Chapter III: The Argument From Physiology (1)

“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