SHOULD FOOD BE COOKED?

Evening Star, Issue 21005, 20 January 1932, Page 12

SHOULD FOOD BE COOKED?

EXPERIMENTS IN DIET liet interests everyone. Of all the factors affecting our comfort and wellbeing none is more easily controlled. The results do not seem to be satisfactory. What is the reason for this regrettable failure of civilised man? The corpulence of city dwellers, notably in Europe, is not merely a proverb but a fact, hut it is fair to say that other features of national life, such as lack of exercise, contribute to this result. Would there be an improvement if we knew of an ideal diet? Does such a thing exist —a diet calculated to promote health, a “ heilnahrung,” such as German physicians prescribe for infants with food ailments? Commercial propaganda plays its part in producing the confusion which surrounds the subject. Almost every food nowadays is boomed by magazine or leaflet. A booklet has been published advocating a greater consumption of bread (writes “ Pediatrician,” in the Melbourne ‘ Argus ’)., We learn that bread can he prepared in the household in 123 attractive ways—none of them, however, as good as the loaf, say, ono day stale. A wordy war and a bitter war has waged about the respective merits of brown bread and white. Wholemeal bread has quite outrageously, it seems to me, been charged with an influence in the production of cancer' of the intestine. This claim is completely refuted by the fact that Cistercian monks in Ireland, living upon a diet which includes wholemeal bread, are almost immune from malignant disease. Every food has its fanatical advocates. “ Such and such a food is good for you,” one hears, and the man in the street is ready to supply the reason, be it iodine or calcium percentage, vitamin content, or “ roughage.” We are exhorted not only to eat more oranges and drink more milk—very sensibly—but also to consume an alarming array of other foods, excellent, it is true, in their own way and in due season.

It is impossible to practise all-round obedience. The enthusiastic partisans of a particular diet set no limit to the consumption of the foods which they extol. Australians need no exhortation to eat more beef, but for an obscure reason they have not taken to fish. Tinned goods, even condiments, have had their share of puffing. The most elaborate of the campaigns was conducted in support of that humblest handmaid of the kitchen, the mustard pot. The truth is that one cannot fail to retain health by choosing in moderation a variety of the excellent foods at our disposal in Australia. Many foods alone serve in extraordinary circumstances to maintain life, and even to preserve the body in vigorous health. The Eskimo in his icy home retains, we are told, rugged health upon a diet of blubber. A friend told me of the peculiarity of a New Hebridean boatman who customarily set forth upon a fer.-y journey, exposed to freezing blasts, with a ration of this nauseating food. A Norwegian explorer within the last few years has Upset preconceived theories of balance in diet by subsisting for six mouths in the Antarctic upon an unrelieved diet of pemmican. His health did not suffer. The natives of the Gold Coast are said to eat daily the equivalent in plantains of eighty bananas, and this, with an occasional supplement of dried fish, enables them to do a fair amount of work. THE PERSONAL FACTOR. With self-discipline one may learn to make the best of all foods. There is a •sufficiency, indeed a superabundance. Is there an optimum diet as regards quality? Some believe that there is. Sly belief is that it will be more profitable to seek the person to suit all diets. To take enough to servo the needs of the moment; to leave well alone—these are counsels of prudence. Unhappily it is necessarily almost the task of a hero to set aside badly-cooked foods. Dietetic customs long established, but obviously bad, reign in Australia, such, for instance, as the threecourse meal in all seasons, accompanied by a generous libation of tea, and the Sunday roast. A Ministry of Cooking in Australia would be a valuable safeguard of public health. A French king is said, to have established some such institution in his own country, ‘ with lasting benefit to his people. In the desire to avoid traps laid for them by the cook, many people have simplified their tastes. Some have solved the problem by eschewing cooked foods. Is it useful to adopt a dietetic regime of raw fruit, green vegetables, and cereal foods? A man who may be identified as Mr B. told me recently of the benefit he had received from such a diet. He is aged 64 years, and he has subsisted upon the diet for the last twelve years. He does not look like a food faddist. He looks what he is—an athlete. He is no longer concerned about his digestion. He eats anything within his range of permitted foods, and ho is happy about it. He cats when he is hungry, and he takes enough. Usually he does not require to cat more than twice a day. His occupation, which is in part sedentary, permits him to be out of doors for half the day. The immediately significant part of his life’s story is that at fifty-two he was a physical and mental wreck. He possessed a “ corporation ” and a disordered digestion. Ho could not, he said, run a hundred yards to save his life. He was a victim of boils, a “ liverish ” subject, sensitive to cold. _ This unhappy man received an inspiration, and he obeyed it. Better still, he persevered. Part

of his reform had to do with diet. He gave up eating meat. This took him twelve or eighteen months to accomplish. DOING WITHOUT THE COOK.

Also he foreswore cooked foods almost completely. Fruit and green vegetables, nuts and raisins, form the staple of his diet. Cereals also he eats, though not often. He drinks tea, but not alcohol. He gave up smoking. He began to sleep in the open air, and he took daily various exercise. To-day he has no bodily aches or pains or ailments. He never suffers from a cold. He sleeps soundly. His first meal is at half-past 12 o’clock. _ It consists of every variety of fruit in season._ Brown bread and butter, nuts, and raisins lend it variety. ,He does not drink at meals. At half-past 6 o’clock he has a dish of green salad vegetables, uncooked, with olive oil dressing in liberal quantity, and fruit again. Rarely, perhaps on a Sunday, he takes a helping of some cooked vegetable. Meat he tastes never. “I haven’t eaten meat,” he said, " for twelve years. It has no more attraction for me than that board ” (striking the table)._ Hot meals? Surely he wants them in winter time. He does not. “It is only a matter of habit,” he says. He is right. A hot meal is a grateful thing on a cold day, but within seconds the food is reduced to the body temperature. Actually vegetables yield more heat than do animal proteins. A tumbler of hot water would serve the same purpose, as far as temperature is concerned, as a smoking stew. When the body, through improved function, more efficient circulation, and unburdened intestines, has learned to be more economical in heat production the sensation of coM will not be so readily experienced. To do without food from morning until night does not inconvenience Mr B. To go for a run before breaking his fast, no matter what the weather, is his daily habit. His breakfast more often than not is a cup of tea. He finds no difficulty in maintaining his skin temperature, for he wears but on.e thin cotton garment next his skin winter and summer. Is he on the right dietetic lines r He believes that he is. And his diet suits him. He has not required the services of a doctor for twelve years. Ho enjoys every moment of his life, he says. Who would not exchange places with him? He gives a word of advice. Anyone who adopts his diet must not look back. Most men would prefer not to make the experiment. But anyone can make it, no matter what his age, unless he be an invalid beyond cure. After all, there are such things as selfdiscipline and self-conquest, but ho who aims at such things has the allurements of cooking to contend with. It is possible to renounce this source of temptation. But, as Mr B points out, one must have the desire.