, Dr Victor
Pauchet, surgeon of the American Hospital, stated—when indicating what
in his opinion were the ideal bodily conditions for the successful
performance of an operation—that it was necessary for the subject to
have the colon and rectum empty; the bowels free from gas; the liver
and kidneys washed with pure water in proper quantities, etc., and then
went on to say:
“ ... It is necessary to give foods, which, besides being devoid of
toxins, should at the same time be a bad culture-medium for intestinal
germs. These conditions are fulfilled by a vegetable or especially
a fruit régime. Fruit juice is a purer water than that of the best
spring. Glucose is the best assimilated food. It is the sustaining,
diuretic and nontoxic food. Fruits should be taken fresh, ripe and
of good quality. If unavailable, cooked dry fruits with a little
sugar.”[37]
[37] “La réforme alimentaire,” vol. xiii., No. 2. For much valuable
information on this subject consult Dr J. L. Buttner’s book, “A
Fleshless Diet” (1910).
The general advantages of fruit as food—instead of the usual cooked
diet—have been so far enumerated, and are so numerous, that it would
seem almost unnecessary to dwell upon the advantages of each fruit in
turn. The whole system being so much superior, this detailed defence
would seem unnecessary. Nevertheless, in order to show the great
superiority of this diet, it may be well to enumerate some of the
beneficial effects of each fruit in turn, and point out, briefly, some
of their many excellent qualities. Let us see what these are.
_Apples_ have been called the “king of fruits.” They contain an
abundance of potash, soda and magnesia, also phosphorus, and for this
reason have been considered especially valuable for nerve and brain
food. The natural acid of the apple is excellent for the teeth and
gums; also for the stomach and intestines. It seems to possess a great
antiseptic and germicidal quality. They do not increase the acidity
in the stomach, but, on the contrary, decrease it. They possess fine
tonic properties, and are a valuable food, at the same time. Apples are
naturally laxative, and the proportions of their composition are more
clearly adjusted to the human constitution than any other single fruit.
It is almost possible to live upon apples alone, and an exclusive apple
dietary might be tried for some time during every summer, at least. In
the form of cider they supply us with almost the only wholesome article
of drink, besides water, that can be found.
The _banana_ is a very heavy food, and must be eaten with discretion.
It has been called the “bread of the tropics,” and this fact must be
borne in mind when they are being consumed in large quantities. One
must be sure that the banana is sound and thoroughly ripe when eaten—so
soft, almost, as to be taken with a spoon. The skin should be almost
black, and this should be peeled back, and the outside of the fruit
scraped with a knife, cleaning it of the soft, pulpy covering about
a sixteenth of an inch thick all round the fruit, which is highly
indigestible. Bananas do not agree with many persons, and when this is
found to be the case they should be avoided; but when they have been
treated in the manner indicated, it will be found that many persons can
eat them, when formerly this was impossible. Bananas should be very
thoroughly masticated, and possibly mashed up with a fork before they
are eaten. They combine well with but few foods, and generally should
be eaten alone. Under such conditions, bananas will be found a highly
nourishing and valuable food.
_Pears_, _quinces_, _plums_, _damsons_, _peaches_, _apricots_,
_cherries_ and _grapes_, all contain a fairly high percentage of
carbohydrates, and a high percentage of valuable food-salts. As is
well known, it is possible to live upon grapes alone for several weeks
at a time, as has been abundantly proved at the various resorts where
the “grape cure” is taken. At such places, several pounds of grapes
are eaten daily, and in phthisis and other wasting diseases this cure
has been attended with some remarkable results. Sweet grapes are
exceedingly valuable as a food: they contain a large percentage of
water in the purest form; they also contain glucose, or grape-sugar, in
a condition in which it is readily assimilated into the circulation.
Instead of eating great quantities of starch, therefore, which requires
much effort for proper conversion into this same grape juice within the
body, why not eat the grapes themselves—thereby obtaining this material
in its original and purest form? In chronic bronchitis, heart disease,
gastric and intestinal atony, and frequently in Bright’s disease,
grapes are very beneficial.
_Raspberries_ and _strawberries_ contain a large amount of acid, and
for that reason must be eaten with discrimination, especially at first.
Yet they are as a rule an exceptionally wholesome fruit, their natural
acidity clearing the blood of uric acid and kindred poisons, and acting
as a natural tonic and stimulant. The strawberry also contains a large
quantity of iron, and for that reason is very valuable for anæmic
patients. There are a few individuals who cannot eat strawberries
without unpleasant consequences. Needless to say, such persons should
refrain from eating them, though the fault in such cases is probably
more in the patient than in the fruit.
The _pineapple_ is a spurious fruit, or rather a collection of berries,
each corresponding to a flower which, under cultivation, is seedless.
The juice is highly antiseptic, and of great benefit in certain
afflictions of the throat. In diphtheria it appears to be especially
valuable, the juice possessing a cleansing quality of remarkable power.
Its effect upon diseased mucous is very noticeable, yet, strange to
say, its action upon healthy mucous, in limited quantities, is quite
harmless and rather invigorating. This is proved by the fact that
pineapple juice has often been given to babies less than a year old,
with nothing but beneficial results.
The great value of _oranges_ and _lemons_ is now beginning to be
appreciated. In all uric acid diatheses, the juice of either one of
these fruits—particularly lemons—is exceedingly beneficial, and Dr
Haig, of London, strongly recommends lemonade and lemon juice for
gout, rheumatism, etc., throughout his writings. Lemon juice has
also been advocated as a curative agency in malaria—this having the
support of so orthodox an organ as _The Lancet_. It is now frequently
administered in cases of diphtheria, since it has been found to afford
great relief to the sore and inflamed throat and gullet. Lemons are
strongly germicidal and antiseptic, and, although their immediate
effect is to increase the acidity of the blood, curiously enough, their
all-day effect is to increase its alkalinity. The juice of oranges is
anti-scorbutic, and is said to be valuable in influenza. A patient can
live on oranges alone for several weeks together, while the juice is
free from the excessive acidity noticed in the lemon.
_Bilberries_, _whortleberries_, _cranberries_, _mulberries_,
_gooseberries_, etc., are all more or less laxative and soothing, and
some of them especially valuable in affections of the throat.
_Raisins_ and _currants_, properly speaking, belong to the class of
dried fruits, and possess all the advantages and disadvantages they
possess.
_Rhubarb_, strictly speaking, is not a fruit, but might be classed with
fruit. It is slightly tonic and aperient.
_Melons_ contain but little nutriment, but, on the contrary, nothing
deleterious.
_Citrons_ and _limes_ possess very much the same properties as oranges
and lemons, and are now considered of undoubted value in scurvy and
rheumatism, and for checking nausea and vomiting.
The _tomato_, which might be classed as a fruit, contains a large
amount of saccharine matter, and salts, and is stated to have
beneficial effects upon the secretions of the liver.
_Figs_ contain from 60 to 70 per cent. of sugar, and are very
nutritive. They also contain some valuable food-salts. _Dates_ are the
great sources of sugar in the fruit kingdom. They are very nutritious
and also contain valuable food-salts.
Coming now to _nuts_, they are, as before pointed out, the great
source of proteid—outside meat and certain legumes. When thoroughly
masticated, they are a wholesome and very nutritious article of diet.
They are less liable to cause indigestion when they form the sole
element of the meal, or when mixed only with fruit, than when eaten in
combination with any other food. They contain practically the elements
of a perfect food in due proportion—supplying the system with proteids,
fats, carbohydrates and salts in a concentrated form, with but little
waste. In addition to the nitrogenous matter which they contain, they
are also a valuable, and in fact the chief, source of fats. Brazil
nuts, almonds, filberts, pecans, walnuts, etc., all contain about the
same proportions of carbohydrates, fats and proteids, and all contain
valuable food-salts. On the whole, it may be said that they are the
most valuable articles of food that we know, and when supplemented
by a few fruits, form a perfect and nutritious diet. Occasionally,
it may be found that nuts disagree or cause gastric disturbance. In
such cases, various nut-butters may be substituted, or the nut-food
omitted altogether for a few weeks, as it is more than probable, in
such cases, that the system is already overstocked with nitrogenous
matter. But I believe that, if properly masticated, eaten in limited
quantities, and judiciously combined with a small number of other
foods—especially fruits—it will be found that they do not disagree,
but, on the contrary, are a sustaining and nourishing food—in fact _the
most_ sustaining and nourishing food that can be found.
Fruit juices are especially cooling and refreshing in the heat of
summer. They supply organic fluids to the system, in the form of
water, combined with organic salts, and this water is the purest that
we know. Sour fruits of all kinds are especially valuable in cases
of biliousness, inactive liver, thickening of the blood, and general
clogging-up of the system. They are especially valuable in cases of
disordered digestion. Fruits should not be cooked, but eaten raw,
and upon an empty stomach, or combined with nuts. When combined with
cooked foods, and especially with vegetables, they tend to create, as
we have seen, gastric disturbances. The cooking of fruits ruins many of
their most valuable properties. Ordinary sugar should never be added to
fruits, since it excites fermentation; and, for cooking purposes, if
fruits are cooked and it is desired to sweeten them, dates may be added
for this purpose. By all means fruit should be avoided at the end of a
meal consisting of a combination of foods, and particularly of cooked
foods; they are sure to disagree, and the fruits will then get blamed
for the whole disturbance!
Sylvester Graham, in writing of fruits as food, says:
“It should always be remembered that fruit of every description, if
eaten at all, should be eaten as food, and not as mere pastime, or
merely for the sake of gustatory enjoyment; and therefore it should,
as a general rule, be eaten at the table, or constitute a portion of
the regular meal.... All cooked food, even under the best regulations,
impairs in some degree the power of the stomach to digest uncooked
substances; and therefore, so long as we are accustomed to cooked food
of any kind, we must be somewhat more careful in regard to the times
when we eat fruit and other substances in their natural state.”
Now, if we compare the fruitarian dietary—meaning by this a diet
composed of fruit and nuts, in their natural and uncooked state—with
other diets, we shall ascertain the following facts:—
* * * * *
_First_, that such a diet is suited to man because of his anatomical
and physiological structure. We have seen in Chapters II. and III.
that, were we to judge from his anatomy and physiology, man must be
classed as a frugivorous animal—with the higher apes—and that he is
totally dissimilar in construction to any of the other animals.
* * * * *
_Second._ By comparing these foods with other food-stuffs, we found, in
the chapter on the chemistry of foods, that all the elements essential
for sustaining the physiological integrity were supplied by a judicious
fruitarian diet—the proteids, carbohydrates and fats all being supplied
by such foods.
* * * * *
_Third._ While all these elements are supplied, we do not ingest into
the system at the same time injurious toxic substances as we do in
the case of meats; or enormous quantities of fibrous, indigestible
elements, as we do in the case of vegetables; or innutritious and
constipating substances, as we do in all starchy foods. In addition to
this, condiments and spices are not called for, and in fact cannot well
be eaten with such foods. The oils and fats furnished by this diet are
also pure, and are free from all the objections that can be raised to
these same substances when derived from the animal kingdom.
As a further argument, it will be found that _less food_ in quantity
is eaten and called for upon this diet, and that the system is in less
danger of becoming surfeited, blocked and choked with an excess of
food-matter. Fruits are also easily digestible, and act as a stimulant
upon the various internal organs, and as a mild aperient. They also
contain the minimum amount of earthy matter, which various authors have
contended is the chief cause of obstruction, induration, ossification,
premature old age and natural death.
It will thus be seen that there are many advantages, and no
disadvantages, to this diet. Since it contains all the elements which
the system requires in a purer and better form, and can be assimilated
with less energy; and since, moreover, it does not engender any of
the diseased states or conditions which result from an ordinary diet,
it will be seen that this system presents many advantages over any
other so far presented—or, in fact, any other that can be formulated.
In addition to this, and one very strong argument in favour of the
fruitarian diet, is the fact that a certain _vital energy_—too subtle
to be analysed by the chemist, and which will only be recognised by
science when it becomes less materialistic—is imparted, upon a raw
fruitarian diet, which is invariably lost whenever food of any kind is
cooked. Dr Graham, in his “Science of Human Life,” was probably the
first to call attention to this fact. He said:
“It may be laid down as a general law that all processes of cooking,
or artificial preparation of foods by fire, are, in themselves,
considered with reference to the very highest and best condition of
human nature, in some degree detrimental to the physiological and
psychological interests of man.”
He insists, further, that if man lived upon uncooked foods, he would
have to use his teeth, and would therefore preserve them; he would
masticate his food more thoroughly, and by thorough insalivation fit
it for the stomach; he would swallow it slowly, instead of bolting it
down in a crude condition; he would take it at a proper temperature,
and not weaken the stomach with hot food; he would eat the food as
nature prepares it, not served in the form of a highly concentrated
aliment; he would partake of the simple, individual food substances,
and would not suffer from all manner of injurious combinations; and
finally, he would be less likely to suffer from over-eating than he
would if he lived upon soft, cooked foods. There can be no question
that the thorough mastication of nuts, which is rendered necessary
by their nature, is one of the best means possible of preserving and
strengthening both the teeth and the gums.
Dr Gustave Schlickeysen, in his “Fruit and Bread,” has adduced very
strong arguments in favour of an uncooked fruitarian diet. Writing of
the advantages of such a diet, he says:
“Of all the artificial forms of treatment to which foods are
subjected, that of cooking is the most universal and therefore demands
our special attention. If we rightly consider the influence of this
process upon all the natural properties of a plant, we must perceive
that it is, in almost every case, injurious, and that it must be
dispensed with, so far as our present habits of life will admit of,
with a view of its final and complete disuse. The natural fluids of
the plant are in great part lost in cooking, and with them the natural
aroma so agreeable to the senses and so stimulating to the appetite.
The water supplied artificially does not possess the same properties
as that which has been lost, and all the less so since it has been
boiled. The cellular tissue of the plant loses also its vitality, and
ripe, uncooked fruits and grains with their unbroken cellular tissue,
their stimulating properties, their great content of water, sugar and
acids, and their electrical vitality are calculated to supply to the
human body a rosy freshness; to the skin a beautiful transparence,
and to the whole muscular system the highest vigour and elasticity.
Uncooked fruits especially excite the mind to its highest activity.
After eating them we experience an inclination to vigorous exercise,
and also an increase of capacity for study and all mental work—while
cooked food causes a feeling of satiety and sluggishness. Not only
do plants lose their vital, but to some extent also their nutritive
properties when cooked. The vegetable acids and oils, the latter
being of especial value in the development of the bony structure of
the body, are, by cooking, dissipated; while the albuminoids are
coagulated, and thereby less easily digested, so that the nutritive
value of the food is reduced to a minimum. Another injury that results
from cooked food is that caused by artificial heat. All heat excites,
through expansion, an increased activity, but this activity is not
normal in the case of food eaten hot.
“Again, the sensory nerves of the lips and the nerves of taste are
weakened by hot food to such an extent that they no longer serve as an
infallible test of its quality, and hence articles that seem in the
mouth to be palatable and good may be very injurious to the system,
both on account of their natural properties and their artificial
heat. In a similar manner the sense of smell is blunted; and not less
injuriously does hot food act upon the teeth, the enamel of which is
destroyed, rendering them unfit for their work of mastication, in
consequence of which the food passes unprepared into the stomach.
The eyes are also injured by the action of hot food upon the nerves
connected with them. That condition of weak and watery eyes, so
apparent in the habitual drunkard, exist in a certain degree in all
whose systems are enervated by hot and stimulating food. But the
greatest harm from hot food is caused in the stomach itself, the coats
of which are irritated, reddened, and unnaturally contracted by the
heat, so that they lose their vigorous activity and capacity for the
complete performance of their natural functions. The blood, excited
by the heat, flows in excess to the stomach, and thence feverishly
through the body. One result of this is the flushed condition of the
head after eating. Hot food also causes an excess in eating, so that
it is rather by a sense of fullness and oppression than by a natural
satisfaction of the appetite that one is prompted to cease eating.
An evidence of the weakening of the stomach by hot food is seen when
one eats an apple after the usual hot meal. Fruit thus taken lies
like a stone upon the stomach, the enfeebled nerves being injuriously
affected by its presence; whereas in their normal condition, they are
stimulated to a most agreeable activity by it.
“From the abuse of the organs of digestion result a number of
diseases. A life-long weakness of the gastric nerves, with cramps and
inflammation of the stomach, are its common fruits. To this cause
also is attributable the almost universal prevalence of colds, which
are the direct result of unnatural temperatures of the body. The
blood, artificially heated, causes an excessive perspiration, since
it produces increased but injurious activity of the skin; and upon
the least change of temperature the perspiration is condensed upon
the body, and causes colds and stiffness, and this is all the more
certainly so when the blood is impure and the tissues overloaded. From
the same prolific cause results the uneasiness and languor experienced
after eating hot food. The evil effect cannot be overcome by the usual
after-dinner nap. This cannot replace the elements lost from our food,
nor give the enlivening impulse experienced after partaking of ripe
fruits in their natural state.
“It is indeed argued that our northern climate requires that
food should be eaten hot as one means of maintaining the bodily
temperature; but if this be true of man, it must apply with equal
force to all animals; and since man alone seems to require hot food,
the argument loses its force. In the polar regions the conditions
of animal life show plainly that the natural process of generating
heat is not by putting heated substances into the stomach, but by
the normal action of the vital forces upon food taken in its natural
state. Greater thirst is experienced after eating cooked than uncooked
food, and this results both from the change that the food has
undergone, and from the perspiration caused by the increased heat of
the body. The artificial solution of the food impairs its nutritive
properties, and weakens the natural functions of the body by depriving
them of their natural employment; and this has been so long continued
that we are now almost incapable of digesting uncooked grains, so that
their enlivening and invigorating action is almost unknown.”
Dr Schlickeysen argues very strongly for what he terms the “electrical
vitality” of food, which he contends—I think rightly—is ruined by
cooking. He says:
“Finally—and this is a point which physiologists have hitherto quite
overlooked—the food must contain a certain _electrical vitality_.
Although the real origin and nature of the vital force is not yet
known, we believe that it is closely related to electricity; not
less so, indeed, than to light and heat. Electricity is abundant in
all purely natural products, and indeed, everywhere where a free and
uninterrupted exchange of the influences of light, heat, and air,
exist. It is less abundant in closed dwelling and sleeping rooms
than in the open air. An outdoor walk refreshes us, not only by the
increased consumption of oxygen, but by the increased action of the
electrical forces. The same vitality is stored up in uncooked plants
and fruits, but it is greatly impaired by all our culinary processes.
Fruits act also through their natural acids, their refreshing
coolness, and the easy assimilation of their albuminous products, and
other nourishing materials.
“By the ‘electrical vitality’ of food we do not mean its nutritive
worth, nor indeed any material element of it, but rather an
imponderable fluid, which is related to the vital and electrical
forces of the human system. The organic vital force has not
incorrectly been called the interrogation point of physiology, and the
physiologists and chemists of the old school thought to maintain this
force by supplying albuminoids to the system. The fact, however, is
the reverse. The albuminoids demand rather a great expense of vitality
for their solution and digestion. We know now, with great certainty,
and by practical experience, that the human system is maintained
and strengthened by the consumption of fresh air, fresh water, and
ripe fruits, and grains; but these essential means of sustenance
are reduced from the rank of vital to merely nutritive substances
by any treatment that, through heat or otherwise, destroys their
natural vitality. Our physiologists have not hitherto understood this
difference between the vital and the merely nutritive properties of
food, and hence, as we have already pointed out, have regarded foods
as merely chemical substances. They have discovered and laid down
with wonderful exactness, the chemical elements of the living body,
and hence of the food requisite, according to their views, to its
maintenance; but we hope to show that their methods and consequently
their dietetic conclusions, have been one-sided, and therefore
essentially erroneous. So long as the electrical vitality of food is
overlooked, and the bearings of anthropology upon the question is
ignored, a scientific system of diet must remain impossible.”[38]
This whole question of the injurious effect in cooking food may be
summed up in a very few words. Heat destroys the life and vitality
of the food, and practically nothing is left but the “ashes,” as it
were, which are dead, inert, and comparatively of far less food value
than the raw foods. It can readily be seen why this must be so. At a
temperature of 150° F., certain properties of all organic substances
are destroyed, or even at a temperature below this. This can readily be
proved in the case of all living organisms, and it is also true, to a
large extent, in the case of all vegetables, fruits, and other organic
compounds, whose life is also destroyed at these high temperatures.
A leaf of cabbage immersed in water not too hot to be borne by the
hand will wilt. The effects of heat upon all flowers can very readily
be seen. Their life becomes extinct, and the vital properties of all
organic substances must be ruined by subjecting them to the tremendous
heat necessary for cooking them. A large part of the nutritive value
of the substance cooked is thus ruined, while, in many cases, valuable
nutritive material passes out of the substance into the water in which
it is cooked, or escapes altogether. It will thus be seen that, from
the physiological and chemical sides of this question alone, there
are many strong reasons for believing that the cooking of food is
injurious, lowering its nutritive value, and
[38] If this theory were true, it would agree very well with Professor
Loeb’s recent physiological researches. He has come to the conclusion
that the energy of food-stuffs is not due to the production of heat,
or to chemical energy, but to electrically charged molecules This
would seem to agree very well with the theory outlined above. ruining
many of its most valuable properties. But since fruits are almost the
only form of food that can be eaten in a raw state—or rather as cooked
by nature—this would indirectly prove that fruit is man’s natural
diet, thus agreeing with his anatomical structure; and the fruitarian
diet would, on the other hand, indicate that a raw-food diet is the
best that man can adopt. When we come to consider the fact that no
other animal cooks his food, and that the higher apes—man’s dietetic
counterpart—eats his fruits and nuts in a raw state, we can readily see
that there is no valid reason, apart from custom, for man cooking his
food—so long as the natural or fruitarian dietary be adopted at all.
It is curious to note the attitude various authorities have taken upon
this subject, when writing of foods in relation to man’s relative place
in nature. Thus, Dr Mattieu Williams, in his “Chemistry of Cookery,” p.
295, says:
“At the outset it is necessary to brush aside certain false issues
that are commonly raised in discussing this subject. The question is
not whether we are herbivorous or carnivorous animals. It is perfectly
certain that we are neither. The carnivora feed on flesh alone, and
eat that flesh raw. Nobody proposes that we should do this. The
herbivora eat raw grass. Nobody suggests that we should follow their
example.
“It is perfectly clear that man cannot be classed with the carnivorous
animals, nor the herbivorous animals, nor with the gramnivorous
animals. His teeth are not constructed for munching and grinding raw
grain, nor his digestive organs for assimilating such grain in this
condition.
“He is not even to be classed with the omnivorous animals. He stands
apart from all as _The Cooking Animal_.”
Here it will be seen that Dr Williams classes man as a “cooking
animal” merely because he has no other class (according to his own
classification) in which to place him! But it will be observed that
no mention whatever is made of fruitarian diet, or the possibility of
man living upon fruits and nuts alone. He does not even mention the
fact that there are fruitarian animals! Naturally, if one eliminates
a whole class in this way—that class being the one to which man
belongs—it is impossible to find a rightful place for him; but once
recognise the fruitarian class of animals, and it will be found that
man, structurally, and in every other way, belongs to it; and for that
reason he does not stand apart by himself as a “cooking animal,” but is
simply one member of the fruitarian family.
There are many other reasons for thinking that the fruitarian diet
is the best, and that uncooked foods should form man’s staple diet.
One of these is that they are more economical in the long run. While
certain other foods may be purchased at a less cost, particularly in
the winter-time, they are not nearly so nourishing to the system; and
it can be shown that the nutritive value, per pound, is far greater in
the case of fruits and nuts than is the case with any other articles
of food. For this reason, although fruits and nuts may cost more,
they will ultimately be found to cost _less_—because they contain a
higher percentage of nutriment; and indirectly because they avoid
doctor’s bills, and maintain the body in a higher state of health and
energy. They thus enable it to accomplish more work; and, since work
represents, as a rule, financial return, it will be seen that these
foods are in the end most economic. As before pointed out, moreover,
they do not induce over-eating, as do cooked and stimulating articles
of food.
Fruits also exert a very cleansing and purifying effect upon the
system. Their medicinal value is therefore not to be omitted from
our consideration; and further, were the fruitarian diet followed,
humanity would escape nine-tenths of the ills from which it now
suffers, because of its over-eating, and its living upon gross and
highly stimulating articles of food, and bad food-combinations. The
choking and blocking effects of the more solid and earthy food would be
avoided—while indigestion, fermentation, constipation and all the ills
which accompany them would also be entirely done away with.
This question of the prevention of disease by diet is a very important
one, both from the economic and from the physiological point of view,
and if any diet can be found which will prevent a large percentage
of the diseases from which mankind suffers, that diet should surely
be adopted. Inasmuch as fruits and nuts are man’s natural diet, it
should be obvious that they are the ones best suited to his organism,
and consequently those which will maintain it in the highest state of
health. Let us consider this question a little more fully.
In my previous work, I argued that every article of diet must be more
or less healthful or more or less injurious, and this being so, only
those foods should be eaten which had been proved by philosophy and
experience to be the most wholesome. The fact that the system _can
live_ upon other foods, and maintain a certain degree of health, argues
merely that it can _withstand_ the bad effects of these other foods,
and by no means shows us that they are the best! I further contended
that the same foods are alike detrimental or beneficial to all, and
that the old doctrine which Dr Page called “the most foolish of all
aphorisms”—namely, “one man’s meat, another’s poison”—is totally
false. I contended that, while there might be certain deviations and
variations in the details of the diet, still all men are _rudimentally_
alike, and that the body of each human being is made after a certain
pattern, which pattern is in accordance with the general principles
which apply to all individuals. Man, that is, belongs to a certain
_genus_, and consequently his food must be, within certain limits, the
same as that of the rest of the family to which he belongs. That is,
as we have seen, the frugivora, and his diet must accordingly consist
of fruits and nuts in their uncooked, primitive form. There may be
certain individual differences, and there doubtless are. Thus, some
individuals are unable to eat strawberries, others bananas, others
onions, others mushrooms, but this would show, merely, that these
particular individuals, _while in the peculiar state of body in which
they then are_, are unable to appropriate and utilise, with benefit,
these particular food-stuffs. The chemical composition of their bodies
has become altered in some way unknown to us, and, as the result of
this altered chemical composition, they are unable to appropriate, with
profit, food containing certain elements with which they may already be
overstocked. In other words, this would prove, merely, that, in their
present physical condition, they are unable properly to assimilate
and digest those particular food-stuffs. It does not show that, if
they were normal, these foods could not be appropriated and used with
benefit. In other words, the fault is rather with the individual than
with the food. Still, I admit that these differences have to be taken
into account; and that no two individuals can be treated exactly
alike—especially at first. To use a simile, no two spokes of a wheel
are identical—that is, each spoke is individual, and different from all
other spokes—but they all lead, nevertheless, to the hub, the central
point which unifies and combines them all. In a similar manner, I can
see that there is an ideal diet for the human race, which should be
followed by all who are in health, and could be eaten by all with equal
profit and benefit, if the chemical composition of their bodies were
altered. But, as each spoke must be treated individually at first, so
must each individual be treated individually, and, by gradual changes
in the diet, be brought more nearly to a normal standard, when it will
be far easier for it to adopt a simple fruitarian diet, without any of
the disturbance or unpleasantness that might otherwise follow. As Dr
Jackson expressed it:
“If I had his ultimate good in view, I should seek to change the
state of his stomach that he might eat what was in itself better for
him, rather than to have his morbid necessity say what he should be
compelled to eat.”
Some readers may contend that I have gone too far in thus insisting
upon an ultimate unification of diet, and that such a state can not
only _not_ be hoped for practically, but is false theoretically. I
myself do not think so. When discussing this question in my former
book, I said:
“It must be noticed that, with the single exception of man, every
class of animal feeds upon its own particular and especial kind of
food. All dogs, for example, eat practically the same food, and about
the same amount of it.. .. When a dog is fed upon milk, meat, and
biscuit, in certain amounts, when living in England, we do not think
of modifying his diet to any appreciable degree should we take him
with us to America or to the Tropics. The diet might, in the latter
case, be somewhat _lessened_, but that would effect its bulk only, not
materially effecting the quality of the food-supply. Again, we should
be surprised to find dogs fed upon altogether different substances in
any portion of the globe to which we might travel; if, _e.g._, they
were fed upon turnips, oysters, mince pie, hay and sauerkraut—yet I
must earnestly insist that this unholy combination is no more bad
and unnatural than some that supposedly ‘civilised’ men and women
take into their stomachs in the course of twenty-four hours! To
be sure, there might be modifications or alterations in the diet,
but the changes would not be of _kind_, merely of _degree_, and we
should feel, doubtless, that these dogs, having their diet altered to
an altogether different kind, live under such abnormal and altered
conditions rather _in spite of_ than on _account of_ their newly
acquired régime, and would be inclined to feel that the same dogs
might be infinitely more healthy and live longer lives on their normal
diet. Similarly with every other species of animal; each _genus_ has
its proper and natural food, allotted by nature, and any attempt to
depart from this diet, and to live upon other and altogether unnatural
food, must of necessity weaken, devitalise and eventually destroy the
organism of the animal so attempting to live contrary to nature’s
unchanging dietetic laws.”
Now, since we have seen that man is anatomically and structurally a
member of that family whose normal food is fruits and nuts, he too
should live upon that diet if he wishes to maintain the highest degree
of health. There is only one valid objection to this theory, which
is that man, having lived so many ages upon the cooked diet, is now
more adapted to that diet than to his original uncooked foods, and
that an attempt to return to such a diet would be attended with grave
and possibly disastrous consequences. As Professor Goodfellow put it:
“The conditions of life have so altered that the natural food of our
ancestors would be unnatural now, living as we do under such different
conditions.”[39]
[39] “The Dietetic Value of Bread,” p. 166.
This objection, however, is completely refuted by the fact that
_no anatomical change whatever_ has taken place in man’s digestive
apparatus since the most primeval times. If the body had gradually
grown accustomed to the cooked and unnatural foods, this should not be
the case—certain modifications in the digestive apparatus and perhaps
throughout the body should be noted, corresponding to this altered
adaptability. But no such changes have been observed. As we have seen,
man corresponds structurally throughout with the higher apes, and he
has altered not one whit since the days when he more closely resembled
them than he does now!
The second point to be noted is that such an objection is not in
accord with facts. It is a comparatively simple thing for the majority
of persons to adopt a fruitarian dietary. They can do so almost at
once, having made up their minds to do so, and thereafter live upon
it exclusively, without harm to themselves, but, on the contrary,
with added health and strength. There is no real reason to think
that, because a thing has been done for many generations, it is the
best thing which _can_ be done. Experience merely shows us what _has_
taken place, not what _might_ take place; and, so far as that goes,
experience has shown us in the past that, living upon the diet they
have been accustomed to, human beings have been constantly suffering
from one form of disease or another, and that they almost invariably
become aged prematurely, lose their faculties before their allotted
time, and die a premature death. So far as experience can teach us
anything, therefore, it shows most conclusively that such a state of
affairs as has existed in the past is by no means the most ideal, but,
on the contrary, one which should be avoided and changed, if possible,
and rendered more in accordance with nature’s laws—thus ensuring a
greater degree of health, and a more prolonged and happy existence.
There is another strong argument in favour of the fruitarian dietary,
and an adoption of the simpler foods, which is that the adoption of
this way of living would ensure a practical emancipation of women.
Under the present conditions, a wife—if she has a husband and family,
and if she is forced to do her own work, as a large number are (in
America, at least)—spends four or five hours a day in the kitchen
preparing and clearing up after the three daily meals supplied to
the family. The anxiety and mental tension that she undergoes in
ensuring the correctness of her dishes; the bending over the hot
stove—especially in summer-time—the constant inhaling of smells and
odours, arising from the cooking food, the fumes from the oils and
fats, the constant tasting of dishes which is necessitated, all these
tell against her health, and age her prematurely. In addition to this,
there is the time wasted in the preparation of all these foods, and
in the clearing up of the remnants; and when we stop to consider that
all this cooking is not only useless, but positively detrimental; not
only a waste of time, but an actual injury to the body; and when we
know that far greater health and strength may be preserved upon a diet
consisting wholly of uncooked foods—which require no preparation and
practically no clearing up—we can see how false is the doctrine at
present enunciated, and slavishly followed by the majority, which tends
to keep woman in a state of bondage, and her time filled up with petty
details of a wholly useless nature—which time might be better occupied
in mental pursuits. And when we remember, in addition to all this, that
such foods, even when they are prepared, are by no means so wholesome
as a simple fruitarian diet, but are, on the contrary, positively
harmful, we can see that no time should be lost before we adopt this
simplified diet, and insist upon its acceptance by all persons calling
themselves civilised. From all these points of view, therefore, we see
that there are very strong grounds for believing that the fruitarian
diet is the one most suited to the body’s needs, and is in every way
the most wholesome and hygienic. I shall now proceed to adduce another
whole set of facts showing that fruitarianism is the natural diet of
mankind, and that fruits and nuts, eaten in their uncooked form, are
those most suitable to man, and those best calculated to preserve him
in a high state of mental and physical health.
Not only do fruits and nuts contain a higher percentage of nutriment
than ordinary foods, and particularly cooked foods; not only do they
maintain the system in a better state of physical, mental and moral
health; not only do they simplify the wants of the household, and the
toil of the woman; not only are they more economical in the long run;
not only would the adoption of this diet prevent nine-tenths of the
misery and physical suffering in this world; not only would it prevent
a large part of the crime, debauchery and drunkenness, but, in addition
to all this, the adoption of such a dietary would be the chief factor
in all social, ethical and agricultural reform. This should be apparent
to anyone who has read through the above list of reforms made possible
by this simple change of diet. The practical abolition of the traffic
in alcohol, which would certainly result from an adoption of this diet,
would be in itself a tremendous revolution. In addition to all this,
there would be the increased ease and comfort afforded by the simpler
diet. The economic aspect of this question is one very important
factor. It is possible to live far more cheaply upon fruits and nuts,
when they are in season, than upon any other foods—quite apart from the
general question of health. The freeing of the body from diseases and
the prolonging of useful life would also be strong arguments in favour
of the simpler diet—since there can be no question that both these
results are effected by its means.
There are also other arguments in favour of this diet— arguments that
should appeal to many of my readers. It will be found, _e.g._, that
the texture and the general colouring of the skin will improve, upon
this diet; the complexion will become clear, and the eyes will become
bright. This is very noticeable, in many cases. The brain is also
rendered clearer, and more fitted for continued mental work. Far more
work can be performed, without the exhaustion formerly noted, upon
such a diet. There can be no question whatever that the temper will
invariably improve upon the fruitarian diet. I have seen many cases
of this character. It is only natural that such should be so. On the
ordinary “mixed” diet, the system is surcharged with toxic substances,
which mix with the blood and irritate the brain cells. When these
irritating substances are removed, the mind will become clear, and a
more even and just view of the world will be obtained. There can be
no question that there is a close, even intimate, relation between
the mental life and the state of the body; and nothing demonstrates
this more certainly than the adoption of a fruitarian dietary. I
have already referred to the brutalising effects of meat and the
slaughter-house upon the butcher. It is true, in a lesser degree, with
everybody. The natives of India and elsewhere look with horror at
the practice of meat-eating, and cannot understand how anyone can be
spiritual, or even decently humane, who kills and eats animals. And yet
missionaries, knowing this, continue to eat their roast beef, in spite
of the fact that natives of the more intelligent order must despise
them in consequence. No wonder they can accomplish very little, so
long as they are so totally incapable of appreciating the viewpoint of
others, and are unwilling to reform their diet, and adopt a more simple
and humane one—for the sake of their religion, if not for hygienic
reasons!
There can be no doubt that the adoption of fruit as a food would
relieve many cases of hitherto incurable diseases. In cancer, gout,
eczema, tumour, etc., the exclusive fruit diet has been found to bring
rapid and remarkable cures. Moreover, the salts found in fruits of
various kinds are a very important factor—and this, not only in the
sick but in the well.
Dr H. Benjafield, writing in the _Herald of Health_ says:
“Garrod, the great London authority on gout, advises his patients
to take oranges, lemons, strawberries, grapes, apples, pears, etc.
Jardien, the great French authority, maintains that the salts of
potash found so plentifully in fruits are the chief agents in
purifying the blood from these rheumatic and gouty poisons.... Dr
Buzzard advises the scorbutic to take fruit, morning, noon and night.
Fresh lemon juice in the form of lemonade is to be his ordinary drink;
the existence of diarrhœa should be no reason for withholding it.”
Florence Daniel, in her excellent little book “Food Remedies,” says of
fruits:
“Salts and acids as found in organised forms are quite different in
their effects to the products of the laboratory, notwithstanding that
the chemical composition may be shown to be the same. The chemist
may be able to manufacture a ‘fruit juice,’ but he cannot, as yet,
manufacture the actual fruit. The mysterious life force always evades
him. Fruit is a _vital_ food, it supplies the body with something over
and above the mere elements that the chemist succeeds in isolating
by analysis. The vegetable kingdom possesses the power of directly
utilising minerals, and it is only in this ‘live’ form that they
are fit for the consumption of man. In the consumption of sodium
chloride (common table salt), baking powders, and the whole army of
mineral drugs and essences, we violate that decree of nature which
ordains that the animal kingdom shall feed upon the vegetable and the
vegetable upon the mineral.”
So far back as the beginning of last century, the famous Dr Lambe,
of London, wrote in favour of the fruit diet, and several vigorous
reformers soon followed his example. The system was bitterly attacked,
but these attacks served only to strengthen the defence, and show
the inconsistency of its opponents. Objections to the fruit diet are
constantly being urged, but not one of them has been shown to rest on a
solid foundation.
Take, for example, the notion that the acids of fruit injure the teeth.
Dentists will frequently tell you that acids are injurious to the
enamel of the teeth, and for that reason acid fruits most certainly
should not be eaten! The position sounds perfectly logical, and, if
the acids of fruits had the same effect upon the enamel of the teeth
as mineral acid, it would be true. The fact is, however, that this is
not the case, but one does not really find this out until he becomes a
fruitarian. He then finds that he has no further “use” for the dentist,
and that his fine theoretical knowledge is overthrown by the actual
facts.
Persons often notice that they become—especially at first—much more
acutely sensitive and almost nervous upon a fruitarian diet. Of course
the diet is blamed; but as a matter of fact it is but indirectly
responsible. The sensibility and nervousness is the result of previous
habits of life—and this transitory condition is but the manifestation
of certain nervous, vital energies which had, till then, remained
“smothered,” as it were, by the excess of food eaten. Now they rise to
the surface and tend to become noticeable to us (_v._ my “Vitality,
Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 520-523).
Further, sensibility, it must be remembered, is merely another word
for extreme sensitiveness or a degree of reaction of the nervous
system—which is its normal function. A nervous system is made for
the express purpose of reacting immediately, to the most delicate
stimulus—and if it does not do so, it shows that the nervous mechanism
is in some way out of order. It is only because we constantly keep the
nervous system poisoned, by our perverted food habits, that it does not
react as it should. It merely regains some degree of its normal powers
when the fruit diet is adopted.
But I shall probably be told that there are cases in which a
hyper-sensitiveness has become apparent—the sensitiveness, not of
health, but of disease. That I admit: but I must contend that this
extreme sensitiveness would not have resulted had it not been for
the previous habits of life, which resulted in an accumulation of
irritating poisons within the body; so that, when these habits are
discontinued and the nervous system invigorated by the improved
dietetic habits, the nerves begin to react vigorously against these
irritating poisons. The result is that a great irritability and
hyper-sensitiveness is noted, _pro tem._—which, however, will be found
to disappear (if the diet be persisted in) when the nervous system
again approaches a more normal standard.
There remains one very strong argument in favour of a fruitarian diet,
to which I have not so far referred. Able authorities affirm that many
of the waste places and deserts of the earth once teemed with fertility
and foliage, and that the existing sterility of these deserts has been
brought about by the destruction of their forests. The influence of
trees upon the rainfall, and consequent support of vegetation, is so
well known that some of the foremost nations are fostering tree-culture
and taking means to preserve existing forests by Government enactment.
There can be no doubt but that trees improve the climate, in any
neighbourhood; they improve the soil, reduce the severity of storms and
the cold of winter, and prevent undue evaporation of moisture from the
surface of the ground. But it is unnecessary to enlarge upon the great
value of trees, which is well known. Now, the point I make is this:
if the fruitarian dietary were adopted, more fruits and nuts would be
eaten, and hence a large number of trees would be planted—huge orchards
would exist throughout the land. Whereas under cereal culture there is
a constant temptation to the farmer to cut down his trees to make his
lands available for grain-growing; as soon as a market for fruits and
nuts is established, the same law of pecuniary gain will induce him
to transform his pastures and his grain fields into orchards and nut
groves. This would be highly advantageous in every respect.
I think it probable that fruits alone contain about all the nutriment
that an average man wants, who is not working out of doors, and who
does not take much exercise. Oxen will get fat on apples and pears;
but when we set them to work, we have to supply an extra amount of
grains, and foods containing proteid, to offset the greater destruction
of muscular tissue. It is probably the same with man. In the majority
of cases, fruits alone would probably supply all that the body needs;
but when it was called upon to perform an extra amount of work, nuts
and other proteid-forming foods will be craved and called for. This,
I think, indicates the true place of nuts and of all foods rich in
proteid in the diet.
M. Metchnikoff has argued strongly against the use of fruits and all
raw foods, as liable to introduce bacteria into the intestines! He
believes that old age and natural death are largely brought about
by bacteriological decomposition in the intestines (in which he is
doubtless right) and believes that raw foods are one of the chief
causes of this intestinal putrefaction. I would point out, in reply,
that bacteria can only exist in a locality in which there is a suitable
soil; and if this soil is lacking, they cannot exist, no matter how
many of them may be introduced. Now, when the bowel is kept sweet and
clean, as it invariably is by a fruit diet, it will be apparent that
there is no soil in which such bacteria could multiply, hence their
continued presence would be quite impossible. M. Metchnikoff has only
studied cases in which the patient had been nourished by the ordinary
cooked foods, and his conclusions were drawn from the facts presented
to him; but when the diet is entirely fruitarian, there can be no
doubt that such a state of the bowels would be quite impossible, and
there would consequently be no bacteria present; and if they _were_
introduced, they could not live in such a medium. The bowel, in the
case of those living upon a fruitarian diet, is almost entirely free
from all bacteria; and their infection and action upon the system
would consequently be rendered practically impossible. There would be
no danger of infection if the body were maintained in a high state of
health—as it would be upon a fruitarian diet.
Frequently, throughout this book, I have referred to man’s “natural
diet,” and, it may be asked, what is his natural diet, in what does it
consist? I answer: fruit and nuts—or a combination of these—is man’s
natural diet, and this is proved by all the arguments of comparative
anatomy, of physiology, and all the other evidences I have adduced. I
think there can be no mistake and no hesitation about this, once we
have mastered and appreciated the force of these arguments. They alone
would determine the issue. But, further, I think there is one simple
test that will settle this question—an instinctive test. After eating a
full meal of any article of food, let a man look back, and contemplate
having to eat it all over again, and he can soon tell whether what he
has eaten is “natural” for him or not! If the meal has consisted of
fish and meat, and all the other “luxuries” of modern civilisation,
there can be no doubt that such a thought would repulse and sicken him;
the very idea of it would nauseate him. But if the meal had consisted
of peaches and dates, let us say, the idea of going back and eating as
much again of the same food would not prove in the slightest degree
repellent to him. This instinctive testimony is very suggestive and
valuable, it appears to me, and clearly indicates man’s natural diet.
Let us consider this question of instinct further.
If we take a little child into a room in which there are two tables,
one covered with meats of all kinds (choicely cooked, if you will)
and the other groaning under a multitude of fruit, which one would
the child turn to, without any hesitation? Most certainly he would
turn to the table spread with fruit—in every single instance where
the appetite has not been perverted so early as to render all natural
taste and instinct impossible. The child would turn to its natural
food—fruit, and would in that manner demonstrate his natural cravings
and instinct, and clearly indicate that his natural food is fruit, and
that consequently he is frugivorous by nature. But now let us take a
dog or a cat, or a lion or a tiger into the room, and leave him there.
To which table would _he_ turn, and that without a moment’s hesitation?
We can have no doubt on that point. He would instantaneously show his
carnivorous nature and appetite, and would not, in all probability,
even touch the fruits, even if he were hungry and there was no meat in
the room at all. Our primary instincts, therefore, clearly indicate
that man is frugivorous, and not carnivorous in his nature.
Again, if man were naturally carnivorous, he should eat his meat as
do the carnivora—and he should be provided by nature with the bodily
structure, teeth, claws, etc., for doing so. Were man naturally
carnivorous, he should prey upon his food by night; he should lurk in
the dark places, and pounce upon his rightful prey, rending it with his
teeth, tearing it with his claws, lapping the warm blood as it oozes
from the lifeless body before him! He should catch and eat his prey as
do all the other (naturally) carnivorous animals. If Nature pointed us
to such a diet, we should feel the same instinctive appetite for raw
flesh as we now feel for ripe fruit; and a slaughter-house would be
more delightful to us than an orchard. Yet we know that such is not
the case, and that even the mere thought of such a thing is sickening
to any sensitive person. Why is this? Does it not clearly indicate
that man is not naturally carnivorous by nature, but that he can only
tolerate the idea of flesh-eating because of long deadening of the
higher moral centres, in this direction; and because the food is so
pickled, and spiced, and peppered, and salted, and roasted, and fried,
and smothered in onions, and in other ways covered up and _concealed_,
and its taste and nature so _disguised_, that we can eat it at all?
As Mr Salt so well remarked[40]:
[40] “Logic of Vegetarianism,” p. 27.
“Our innate horror of bloodshed—a horror which only long custom
can deaden, and which, in spite of past centuries of violence, is
so powerful at the present time—is proof that we are not naturally
adapted for a sanguinary diet; and, as has often been pointed out, it
is only by delegating to others the detested work of slaughter, and by
employing cookery to conceal the uncongenial truth, that thoughtful
persons can tolerate the practice of meat-eating.”
If all persons who enjoy “a good, juicy beef-steak,” or a rasher of
bacon, first had to go out and kill the cow or the hog, how do you
think they would like it? And how many of us would or could do such a
thing? Aside from the fact, before pointed out, that, were we naturally
carnivorous by nature, we should eat our flesh warm and bleeding and
quivering—as do the other carnivora—there is this additional objection,
that, even if this were not the case, we must ever entail the duty to
others of killing the animal for us—so disgusting is the very idea of
dipping our hands and mouths in blood before and during each meal!
Granting, then, that fruits and nuts can supply us with all the
essentials for the upbuilding of a healthy body, and that this is man’s
natural diet—the question arises: How would it be best to break away
from the old foods, and adopt this simpler dietary? Certainly this
should not be done at once, in the majority of cases. Many persons
can pass from one diet to another instantaneously, with no harm, but
with decided benefit. My own case is an example of this. Once I was
thoroughly persuaded that this was the ideal diet, I dropped meat at
one meal, and lived upon fruits and nuts the next, and thenceforward
from that day. I never experienced any ill effects from such an
abrupt change, but only benefit. Though, at the present time, I pay
no attention, practically, to exercise, to breathing, or to any of
the other thought-to-be-essentials of the physical culture life (I
claim that all of these measures can be practically dispensed with,
if only the diet be regulated carefully) I am always more or less in
condition, and I may fairly say that I never knew anyone who could work
more continuously and steadily for so many hours at a stretch, and for
so many days together, as can I. Of course this is only one person’s
testimony, and hence my own method might not be suited to all equally
well. But I have introduced this personal item to show that the old
dogma that one cannot make abrupt changes in the diet without detriment
to oneself is all pure nonsense. I never experienced any ill effects
whatever—and no more have numerous other persons of my acquaintance,
who have adopted the fruitarian diet as abruptly as I did.
But, granting that this abrupt change is not desired, what then? In
that case, I should advise the patient to leave off meat at one of his
meals (if he has been in the habit of eating it more than once a day)
and substitute eggs for it—in the morning or evening—or beans, peas,
cheese, etc., at noon. Let him get accustomed to this change before
another step is taken. Then, abolish meat altogether from the bill of
fare, and live on the ordinary vegetarian foods for a few days. Next,
decrease the amount of cooked vegetables, and increase the quantity
of the fruits. Remember the advice previously given regarding food
combinations here. It will soon be found that an egg or two, and a
couple of slices of bread, or a simple vegetarian dish, will supply all
the wants, for the first half of the meal; and this should be followed
by an abundant allowance of fruits. Keep this up until the patient has
grown thoroughly accustomed to the change, and then (preferably in hot
weather) let him try his first meal of fruits, nuts and whole-wheat
bread and nut-butter. Later on, these last articles may be abolished,
if desired; but most persons find it almost harder to give up their
bread and butter than they do their meat! The patient is now fairly
on the diet, and additional alterations and restrictions are merely a
matter of time. Doubtless by this time he is sufficiently interested
in the question himself, and sufficiently delighted in his altered
physical condition, to need but little persuasion, and will gladly
adopt and follow the diet himself.
XIII
FOOD COMBINATIONS
There are very few foods which, if eaten singly, would be found to
disagree. Most of the trouble arises when we combine the various foods
which do not suit or harmonise; and the result is, distress and a
complication of disorders, due to the bad combination of such foods.
Such foods disagree with one another, so to speak, rather than with
us. This question of food combinations is one which has been very
largely overlooked, but it is a highly important one, nevertheless.
Most people have never paid any attention to the relative proportion
of their foods, or thought how each would combine with the other; and
it is largely due to this lack of foresight that so much dyspepsia is
present, and that so many digestive troubles are active throughout
the world. The motto of the average individual would seem to be, “Out
of sight, out of mind”; but it must be remembered that, while the
stomach _receives_ the food, the body has to _retain_ it; and long
digestive processes, involving an enormous outlay of energy, and many
and complicated chemical changes, have to be gone through, before food
is appropriable by the system. Of course, the tendency among civilised
peoples is in the direction of increasing the number of articles of
food at each meal, instead of decreasing it. They like to see the
table spread with a litter of dishes, while a fifteen-course dinner
is supposed to be the height of luxury! Were the processes of living
considered a little more from the physiological, and a little less
from the gormandising point of view, such would not be the case. The
tendency would then be (at least among all intelligent people), to
_reduce_ the number of dishes, as much as possible—limiting them at
each meal to three or two, or even one.
Food should be solid. The digestive juices are fluids, and an excess
of liquid, with the food, tends to dilute these gastric juices, and
consequently to interfere with their converting action. If fluids
be drunk with any meal they will dilute the power of concentrated
action of the gastric juice, and other digestive juices; and will,
further, have a tendency to wash the food through the stomach into the
intestines before it has undergone proper stomach-digestion. Water,
therefore, should not be drunk _at_ meals, but shortly before, or an
hour or so afterwards. In this way the requisite amount of fluid is
supplied to the system, without interfering with digestion in the
manner indicated.
Another result of drinking at meals is to prevent thorough mastication
of the foods. When these are dry, they should be thoroughly insalivated
before being swallowed, for any liquid taken at the time softens these
foods artificially, and will also cause more food to be eaten than
would be the case, were it eaten dry.
Dr Latson, in his “Food Value of Meat,” says:
“Fresh fruits all combine well with one another. As a rule fruits,
fresh or cooked, combine well with bread or cooked cereals, and with
nuts or nuts foods. Fruits do not, as a rule, combine well with
cooked vegetables, nor with meat, eggs, cheese, milk, or cream. Milk
and cream are so liable to decomposition that, if only for that
reason, they are not desirable foods. Milk or cream with cereals,
fruit, sugar, or cooked vegetables is apt to cause difficulty.... In
arranging meals in which flesh-meat is not to be included, it is only
necessary to remember that the nuts and the legumes (peas, beans and
lentils) contain the same food elements as flesh-meat, and may always
be eaten in its place with advantage.... The best breakfast is one
that consists of fresh ripe fruit, and nothing else. To this may be
added, if desired, whole-wheat bread, or some cereal. The cereal may
be served with fruit juice.”
The following are a few sample meals arranged, according to merit—only
those foods being taken which will combine well together.
_Breakfast No. 1._—Raw fruit, cereal with fruit juice, whole-wheat
bread.
_Breakfast No. 2._—Stewed apples, whole-wheat bread.
_Breakfast No. 3._—Cereal with fruit juice, soft boiled eggs,
whole-wheat bread.
The following are one or two sample luncheons:—
_Luncheon No. 1._—Stewed fruit, nuts or nut-butter, whole-wheat bread.
_Luncheon No. 2._—Peanut purée, boiled rice (or baked potatoes),
stewed fruit, whole-wheat bread.
_Luncheon No. 3._—Salad of any kind, garnished with olive oil and
lemon juice; fresh fruit and whole-wheat bread.
The following are a few sample dinners:—
_Dinner No. 1._—Fresh fruit, salad, macaroni, whole-wheat bread.
_Dinner No. 2._—Peas, beans or lentils, browned rice, baked potatoes,
stewed fruit, whole-wheat bread.
_Dinner No. 3._—Soup, eggs, cooked vegetables, whole-wheat bread.
_Dinner No. 4._—Bean soup, or pea soup, boiled rice, baked potatoes,
stewed fruit, whole-wheat bread.
Dr William S. Sadler[41] gives the following directions as to food
combinations:—
[41] “The Science of Living,” p. 145.
GOOD COMBINATIONS
Fruits and grains
Grains and meat or eggs
Grains and nuts
Grains and milk
Grains and vegetables
Grains and legumes
FAIR COMBINATIONS
Grains with sweet fruits and milk
Meat or eggs with vegetables
Nuts and vegetables
BAD COMBINATIONS
Fruits and vegetables
Milk and vegetables
Sour fruits and milk
Milk and meat
Mr and Mrs Christian, in their “Uncooked Foods” (p. 63), give three
elaborate meals, composed of uncooked foods entirely, though it will
be seen that their grouping of combinations is not so strict as that
formulated above. The meals are as follows:—
“_Breakfast._—One ripe apple, two ounces pecan meats, six or eight
black dates, one very ripe banana, sliced with thick cream, one glass
milk.
“_Luncheon._—Two bartlett pears, one ounce pecan meats, three Turkish
pulled figs, one ounce pignolias, cold slaw with olive oil, one cake
of unfired bread, four prunes with thick cream, sweet butter, egg-nog.
“_Dinner._—Half pound of grapes, two ounces mixed nut meats, vegetable
salad with dressing, one cake unfired bread, cream cheese, six or
eight black dates, one very ripe red banana, with thick cream, pint of
whole milk.”
Personally, I think that the above combinations are by no means ideal,
and in addition to that, far too much in bulk has been prescribed for
each meal. Were the breakfast omitted, and but two meals daily eaten,
the amount prescribed would be more proportionate, but even then I
feel certain that the amount is greatly in excess of bodily needs. The
authors, however, have made an extended study of food combinations,
and, in fact, are almost the only writers who have paid much attention
to this subject. In their chapter on food combinations, they say:
“The following combinations have been found by experience to be
chemically harmonious, healthful, and very nutritious:—
“Flaked wheat, with nuts, dates and cream.
“Flaked wheat, nuts, honey, milk and cream.
“Egg-nog, pecan meats, dates, banana and cream.
“Cold slaw with olive oil, pecan meats, unfired bread, sweet apple
with thick cream.
“All foods composed largely of starch, such as cereals, potatoes,
and nearly all legumes, should not be eaten at the same meal with
sweets, especially cane sugar. All foods, whether fluids or solids,
that contain starch or sugar, such as rice, potatoes, corn, oats, in
fact all the cereal class may be eaten with safety at the same meal.
Milk can also be taken with all the carbohydrate family of foods.[42]
All foods containing gluten, albumen, or gelatine, such as meat, eggs
and a few kinds of nuts, are classed as protein, and require an acid
solvent to be digested. Therefore, they can be eaten with safety with
all kinds of fruits. Milk, one of the best foods known, can be taken
with all kinds of fruits, provided no cereal starch be eaten at the
same meal. All foods that contain both carbohydrates and protein
compose healthful combinations.”[43]
[42] It will be seen that the authors are here in disagreement with Dr
Latson. See his advice above.
[43] A number of very good recipes of uncooked foods may be
found in an otherwise very odd book, entitled “Unfired Food: and
Trophotherapy,” by George J. Drews (Chicago).
In balancing any dietary, care must be taken, of course, to keep the
relative proportion of proteids, fats and carbohydrates, equal; and to
see, also, that the proper amount of mineral salts is contained in all
the foods; also that a due supply of water is furnished to the system.
One of the chief causes of failure on the part of those who leave off
meat, and attempt to take up vegetarianism, is that they do not rightly
balance their diet, and do not supply to the system the proper amount
of proteid food, to take the place of that which the meat supplied.
Vegetarians, as a rule, eat far _too much_ food. Under the impression
that they must eat more, in order to offset the supposed greater
“nutritive” value of the meat which they have given up, they eat far
more than they should: while as a matter of fact, the vegetarian foods
are richer and far more nutritious than the ordinary mixed diet.
Consequently, less, instead of more, should be eaten. Anyone leaving
off his meat must expect to feel a certain depression for a few days,
as before pointed out—owing to the fact that the stimulating quality
of the meat is withdrawn; but, those few days once past, a general
invigoration of the system will be noted. Due attention should be paid
to all hygienic auxiliaries, and an excess of food should by all means
be avoided. Substitute eggs, cheese, peas, beans, lentils and nuts for
the meat formerly eaten; in other ways pay attention to the balancing
of the diet, and no inconvenience will be experienced, as a result of
leaving off meat and adopting the newer dietary.
Dr Susana Dodds, in her “Health in the Household, or Hygienic Cookery,”
says, in writing of food combinations:
“It is folly to overlook the fact that there is a certain fitness or
adaptation to be observed both in the selection and classification
of foods which enhances their value as a whole; it will not do to
huddle them together indiscriminately, either on one’s palate or on
the stomach; baked beans and grape-juice are both very satisfactory in
themselves; but they have so little in common that no one would think
of eating them together; though the harm resulting from so injurious
a combination would be more apparent in some cases than in others.
Nearly half a century of close contact with invalids has placed before
the hygienic physician certain _facts_ which cannot be ignored; and
whether the signs behind them are fully understood or not, the facts
themselves remain. For example, if we have a nervous dyspeptic to
treat, we know better than to set before him at one and the same
meal strawberries, and beets, or strawberries and cabbage, or apples
(raw or cooked) and sweet potatoes, or apples and beans. These are
only examples of at least fifty combinations which could be made, any
one of which would give a weak stomach indigestion.... Sweet potatoes
and tomatoes make a good combination and one very acceptable to most
persons—the one being sweet the other acid, the one highly nutritious,
the other decidedly juicy.”
To those who have not made this subject a study the following hints may
be of practical use, though in many things it is next to impossible to
lay down definite rules.[44]
[44] In the following suggestions it will be assumed that the diet is
vegetarian, and not yet fruitarian—these suggestions being offered
as a help toward that diet, by breaking away, gradually, from the
ordinary “mixed” diet.
1. Fruits and vegetables should not, as a rule, be eaten together—that
is, at the same meal. If they are so eaten, persons with feeble
digestive organs will suffer.
2. If vegetables are eaten, the noonday meal is the best time to take
them, two or three varieties being quite sufficient. Tomatoes do well
with vegetables, grains, or meats; but they should not, as a rule, be
eaten with fruits.
3. The Irish potato seems to be an exception among vegetables; it is
so unaggressive in its nature that it seldom quarrels with anything.
It may therefore be eaten (by most persons) with _either_ fruits or
vegetables; and it always does well with grains.
4. Fruits and cereals are particularly suited to the morning and
evening meals; and very little other food is required.
5. A good rule, when suppers are eaten, is to make the meal of bread
and fruit only, these being taken in limited quantities and at an early
hour.
6. Fruits, if eaten raw, should be ripe, and of good quality; and
persons with feeble stomachs digest them more easily at the beginning
of the meal; this is particularly true when warm fruits make a part of
the repast.
7. Fruits, raw or cooked, may be eaten at dinner, provided no vegetable
(unless it be the potato) be taken. But if raw, they should be eaten
_first_, particularly if there are warm foods to follow.
8. Some persons cannot digest certain kinds of raw fruits for
supper, or late in the day; let them take these on sitting down to
the breakfast-table; or the first thing at dinner, unless there are
_vegetables_ at this meal.
9. If meats “must be” eaten—take them at the noonday meal, with or
without vegetables; and in cold weather, rather than warm.
10. The grains digest well with all other foods; though some persons
cannot eat them in the form of mushes. They should always be thoroughly
cooked.
11. Persons with feeble digestions should as a rule confine themselves
to a _single kind_ of fruit at a meal; they can make the changes from
one meal to another.
12. Those who find it difficult to digest vegetables should not attempt
more than one kind at a given meal, until the digestion is improved.
And often it is best to leave them off entirely for a time.
13. In selecting vegetables for a single meal, do not, if there are
several varieties, have all of them of the watery or juicy kinds, as
cabbage, asparagus, white turnips, etc.; nor all of the drier sorts,
such as baked beans, winter squashes, sweet potatoes, etc.; but blend
the more and less nutritious kinds in a judicious manner. Or if you
have only the watery ones at hand, be content with not more than two
varieties; prepare a side dish of something _rather_ nutritious, and
then add a dish of warm corn bread, as an accompaniment, particularly
if it be a cold day.
14. If you have for dinner a thin vegetable soup, follow with
something more substantial, as baked beans, baked potatoes (sweet or
Irish) or corn bread; but if you have bean or split-pea soup, let the
other vegetables be of a kind less hearty.
15. On a very cold day have a warm dinner of good nutritious articles;
select mainly solid foods with grains, rather than thin soups and
watery vegetables.
16. On a warm day make the breakfast largely of fruits, with a moderate
supply of cereals. The dinner may be of young vegetables (or fruits), a
dish of grains, if you like, and a little bread. Eat lightly, and you
will suffer less from heat—particularly if no seasonings are taken.
For supper, a glass of cold grape juice, and a slice of loaf bread, is
excellent in hot weather.
17. In very cold weather take the chill off your stewed fruit, fruit
pies, or other dishes, before serving them. Pastries, if used, are best
at the noonday meal—and so are puddings.
18. If there are invalids at the table, they should eat nothing that is
very cold; food not much below blood heat is best, particularly in cold
weather; and the dining-room should be comfortably warm.
19. Never have too great a variety at a single meal; have few dishes
well prepared, and make the changes from one meal to another; this will
please better on the whole, and it will not too rapidly exhaust your
limited supplies.
20. If one meal happens to fall a little below the average in either
quality or variety, see that the next is fully up to the mark.
The evil results which follow bad food combinations may be summed up
in a very few words. We know that certain chemical elements, acting
upon one another, will form resultant gases. Various food substances
that do not properly combine, will form such gases in precisely the
same way; and these will be largely absorbed by the blood, and
carried to the cells throughout the body, which they poison, more or
less, in consequence. The harmful results of these poisonous gases,
absorbed in this manner, are particularly noticeable in their effect
upon the various nerve centres—producing an inhibitory effect upon
them, and inducing that general condition of weariness and debility
experienced and noticed under the host of symptoms known to us as
nervous exhaustion, fatigue, lassitude, etc., etc. The simple and
obvious method that should be followed in all such cases, in order
to eliminate these poisons from the system, is to abstain from food
until the system has had a chance to eliminate such toxic substances.
This once accomplished, the system being freed from the ashes of
previously mal-assimilated food material, and a fresh supply of oxygen
being furnished, by continued breathing, in the interval, the system
will soon return to its normal condition of health, and will enjoy a
higher standard of energy and vitality than has been the case for some
considerable time in the past.
XIV
HYGIENIC FOODS AND HYGIENIC COOKERY
In discussing this question of foods and food values and constituents,
we must be very careful to keep clear in the mind the distinction
between _proximate_ elements, or foods proper, and _chemical_ or
_ultimate_ elements. This is very important. All alimentary substances
are composed of certain constituent parts, which may be properly
called alimentary principles. These are formed by certain combinations
of elementary constituents, which are denominated chemical elements.
Thus wheat, beef, potato, apple, etc., are aliments, or foods
proper; and starch, sugar, rum, fibrin, albumen, gelatin, etc.—their
constituents—are proximate elements. Proximate elements of food are
compounds of the simple or chemical elements; and aliments or foods
proper are compounds of the proximate principles.
It is important to keep these distinctions in mind, because the human
body can be nourished and retain its health upon organic combinations
of proximate elements, while it would starve to death on the ultimate
elements administered in exactly the same proportions. Dogs have
been fed on sugar, gum, starch, butter, fat, fibrin, albumen, etc.,
exclusively, and with the uniform result that they sooner or later
starved to death! No animal can sustain prolonged nutrition on any
single alimentary principle, though all of them may on a single aliment.
Other things being equal, a food is nutritious, and capable of
sustaining life, in proportion to its complexity. The more simple the
food, the less it is capable of sustaining life and health. This does
not mean that a large _number of foods_ should be eaten at one meal—in
order to supply this lack—since nearly all foods, or a reasonable
admixture of them—contain all the essentials for sustaining life in a
state of health and vigour. Certain foods—nuts, _e.g._—seem to contain
about all the essentials and in exactly the right proportions. I have
discussed this aspect of the question in the chapter on the fruitarian
diet.
One very important fact may be mentioned here. Animals cannot
appropriate mineral or inorganic elements _directly_; they must obtain
all these substances through or by means of the vegetable world.
Vegetables have the power of utilising these inorganic materials, and
build them into their bodies; but animals have to obtain all such
substances in an organised form—_i.e._ organic materials—and cannot
possibly utilise the _in_organic elements. Thus, if an animal requires
iron, it cannot eat iron filings, to supply this need, but must take
it in the form of spinach, and cabbage, and fruits containing large
quantities of iron; he cannot possibly eat it in its mineral form.
The vegetable world, on the contrary, has the power of building these
mineral elements into its structure. Vegetables feed upon minerals, and
animals upon vegetables; and this order cannot be reversed. It will
thus be seen that the vegetable world is that designed for man’s food;
and from it he should derive all his nourishment. Certainly he can
derive no part of it from the _mineral_ world.
_Hints on Hygienic Cookery._—While I believe that the ideal diet is
that which is uncooked—or sun-cooked—nevertheless some foods are best
cooked, if the ordinary vegetarian diet is to be adhered to. Thus,
grains when uncooked are but slightly nutritious, a large portion of
their starch remaining unconverted; but when cooked this is converted
into dextrine, and thus rendered more appropriable by the system.
Cooking is therefore justified, if vegetable foods and grains are to
be eaten; and I propose, accordingly, to jot down a few notes and
instructions which will, I believe, be found useful to all those who
wish to reform their food habits, to a certain extent, and cook as
hygienically as possible. I shall not attempt any elaborate outline of
hygienic cookery in this place; several of the vegetarian cookbooks
on the market go into great detail on these questions, and I shall
therefore confine myself to a few brief notes.
Bread should be well cooked, and the crusts thoroughly baked brown. It
had best be baked in a _closed_ pan. Bread should, of course, always be
made from whole-wheat flour—never white flour. Salt is never necessary.
Trall has given numerous recipes for wholesome bread-making—in some of
them no other ingredients are used but flour, water, and air! And they
are sweet, excellent breads too.
All pastries should be made quickly, and with very little kneading.
Have the oven ready before this kneading is commenced. Roll the crust
thin, and see that the bottom crust of a pie is browned before adding
the fruit and the top crust.
Vegetables—nearly all of them—should be dropped into boiling, not
cold, water, and should be cooked rapidly. The purpose of this is to
coagulate and condense the outer rind or layer of the vegetable, and
thus prevent the juices and valuable food properties from boiling out,
into the water. The same is true of all meats, when these are fried or
grilled.
If fruits are cooked at all, green fruits should be selected in
preference to over-ripe fruits—which should be cooked but little.
Unripe fruits should be started in _cold_ water, and cooked slowly. All
grains are best steamed.
Sugar added to fruits renders them sweet-tasting, but liable to
fermentation. The ordinary sugar on the market is open to many
objections. Numerous hygienists will not use it at all, and if fruits
are found to be a trifle sour, or need sweetening, they use dates
instead.
See that all currants, raisins and dried fruits are thoroughly clean
before cooking them. In the summer months especially they are liable to
contain insects, and these should be washed off before the fruits are
placed on the fire to cook—otherwise they will be cooked with them!
If soda is put into bread, etc., use it sparingly. Salt need never be
used. One can soon get accustomed to food without a particle of salt or
other dressing; and, once the normal taste is acquired, salt, pepper,
etc., will never again be desired or craved.
_Meat as an Article of Diet._—I have advanced reasons, throughout
this book, for thinking that meat is by no means a suitable article
of food, but is, on the contrary, extremely pernicious in its effects
upon the system. The reasons for this are given in full elsewhere. At
the same time, I am disposed to think that a _limited_ amount of meat
is not so harmful, frequently, as a larger amount of other foods—fine
flour, cake, pickles, sauces, etc. A large quantity of any of these,
long continued, will tend to ruin the body more effectually than a
limited quantity of meat, and hence are to be more strictly avoided.
Nevertheless, I consider meat a highly stimulating and unwholesome
article of diet, for the reasons given above, and should strongly
advise other foods in its place, whenever possible.
If the reader feels that he _must_ eat meat, however, let him be sure
(or as sure as he can be) that the meat is fresh, and is not diseased.
Two great dangers are avoided in this way. The animals which are to be
eaten should be fed on the cleanest of food, and should have plenty of
pure water to drink; they should never be kept in confined places, in
a vitiated atmosphere, or in filthy surroundings. They need plenty of
exercise. The animal should be killed in a sanitary manner, and kept
clean and free from contamination after it is killed. The meat should
be put on ice at once, and, needless to say, no chemicals or other
drugs injected into the tissues.
Beef and mutton are doubtless two of the best meats which can be eaten.
The diet of these animals is the cleanest; and their tissues should be
the “cleanest,” in consequence. Beef is, of course, the most widely
eaten of all meats; and, more than that, we feed upon or utilise almost
every conceivable part of the animal. As Dr Brush so well said[45]:
[45] “Human and Bovine Tuberculosis,” pp. 6-7.
“We are veritable parasites on this animal. We milk her as long as she
will give milk, and we drink it; then we kill her, and eat her flesh,
blood, and most of the viscera; we skin her, and clothe ourselves with
her skin; we comb our hair with her horns, and fertilise our fields
with her dung, while her calf furnishes us with vaccine virus for the
prevention of smallpox!”
Is it any wonder that we manage to contract some of the diseases from
which this animal suffers? The only wonder is that we escape at all!
The same thing may be said in a lesser degree of mutton, veal, pork,
and, in fact, all the animal substances. They all contain, along with
a small amount of nutritive material, a large amount of poisons and
excreta.
When we come to pork, bacon, ham, etc., there is no longer any excuse
for the practice at all. If it is felt that meat _must_ be eaten, let
it be clean meat, such as beef or mutton, without turning to the pig
for our supply! Nothing so lacks excuse as this. Writing upon the
practice of pork-eating, in her “Diet Question,” Dr Dodds says:
“The hog is a scavenger by nature, and by practice; it is his proper
mission on this earth, not to be eaten, but to eat up that which
the nobler animals disdain to touch. Indeed, he adapts himself to
circumstances, devouring whatever comes in his way. He is equally well
pleased with the clean ears of corn, or with the seething contents
of the swill pail; he will dine on live chickens or devour carrion.
Nothing is too fine or too foul to suit his undiscriminating palate;
he has been called ‘the scavenger-in-chief of all the back-boned
animals.’ Truly he is omnivorous....
“Will anyone give an intelligent reason why people should eat him, and
from choice? If we must dine on our fellow-creatures below us, are
there not decent, clean-feeding animals, as the ox, and the sheep,
that we could take in preference?
“From a sanitary point of view, the condition of the hog, in his
best estate, is not flattering. His scurvy hide (which is perhaps
the cleanest part of him), his foul breath, and his filthy feeding
habits—are not these enough to bar him from our tables? Or must we
wait for such logical sequence as is sure to follow the violation of
physiological law? Wait till diseases are multiplied in kind, and
intensified in character, till we are fairly driven from the no-longer
questionable provender? Wait till our nearest friend is stricken with
supposed typhoid fever, and dead of veritable trichinosis? There can
be no doubt that a number of persons have sickened and a number died,
of what was thought to be typhoid fever, when really the disease was
due to the presence of these parasites (the trichinæ) in the system;
for the symptoms in the two diseases are quite similar.
“As stated in the last chapter, one of the principal objections to the
use of animal flesh as food, is the fact that it is filled with the
debris of the vital organism, working its way through the capillaries
into the various excretions, and out of the domain of life. Now, if
this effete matter is objectionable, even in clean-feeding animals,
what must be its condition as it is thrown off from the tissues of
scavengers? And what the nature of the tissues themselves, when they
are not only made out of, and nourished by a diet of garbage, but are
thoroughly saturated with the almost putrescent matters with which
the venous blood is laden? It is a fact that we seem rather slow to
recognise, that the quality of all animal tissues partakes of the
character of the materials out of which they are made. In other words,
if we expect sound bodies, with good firm tissues, we must look to the
nature of the food we eat....
“Nor is it enough that we devour the several parts of the animal,
even to his liver and kidneys; we strip the intestines of their fat,
melt it down, and use it in the form of lard! This latter is the very
quintessence of the swine; it is the diseased product of all his
filthy feeding; and it is the article that forms a staple in almost
every American family. It shortens the biscuits, the plain cakes, and
the pastries; and it even finds its way into the loaf bread. It oils
the bake-pans, it fries the drop-cakes, the doughnuts, the Saratoga
potatoes, and all the other ‘fried things,’ or nearly all. In short,
there is neither breakfast, dinner, nor supper without it, in some
form or other.
“Do the people wonder that they are afflicted with scrofula; and that
it crops out, full-fledged, in a single generation? Oh, for a Moses
among the Gentiles, to forbid them, by legal enactment, the use of
this vile thing, swine’s flesh!”
Birds and game of all kinds are to be avoided. The flesh of the goose,
duck, etc., is very oily, greasy and unwholesome. Chicken, turkey,
etc., are somewhat better, but their flesh is not nearly so nutritious
as beef and mutton, while the amount of poisons they contain is
certainly equal to the latter. It must be remembered that these animals
are frequently confined and artificially fed, in order to “fatten” them
for the market; and even when this has not been done, the birds have
very rarely sufficient room to exercise as they ought to, and their
food and water supply is by no means what it should be. Of course, when
artificial feeding has been employed, their flesh is little short of
poisonous. The “fat” noticed and so highly praised is merely retained
filth and excreta, and should be outside the animal’s body, and not in
it. Needless to say, the flesh of all such birds should be eschewed.
Fish is considered by some to be a very fine article of diet—being
nutritious and easily digested. For that reason, it is often given
to invalids! Where such a curious hallucination could have arisen it
is hard to see. Its flesh is exceedingly gross, tough, fibrous, and
contains but little nutriment. The flesh of all animals partakes more
or less of the nature of their diet; and fish and fowl are certainly
not the cleanest of feeders! Their flesh is in no sense superior
to that of the cow or sheep; but is, on the contrary, distinctly
_inferior_. All shellfish are unclean articles of diet—they being
merely the scavengers of the sea; and should be avoided most carefully.
They are exceedingly indigestible, and frequently the cause of skin
disease, on the one hand, and of ptomaine poisoning, on the other.
It seems hardly necessary to say that all internal organs of animals
are to be avoided! Not only for the reason that a large number of the
animals found on the market are diseased; but also because all these
organs are merely _depurating_ organs, should they be eschewed. If any
person were to consider for one minute the _function_ of the liver or
the kidneys, it is more than probable that he would not touch them!
During the whole of the animal’s life, they have been merely _filters_
for the filth and excreta which passed through its body; they were the
great reservoirs of poisons and toxins of all sorts! The idea of eating
such offal should be repellant to any sensitive, even sensible, mind.
_Soups._—But little need be said of soups. As a whole, they may be
said to be lacking in every essential which is necessary in order to
recommend them as suitable articles for human diet. Meat soups, broths,
beef teas, etc., we have already discussed. They are practically
stimulants, and consist of water, and poisonous excreta in solution!
They contain no fats, carbohydrates or salts of value, and but very
little proteid. Vegetable soups have somewhat more to recommend
them, but _all_ soups are open to the prime objection that they are
invariably eaten without mastication, and hence are taken into the
stomach in a condition totally unsuited for the initial stages of
digestion—which the stomach is called upon to perform. It must be
remembered, in this connection, that mastication is not only for the
purpose of dividing the food into small particles, so that the gastric
and intestinal juices may act upon them, but also, that important
_chemical changes_ take place in the mouth—starch being converted into
dextrine, etc. Soups are always swallowed without this initial process.
Further, the large amount of water they contain renders them unsuitable
food for the adult—whose food should be less in quantity and more
solid in quality; and any liquid which is supplied during the process
of digestion by way of solvent and dilutant should be the digestive
juices only. _Jellies_ are of very low nutritive value, and should
never be administered to invalids. Animals fed on jelly die as soon as
if they were not fed at all. In her “Notes on Nursing,” Miss Florence
Nightingale contends very strongly against the use of jellies of any
kind, and finds it difficult to select words strong enough to suit her
antipathy to jellies.
_Puddings, Pies, etc._—It is now all but universally admitted that
these articles of diet are indigestible—rich, greasy, and objectionable
in many ways. The usual crust which is bought is made of white flour,
in the first place, while the grease contained is a poor quality of
lard. As animal food, this is certainly objectionable; lard being a
filthy article of diet in any case. The sugar, flour, grease, and all
the other ingredients used are generally harmful, and exceedingly
indigestible. All the constituents can be supplied in a pure form in
other foods. The fruit is the best thing contained in such pies, etc.;
and this is spoiled by being cooked, and is also covered with spices
and nutmeg, etc., which offset all its original value, and spoil its
flavour to all educated palates. As usually presented, such foods have
nothing to recommend them.
Still, as Dr Trall said[46]: “the crust for pies and tarts may be
made comparatively wholesome in a variety of ways. Any kind of flour
or meal, or various admixtures of them, may be wet with water and
shortened with sweet cream, or the flour or meal may be wet with milk
and shortened with olive oil.” In this book, and in various others,
may be found a number of recipes for making bread, pies, puddings,
etc., in the hygienic style. I shall not discuss this aspect of the
question in the present work, which is devoted more to the philosophy
of diet than the details of cooking—especially since I am recommending
no cooking at all! However, there is doubtless a right and a wrong way
to do everything; and if people continue to feel that they _must_ have
breads and pies, they might as well have them made as hygienically as
possible. There is no reason why such foods should be indigestible or
innutritious, if properly made. It need hardly be said that all hot
breads, buckwheat cakes, etc., should be sedulously avoided.
[46] “Hydropathic Cook Book,” p. 177.
_Sugar._—Hygienists have no objection to the use of saccharine matter,
provided it is taken in the natural way—that is, in organic combination
with other food principles—not separated as a proximate element.
Sugar contained in fruits, grains, vegetables, etc., are thoroughly
wholesome; but an excess of sugar of the ordinary sort, as bought upon
the market, is very detrimental. Particularly is this the case when
the sugar is not rightly combined with other articles of food. We have
discussed this at greater length, however, when considering “food
combinations.” Miss Mary H. Abel, in her pamphlet, “Sugar as Food,”
published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, says:
“Within certain limits we can look upon sugar as the equivalent of
starch that has been digested and made ready for absorption, A mealy,
boiled potato, or a lump of laundry starch, is, in fact, very akin to
a lump of sugar; and the potato, like all forms of starchy food, must
be turned into a kind of sugar by the digestive juices before it can
be absorbed as food by the system.... The main function of sugar, as
found in the blood, whether resulting from the digestion of sugar or
of starch, is believed to be the production of heat and energy. The
proof has been amply furnished by experiment. By ingenious devices,
the blood going to and from the muscle of a living animal, may be
analysed, and it is thus shown that more blood traverses an active or
working muscle, and more sugar disappears from it than is the case
with the muscle at rest.”
While the system needs sugar, this should not be supplied in the form
of the common beet sugar upon the market—since this is adulterated in
various ways, and contains, in addition to the saccharine elements,
much inert, mineral matter. Sugar in its pure form, however, is a
very important article of diet—far more important, probably, than has
hitherto been acknowledged. Not only are starches, etc., converted into
sugar in the process of digestion, but it has frequently been noted
that when a lesser amount of proteid is consumed, a proportionately
larger amount of sugar is craved. Mr Horace Fletcher noticed this
in his diet experiments, and stated that, as the appetite for meat
decreased, that for sugar increased—which is a very significant remark.
If the saccharine elements in the food-supply were increased, there can
be little doubt that there would be a decreased consumption of meat and
all proteid matters. The craving of children for sweets is to be looked
upon, _not_ as a morbid appetite, but as a physiological craving of the
organism. In saying that this appetite should be gratified, however,
I do not mean that unlimited quantities of sweets and sweet-stuffs,
as found upon the market, are to be allowed the child, but a greater
proportion of sweet-stuffs should be allowed in the form of sweet
fruits—such as dates, figs, etc. Administered in this way, sugar will
be found a highly valuable article of diet.
_Tea, Coffee and Other Stimulants._—Most persons know, I should
imagine, that none of these drinks are suitable for the human stomach.
In the first place, no drink at all should be taken at meals, but only
between meals; the reason for this being that the digestive juices are
unduly diluted and the food is washed through the stomach, and into the
bowels, before it is properly digested, when water or any liquid is
drunk at mealtimes. All drinks should, therefore, be between meals, and
not for at least an hour after a meal, if we wish to ensure the best
digestion of the foods eaten.
If this is true of water, the best of all drinks, it is certainly far
more true of tea, coffee, and all other stimulants taken at meals.
Not only are the effects detrimental (in that they are liquids),
but they are of themselves more or less direct poisons also. Tea
contains a poison known as _theine_, which corresponds to a similar
poison contained in coffee, and known as _caffeine_. Both are strong
poisons. Half a gram causes a quick pulse, nervous excitement,
slight delusions, and lastly a desire for sleep. Small doses cause
sleeplessness, irritability of the bladder and bowels, trembling of
the extremities, and other signs of cerebral and nervous distress.
Both these poisons work havoc with the system, ruining the nervous and
mental life, and creating a dependence on stimulants, which may lead to
alcoholic and other excesses. These poisons ruin the taste buds, retard
proper digestion, cause constipation, and in many ways tend to ruin
the constitution. They cannot be too strongly deprecated. Even _cocoa_
contains injurious alkaloids, analogous to those contained in tea and
coffee, and for that reason is to be avoided. Like all hot drinks, it
tends to ruin the taste buds and induce a desire for more food than is
needed, physiologically, and more than the system really requires. For
that reason, also, all such drinks are to be avoided.
The injurious effects of _alcohol_, and all other similar stimulants
are now so widely known that it is unnecessary to do more than refer
to the fact here. Alcohol is _never_ necessitated, and is detrimental
at all times—more so at some times than at others. The widespread
delusion that alcohol is a food; and, on the other hand, the idea that
it actually furnishes “force” to the body, is responsible for much
of the abuse which exists. Alcohol imparts no force and no energy to
the system, but on the contrary wastes and expends both. Were this
once thoroughly realised there would be no excuse whatever for the
administration of alcohol, or its use in any form. But the injurious
effects of alcohol have been discussed so frequently that I shall not
do more than refer to it. (See the discussion of “Stimulants,” in my
“Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 34-44.)
_Water._—This is the beverage supplied by nature to furnish all
the liquid the body requires; and water in a pure distilled state
is contained in all vegetables, etc., and particularly in fruits.
Fruitarians have often found that they can live in good health for
weeks and months at a time without a drop of water—while keeping
closely to their fruitarian diet. Nevertheless, water is very essential
for the majority, and especially so upon an ordinary “mixed” diet. It
will be found as a general rule that the more stimulating the food, the
more water is required; and the same is true of all greasy foods. It is
well known that all foods containing a large amount of _salt_ call for
water—this being due to the demand of the system for extra fluids, to
wash out the offending and irritating substance. This fact alone should
show us how harmful common salt is. The system clearly tries to wash it
out of the tissues as soon as possible. Water containing any mineral
substance in solution should be avoided. It is never beneficial, but
always detrimental to the system. The mineral salts contained are just
as injurious as if they were procured from the drug-shop, and taken in
the usual way. Pure water is the best at all times—there is but one
simple rule to follow in this connection: the purer, the better! Water
should never be drunk at meals, but always between meals. It should
be cool, but not ice cold. Hot water may occasionally be of benefit.
A plentiful supply of water should be indulged in at all times. The
secretions will thereby be increased in volume, the kidneys and liver
stimulated into action, the blood rendered less thick, and the general
system invigorated. I cannot speak too strongly in favour of large
quantities of water each day—say from one to two quarts—if health is to
be maintained. (This is of course on the ordinary “mixed” diet.) In all
diseased conditions, the necessity for water is greatly increased, and
the body is frequently rendered sick because of the very lack of it.
It is an interesting fact that water is the only article which is
taken into the system that is not digested—in one sense of the term.
All foods are digested, of course; and even air goes through a process
which might well be called digestion. But water is not digested. It
passes through the stomach, and into the bowels unchanged; it enters
the system _as water_, and it leaves it _as water_, and any changes
which are noted are simply due to the added salts and excreta which
the water has washed through the body along with it. Of itself, it has
undergone no change. This is a remarkable fact, and would serve to
indicate the tremendous cleansing and flushing properties of water.
Next to air, it is doubtless the most necessary article which the body
can appropriate. A man can live sixty or more days on water (and air)
without solid food; but he can live only ten or twelve days on solid
food (and air) without water. It will thus be seen that water is far
_more_ essential to life than is solid food! It is of interest to note,
also, that, in all hard manual labour, water is invariably craved long
before solid food is called for by the tissues—_i.e._ thirst invariably
returns before hunger.
_Air and Breathing._—It is not generally known that all air taken into
the lungs is _digested_—in one sense of the word—and that next to the
last stage of all digestive processes is carried on in the lungs. For
that reason a plentiful supply of fresh, pure air is so necessary.
Every book we pick up upon the question of health and hygiene is most
emphatic upon the value of fresh air; but few tell us _why_ it is
so necessary. The majority of persons know that a certain amount of
oxygen is needed by the system, and that the blood is purified as it
passes through the lungs, but they do not know that these processes
are only the first crude outlines of what takes place, and that the
processes carried on are both detailed and complicated. Further, as I
have said, one of the stages of digestion is carried on in the lungs.
The blood stream carries the food material to the lungs, and there
it meets the oxygen of the atmospheric air, and becomes oxidised,
and rendered appropriable by the system. It is important to bear
in mind this important fact, that, no matter how much food we may
eat, if it is not oxidised in this manner in the lungs, it cannot be
appropriated by the system, and for that reason remains little better
than refuse matter—floating at large in the system. That is, suppose
we eat two pounds of food during the day, and breathe only enough
(correspondingly) to oxidise one pound, only one pound will be utilised
by the system, which will derive no benefit whatever from the other
pound—no matter how good and nutritious the food may be! In fact, it
will harm it, by floating about, as mal-assimilated food material. That
is why deep breathing, and breathing fresh air is so essential. Without
this supply of air, food would never nourish us, or be of any use
whatever to the system.
XV
THE QUESTION OF QUANTITY
I have discussed this question of the quantity of food necessary
for the human body so exhaustively in my former book, “Vitality,
Fasting and Nutrition,” that I need say but little in this place,
beyond re-emphasising what I there said. I may, however, add one
or two further reflections that have arisen in my mind since the
publication of that book, and which may be of interest to those who
think about their food at all. This book is devoted to the _quality_
of the various foods, as my last was devoted to the _quantity_; and
the disproportionate size of the two volumes rightly indicates what
I conceive to be the relative value or place of the two—viz. errors
in quality and errors in quantity. I believe that, although errors in
quality are tremendously important, errors in quantity are vastly more
so, and that, as Dr Graham so well said, many years ago: “It is as a
general rule strictly true that a correct quantity of a less wholesome
aliment is better for man than an excessively small or an excessively
large quantity of a more wholesome aliment.” So far as health and
longevity are concerned, therefore, it is incomparably better for man
to subsist on a correct quantity of vegetable and animal food, properly
prepared, than habitually to indulge in an excessive quantity of pure
vegetable food of the best kind, and prepared in the best manner;
and the difference is still greater if the vegetable food be badly
prepared. And it is solely from the want of a proper regard for this
important truth, that many have been unsuccessful in their attempts to
live exclusively upon a vegetarian diet.
I have previously pointed out the harm that may result to the body
from an excess of food—showing how food in excess chokes and blocks
the system throughout—impeding its proper functions, and rendering
the perfect manifestation of life impossible. During the healthy
growth of the body, the great process of upbuilding and the functions
of nutrition are necessarily somewhat in excess of the processes of
destruction; but even here a great excess of food is invariably eaten;
and, while the growing child may be adding (say) half-an-ounce a day
to its weight, it is urged and even forced to eat a pound of food a
day, and even more! And the natural result is that the child becomes
sick, and has colds and fever and other troubles, and no one can
account for it! The same false notions are carried into adult life.
Nearly everyone eats far too much—I mean by this very much too much. I
believe that most persons could reduce their three daily meals to one,
and curtail the amount eaten at that one meal, and still be ingesting
too much food for the bodily needs. This will at all events show us
how enormously we do overeat, and the only reason that we do not get
ill immediately is, that the body is constantly getting rid of the
excess of food material and poisons that are formed, as the result
of this constant over-ingestion of food. It is generally believed
that, as long as an individual is in health, or apparently so, he is
not injured by habitually eating more than is really necessary for
the healthy nourishment of his body, but this opinion is utterly and
dangerously false. It is, indeed, one of the most mischievous errors
entertained by the human mind. For there is nothing in nature more
true, more certain, than these propositions: that all vital action is
necessarily attended with some expenditure of vital power, and draws
something from the ultimate fund of life; and therefore all excessive
vital action, all intensity of vital action, increases the expenditure
of vital power, and necessarily abbreviates the duration of human life;
and consequently, however long the vital economy of any human body
may be able to preserve the general balance of action, between the
composing and decomposing elements, and maintain a general health of
the system under excessive alimentation, yet nothing is more certain
than that, just in proportion as the alimentation has exceeded the real
healthy wants of the vital economy, and thus caused an unnecessary
expenditure of vital power, life has been abbreviated—even though the
individual die from what is called old age, without a single violent
symptom of disease. The error of opinion on this subject is common and
mischievous; and the truth should be presented in its strongest light.
But we have as yet only presented the subject and contemplated it
in its most favourable aspect. The case I have presented is a very
extraordinary one. As a matter of fact, very few indeed who have
constantly over-nourished their bodies _do_ die from old age, but as
a rule they die from painful and exhausting diseases long before that
period is reached. Millions of human beings perish by disease, in all
periods of life, from excessive alimentation or overeating. Generally,
they are cut off by disease long before they have lived out their
lives, and often prematurely. And the chief cause of all such death
is, I must insist, overeating. This can readily be proved; and I have
endeavoured to show why it should be the case in my previous work.
Overeating is the chief cause of all diseases; and disease shortens
and destroys life. Of that there can be no question. But even if no
adventitious cause comes in to induce sudden and violent death, either
local or general, the continued overworking of the system will almost
inevitably exhaust, debilitate and relax some particular organ, and so
destroy the balance of action in the vital economy, and thus gradually
lead to chronic disease. Adipose tissue is deposited in various parts
of the body—causing ruptures of the heart and the blood-vessels, and
hence premature death.
It is therefore true, beyond all question, that in all countries
where human aliment is abundant and easily procured, gluttony or
excessive alimentation is decidedly the greatest source of disease and
suffering and premature death known to man. “Excess in drinking,” said
Hippocrates, more than two thousand years ago, “is almost as bad as
excess in eating!” And the statement has remained true from that day to
the present.
How much food should be eaten, then, in order to remain in the best
of health, and to preserve that “just balance we term health”? I have
no hesitation whatever in laying down one general rule, which it is
always safe to follow. Every individual should restrict himself to
the _smallest_ quantity that he finds, from careful investigation and
experiment, will meet the wants of his system—knowing that whatever is
more than this is harmful.
Physiologists have got into a vicious circle when discussing the
question of the amount of food that the system really requires.
They have measured the income and the outgo of the food values and
co-efficients, and have calculated the supposedly necessary quantities
of food that the body needs from these figures—a practice open to many
objections, and proved erroneous, in certain directions already—as
_e.g._, by the Chittenden experiments on low proteid intake. It never
seems to have struck these men that the more food that is ingested
into the system, the more must necessarily be eliminated—for otherwise
the body would choke up and die. The fact that more N. is excreted
because more is ingested does not prove that the body has utilised
all this N., because it needs it, but shows merely that it was enabled
to convert it, by the expenditure of a great amount of nervous energy,
in the processes of digestion. The experiment of mankind should be,
_not_ to see how much food they can eat and live, but how little they
can eat, and yet live: for the _minimum_ quantity of food is doubtless
the best for the system, and that indicated by nature. But many
physiologists do not see the matter in this light. For them the amount
of waste determines everything![47]
[47] “The Diet Cure,” p. 19.
“But,” as Dr Nichols pointed out, “what determines the amount of
waste? A man must get rid of all he eats and drinks, or he must retain
it in his system. If he keep at the same average weight, the daily
waste will depend upon the daily consumption. He who eats and drinks
two pounds will lose two pounds; he who eats and drinks six or eight
pounds must get rid of that quantity. How, then, are we to get at the
normal waste, and therefore at the requisite quantity of food?”
Dr Nichols says further:
“It is my experience—and I believe of many others who work as I
do—that the less I eat the better I feel. I do not vary much in weight
through months and years from 160 pounds. In solid, dry weight, my
food, day by day, would not exceed ten or twelve ounces, and often,
for days together, it would not exceed six ounces. I am satisfied by
my experience and what I have seen of the effects of diet upon others,
that most persons can be perfectly well nourished in full health and
activity on from four to eight ounces of food, excluding liquids, and
that the amount of water may safely be left to the demands of thirst.”
This is even a more conservative estimate than mine and Dr
Rabagliati’s—since we both agree that twelve ounces is the amount that
is needed by the average man, for an average day’s work. But then our
calculated allowance was not strictly “dry” diet; and the difference
may not be so great after all, when this is allowed for.
The quantity of food eaten has so little relation to strength and
weight that we see men eating ravenously and at the same time wasting
to skeletons, and growing weaker and weaker; and we have strong men
living on a spare and simple diet and increasing in weight. Indeed, we
see many patients increase in health and strength during a _fast_ of
many days, when no food at all is eaten! The truth is, that the amount
of food said to be eaten by navvies and other strong men is not the
cause of their strength, but it is their strength which enables them
to digest and dispose of such quantities of food. Weak men would break
down under the strain. And indeed both weak and strong men do, when the
resistance of the body is lowered by disease.
To economise life, which is the great secret of health, we must
find just the quantity of food we require—that which will supply
(indirectly) the force we need, and will not uselessly take from what
we have. Of course, we must keep within the limits of our digestive
power; but we must do better than that. A man may be able to digest and
dispose of three times as much food as he really requires. One ounce
more than he requires is a waste of force, a waste of life. We waste
life in eating more food than we need, in digesting it, and then in
getting rid of it. Here is a triple waste. “We have other work to do in
this world than eating unnecessary food, and spending our strength for
nought.”
In an excellent little book entitled “The Stomach and its
Difficulties,” by Sir James Eyre, M.D., there is to be found some very
good advice on this question of diet, and particularly the quantity of
food that man requires. Speaking of this, Sir James says:
“John Hunter, it is recorded, fed an eagle entirely on vegetable,
and a sheep on animal food; and yet life and apparent health were
sustained. Rabbits, if kept fasting a long time, will eat meat
greedily. The teeth, however, were no doubt intended by our Creator
to be our main guide on this point.... Eating in excess is the vice
of the present day, and so well managed is it that even religious
persons will not see its sinfulness—_sinful_, as absorbing and
wasting so much more life and food than the body requires, and which
so many absolutely need. Is drunkenness a sin and gluttony not?...
Gout, rheumatism and various other disorders are often produced by
the injudicious supplies given to the stomach, both in quantity and
quality.... We too often charge cold and wet with being the cause
of attacks of disease, but these attacks would not have occurred
unless the blood had been infected with particles of depraved matter
resulting from over-indulgence, or other irregularity of the organs
of digestion—first and foremost, from our injudicious supplies to the
stomach.... Perhaps we might lay it down as a rule that the majority
of men eat twice as much as is really required for the support of
health and strength.... No doubt as life advances we really require
less food.... According to our mental and bodily employment, so should
we eat.... Nature herself often gives notice of over-indulgence,
by destroying appetite. Children take the warning and refuse food
altogether; but it is so common a notion that we cannot go on
without regular meals, that many adults aggravate stomach and liver
derangements by persisting in taking food of some sort, but which
affords no nourishment at all, because it cannot be digested, and thus
acts as any other extraneous substance, by increasing the already
deranged powers of the organ. We may rest assured that mischief rarely
happens in disease from want of food, although much mischief is often
caused by the ignorant in pressing it, against the warnings of nature
in depriving us of any desire for it. In the incipient stage of many
diseases, abstinence at first, and then a very strict attention to
judicious nourishment, will alone cure them.”
After such a simple and clear statement of facts, it seems to me little
remains to be said. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance
of limiting the amount of the food supply; and particularly is this
warning applicable to vegetarians who are apt to overeat, under the
erroneous impression that they must eat more, in order to offset the
greater nutritive value of the meat (supposedly)! The fact of the
matter is that they should eat _less_; and the more nourishing and
concentrated the food is, the less of it should they eat. Most of the
vegetarian dishes are highly concentrated, and exceedingly rich in
nutritive values. For that reason they should be eaten sparingly. Nuts
are especially rich, and contain a large amount of proteid in a small
compass. In his pamphlet “Nuts and their Uses as Food” (Yearbook, U.S.
Dept, of Agr.), Professor Jaffa says of such foods:
“The digestibility of protein in 28 experiments with mixed diets,
to which were added fruits and nuts, averaged 90 per cent. [see pp.
86-88].... The digestibility of the carbohydrates in nuts, so far
as the available _data_ show, is about equal to that of the same
ingredients in other foods.... It would appear that, while it is
not possible to state the exact digestion co-efficients for all
nuts, enough has been done to indicate their high nutritive value
and digestibility.... The distress sometimes experienced when nuts
are eaten is undoubtedly often due to improper mastication or to
over-indulgence. The investigations made at the California station
indicate clearly that considerable quantities of nuts properly eaten
do not cause distress.... A fruit and nut diet may be arranged
to furnish sufficient protein, mainly from nuts, to satisfy the
requirements of the body.... When considering nuts, it is readily
observed that 10 cents will buy about the same amount of nut protein
as of animal protein, except in the case of cheese and skim milk
(which furnishes less). If spent for peanuts, it will purchase more
than twice the protein and six times the energy that could be bought
for the same expenditure for porterhouse steak.... It is of more
than passing interest to note that 10 cents’ worth of peanuts will
contain about 4 ounces of protein and 2767 calories of energy, which
is more protein and energy than is furnished by many rations regarded
as adequate for a day.... As a whole, nuts may be classed among the
_staple foods_, and not simply as food accessories.”
I desire only to show in this place that nuts are a very concentrated
article of diet, and should be eaten sparingly. The idea that more
food should be eaten, when going on to a vegetarian diet, is grossly
erroneous, and is the reason why many vegetarians fail. Less, not more,
food, should be eaten; and as soon as the stomach has shrunk to its
right proportions, and the customary reaction from the stimulation of
the meat has worn off, a general feeling of invigoration and well-being
will be experienced—and retained, if the diet be properly managed
thenceforth. Too great care cannot be taken not to overeat; everyone
would be better for a few days’ fast—particularly if they have been in
the habit of eating meat!
XVI
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
I think I have shown, in the preceding pages, that fruits and nuts are
man’s best, natural, and original food—the food best suited to his
organism—capable of sustaining it in the highest state of health. If I
have merely induced a number of persons to experiment upon themselves I
shall at all events feel that this book has performed its mission, as
there can be no question that wherever the fruitarian diet is tried, it
is adopted and finds its adherents. I have frequently known persons go
back to a mixed diet, after having tried vegetarianism for a time, but
I have never known of _one_, who after once having tried the fruitarian
diet, gave it up permanently. Of course everyone may relapse once in
a while; and go on to another diet for a few days, but invariably the
fruitarian diet is again resumed at the end of that time, with added
appreciation of its worth. The fruitarian diet is as far superior to
the ordinary vegetarian diet as that diet is superior to the “mixed
diet”—including meat. There is no comparison between the two. Far more
energy is experienced, while living upon fruits and nuts; the necessity
for so much sleep is done away with—persons living upon this diet
manage very nicely on about six hours of sleep, generally speaking; a
feeling of cleanness and lightness is experienced throughout the body;
and in many other ways the effects of the diet are noticeable. The fact
that man is intended by Nature to live upon such a diet is very clearly
indicated by his structure; and it is safe to say that the nearer we
live to Nature, the healthier and the happier we are.
I shall conclude with a few practical health hints, in relation to
diet, which I have omitted to mention in the preceding pages.
Let us consider first of all mastication.
The importance of thorough _mastication_ is now becoming generally
recognised. The experiments and researches of Horace Fletcher,
Professor Chittenden, etc., have done much towards calling the
attention of the public to the importance of this subject, and its
great advantages—not only in ensuring health, but in rendering the
life longer and happier—are now generally recognised. This subject
has been so ably handled by the two authors whose books I have
mentioned, however, that it would be unnecessary for me to go into
this question in greater detail here. To anyone who has not made a
study of this subject, I can but recommend Fletcher’s “New Glutton or
Epicure” and “The A.B-Z. of our Nutrition”; also Professor Chittenden’s
“Physiological Economy in Nutrition,” and “The Nutrition of Man.” Now
for a few practical hints.
Never eat when mentally excited or very tired. It is best to lie down
a few minutes before each meal, if possible, and take a short rest
after it. Never take exercise soon after a meal, or take a bath, or
a swim. All these have a tendency to draw the blood away from the
stomach—to the surface, or the parts exercised. This is to be avoided,
if possible. It is best to make the meals somewhat regular, but never
eat if you are not hungry—go without any solid food until the next
meal. Drink water plentifully, meanwhile. In this way, an appetite will
be gained, and sickness prevented.
Take a few deep-breathing exercises each day. In this way the requisite
oxygen is supplied, and the food ingested is utilised, instead of
remaining more or less mal-assimilated and unused by the system. Do not
take very hot or very cold foods or drinks. The best temperature is
that of the surrounding atmosphere, in a comfortably warm room. Great
care should be taken of the teeth, as, when these are once gone, no
false teeth can ever take their place, and the standard of health is
almost invariably lowered, on account of the fact that insufficient
mastication is practised.
Finally—and this is a factor of great importance—the _mental condition_
should be one free from worry or care. I have been contending very
strongly throughout this book for the superiority of certain foods over
others; and the value of a hygienic diet; and I still think that this
question is one of the most important before the world to-day—alike
for the individual and the race. Nevertheless, I am persuaded that
much, if not all, of the value of a reformed diet may be offset by
constant fretting and worrying about the food eaten. I believe that it
would be better to eat a moderate amount of any food upon the market
and think nothing about it, than to eat the best of foods—the most
wholesome and the most nutritious—and keep worrying about them all the
time. The hygienist should supply his body with good food, and then
forget it. He should not think or worry about his food or himself in
the least. Some individuals spend almost the whole of their lives in
thinking about their food; and the consequence is that they constantly
have dyspepsia, and get no benefit from any of it. One can dwell upon
this food question far too much—to the point of becoming morbid about
it. I went through that transition stage myself—one which I am glad to
say I have experienced, because it enables me to appreciate the mental
condition of others in a like state. I am also glad I have passed
through that stage, and have emerged into what I consider a more sane
and normal view of these matters. At one time in my life, the foods I
ate formed a large part of my mental occupation and interest: I thought
between meals what I should have for the next. I balanced up my every
article of diet, and even went so far as to discriminate between the
various kinds of nuts, because of the different percentages of proteid
they contained! In those days I should as soon have thought of killing
my dearest friend as eating a piece of meat!—so monstrous did the idea
seem to me. I sided with all those individuals who stated with glee
that “they had not touched a piece of meat for twenty-two years”—and
so on. When I went out to dinner, I informed my hostess that I was a
vegetarian, and asked to be excused from being helped to meat. But now
I have emerged from that state of narrowness. Now, while I live upon
the fruitarian diet, and that pretty strictly, when alone, I do not
think I am being poisoned if I taste a piece of meat, when dining out,
knowing that my system can well take care of the poisons generated, so
long as I live all the rest of the time upon a normal diet; and I do
not at all worry about my food, but eat a little of most of the things
that are upon the table, and make up for it by slightly added care in
my diet during the next day or two. Thus, though I consider the diet
question one of the most important—if not _the_ most important—before
the civilised world to-day, I must warn all diet reformers against
this tendency to get into a rut, on account of their food habits, and
would advise them to be careful to preserve a sane balance of mind on
these questions, and a just proportion in their viewpoint. Most diet
reformers are too deadly in earnest. They should cultivate a sense of
humour!
APPENDIX
It is with pleasure that I present a photograph of my friend Max Unger
(“Lionel Strongfort”), doubtless the strongest man in the world to-day,
and one of the most beautifully and perfectly proportioned. He is a
strict vegetarian—at times a fruitarian—and a strong advocate of this
diet. His statue in marble is in the National Art Gallery at Berlin.
It was made at the request of the German Government, by Prof. Louis
Tuaillon, of Rome. The famous artist, Max Klinger, also considers
him the ideal of symmetrical athletic beauty, and found in him the
inspiration of several of his masterpieces.
Mr Unger has doubtless performed feats of strength never equalled
in the history of the world. With one hand he has lifted a bar-bell
above his head weighing 312 pounds. Even the far-famed Eugene Sandow
never lifted more than 250 pounds in this way. He is the only man who
has ever torn five packs of playing cards in halves, at one time—a
thickness of 260 cards. He has lifted a weight (using his entire body)
of more than 8000 pounds—a sixty horse-power automobile, containing
several men, together with a heavy bridge, over which the machine
passed. In view of this, how absurd the contention that strong men
“must eat meat”; that “they are strong because of the meat they eat,”
etc.! And how doubly absurd the contention that the average man, who
takes but little exercise, cannot perform his daily duties without the
use of this article of diet!
INDEX
A
Abdominal Development, abnormal, 142
Abel, Miss Mary, 259
Æsthetic aspects of diet, 160-162
Agricultural argument, 162-163, 332-333
Air, value of, 263-264
Alcohol and diet, 123-124, 261
Alimentary canal, 34-35
Anatomical changes, and diet, 35
Animals, excess of, 159-160
Anthropoid apes, teeth of, 29-31
Apollonius of Tyana, 137
Apples, food value of, 207
Apricots, food value of, 208
Arabia, food of, 144
Arnold, Prof. L. B., 170
Artichokes, food value of, 179
Ash, mineral, defined, 62
Ash, percentage of, 79-83, 84-85, 86
Asparagus, food value of, 178
Athletics, and diet, 153-155
Atwater, Prof. A. W., 59-63
B
Baelz, Prof., 139
Bananas, food value of, 207-208
Banting cure, 118
Beans, food value of, 176
Beaumont, Dr, 197
Beef-tea, 100-102, 109
Beetroots, food value of, 179
Benjafield, Dr H., 230
Best food, question of, 96
Biblical instructions on diet, 159
Bilberries, food value of, 210
Blood-poisoning, 111
Blood, similarity of, 45
Bodily position, question of, 44
Bodily symmetry, and diet, 117-118
Bones, question of, 45
Bouchard, Dr, 103, 104
Bowels, differing action of, 48-49
Bread, food value of, 185-186
Breathing, value of, 263-264
Bright’s disease, 111
Broccoli, food value of, 178
Brush, Dr E. F., 109-110, 169-170, 253
Brussels sprouts, food value of, 178
Bryant, A. P., 59-63
Bush, Dr, 117
Butcher, degradation of, 162
Butter, value of, 171-173
Buttner, Dr J. L., 206
C
Cabbage, food value of, 178
Cancer, question of, 112-113
Cannibalism, question of, 164
Capers, food value of, 179
Carbohydrates, defined, 62
—— percentage of, 77-79
Carqué, Otto, 80, 81, 168-169
Carnivora, teeth of, 24-25
Carrots, food value of, 179
Cauliflower, food value of, 178
Chalmers, 136
Cheese, food value of, 174, 175
Cherries, food value of, 208
Cheyne, Dr, 137
Chittenden, Prof. R. H., 11, 57-58, 87-88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 137, 275
Christian, Eugene, 242-243
Chyle, characteristics of, 89-90
Cinnamon, food value of, 196-197
Citrons, food value of, 210
Climate and diet, 149-151
Cocoa, food value of, 261
Coffee, food value of, 260-261
Cold and diet, 114-115
Colon, question of the, 44
Complexion, and diet, 228-229
Complexity of food, 9, 249
Constituents of food, 249-250
Cooking, animal, 220-221
Cooking vegetables, 178
Copeland, Dr, 117
Corn, food value of, 179
Cranberries, food value of, 210
Cream, food value of, 171
Cresses, food value of, 179
Cucumber, food value of, 179
Currants, food value of, 210
Custom, force of, 164-166
D
Dandelions, food value of, 179
Dates, food value of, 210
Damsons, food value of, 208
Daniel, Florence, 230
Definitions of foods, 59-63
Densmore, Dr Emmet, 182
Diet, and exercise, 140
Diet, how to change, 237-238
Diogenes, 137
Diseased meat, 126-135
Dodds, Dr Susanna, 176-177, 244-245, 254-255
Drews, George J., 243
Drinking at meals, 240
Drinking, different modes of, 34, 51
Drink, and diet, 123-124
E
Economy, and diet, 220-221
Edentata, teeth of, 23
Eggs, food value of, 173-174
Emancipation of woman, 226-227
Empedocles, 137
Endives, food value of, 179
Energy, bodily, 18-19
Epidemics, and diet, 116-117
Epilepsy, and meat-eating, 112
Equivalence of food, 268-269
Esquimaux, and diet, 143, 151
Ethics of diet, 160, 162
Evans, Dr De Lacy, 91-92
Evolution, and mentality, 10-11
Excreta, animal, 106-107
Excretions, question of, 50-56
Exercise, and diet, 140
Extremities, 33-34
Eyes, position of, 44
Eyre, Sir James, 270-272
F
Fairbairn, Sir William, 145
Farrington, Dr A. M., 132-133
Fats, defined, 61-62
Fats, percentages of, 75-77
Figs, food value of, 210
Fish, food value of, 256
Fletcher, Horace, 105, 137, 260, 275
Flour, superfine, 184
Food, functions of, 18-19
Forward, Charles, 153-154
Fowler, H. P., 124
Frugivora, teeth of, 31
Fruits, advantages of, 206, 211-220, _et seq._
Fruitarian diet, 177-178, 274
Fuel value, question of, 62-63
G
Galen, 137
Game, food value of, 255-256
Garlics, food value of, 178-179
Gastric juice, differing, 47-48
Ginger, food value of, 196-197
Glucose and starch, 182
Goodfellow, Dr John, 182, 225
Gooseberries, food value of, 210
Gout, 110
Graham, Dr Sylvester, 89-90, 115, 120, 141, 197, 212, 214, 265
Grapes, food value of, 208
Greece, food of, 144-145
H
Habits of Cats and Dogs, 24-25, 33, 51
Habits and diet, 235-236
Haeckel, 45
Haig, Dr Alex., 112, 119, 138-139, 176, 200
Haller, Dr, 137
Hancock, H. Irving, 145-146
Hartmann, Dr, 29, 30
Heart beat and diet, 120
Heat, bodily, 114-115
Herbivora, teeth of, 21, 22
Heroditus, 137, 185
Hesiod, 137
Hindus, and diet, 146-148
Hippocrates, 137, 268
Honey, food value of, 203
Hufeland, Dr, 137
Humanitarian arguments, 156-159
Hutchinson, Dr Woods, 44
Huxley, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45
Hygienic cookery, hints on, 250-252
I
India, food of, 144
Insectivora, teeth of, 22-23
Instinct and diet, 235
Intestinal putrefaction, 104-106
Italy, food of, 144
J
Jackson, Dr J. C., 124, 224
Jaffa, Prof. M. E., 204, 205, 272-273
Japan, food of, 145-146, 148
Jaws, movement of, 32-33
Jellies, food value of, 257
K
Kellogg, Dr J. H., 34-35, 43-45, 47-48, 107-108
Kidneys, action of, 50
Kingsford, Dr Anna, 141
Kuttner, Dr, 35
L
Lactic Acid, 105
Lahmann, Dr H., 52-56, 81, 82
Lambe, Dr, 113, 137, 230
Latson, Dr W. R. C., 120, 240-241, 243
Leeks, food value of, 178-179
Leffingwell, Dr A., 129
Lemons, food value of, 209-210
Lentils, food value of, 176
Leppel, Miss, 86
Lettuce, food value of, 179
Limes, food value of, 210
Liver, 37-38, 49-50
Loeb, Prof. J., 219
Longevity and diet, 119-120
Longworthy, Prof. C. F., 205
M
Magendie’s Dogs, 184-186
Mammary glands, 43
Man, teeth of, 25-28, 31-32
Mann, Karl, 138
Mastication, value of, 275
Meat, as an article of diet, 252-256
Melons, food value of, 210
Mental conditions, 276-277
Mental life and diet, 119, 121-123
Mentality and evolution, 10-11
Metchnikoff, 45, 104, 105, 233-234
Miles, Eustace, 139-140
Milk, food value of, 167-171
Mineral matter, defined, 62
Missionaries, and diet, 229
Morals and diet, 121-123
Mulberries, food value of, 210
Mushrooms, food value of, 179
Mustard, food value of, 198-199
N
Natural Foods, 202-203
Nervousness and diet, 231-232
Newton, Mr, 137
Nichols, Dr, 269
Nicholson, Prof., 29
Nightingale, Miss F., 257
Nitrogen, source of, 91-92
Nutmeg, food value of, 196-197
Nuts, food value of, 210-211, 272-273
O
Oils, 200-201
Olive oil, 200-201
Omnivora, teeth of, 23-24
Onions, food value of, 178-179
Oranges, food value of, 209
Overeating, 11-12, 243-244, 266-273
Ovid, 137
P
Page, Dr C. E., 222
Paget, Dr, 112
Pauchet, Dr Victor, 206
Parsnips, food value of, 179
Peaches, food value of, 208
Peas, food value of, 176, 208
Pepper, food value of, 196
Pereira, Dr, 172
Phillips, Dr Richard, 137
Pickles, food value of, 197-198
Pies, 257-258
Pigmies, 142-143
Pineapple, food value of, 209
Placenta, differing forms of, 38-42
Plato, 137
Plautus, 137
Pliny, 137
Plums, food value of, 208
Plutarch, 137
Poisons, in animal flesh, 97-104
—— in bad combinations, 247-248
Pork as food, 253-255
Porphyry, 137
Potatoes, food value of, 178
Practical hints, 275
Proclus, 137
Priority of the herbivora, 55
Proteid, excess of, 93-94
—— importance of, 58, 60-61
—— percentages of, 71-75
—— relative digestibility of, 86-88
Proteid, source of, 94-95
Puddings, 257-258
Pythagoras, 136-137
Q
Quantity _v._ Quality of Food, 265
Quantity, question of, 121
Quatrefages, Prof. A. de, 142
Quinces, food value of, 208
Quintus Sextus, 137
R
Rabagliati, Dr A., 19, 269
Radishes, food value of, 179
Raisins, food value of, 210
Rapidity of digestion, 88-89
Raspberries, food value of, 209
Read, C. S., 90-91
Red blood superstition, 163-164
Rheumatism and diet; 110-111
Rhubarb, food value of, 210
Ritson, Dr, 137
Rodentia, teeth of, 23
Rowbatham, Dr S., 184-185
Rush, Dr B., 117
Russell, Hon. Rollo, 112-113, 141, 144
Russia, food of, 145
S
Sadler, Dr W. S., 241-242
Sager, Dr D. S., 96
Saliva, 46-47
Salivary glands, 45
Salt, Henry, 121, 149-151, 236
Salt, arguments against, 187-196
Schlickeysen, Prof., 38-40, 47, 172-173, 215-219
Secretions, differing, 46-50
Senses and diet, 118-119
Shaw, Bernard, 160
Shelley, 117, 137
Sinclair, Upton, 127-128
Skin and diet, 44
Slaughter-houses, 133-135
Smith, Dr John, 37-38, 141
Socrates, 137
Soups, food value of, 257
Spices, food value of, 196-197
Spinach, food value of, 178
Starch, digestibility of, 182
Strawberries, food value of, 209
Stimulants, 198-199, 100-103, 114
Stomach, 36-37
Sugar, food value of, 258-260
Sweating, significance of, 55
Switzerland, food of, 145
T
Tables of Food Values, 64-71
—— of Mineral Matter, 84-85
Tail, question of, 44
Tapeworm, 109
Tea, value of, 260-261
Teeth, and acids, 231
—— argument drawn from, 21-23, 42-43
Teeth, causes of decay of, 110
Temperature, bodily, 92
Tibbles, Dr W., 108, 179, 180, 183, 198, 199, 205-206
Toast, food value of, 183
Tomatoes, food value of, 210
Tongue, question of, 44
Trall, Dr R. T., 26-28, 36-37, 102-103, 125-126, 148, 152, 258
Trichina, 109
Trichinosis, 109
Tuberculosis, 109
Turnips, food value of, 179
Typhoid, 110
U
Uncooked Food, 16-17
Unification of diet, 222-226
Uric acid, 52-56
Urine, differing, 52-56
—— poisonous nature of, 103-104
V
Vinegar, food value of, 199-200
Virchow, 35
W
Walking Match, 138, 154-155
Wallace, Dr Mackenzie, 145
Warner, Dr, 112
Water, value of, 261-263
Weight, loss of, 204
Wheat, food value of, 181
Whortleberries, food value of, 210
Wiley, Dr H. W., 82
Williams, Mattieu, 220
Woman, emancipation of, 226-227
Woodruff, Judge, 122
Work and diet, 152
Z
Zeno, 137
Practical Books on Diet and Health
=CONVERSATIONS WITH WOMEN.= By A. RABAGLIATI, M.D. Though primarily
addressed to women, expounds a complete and fascinating philosophy of
health. 5s. net.
=THE NATURAL FOOD OF MAN.= By HEREWARD CARRINGTON. A solution of
food problems which for fullness, lucidity and power has never been
surpassed. 7s. 6d. net.
=THE SCHROTH-EBBARD TREATMENT.= By R. J. EBBARD. Explains the dietetic
and other natural means of eradicating uric acid and other poisons
from the system. 2s. 6d. net.
=INDIGESTION: Its Cause and Cure.= By H. VALENTINE KNAGGS, L.R.C.P.,
&c. Opens up a new era in rational therapeutics. 1s. net.
=THE HEALTHY LIFE BEVERAGE BOOK.= By H. VALENTINE KNAGGS, L.R.C.P.,
&c. A complete compendium of nutritive, refreshing, curative and tonic
liquids. 1s. net.
=THE MICROBE AS FRIEND AND FOE.= By H. VALENTINE KNAGGS, L.R.C.P., &c.
Puts the subject in an entirely new light. 1s. net.
=THE CAUSE AND CURE OF CONSUMPTION.= By H. VALENTINE KNAGGS, L.R.C.P.,
&c. Unorthodox, but rooted in fact. 1s. net.
=HELP FOR CHRONIC SUFFERERS.= By H. VALENTINE KNAGGS, L.R.C.P., &c.
Shows the effectiveness of intelligent treatment on “nature-cure”
lines. 1s. 6d. net.
=CORPUS MEUM: This is my Body.= By J. M’BETH BAIN. 1s. net.
=NO ANIMAL FOOD.= By R. H. WHELDON. Deals with every aspect of the
case for vegetarianism. 100 Recipes requiring neither meat, fish, nor
dairy produce. 1s. net. Cloth, 2s. net.
=CONSUMPTION: An Appeal to Common Sense.= By J. P. SANDLANDS, M.A. A
searching exposure of generally accepted theories regarding “the white
plague.” 1s. net.
=HEALTH: A Royal Road to it.= By J. P. SANDLANDS, M.A. 6d. net.
=ONIONS AND CRESS.= By H. VALENTINE KNAGGS, L.R.C.P., &c. Invaluable
information concerning these wonderful natural blood-purifiers. 6d.
net.
C. W. DANIEL, LTD., 3 AMEN CORNER, LONDON, E.C.
=THE HEALTHY LIFE BOOKLETS.= A Series of helpful treatises on Diet,
Hygiene, and Rational and Healthy Living.
=6d. net; Cloth 1s. net; postage 1d.=
=1.= =The League Against Health.= A searching criticism of orthodox
methods of treatment. By ARNOLD EILOART, Ph.D., B.Sc.
=2.= =Food Remedies.= Facts about Foods, and their Medicinal Uses. By
FLORENCE DANIEL.
=3.= =Instead of Drugs.= The Why and How of Mental Healing. By ARNOLD
EILOART, Ph.D., B.Sc.
=4.= =The Healthy Life Cook Book.= An admirably practical guide to
Vegetarian or Reformed Food Cookery. By FLORENCE DANIEL.
=5.= =Nature versus Medicine.= A Constructive Philosophy of Health. By
ARNOLD EILOART, Ph.D., B.Sc.
=6.= =Distilled Water.= Should be read by all sufferers from Gout,
Rheumatism, Cancer, etc. By FLORENCE DANIEL.
_Further numbers of this excellent series are in preparation._
=FIRST AIDS TO HEALTH.= A new Series of well-written popular booklets,
designed to help busy people to an understanding of the laws of health.
=1d. each postage 1/2d. Eleven post free 1s.=
=1.= =A Common Stomach Trouble.= By H. VALENTINE KNAGGS, L.R.C.P., etc.
=2.= =The Cure of Chronic Catarrh.= By FLORENCE DANIEL.
=3.= =The Ideal Diet.= (With Specimen Meals.) By EDGAR J. SAXON.
=4.= =Fruit as Food and Medicine.= By DR D’AUVERGNE WRIGHT.
=5.= =Fruit-Oils in Health and Sickness.= By EDGAR J. SAXON.
=6.= =Salt: A Cause of Disease.= By FLORENCE DANIEL.
=7.= =Diabetes: Its Causes and Treatment.= By H. VALENTINO KNAGGS,
L.R.C.P., etc.
=8.= =Why Food Reform is Not Expensive.= By EDGAR J. SAXON.
=9.= =Why Our Teeth Decay.= By H. VALENTINE KNAGGS, L.R.C.P., etc.
=10.= =Morbid Growths: Their Causes and Treatment.= By FLORENCE DANIEL.
=11.= =Cow-less Butter and Milk.= By EDGAR J. SAXON.
_Others in preparation._
=HEALTH.= By J. H. OLIVER. A practical treatise, giving natural
remedies for common complaints. 3d. net. Cloth 6d. net.
=A VINDICATION OF NATURAL DIET.= By PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY. A stirring
appeal for food reform, as well as a rare literary gem. 3d. net. Cloth
6d. net.
=SPOILED BREAD.= A Practical pamphlet to help forward the movement to
arrest the deterioration of the race. 1d.
=THE HEALTHY LIFE.= The Independent Health Magazine, Lively,
Interesting and Sane. Aims at uniting all that makes for healthy
living. Monthly, 1d. (1s. 6d. per annum post free). 80 pages. Pocket
Size.
C. W. DANIEL, LTD., 3 AMEN CORNER, LONDON, E.C.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Natural Food of Man - Being an attempt to prove from comparative anatomy, - physiology, chemistry and hygiene, that the original, best - and natural diet of man is fruit and nuts" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.