Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1881-10-13
boston Journal of CHEMISTRY
Instinct as a Guide ii Diete,lus.

.Ia,uu,,." a. FalstaH saw. "l. a great
matter lnI It - curoa, aut lu-tr4et.,, 2.
n.t, Au~ ia the ab,ru,t 4; ,y.cutlu, AuaA.-
edge, j la. guided the human race d. tu,
,,.,,i.ou and preparation Of their food -
H,.l a, such kuoa!c4gr could have -u.!ct
iErrn. and IN some cases even better lt
A4, sometimes been rsLt ~hrn ,l.ruy, bot
The TINE Mas wrong, and The latter hA-
eventually had Ia acknowledge the m >tAAr
.t had made. IL - not manN wears sine, tire
discovery vas announced that the bran %:
SueAt has high nutrltl,e value, and forth
With We we're admOnIshed by dIetetIc re-
formers that fine whta aten bread Was not An
economical food for the WurAlngu an But
thAt un>C.cntIhc parsonage had learned ~
prefer the whlfc iuai ~ the coarse brow
one. aud Declined To bc i convert to the new
theory. Hi, scientific brother naturally as
crIbcd tin. a. the turcr 81 habit ~ pI,yu-
dice, and VI, very ~rscrr upon the ub~tI-
nate H4>tciuluc>> " the poor IN throw w.u.
I~ ~ an important part ui their ~,autN !tlr.
Bat A. W. NV know. the m>'.u,t thI' .,..
the wurh oman iu stuck tn the bread winch
the experience q many generations hi4
taught hlm To prefer Mas rl-ht ia is choice.
The brown bread did. indeed, contain more
nutr.meul than the White, bat III the process
pt digestion the body gpt more nutr.myut
from the latter than the former. The action
Of the bran PARTICLES on the a.tmenlary canal
caused the coarse bread to pass through II
too rapidly. ana the loss in TN, way was
greater than the gam in the other. In
proved processes now furnish a. "a fine flour
n which the old waste OF nutrition, material
d, t4tt Ia.
old mc,hod OF milling, the notion that
white bread j. the poor mans food va
correct Il va, brown bread that w4~ The
luxury. suited to the dN-pcptlr r!ch man,
but too dear for the healthy and hard-work-
ug poor. Science was too ha>'l !u X, INST
nferrncr, and has since learned thar the III.
ge>tlbiIlty Of food and it, aptitude for a.
snniiatton must be con>idered,- and not
merely It's chemical composition.
Equal, based upon sound principles i
the workingmun's liking for animal food
Scientific men have demonstrated that veg
etahle food contains essentially the same nu-
trltIHe matter. while II /, Il good deal cheap
er They have explained that the iibrine OF
flesh has very close analogy 70 the gluten
of 9heats and is fitted to serve tine same
purpose in nour >hing the body, and 80
with animal fats apd vegetable oIls. and the
other leading constituents Of the TWO kinds
of diet but the poor man nevertheless per
sis,s IN spending a much OF ms hard earn
lng> ior meat he can possibly afford. Il
1 he caunnt have the coveted food every day
| he will have it when he can, if only once d
I week Recent German invest CATIONS prove
that this preference for flesh has somewhat
4 the same economical arguments IN It's faVOl
as that for the fine bread in comparison witt
I the coarse. 1t has long been known that
/ as a general rule, flesh is easier Of digestion
/ and is therefore more perfectly asslmllated
than bread and other vegetable food. W.
must consider not merely how much nutri
ment each puts into the body, but how muci
/ OF il remains there and how much is rejected
as waste Good authorities have stated that
! if equal nutritive quantities of each arr
/ eaten the loss from the vegetables is twic,
as much as from the animal food; but i
| would seem from these recent experiment.
and analyses that the waste of nutriment il
often much greater in the case of veget
ables.