WHAT TO EAT.
It is very important to eat the right kind of food, but it is even more
important to be balanced and use common sense. Those who are moderate in
their habits and cheerful can eat almost anything with good results. Of
course, people who live almost entirely on such denatured foods as
polished rice, finely bolted wheat flour products, sterilized milk and
meat spoiled in the cooking, refined sugar and potatoes deprived of most
of their salts through being soaked and cooked will suffer.
There are many different diet systems, and some of them are very good.
If their advocates say that their way is the only way, they are wrong.
Many try to force their ideas upon others. They find their happiness in
making others miserable. They are afflicted with the proselyting zeal
that makes fools of people. This is the wrong way to solve the food
problem. Let each individual choose his own way and allow those who
differ to continue in the old way.
Many have changed their dietary habits to their own great benefit. After
this they become so enthused and anxious for others to do likewise that
they wear themselves and others out exhorting them to share in the new
discovery. This does no good, but it often does harm, for it leads the
zealot to think too much of and about himself, and it annoys others.
Many are like my friend who lunched daily on zwieback and raw carrots.
"I think everybody ought to eat some raw carrots every day; don't you?"
she said. We can not mold everybody to our liking, and we should not
try. If we conquer ourselves, we have about all we can do. If we succeed
in this great work, we will evolve enough tolerance to be willing to
allow others to shape their own ends. To volunteer undesired information
does no good, for it creates opposition in the mind of the hearers. If
the information is sought, the chances are that it may in time do good.
It is well enough to indicate how and where better knowledge may be
obtained. We should at all times attempt to conserve our energy and use
it only when and where it is helpful. Such conduct leads to peace of
mind, effectiveness, happiness and health.
The tendency to become too enthusiastic about a dietary regime that has
brought personal benefit is to be avoided, for it brings unnecessary
odium upon the important subject of food reform. People do not like to
change old habits, even if the change would be for the better, and when
an enthusiast tries to force the change his actions are resented. He
makes no real converts, but as pay for his efforts he gains the
reputation of being a crank.
Those who wish to be helpful in an educational way should be patient.
The race has been in the making for ages. Its good habits, as well as
its bad ones, have been acquired gradually. If we ever get rid of our
bad habits it will be through gradual evolution, not through a hasty
revolution. We need a change in dietary habits, but those who become
food cranks, insisting that others be as they, retard this movement.
Only a few will change physical and mental habits suddenly. If those who
know are content to show the benefits more in results than in words,
their influence for good will be great.
What shall we eat? How are we to know the truth among so many
conflicting ideas? We can know the truth because it leads to health.
Error leads to suffering, degeneration and premature death. As the
homely saying goes, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
Let us look into some of the diet theories before the public and give
them thoughtful consideration.
The late Dr. J. H. Salisbury advocated the use of water to drink and
meat to eat, and nothing else. The water was to be taken warm and in
copious quantities, but not at or near meal time. The meat, preferably
beef, was to be scraped or minced, made into cakes and cooked in a very
warm skillet until the cakes turned gray within. These meat cakes were
to be eaten three times a day, seasoned with salt and a little pepper.
The doctor had a very successful practice, which is attested by many who
were benefited when ordinary medical skill failed. His diet was not well
balanced. In meats there is a lack of the cell salts and force food.
Especially are the cell salts lacking when the flesh is drained of its
blood. The animals of prey drink the blood and crunch many of the bones
of their victims, thus getting nearly all the salts. But in spite of his
giving such an unbalanced diet, the doctor had a satisfactory practice
and good success. Why? Because his patients had to quit using narcotics
and stimulants and they were compelled to consume such simple food that
they ceased overeating. It is a well known fact that a mono-diet forces
moderation, for there is no desire to overeat, as there is when living
on a very varied diet.
Another fact that the Salisbury plan brings to mind is that starch and
sugar are not necessary for the feeding of adults, although they are
convenient and cheap foods and ordinarily consumed in large quantities.
The fat in the meat takes the place of the starch and sugar. Atomically,
starch, sugar and fat are almost identical, and they can be substituted
one for the other. Nature makes broad provisions.
Dr. Salisbury's career also serves to remind us that a mixed diet is not
necessary for the physical welfare of those who eat to live. Vegetarians
dwell upon the toxicity of meat. But Dr. Salisbury fed his patients on
nothing but meat and water, and the percentage of recoveries in chronic
diseases was considered remarkable. Meat is very easy to digest and when
prepared in the simple manner prescribed by the doctor and eaten by
itself it will agree with nearly everybody. But when eaten with soup,
bread, potatoes, vegetables, cooked and raw, fish, pudding, fruit,
coffee, crackers and cheese, there will be overeating followed by
indigestion and its consequent train of ills. However, it is not fair to
blame the meat entirely, for the whole mixture goes into decomposition
and poisons the body.
The cures resulting from Dr. Salisbury's plan also help to disprove the
much heralded theory of Dr. Haig, that uric acid from meat eating is the
cause of rheumatism. Overeating of meat is often a contributory cause.
We are told that the rheumatics who followed Dr. Salisbury's plan got
well. They regained physical tone. They lost their gout and rheumatism.
They parted company with their pimples and blotches. All of which would
indicate that the blood became clean.
The chief lesson derived from Dr. Salisbury's plan and experience is the
helpfulness of simple living and moderation. An exclusive diet of meat
is not well balanced. Energy produced from flesh food is too expensive.
The good results came from substituting habits of simplicity and
moderation for the habit of overeating of too great variety of food. The
same results may be obtained by putting a patient on bread and milk.
Dr. Salisbury's patients had unsatisfied longings, doubtless for various
tissue salts. The addition of fresh raw fruits or vegetables would
improve his diet, for apples, peaches, pears, lettuce, celery and
cabbage are rich in the salts in which meats are deficient.
Dr. Emmet Densmore recommended omitting the starches entirely, that is,
to avoid such foods as cereals, tubers and legumes. He believed that it
is best to live on fruits and nuts. He recommended the sweet
fruits--figs, dates, raisins, prunes--instead of the starchy foods. The
doctor did much good, as everyone does who gets his patients to
simplify. He also had good results before discovering that starch is a
harmful food, when he fed his patients bread and milk.
Starch must be converted into sugar before it can be used by the body.
The sugar is what is known as dextrose, not the refined sugar of
commerce. The sweet fruits contain this sugar in the form of fruit
sugar, which needs but little preparation to be absorbed by the blood.
Dr. Densmore reasons thus: Only birds are furnished with mills
(gizzards); hence the grains are fit food for them only. Other starches
should be avoided because they are difficult to digest, the doctor
wrote.
Raw starches are difficult to digest, but when they are properly cooked
they are digested in a reasonable time without overburdening the system,
provided they are well masticated and the amount eaten is not too great
and the combining is correct. Rice, which contains much starch, digests
in a short time.
We can do very nicely without starch. We can also thrive on it if we do
not abuse it. The two chief starch-bearing staples, rice and wheat,
contain considerable protein and salts in their natural state. In fact,
the natural wheat will sustain life for a long time. Man has improved on
nature by polishing the rice and making finely bolted, bleached wheat
flour, deprived of nearly all the salts in the wheat berry. The result
is that both of them have become very poor foods. The more we eat of
these refined products the worse off we are, unless we partake freely of
other foods rich in mineral salts.
Not long ago a lady died in England who was a prominent advocate of a
"brainy diet." Her brainy diet consisted largely of excessive quantities
of meat, pork being a favorite. She died comparatively young, her
friends say from overwork. Such a diet doubtless had a large part in
wearing her out. To overeat of meat is dangerous.
A gentleman is now advocating a diet of nothing but cocoanuts. This is a
fad, for they are not a balanced food. He has published a book on the
subject. Perhaps his advocacy is influenced by his interest in the sale
of cocoanuts.
The vegetarians condemn the use of meat. Some of them are called
fruitarians. It is very difficult to decide who are the most
representative of them. Some advocate the use of nothing but fruit and
nuts. Others add cereals to this. Others use vegetables in addition.
Some even allow the use of dairy products and eggs, that is, all foods
except flesh.
They say that meat is an unnatural food for man and condemn its use on
moral grounds. It is difficult to decide what is natural, for we find
that man is very adaptable, being able to live on fruits in the tropics
and almost exclusively on flesh food, largely fat, in the arctic
regions. In nature the strong live on the weak and the intelligent on
the dull. There is no sentiment in nature. In her domain might, physical
or mental, makes right. Sentiments of right and justice are not highly
developed except among human beings, and even there they are so weakly
implanted that it takes but little provocation for civilized man to bare
his teeth in a wolfish snarl.
With some vegetarianism is largely a matter of esthetics, ethics and
morality. Morality is based on expediency, so it really is a question
whether meat is an advantageous food or not.
Another vegetarian argument is that man's anatomy proves that he was not
intended by nature to eat meat. Good arguments have been used on both
sides, but they are not very convincing nor are they conclusive. It is
hard to draw any lines fairly.
Another objection to meat is that it is unclean and full of poisons,
that these poisons produce various diseases, such as cancer. We are also
informed that refined sugar causes cancer, and the belief in tomatoes as
a causative factor is not dead. Cancer is without doubt caused
principally by dietary indiscretions but it is impossible to single out
any one food.
No matter what foods we eat, we are compelled to be careful or they will
be unclean. Those who wish clean meat can obtain it. The amount of
poison or waste in a proper portion of meat is so small that we need
give it no thought. Those who eat in moderation can take meat once a
day during cold weather and enjoy splendid health. During warm weather
it should be eaten more seldom.
On the other hand, meat is not necessary. We need a certain amount of
protein, which we can obtain from nuts, eggs, milk, cheese, peanuts,
peas, beans, lentils, cereals and from other food in smaller amounts.
The amount of protein needed is small--about one-fifth of what the
physiologists used to recommend.
Those who think meat eating is wrong should not partake of it. They can
get along very well without it. We are consuming entirely too much meat
in America. The organism can stand it if the life is active in the fresh
air, but it will not do for people who are housed. Much meat eating
causes physical degeneration. The body loses tone. Experiments have
shown that vegetarians have more resistance and endurance than the meat
eaters, but the meat eaters get so much stimulation from their food that
they can speed up in spurts. The excretions of meat eaters are more
poisonous than those of vegetarians.
Eggs produced by hens fed largely on meat scraps do not keep as well as
those laid by hens feeding more on grains. In short, meat eating leads
to instability or degeneration, if carried to excess. Young children
should have none of it and it would be a very easy matter for the rising
generation to develop without using meat, and I believe this would be
better than our present plan of eating. However, let us give flesh food
the credit due it. When meat eaters are debilitated no other food seems
to act as kindly as meat, given with fruits or vegetables. When properly
prepared and taken in moderation meat digests easily and is quite
completely assimilated.
Many make the mistake of living too exclusively on starch and taking it
in excess. The result is fermentation and an acid state of the
alimentary tract. Dr. Daniel S. Sager says that, "About all that we have
to fear in eating is excessive use of proteids." Experience and
observation do not bear out this statement, for it is as easy to find
people injured by starch as by protein. One form of poisoning is as bad
as the other. The doctor also warns against nearly all the succulent
vegetables, saying that on account of the indigestible fibre, most of
them are unfit for human consumption.
Dr. E. H. Dewey condemned the apple as a disease-producer, and
inferentially, other fruits.
Dr. Charles E. Page objects to the use of milk by adults, on the ground
that it is fit food only for the calves for whom nature intended it.
Many writers have repeated this opinion.
Most of the regular physicians have a very vague idea of dietetics and
proper feeding. When asked what to eat they commonly say, "Eat plenty
nourishing food of the kinds that agree with you." They do not point out
the fundamentals to their patients. Sometimes they advise avoiding
combinations of milk and fruits. Sometimes they say that all starches
should be avoided and in the next breath prescribe toast, one of the
starchiest of foods. At times they proscribe pork and pickles but they
are seldom able to give a good diet prescription. What people need is a
fair knowledge of what to do and the don'ts will take care of
themselves.
All foods have been condemned as unfit for human consumption by people
who should know. However, those who look at these matters with open eyes
and open minds will come to the conclusion that man is a very adaptable
animal; that if necessary he can get along without almost all foods,
being able to subsist on a very small variety; that he can live for a
long period on animal food entirely; that he can live all his life
without tasting flesh; that he can live on a mixed diet; that he can
adopt a great many plans of eating and live in health and comfort on
nearly all of them, provided he does not deprive himself of the natural
salts and gets some protein; and finally and most important, that
moderation is the chief factor in keeping well, for the best foods
produce disease in time if taken in excess.
Those who object to flesh, dairy products, cereals, tubers, legumes,
refined sugars, fruits or vegetables, should do without the class which
they find objectionable, for it is easy to substitute from other
classes. Eggs, milk or legumes may be taken in place of flesh foods. The
salts contained in fruits may be obtained from vegetables. The starch,
which is the chief ingredient of cereals, is easily obtained from tubers
and legumes; fats and sugars will take its place. Commercial sugar is
not a necessity. The force and heat derived from it can be obtained from
starches and fats.
Outside of milk in infancy, there is not a single indispensable food.
Some people have peculiarities which prevent them from eating certain
foods, such as pork, eggs, milk and strawberries, but with these
exceptions a healthy person can eat any food he pleases, provided he is
moderate. We eat too much flesh, sugar and starch and we suffer for it.
This does not prove that these foods are harmful, but that overeating is.
Sometimes the food question becomes a very trying one in the home. One
individual has learned the fact that good results are obtained by using
good sense and judgment in combining and consuming food, and he tries to
force others to do as he does. This is unfortunate, for most people
object to such actions, and though the intention is good, it
accomplishes nothing, but prejudices others against sensible living. The
best way is to do right yourself and let others sin against themselves
and suffer until they are weary. Then, seeing how you got out of your
trouble, perhaps they will come to you and accept what you have to
offer.
The attempt to force people to be good or to be healthy is merely wasted
effort.
The chapter devoted to Menus gives definite information regarding the
proper manner in which to combine foods and arrange meals. Such
information is also given in treating of the different classes of food.