Chapter III: The Argument From Physiology (3)

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.