USE OF TEETH

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23121, 20 August 1938, Page 17

USE OF TEETH

THE CHEWING PROCESS VALUE TO DIGESTION COMMENTS FROM DOCTORS The view expressed by a doctor in the Supreme Court on Thursday, that the effect, of chewing upon food in ordinary civil life is negligible, does not find favour with many of his professional brethren. Indeed, if parents regard the opinion of a number of wellknown Auckland doctors, they may again summon up courage to repeat the old warning to the children, "Don't bolt your food." "It is a piece of legal advocacy rather than representing current physiological thought," said ono specialist with whom the matter was discussed yesterday. "1 am in entire disagreement with the views expressed by Dr. T. W. .1. Johnson, and I would say that chewing is a very valuable process." This coincided, he continued, with comments ho had heard from other medical men. The purpose of the front teeth or incisors was to bite off suitable portions of the food, and that of the back teeth, or grinders, to help to incorporate the food with the digestive secretion of the mouth in the saliva, and so prepare it for the action of tlio other digesive juices when swallowed. In contradiction of Dr. Johnson, ho said that hurried meals invariably lead to indigestion, and that led to all sorts of trouble. "Medical witnesses have a tendency to become legal advocates." lie commented. Startling Views

The views expressed in Court were not only rather startling to the public, hut rather startling to the medical profession, said a physician of long experience. "What are our teeth for?" ho asked. "The matter is open to a lot of dispute, but I think if you asked Dr. Johnson to have his teeth extracted as an experiment he would object." Ho quoted the sound health of the famous W. E. Gladstone, who lived to the ago of 89, and whoso principle of giving 32 chews —one for each tooth —to every mouthful was long held before children as an ideal example. Digestion, this doctor pointed out, is an extraordinarily complicated process, and varies greatly with different individuals. It was obvious, however, that digestive juices acting on smaller pieces of food had a much better chanco of doing their work than on larger pieces. It was a well-known fact that elderly people suffered greatly from indigestion, and that was largely attributable to lack of sufficient chewing. A Trial with Steak

In response to the suggestion that foods were now so refined that teeth were scarcely needed, he recommended a trial with a piece of steak. "I think you'll find a use for your teeth all right," he said. "lt is suggested, doctor, that if you swallow a piece of meat whole, that does not give you indigestion?" he was asked. "You try it," was the confident response. A somewhat different note was struck by another doctor, who began by saying that he thought Dr. Johnson was quite right in saying that chewing had very little effect on meat. The absence of chewing, however, did delay digestion, and if digestion was delayed, that set up a condition which led to indigestion. If the stomach was made to work twice as long as was necessary, it would naturally tend to fail sooner, and a condition of irritation of the mucous membrane would bo set up. Lhus chewing did matter indirectly, for, generally speaking, the quicker the stomach did the work the better. "L think we ought to chew properly," said another well-known physician, who quoted experiments done by Cole and Hopkins at Cambridge some 30 years ago. By carrying on exhaustively thorough chewing of food over a considerable period, the experiments established the value of the chewing process to digestion and health geneiallj.