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.