The importance of the foregoing results from an economic and sociological
standpoint is perhaps worthy of a brief consideration. We have learned
that a much smaller amount of albuminous or proteid food than is
ordinarily consumed will suffice for the daily needs of the body. It
remains to be seen whether this fact will gain the popular recognition it
would seem to deserve. Ignoring for the time the matter of physiological
economy and its possible bearing upon health and strength, it is a fair
question to ask why should people indulge in such wasteful extravagance
in the matter of diet when there is no real physiological need for it?
Why not accustom the body to a smaller consumption of food, thereby
saving for other purposes the expenditure which this excess of food
involves?
The question of the daily diet is one of the most important for the
family of small means, and there is no reason why the family treasury
should be so heavily drained for this imaginary need. Simplicity of
living might well be given more careful consideration, and now that we
have convincing proof of much smaller dietetic requirements on the part
of the body, it might be well to consider the practical application these
results naturally suggest. It is obvious from our data, that it is quite
safe to diminish by one-half the amount of albuminous or proteid food
ordinarily consumed, and this without any apparent detriment to health,
and with even gain to the economy. The ordinary forms of proteid food
are, as a rule, the most costly of dietetic articles, and since this
restriction of albuminous food calls for no great increase in the amount
of non-nitrogenous food, it is quite apparent that a great saving in the
daily expenditure can be accomplished.
Obviously, however, there must be a decided change in the attitude of the
public on this question before any great improvement can be hoped for.
Habit and sentiment play such a part in our lives that it is too much
to expect any sudden change of custom. By a proper system of education
commenced early in life it may, however, be possible to establish
new standards, which in time may prevail and eventually lead to more
enlightened methods of living, whereby there will be less drain upon the
resources of the people. With habits firmly fixed and palates calling for
new sensations, reinforced by the prevalent opinion that by hearty eating
lies the road to health and strength, it is easy to foresee difficulty in
the advance of new doctrines along the lines indicated. The pleasure of
eating is not to be minimized. The palate serves as the gateway through
which food passes, and its sensitiveness and power of appreciation are
not to be despised.
Simplicity of diet, however, does not diminish but rather increases the
pleasure of eating, especially when daily restriction in diet—indulged in
until a new habit is formed—has created a greater keenness of appetite,
since under such conditions the palate takes on a new sensitiveness,
and manifests a fuller appreciation of the variations of even a simple
dietary. There is therefore no hardship, nor curtailment of the pleasure
of eating in the restriction of the diet to the real needs of the body.
Neither is there implied any cessation of that kindly hospitality that
delights in the ‘breaking of bread’ with one’s friends. With enlightened
methods of living, on the other hand, will come a truer appreciation of
the dignity of the body, and a lessened desire to manifest one’s feelings
of hospitality by a lavish intemperance that is as unphysiological as it
is wasteful.
For the rich, as well as for the poor, there is need for careful
consideration of this question of intemperance in the daily dietary.
Were this the proper place, it would be easy to adduce figures showing
the great waste which the consumption of food beyond the physiological
requirements of the body entails. It needs no great imagination to
picture the enormous saving per capita, in dollars and cents, by a
reduction of the daily food to a true physiological basis. The saving to
the community, to the family, might well amount to enough to constitute
the difference between pauperism and affluence. The resources of a
community, as well as the resources of the family, are not to be lightly
thrown away. We count the cost of this or that necessity, of this or that
luxury, with careful consideration of the relative need and expense, but
in the matter of living we pay little heed except it may be to exclude
certain dietetic luxuries which seem beyond our purse. We are prone to
fancy that health and strength are fostered by great liberality in the
amount and variety of the daily food provided, and we are apt to express
great concern if all the family and our guests do not avail themselves
to the utmost of the foods so lavishly spread before them. The poorer
man emulates his richer neighbors as soon as his circumstances will
permit, and resources that could be much more advantageously expended for
the good of the family and the home life are practically wasted—to say
nothing of possible injury to health—under the mistaken idea that this
more generous method of living is the surest road to health and strength.
Further, there is ground for thought in the possible economy of time
which an improved condition of health would result in for the working
members of the family. If greater economy in diet will diminish the
number of sick days in the year, thereby increasing the working power of
the wage earner, and if greater strength and efficiency can be acquired
at the same time, the economic value of the proposition is at once
apparent.
Finally, happiness and contentment, which usually appear in direct
proportion to the health and prosperity of the individual, may be counted
upon as becoming more conspicuous in the life of the community. So we see
suggested various ways in which the application of the principles herein
laid down, if consistently adopted and followed, may lead to a betterment
of economic and sociological conditions. The writer, however, leaves to
others, more familiar with sociological problems, the fuller development
of this line of thought.