Physiological economy in nutrition, with special reference to the minimal proteid requirement of the healthy man / an experimental study

by R. H. Chittenden

V. ECONOMIC AND SOCIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE RESULTS.

The importance of the foregoing results from an economic and sociological standpoint is perhaps worthy of a brief consideration. We have learned that a much smaller amount of albuminous or proteid food than is ordinarily consumed will suffice for the daily needs of the body. It remains to be seen whether this fact will gain the popular recognition it would seem to deserve. Ignoring for the time the matter of physiological economy and its possible bearing upon health and strength, it is a fair question to ask why should people indulge in such wasteful extravagance in the matter of diet when there is no real physiological need for it? Why not accustom the body to a smaller consumption of food, thereby saving for other purposes the expenditure which this excess of food involves?

The question of the daily diet is one of the most important for the family of small means, and there is no reason why the family treasury should be so heavily drained for this imaginary need. Simplicity of living might well be given more careful consideration, and now that we have convincing proof of much smaller dietetic requirements on the part of the body, it might be well to consider the practical application these results naturally suggest. It is obvious from our data, that it is quite safe to diminish by one-half the amount of albuminous or proteid food ordinarily consumed, and this without any apparent detriment to health, and with even gain to the economy. The ordinary forms of proteid food are, as a rule, the most costly of dietetic articles, and since this restriction of albuminous food calls for no great increase in the amount of non-nitrogenous food, it is quite apparent that a great saving in the daily expenditure can be accomplished.

Obviously, however, there must be a decided change in the attitude of the public on this question before any great improvement can be hoped for. Habit and sentiment play such a part in our lives that it is too much to expect any sudden change of custom. By a proper system of education commenced early in life it may, however, be possible to establish new standards, which in time may prevail and eventually lead to more enlightened methods of living, whereby there will be less drain upon the resources of the people. With habits firmly fixed and palates calling for new sensations, reinforced by the prevalent opinion that by hearty eating lies the road to health and strength, it is easy to foresee difficulty in the advance of new doctrines along the lines indicated. The pleasure of eating is not to be minimized. The palate serves as the gateway through which food passes, and its sensitiveness and power of appreciation are not to be despised.

Simplicity of diet, however, does not diminish but rather increases the pleasure of eating, especially when daily restriction in diet—indulged in until a new habit is formed—has created a greater keenness of appetite, since under such conditions the palate takes on a new sensitiveness, and manifests a fuller appreciation of the variations of even a simple dietary. There is therefore no hardship, nor curtailment of the pleasure of eating in the restriction of the diet to the real needs of the body. Neither is there implied any cessation of that kindly hospitality that delights in the ‘breaking of bread’ with one’s friends. With enlightened methods of living, on the other hand, will come a truer appreciation of the dignity of the body, and a lessened desire to manifest one’s feelings of hospitality by a lavish intemperance that is as unphysiological as it is wasteful.

For the rich, as well as for the poor, there is need for careful consideration of this question of intemperance in the daily dietary. Were this the proper place, it would be easy to adduce figures showing the great waste which the consumption of food beyond the physiological requirements of the body entails. It needs no great imagination to picture the enormous saving per capita, in dollars and cents, by a reduction of the daily food to a true physiological basis. The saving to the community, to the family, might well amount to enough to constitute the difference between pauperism and affluence. The resources of a community, as well as the resources of the family, are not to be lightly thrown away. We count the cost of this or that necessity, of this or that luxury, with careful consideration of the relative need and expense, but in the matter of living we pay little heed except it may be to exclude certain dietetic luxuries which seem beyond our purse. We are prone to fancy that health and strength are fostered by great liberality in the amount and variety of the daily food provided, and we are apt to express great concern if all the family and our guests do not avail themselves to the utmost of the foods so lavishly spread before them. The poorer man emulates his richer neighbors as soon as his circumstances will permit, and resources that could be much more advantageously expended for the good of the family and the home life are practically wasted—to say nothing of possible injury to health—under the mistaken idea that this more generous method of living is the surest road to health and strength.

Further, there is ground for thought in the possible economy of time which an improved condition of health would result in for the working members of the family. If greater economy in diet will diminish the number of sick days in the year, thereby increasing the working power of the wage earner, and if greater strength and efficiency can be acquired at the same time, the economic value of the proposition is at once apparent.

Finally, happiness and contentment, which usually appear in direct proportion to the health and prosperity of the individual, may be counted upon as becoming more conspicuous in the life of the community. So we see suggested various ways in which the application of the principles herein laid down, if consistently adopted and followed, may lead to a betterment of economic and sociological conditions. The writer, however, leaves to others, more familiar with sociological problems, the fuller development of this line of thought.