The Chemistry of CookeryWilliams, W. Mattieu (William Mattieu)
Science
The Chemistry of Cookery
Williams, W. Mattieu (William Mattieu)
Cooking
+----------------+-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+
| | Water | Albumen | Starch | Sugar | Fat | Salts |
| +-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+
| Peas | 15·00 | 23·00 | 55·40 | 2·00 | 2·10 | 2·50 |
| Barley meal | 15·00 | 6·30 | 69·40 | 4·90 | 2·40 | 2·00 |
| +-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+
| | 30·00 | 29·30 | 134·80 | 6·90 | 4·50 | 4·50 |
| +-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+
|Mean composition| | | | | | |
| of mixture | 15·00 | 14·65 | 62·40 | 3·45 | 2·25 | 2·25 |
+----------------+-------+---------+--------+-------+------+-------+
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 quantity 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 ‘mixed diet’ falls short in all
the costly constituents, and only excels by its abundance of very cheap
water.
This analysis supplies the explanation of what has puzzled many
inquirers, and encouraged some sneerers at this work of the great
scientific philanthropist, viz. that he allowed less than five ounces
of solids for each man’s dinner. He did so and found it sufficient,
because he was supplying far more nutritious material than beef and
potatoes; his five ounces was more satisfactory than a pound of beef
and potatoes, three-fourths of which is water, for which water John
Bull blindly 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 19¾ 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 comparison—viz. the
Highlander’s porridge. The following is the composition of oatmeal—also
from Pavy’s table:
Water 15·00
Albumen 12·60
Starch 58·40
Sugar 5·40
Fat 5·60
Salts 3·00
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account