We are only beginning very slowly to recognise the valuable properties of
nuts and their possibilities in the cuisine. Indeed, there is a rather
deep-rooted prejudice against them as food, people having been so long
accustomed to regard them as an unconsidered trifle to accompany the wine
after a big dinner, and as in this connection they usually call up visions
of dyspepsia, many people regard the idea of their bulking at all largely in
a meal with undisguised horror. I remember a lady saying to me that she was
quite sure a meal composed to any extent of nuts would _kill_ her, for
if she took even one walnut after dinner it gave her such pain. That rather
reminds one of the story of a half-witted fellow who used to go about the
country doing odd jobs, and asking in return a meal and a shake-down of
straw or hay.
He always expressed astonishment at folks being able to sleep on feather
beds, his aversion being founded on the fact that he had one night lain down
on the hard ground with a single feather under him. "An' if I had sic a
sarkfu' o' sair banes wi _ae_ feather," he argued, "what like maun it
be wi' a hale bed?"
Well, I can assure readers that whatever may be the troubles of a solitary
nut in an oasis of good things, it is very different when nuts are taken
alone or in a suitable and simple combination. Most of our digestive
troubles are due to an excess of proteid matter, which clogs up the system,
and either lodges in the body in the shape of some morbid secretion, or
tries to force its way out in an abnormal way, as by the skin. Now, nuts
are very rich in proteid, or flesh-forming matter, and it stands to reason,
that if we superimpose them on an already full, or overfull, meal, the
result is surfeit, and however wholesome or digestible this excess matter
may be in itself, it may, and usually does, work harm in more or less
obvious ways.
But curiously enough, this does not always work out with mathematical
directness. Most things in the physical, as in the metaphysical, world work
out as Ruskin says "not mathematically, but chemically." Though this may
seem a far-fetched simile in connection with our dinner, it is a true one.
To get back to our nuts. If after a meal of several courses, rich in
quality and variety, highly-spiced and flavoured, and perhaps interspersed
with little piquant relishes, serving to whet the appetite for the next
course, one takes only a very few nuts, or an apple, or a banana, the
probability is that "these last" will give the most direct trouble. The
gastric juices may be already exhausted, and the nuts, therefore, lie a hard
undigested mass on the stomach; or the apple digesting very quickly, and
being ready to leave the stomach some hours before its other contents, but
having to bide their time, ferments and gives off objectionable gases.
Thus, the innocent fruit gets the blame, and the fish, game, or meat go
free. Another way in which fruits may prove indigestible, through no fault
of their own, is because of the unsuitable combination in which they are
eaten. Most nuts, with the exception of chestnuts, which are largely
composed of starch, consist almost entirely of fat, which, unless it meets
with an alkali to dissolve it, is digested with great difficulty. The uric
acid in flesh tends to harden this fat, and so retards digestion.
The medical faculty now recognise the nutritive properties of nuts, as also
their wholesomeness and freedom from all toxic elements, and at all
sanatoria for the treatment of rheumatic and gouty affections a nut and
fruit diet is the established regime. We need not, however, go to an
expensive sanatorium to enjoy this food, but may cure, or better, prevent
these diseases in our own homes.
They are, I believe, best in their natural state, along with fresh fruits,
salads, and the like, but there are also many dainty dishes, in the
composition of which they may be used with advantage.