KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



[Jan. 2, 1885. 



vora, it is only reasonable to assume that we should continue 

 on the .same principle. 



The particulars of the difl'ereuce are instructive. The 

 food -which nature provides for the human infant difl'ers 

 from that provided tor the young carnivorous animal, just 

 in the same -way as flesh food difiers from the cultivated 

 and cooked vegetables and fruit -within easy reach of man. 



These contaiu less fat, less nitrogenous matter, more 

 water, and more sugar (or starch, which becomes sugar 

 during digestion) than animal food. 



Those who advocate the use of flesh food usually do so 

 on the ground that it is more nutritious, contains more 

 nitrogeiious material and more fat than vegetable food. So 

 much the worse^for the human being, says Nature, when s/ie 

 prejiares the food. 



But as a matter of practical fact there are no flesh-eattrs 

 among us, none who avail themselves of this higher propor- 

 tion of albuminoids and fat. AVe all practically adiuit 

 every day in eating our ordinary Eoglish dinner, that this 

 excess of nitrogenous matter and fat is bad ; we do so by 

 mixing the meat with that particular vegetable which 

 contains an excess of the carbo-hydrates (starch) with the 

 smallest available quantity of albuminoids and fat. The 

 .slice of meat, diluted -with the lump of potato, brings the 

 whole down to about the average compo-ition of a fairly- 

 arranged vegetarian repast. When 1 speak of a vege- 

 tarian repast, I do not mean mere cabbages and 

 potatoes, but properly selected, well cooked, nutritious 

 vegetable food. As an example, I will take Count Rum- 

 ford's No. 1 soup, already described, without the bread, and 

 in like manner take beef and potatoes without bread. 

 Taking original weights, and assuming that the lump of 

 potato weighed the same as the slice of meat, we get the 

 following composition according to the table given by 

 Pdvy, page 410 : — 



Rumford's soup (without the bread afterwards added) 

 ■was composed of equal measures of peas and pearl barley, 

 or barley meal, and nearly equal wei;;hts. Their percentage 

 composition as sta'ed in above-named table is as follows : — 



Here, then, in 100 parts of the material of Rumford's 

 halfpenny dinner, as compared with the "mixed diet," we 

 have 40 per cent, more of nitrogenous food, more than six 

 and a half times as much carbo-hydrate in the form of starch, 

 more than double the quanti'y of sugar, about 17 per cent. 

 more of fat, and only a little less of salts (supplied by the 

 salt which Rumford added). Thus the John Bull mateiials 

 fall short of all the coitly constituents, and only excel by 

 their abundance of very cheap water. 



This analyi-ij supjjlies the explan-ition of what lii.s 

 puzz'ed many inquirers, aud encouraged some sneeiers at 



this work of the great scientific philanthropist, viz., that he 

 found that le.-s than five ounces of solids was sufficient for 

 each man's dinner. He was supplying far more nutritious 

 material than beef and potatoes, and, therefore, his five ounces 

 was more satisfactory than a pound of beef and potatoes, 

 three-fourths of which is water, for which water John Bull 

 pays a shilling or more per pound when he buys his prime 

 steak. 



Rumford added the water at pump cost, and, by long 

 boiling, caused some of it to unite with the solid materials 

 (by the hydration I have described), and then served the 

 combination in the form of porridge, raising each portion 

 to 19-| ounces. 



I might multiply such examples to prove the fallacy of 

 the prevailing notions concerning the nutritive value of the 

 " mixed diet," a fallacy which is merely an inherited 

 epidemic, a baseless physical superstition. 



I will, however, just add one more example for com- 

 parison — viz., the Highlander's porridge. The following is 

 the composition of oatmeal — also from Pavy's table : — • 



Water 1500 



Albumen 1260 



Starch 58-40 



Sugar 5-40 



Fat 5-60 



Salts 3-00 



Compare this with the beef and potatoes above, and it 

 will be seen that it is sitpcriui' in every item excepting the 

 vxiter. This deficiency is readily supplied in the cookery. 



These figures explain a jiuzzle that may have suggested 

 itself to some of my thoughtful readers — viz., the smallness 

 of the quantity of dry oatmeal that is used in making a 

 large portion of porridge. If we could, in like manner, see 

 our portion of beef or mutton aud potatoes reduced to dry- 

 nesiJ, the smallness of the quantity of actually solid food 

 required for a meal would be similarly manifest. An 

 alderman's banquet in this condition would barely fill a 

 breakfast-cup. 



I cannot at all agree with those of my vegetarian friends 

 who denounce flesh-meat as a prolific source of disease, as 

 inflaming the pas.^ions, and generally demoralising. Neither 

 am I at all disposed to make a religion of either eating, or 

 drinking, or abstaining. There are certain albuminoids, 

 certain carbo hydrates, certain hydro- carbons, and certain 

 salts demanded for our sustenance. Excepting in fruit, 

 these are not supplied by nature in a fit condition for our 

 use. They must be prepared. Whether we do all the 

 preparation in the kitchen by bringing the produce of the 

 earth directly there, or -whether, on account of our igno- 

 rance and incapacity as cooks, we pass our food through t! e 

 stomach, intestines, blood-vessels, ic, of sheej) and oxen, 

 as a substitute for the fir.st stages of scientific cookery, the 

 result is about the same as regards the dietetic result. 

 Flesh feeding is a nasty practice, but I see no grounds for 

 denouncing it as physiologically injurious. 



In my youthful days I was on friendly terms with a 

 sheep that belonged to a butcher in Jermyn-street. This 

 animal, for some reason, had been spared in its lambhood, 

 and was reared as the butcher's pet. It was well known in 

 St. James's by following the butcher's men through the 

 streets like a dog. I have seen this sheep steal mutton- 

 chops and devour them raw. It preferred beef or mutton 

 to gras.". It enjoyed robust health, and was by no means 

 ferocious. 



It was merely a disgusting animal, with excessively per- 

 verted appetite ; a perversion that supplies very suggestive 

 material for human meditation. 



My own experiments on myself, and the multitude of 

 other experiments that I am daily witnessing among men 

 of all occupations who have cast aside flesh food after 

 many years of mixed diet, prove incontestably that flesh 



