The Natural Food of Man: Being an attempt to prove from comparative anatomy, physiology, chemistry and hygiene, that the original, best and natural diet of man is fruit and nutsCarrington, Hereward
Science
The Natural Food of Man: Being an attempt to prove from comparative anatomy, physiology, chemistry and hygiene, that the original, best and natural diet of man is fruit and nuts
Carrington, Hereward
Food; Vegetarianism
I am strongly convinced that nothing is to be derived from
wheat or similar grains and cereals that cannot be derived equally well
or better from fruits and nuts of various kinds. And this applies to
all other grains—rye, barley, oats, etc.—as well as to wheat. They are
all objectionable for the same reason; and a properly balanced diet of
fruits and nuts is superior to any diet of grains and cereals.
[34] It is important to note, in this connection, that but a small
percentage of the starch is ever converted into sugar, even by the
most thorough mastication. I say this on the authority of Dr John
Goodfellow, F.R.C.S., author of “The Dietetic Value of Bread,” etc.,
who conducted a number of careful experiments on this very point. (See
his letter to Dr Densmore, in “How Nature Cures,” pp. 237-239.) In
raw cereals, only about one per cent. was converted! As this process
of conversion cannot go forward in an acid medium—_i.e._ in the
stomach—it is evident that the bowels must be called upon to effect
this conversion—a useless tax upon them, and a cause of constipation
as well.
It is well known that toast is more wholesome than ordinary bread: it
is given to invalids, when bread is debarred. The reason for this—which
comparatively few persons know—is that a portion of the starch
contained in the flour is converted into dextrine, by this process of
toasting. In this manner, a portion of the original starch contained in
the bread is “predigested,” and hence saves the vital energies so much
tax—when it comes to the digestion of this starch. But would it not be
better to give the patient fruits, in which _all_ these processes of
conversion have already been performed by nature—and hence save far
more of the bodily energies than even the giving of toast? It must be
remembered that starch contains nothing that is useful to the system
except this grape-sugar, which can also be obtained from fruits of all
kinds, in a natural and appropriable form. This being so, why not give
fruits in the first place—thus saving all this useless expenditure of
energy? There is also the additional argument that fruits of all kinds
are cleansing and slightly laxative—instead of being constipating—and
have also powerful germicidal properties. However, I shall consider
this question more at length in the chapter devoted to the fruitarian
diet.
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