Vegetable Foods.—Few people rightly estimate the true value of vegetables, apart, that is to say, from the starchy products of the vegetable kingdom, such as potatoes, sago, rice, &c. Many people hardly think of eating cabbage or spinach with their meat, yet there is no more wholesome food as an adjunct to the dinner table. The same may be said of many other vegetables. On the authority of the Medical Record, asparagus is a strong diuretic, and forms part of the cure for rheumatic patients at such health resorts as Aix-les-Bains. Sorrel is cooling, and forms the staple of that soupe aux herbes which a French lady will order for herself after a long and tiring journey. Carrots, as containing a quantity of sugar, are avoided by some people, while others complain of them as indigestible. With regard to the latter accusation, it may be remarked, in passing, that it is the yellow core of the carrot that is difficult of digestion—the outer, a red layer, is tender enough. In Savoy the peasants have recourse to an infusion of carrots as a specific for jaundice. The large sweet onion is very rich in those alkaline elements which counteract the poison of rheumatic gout. If slowly stewed in weak broth, and eaten with a little Nepaul pepper, it will be found to be an admirable article of diet for patients of studious and sedentary habits. The stalks of cauliflower have the same sort of value, only too often the stalk of a cauliflower is so ill-boiled and unpalatable that few persons would thank you for proposing to them to make part of their meal consist of so uninviting an article. Turnips, in the same way, are often thought to be indigestible, and better suited for cows and sheep than for delicate people; but here the fault lies with the cook quite as much as with the root. The cook boils the turnips badly, and then pours some butter over it, and the eater of such a dish is sure to be the worst for it. Try a better way. What shall be said about our lettuces? The plant has a slight narcotic action, of which a French old woman, like a French doctor, well knows the value, and when properly cooked is really very easy of digestion.

Fruits.—There are few who cannot enjoy fruit in one form or another. For diabetics only the least desirable kinds, as certain nuts and almonds, are available, all others, as containing sugar, being forbidden. Sufferers from acid dyspepsia must select carefully, and limit their consumption to the least irritating—a few strawberries or a few grapes. Diarrhœa and dysentery preclude the use of all fruit. On the other hand, for constipated persons it is sometimes the only trustworthy remedy which they can use continuously with comfort; it is also of benefit in renal diseases, by its action on the bowel. Atonic persons generally take it well, and feel the better for its digestive property Those in normal health may eat almost any ripe fruit. The bland varieties are the most wholesome and nutritious—strawberries, apples, pears, grapes, and gooseberries. The last named, however, with currants and raspberries, are less wholesome than the others. Stone-fruits are apt to disagree with the stomach; but the more watery, as peaches and large plums, are better than the smaller and drier, as apricots and damsons. The pulp of oranges renders them heavy. Among other foreign fruits, bananas are wholesome. Dried fruits and the skin of fruits in general are indigestible. Nuts, the edible part of which is really the seed, contain much albumen and some fat in a condensed form, and are particularly difficult of digestion. Fruit may be taken with a meal or on an empty stomach. In the former case it promotes digestion by its gently irritating effect on the mucous membrane of the stomach and intestine. If an aperient effect be desired, it had better be taken in the morning before breakfast or between meals. A succulent and pleasantly acid variety is best for both of these purposes, while it is also a food. The quantity of fruit which should be taken depends on the kind. If it belongs to the bland nutritious class, a healthy person may now and then partake of it as freely as of any other wholesome food; but he will gain most benefit if he take only a little, and take it regularly. The same may be said of the invalid with whom fruit agrees. Cooking removes much of the acidity from crude fruit, and renders it lighter as well as more palatable. So treated, it is productive of good and no harm; but it is a fundamental principle that whatever fruit is eaten uncooked must be fully ripe and not over-ripe. This may sound trite, and indeed the principle is commonly admitted, but not, it would seem, by all, for we still find people, and not a few, who will themselves deliberately take, and worse, will give to their children, green gooseberries, green apples, &c., the very hardness of which, apart from their acid pungency, suggest their unfitness for digestion. Such people use as food an acid irritant poison, whose necessary action is to cause excessive intestinal secretion, with more or less of inflammation. Hence arises diarrhœa. On the other hand, fruit which is over-ripe, in which fermentation has begun, is a frequent cause of this disorder, and equally to be avoided, and perhaps also more difficult to avoid because the insidious beginning of decay is not easily recognised. It should never be forgotten by any who incline to follow the season in their feeding, that the want of such precautions as the above may produce that dysenteric form of diarrhœa, “British cholera,” which is occasionally as rapidly fatal as the more dreaded Asiatic type of that disease. (Brit. Med. Jour.)

Bread and other Grain Foods.—Arguments on the bread question threaten to be endless, probably because the champions on both sides have just enough scientific knowledge to enable them to misstate the case. The most reasonable review of the whole circumstances is contained in one of Prof. Church’s papers in Nature. He deals first with variations in composition in the grain itself. These variations, chiefly affecting the percentage of nitrogen, depend upon hereditary qualities in different strains of the wheat-plant; upon climate and season: and, to some extent, but not so largely as is often stated, upon cultivation, soil, and manure. The hard translucent wheats, blés durs et glacés, are of high specific gravity, about 1·41, and, owing to their lengthened and wrinkled shape, of low weight per bushel; these wheats are rich in nitrogen. The soft opaque wheats, of less specific gravity, about 1·38, and, owing to their rounded and plump form, of high weight per bushel, are poor in nitrogen. The hard wheats grown in Poland, in Southern Russia, in Italy, and in Auvergne, are used in the manufacture of macaroni, vermicelli, semolina, and pâtés d’Italie. The softer and more starchy wheats are especially appropriate for the production of fine white flour. According to the most recent analyses, the percentage of nitrogen in different varieties and samples of air-dry wheat may range from 1·3 up to 2·5—numbers corresponding to 8·23 and 15·83, respectively, of gluten or flesh-forming substances. But the same variety of wheat may give a grain having 3 per cent. more gluten in a bad season than when matured in a fine summer. More than this, one may select from the same field, the same plant, or even the same ear, individual grains which shall show quite as wide a variation in gluten as that just cited.

Church next considers “how much flour and how much bran will 100 parts of ordinary soft wheat yield on the ordinary system of low-milling adopted in England?” As the averages from an immense number of independent estimates we may put down the flour at a total of 80, the bran at 17, and the loss at 3. Thus, from an economical point of view, we appear to lose ⅕, or 20 per cent., of our wheat by submitting it to the numerous treatments involved in the manufacture of flour. But is this really the case? We think not. For much of the nitrogen in the rejected parts is not in the form of flesh-forming matter, and much that does so exist in the bran passes unaltered and unused through the alimentary canal, because of its close incorporation with fibre. But on the other side we must not forget that bone-forming materials are clearly deficient in wheaten flour, and that those phosphatic compounds present in bran are readily soluble to a large extent, not only in the several digestive secretions with which they come in contact in the body, but also in pure water.

But in comparing and contrasting bread made from flour with that made from whole wheat, Church considers other points. We shall find it impossible to make, by means of leaven or yeast, a light spongy loaf from whole wheat finely ground, the so-called cerealin of the bran inducing chemical changes which result in a moist, clammy, dense product. Even whole wheat merely crushed into meal, and not ground, partakes of the same defect. Fine flour, on the other hand, yields a bread which is light enough before mastication, but which, when masticated, possesses a marked tendency to become compacted into dense lumps which may never become penetrated by the gastric and intestinal juices, and which are a frequent cause of constipation. Whole-meal bread cannot be charged with this defect; indeed it acts medicinally as a laxative, and by reason of its mechanical texture is hurried rather too quickly along the digestive track, so that the full virtue of such of its nutrients as are really soluble becomes in part lost. Yet there is no doubt that for many persons, especially those who have passed middle age and are engaged in sedentary occupations, whole wheaten meal in the form of bread, biscuits, scones, &c., forms an invaluable diet.

The following analysis may present some of the foregoing statements in a cleared light, and may add some additional particulars of interest. They represent, so far as a couple of sets of average results can do so, the percentage composition of ordinary white bread and of the whole-meal bread made by Hill and Son:—

White.Whole meal.
Water40·043·5
[a] Albuminoids or flesh-formers 7·010·5
Starch, dextrin, and sugar50·740·6
Oil and fat0·61·6
Cellulose and lignose0·51·8
[c] Ash or mineral matter1·22·0
(Church.)

[a] Calculated from total nitrogen present.
As much as 12·5 in some samples.
[c] Includes common salt added.

Another writer who has worked out the facts arrives at closely similar conclusions. He sums up thus:—(a) The carbohydrates of bran are digested by man to but a slight degree. (b) The nutritive salts of the wheat grain are contained chiefly in the bran, and, therefore, when bread is eaten to the exclusion of other foods, the kinds of bread which contain these elements are the more valuable. When, however, as is usually the case, bread is used as an adjunct to other foods which contain the inorganic nutritive elements, a white bread offers, weight for weight, more available food than does one containing bran. (c) By far the major portion of the gluten of wheat exists in the central four-fifths of the grain, entirely independent of the cells of the fourth bran-layer (the so-called “gluten cells”). Further, the cells last named, even when thoroughly cooked, are little if at all affected by passage through the digestive tract of the healthy adult. (d) In an ordinary mixed diet, the retention of bran in flour is a false economy, as its presence so quickens peristaltic action as to prevent the complete digestion and absorption, not only of the proteids present in the branny food, but also of other foodstuffs ingested at the same time. (e) Inasmuch as in the bran of wheat as ordinarily roughly removed there is adherent a noteworthy amount of the true gluten of the endosperm, any process which in the production of wheaten flour should remove simply the three cortical protective layers of the grain would yield a flour at once cheaper and more nutritious than that ordinarily used.

On this same subject the Lancet remarks that bread which contains all the constituents of the wheat, except the outer, insoluble and irritating portion of the seed, seems, when the appetite for it has been obtained, to be more satisfying and digestible than the white and fashionable product which is found on most tables, of rich and poor alike. It is believed, too, that for children, the whole meal is the best for sustaining growth and for building up the skeleton strongly and in perfect form. The supply of whole-meal bread is now much facilitated by the improvements that have been introduced in the decorticated or granulated flour, to which Lady John Manners called public attention in her paper on Wheat-meal bread. In the decorticated whole meal the extreme outer coating of the wheat grain is, by a special process of abrading, to the perfection of which Dr. Morfit has rendered able service, cleverly removed. After the abrading process is completed, the whole of the grain is reduced to a fine flour, in which there is retained all the substances that are nutritious and digestible. Considering the fact that the whole-meal bread, when properly manufactured, is easily assimilated, we are led to the conclusion that it must be more nutritious generally than any other bread, in which starch predominates.