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]
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]
“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.
See the Displaced Table.
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 inorganic form—in which condition they are quite unusable by the system. This is a question, however, into which I do not desire to enter now. It is very necessary, however, to point out and insist upon this fact—that giving the total percentage of ash constitutents or mineral matter, in any given article of food, is of small value to us when attempting to balance a diet, unless we know in what this percentage of mineral matter consists. That is, 1.7 per cent. ash of a given food may be composed of five different mineral elements (in organic form) and the proportion of each would vary largely. It is quite possible, therefore, for there to be a larger percentage of any one mineral element in a certain food, containing a lesser total ash percentage than in one containing a greater ash percentage. That is, supposing there to be two articles of diet, one containing 1.5 per cent. and the other 2 per cent. of ash. The article of food containing the 1.5 per cent. of salts might contain 1 per cent. of potash, while the article containing 2 per cent. of total ash would contain but 5 per cent. of potash. It would be seen from this that an article of food containing less total ash percentage might contain relatively more of a certain element; and if we wish to obtain and supply to the system certain organic salts, it will only be necessary for us to pick out those articles of diet which contain the largest percentage of the required salt, and supply it to the body, as food, for a longer or shorter period. In this manner saline starvation, and the many ills that result indirectly from it, may be avoided. It will be evident from the above, therefore, that any tables, giving the total ash percentage of the various foods are practically valueless, so long as they do not carry the analysis a step further, and tell us in what this total percentage consists. Only in this manner can any definite results be obtained; but it will be evident, at all events, that any of the articles of diet containing such organic salts would be preferable to meats, so far as this aspect of the problem is concerned—since meats contain practically none. It will be of interest to consider, briefly, this question of the relative proportion of each organic salt in the total ash percentage.
So far as I have been able to discover, only two authors have paid particular attention to this question of minute ash percentages: Dr H. Lahmann, in Germany, and Mr Otto Carqué, in America. Both of these authors have gone to considerable trouble to obtain exact figures upon this question.[16] Let us consider Dr Lahmann’s argument first: Taking milk (of the human species) as the standard with which to compare analyses of all foods—since it is to be supposed that this would contain all organic salts as well as proteid, fats and carbohydrates in exactly the right proportion for the upbuilding of the healthy human body—he found, by comparison, that the quantities of soda and lime contained in our ordinary food are far below the quantities necessary to maintain a healthy existence, whereas the quantities of potash, iron and phosphoric acid are generally too high. Although his conclusions may not be accepted in full, it is evident that some of them, at least, are correct; and one of the most important conclusions to be drawn from his argument is that, generally speaking, anæmia has nothing to do with want of iron in the blood. It is due to other causes—principally over-feeding, as I have endeavoured to show in my “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 604-605.
Dr Lahmann shows us that we may replace any quantity of meat or lentils, as well as bread and flour, by fruits or green vegetables, and that the amount of lime and other bone-forming salts will be increased thereby. As a general thing it may be said that there
is a superabundance of potash in vegetable food. A large number of diseases were found to be due to a disproportion of the organic salts—this argument running throughout Dr Lahmann’s book. The following table will show clearly the percentage of the various mineral salts in food-stuffs, and will prove conclusively that certain salts, lacking in the human system, can never be supplied by any amount of meat; and, further, that a number of these salts cannot be supplied in proper quantities by any other articles of food than fruits. These, and these alone, contain many salts in solution which the system needs. I shall, however, consider this question at greater length when I come to discuss the value of the fruitarian dietary. For the moment, let us turn our attention to the tables of ash percentages.
Now, if we compare the figures in the following tables, we find that in practically every case the quantity of any given food-salt is greater in all fruits, and practically in every other article of diet than it is in meat. Taking potassium, for example, we find that meat averages (out of the total percentage of mineral matter) 41.30 per cent., while blueberries average 57.1 per cent.; and olives, 80.9 per cent. If we compare the quantity of sodium, we find that meat contains 3.6 per cent.; while apples contain 26.1 per cent.; strawberries, 28.5 per cent.; dried figs, 26.2 per cent. As some of these, however, are percentages of smaller total ash percentages, the disproportion is not so great as would at first appear, though it is evident that the fruits contain much more, even allowing for this. Making the same reservations, we find that while meat contains, of iron, an average of .7 per cent., strawberries contain 5.9 per cent.; gooseberries 4.56 per cent.; prunes, 2.5 per cent.; while spinach contains 3.35 per cent.; asparagus, 3.4 per cent.; and lettuce, 5.2 per cent.
| Composition of Food Products | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PER CENT. | |||||
| I | II | III | IV | V | |
| Water | Protein (Albumen) |
Fat | Carbo- Hydrates (Sugar, Starch) |
Mineral Matter | |
| Human Milk | 87.02 | 2.36 | 3.94 | 6.23 | 0.45 |
| Cow’s Milk | 87.20 | 3.55 | 3.70 | 4.88 | 0.71 |
| Meat (Average) | 72.00 | 20.00 | 5.00 | 0.40 | 1.10 |
| Blood of the Ox | 80.80 | 18.10 | 0.20 | 0.03 | 0.85 |
| Eggs | 73.70 | 12.55 | 12.10 | 0.55 | 1.10 |
| Seafish | 81.00 | 17.10 | 0.34 | — | 1.60 |
| Fruits. | |||||
| Apples | 84.80 | 0.40 | — | 13.00 | 0.50 |
| Strawberries | 87.70 | 0.50 | — | 7.70 | 0.80 |
| Gooseberries | 85.70 | 0.50 | — | 8.40 | 0.40 |
| Prunes | 81.20 | 0.80 | — | 11.05 | 0.71 |
| Peaches | 83.00 | 0.40 | — | 11.80 | 0.30 |
| Blueberries | 78.40 | 0.80 | — | 5.90 | 1.00 |
| Cherries | 79.80 | 0.70 | — | 12.00 | 0.70 |
| Grapes | 78.20 | 0.60 | — | 16.30 | 0.50 |
| German Prunes | 84.90 | 0.40 | — | 8.20 | 0.66 |
| Dried Figs | 31.20 | 1.34 | 1.45 | 65.90 | 2.86 |
| Olives | 30.07 | 5.24 | 51.90 | — | 2.34 |
| Nuts. | |||||
| Walnuts | 4.70 | 16.40 | 62.90 | 7.90 | 2.03 |
| Chestnuts, Dried | 7.30 | 10.80 | 2.90 | 73.80 | 3.00 |
| Almonds | 6.00 | 23.50 | 53.00 | 7.80 | 3.10 |
| Cocoanuts | 46.60 | 5.50 | 35.90 | 8.10 | 1.00 |
| Beechnuts | 9.09 | 21.70 | 42.50 | 19.20 | 3.86 |
| Vegetables. | |||||
| Spinach | 88.50 | 3.50 | 0.60 | 4.44 | 2.10 |
| Savoy-Cabbage | 87.10 | 3.30 | 0.70 | 6.00 | 1.64 |
| Red-Cabbage | 90.06 | 1.83 | 0.20 | 5.86 | 0.77 |
| Onions | 76.00 | 1.70 | 0.10 | 10.80 | 0.70 |
| Carrots | 87.05 | 1.00 | 0.20 | 9.40 | 0.90 |
| Horse Radish | 76.70 | 2.70 | 0.35 | 16.00 | 1.50 |
| Asparagus | 93.75 | 1.80 | 0.25 | 2.60 | 0.54 |
| Radishes | 93.30 | 1.20 | 0.15 | 3.80 | 0.74 |
| Cauliflower | 90.90 | 2.50 | 0.30 | 4.55 | 0.83 |
| Cucumbers | 95.60 | 1.20 | 0.10 | 2.30 | 0.44 |
| Lettuce | 94.30 | 1.40 | 0.30 | 2.20 | 1.03 |
| Potatoes | 75.09 | 2.08 | 0.15 | 21.00 | 1.10 |
| Legumes & Cereals. | |||||
| Lentils | 12.35 | 25.70 | 1.90 | 53.30 | 3.04 |
| Peas | 15.00 | 22.85 | 1.80 | 52.40 | 2.58 |
| Beans | 14.76 | 24.30 | 1.60 | 49.00 | 3.26 |
| Whole Wheat | 13.40 | 13.60 | 1.90 | 69.10 | 2.00 |
| Superfine Flour | 12.60 | 10.20 | 0.90 | 74.70 | 0.50 |
| Rye | 15.06 | 11.50 | 1.80 | 67.80 | 1.81 |
| Barley | 13.80 | 11.10 | 2.20 | 64.90 | 2.70 |
| Oats | 12.40 | 10.40 | 5.20 | 57.80 | 3.02 |
| Corn | 13.10 | 9.85 | 4.60 | 68.50 | 1.51 |
| Key to Mineral Matter | |||||
| K | Potassium | P | Phosphorous | S | Sulphur |
| Na | Sodium | Mg | Magnesium | Si | Silicon |
| Ca | Calcium | Fe | Iron | Cl | Chlorine |
| Composition of Mineral Matter | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS GIVEN IN THE 5th COLUMN, | |||||||||
| PER CENT. | |||||||||
| K | Na | Ca | Mg | Fe | P | S | Si | Cl | |
| (K2O) | (Na2O) | (CaO) | (MgO) | (Fe2O3) | (P2O5) | (SO3) | (SiO2) | (Cl) | |
| Human Milk | 33.80 | 9.12 | 16.70 | 2.16 | 0.22 | 22.66 | 0.95 | 0.02 | 18.38 |
| Cow’s Milk | 24.67 | 9.70 | 22.05 | 3.05 | 0.55 | 28.45 | 0.30 | 0.04 | 14.28 |
| Meat (Average) | 41.30 | 3.60 | 2.80 | 3.21 | 0.70 | 42.50 | 1.60 | 1.10 | 3.85 |
| Blood of the Ox | 7.60 | 45.00 | 1.10 | 0.60 | 9.40 | 5.25 | 3.05 | 0.8 | 34.40 |
| Eggs | 17.40 | 22.90 | 10.90 | 1.10 | 0.40 | 37.60 | 0.30 | 0.30 | 9.00 |
| Seafish | 21.80 | 14.90 | 15.20 | 3.90 | — | 38.16 | — | — | 11.40 |
| Fruits. | |||||||||
| Apples | 35.70 | 26.10 | 4.10 | 8.75 | 1.40 | 13.70 | 6.10 | 4.30 | — |
| Strawberries | 21.10 | 28.50 | 14.20 | — | 5.90 | 13.80 | 3.15 | 12.05 | 1.70 |
| Gooseberries | 38.65 | 9.90 | 12.20 | 5.85 | 4.56 | 19.70 | 5.90 | 2.60 | 0.75 |
| Prunes | 48.50 | 9.05 | 11.50 | 3.60 | 2.50 | 16.00 | 3.20 | 3.15 | 0.40 |
| Peaches | 54.70 | 8.50 | 8.00 | 5.20 | 1.00 | 15.20 | 5.70 | 1.50 | — |
| Blueberries | 57.10 | 5.16 | 8.00 | 6.10 | 1.10 | 17.40 | 3.10 | 0.90 | — |
| Cherries | 51.85 | 2.20 | 7.50 | 5.50 | 2.00 | 16.00 | 5.10 | 9.00 | 1.35 |
| Grapes | 56.20 | 1.40 | 10.80 | 4.20 | 0.40 | 15.60 | 5.60 | 2.75 | 1.52 |
| German Prunes | 59.20 | 0.50 | 10.00 | 5.50 | 3.20 | 15.10 | 3.70 | 2.40 | — |
| Dried Figs | 28.36 | 26.27 | 18.91 | 9.21 | 1.46 | 1.30 | 6.75 | 5.93 | 2.70 |
| Olives | 80.90 | 7.53 | 7.46 | 0.18 | 0.92 | 1.33 | 1.05 | 0.65 | 0.18 |
| Nuts. | |||||||||
| Walnuts | 31.10 | 2.25 | 8.60 | 13.00 | 1.32 | 43.70 | — | — | — |
| Chestnuts, Dried | 56.70 | 7.12 | 3.87 | 7.47 | 0.14 | 18.10 | 3.80 | 1.50 | 0.50 |
| Almonds | 28.00 | 0.20 | 8.80 | 17.66 | 0.50 | 43.60 | 0.37 | — | — |
| Cocoanuts | 43.90 | 8.40 | 4.60 | 9.40 | — | 17.00 | 5.09 | 0.50 | 13.40 |
| Beechnuts | 17.15 | 5.20 | 18.40 | 14.15 | 1.00 | 30.50 | 2.45 | 2.70 | 2.44 |
| Vegetables. | |||||||||
| Spinach | 16.60 | 35.30 | 11.90 | 6.40 | 3.35 | 10.25 | 6.90 | 4.50 | 6.30 |
| Savoy-Cabbage | 27.50 | 10.20 | 21.40 | 3.60 | 1.70 | 14.75 | 8.20 | 4.78 | 7.90 |
| Red-Cabbage | 22.10 | 12.10 | 27.90 | 4.44 | 0.10 | 3.90 | 15.30 | 0.50 | 13.65 |
| Onions | 34.00 | 2.50 | 22.90 | 4.65 | 2.30 | 17.35 | 5.68 | 8.50 | 2.40 |
| Carrots | 36.90 | 21.20 | 11.30 | 4.40 | 1.00 | 12.80 | 36.45 | 2.40 | 4.60 |
| Horse Radish | 30.76 | 4.00 | 8.20 | 2.90 | 1.94 | 7.70 | 30.80 | 12.70 | 0.90 |
| Asparagus | 24.00 | 17.10 | 10.85 | 4.30 | 3.40 | 18.60 | 6.20 | 10.10 | 5.90 |
| Radishes | 32.00 | 21.15 | 14.00 | 3.10 | 2.80 | 10.90 | 6.50 | 0.90 | 9.15 |
| Cauliflower | 44.36 | 5.90 | 5.60 | 3.70 | 1.00 | 20.20 | 13.00 | 3.70 | 3.40 |
| Cucumbers | 41.20 | 10.00 | 7.30 | 4.15 | 1.40 | 20.00 | 6.90 | 8.00 | 6.60 |
| Lettuce | 37.60 | 7.50 | 14.70 | 6.20 | 5.20 | 9.20 | 3.80 | 8.10 | 7.65 |
| Potatoes | 60.01 | 3.00 | 2.60 | 4.93 | 1.10 | 16.90 | 6.53 | 2.00 | 3.50 |
| Legumes & Cereals. | |||||||||
| Lentils | 34.80 | 13.50 | 6.30 | 2.50 | 2.00 | 36.30 | — | — | 4.63 |
| Peas | 43.10 | 1.00 | 4.80 | 8.00 | 0.80 | 35.90 | 3.40 | 0.90 | 1.60 |
| Beans | 41.50 | 1.10 | 5.00 | 7.15 | 0.50 | 38.90 | 3.40 | 0.65 | 1.80 |
| Whole Wheat | 31.20 | 2.10 | 3.25 | 12.10 | 1.30 | 47.20 | 0.40 | 2.00 | 0.30 |
| Superfine Flour | 34.40 | 0.80 | 7.50 | 7.70 | 0.60 | 49.40 | — | — | — |
| Rye | 32.10 | 1.50 | 2.90 | 11.22 | 1.20 | 47.70 | 1.30 | 1.40 | 0.50 |
| Barley | 16.30 | 4.10 | 0.70 | 12.50 | 1.70 | 32.80 | 3.00 | 28.70 | — |
| Oats | 17.90 | 1.70 | 3.60 | 7.10 | 1.20 | 25.60 | 1.80 | 39.20 | 0.90 |
| Corn | 29.80 | 1.10 | 2.20 | 15.50 | 0.80 | 45.60 | 0.80 | 2.10 | 1.90 |
| Rice, Unpolished | 25.00 | 4.20 | 3.70 | 11.10 | 1.40 | 53.76 | 0.50 | 2.60 | 0.10 |
It is evident that, making all allowances for a smaller total ash percentage, these articles of diet contain a far greater percentage of iron than does meat, and the same is true of practically all other salts, as can be seen by referring to the tables. It is evident, therefore, that other food-stuffs, and particularly fruits, will supply us with more mineral matter than will the best of meats, and are to be preferred in consequence.
It will not be necessary for us to compare the columns headed “Refuse” and “Water,” since these are practically the same in all food-stuffs, on the average, and they do not effect, appreciably, the food-value of any article of diet.
There remains only one valid objection to my argument, and that is based upon the supposed fact that a larger percentage of animal proteid is appropriated by the system than is the case in vegetable foods. That is, given a certain quantity of animal and vegetable foods, both containing an equal amount of proteid, more will be appropriated from the animal than from the vegetable food-stuffs. A great many writers, such as Miss Leppel, in England, have taken this ground. But I would point out, first of all, that, even if it were true, it would not invalidate the argument in the least, for the reason that a far larger percentage of proteid is contained in a smaller amount of non-flesh food, such as nuts; and for that reason it would be easy enough to supply the system with the same amount of proteid from an equal, or even a lesser, bulk of food—even granting the validity of the argument. But I dispute the fact itself. Professor Russell H. Chittenden, of Yale University, one of the most famous physiologists in America, and director of the Sheffield Scientific School, writes in his “Nutrition of Man” as follows:—