“MANY who adopt the health reform complain that it does not agree with them; but after sitting at their tables, I came to the decision that it is not health reform that is at fault, but the poorly prepared food!”
To a greater extent, perhaps, than is generally realized, the health and the morals of the family depend upon the cook. Not that good cooking can change a sinner into a saint; but bad cooking can come very near destroying the purposes of a well-meaning Christian.
It has been said that it was a dyspeptic condition that caused Calvin to burn Servetus, and think that thereby he was doing God a service. No doubt much of the malevolence and persecution which has blackened the history of so-called Christianity was largely the product of bad digestion.
It has been said that there was never a triumphant Christian death where the trouble was below the diaphragm. This may not be strictly true, but it illustrates the general observation that dyspepsia leads to gloominess and other unchristian characteristics.
And dyspepsia is largely, but not entirely the result of poor cooking. If the cook knows nothing of food values, food combinations, digestibility, etc.; if she judges of her success merely by her ability to please the palate of her guests, the result is bound to be an ailing family. This is the reason a knowledge of hygienic cookery has been urged upon our mothers and sisters.
“The proper cooking of food,” we are told, “is ‘a most essential requirement, especially where meat is not made an article of diet. Something must be prepared to take the place of meat, and these foods must be well prepared, so that meat will not be desired.’” Right here is the explanation of why many who once gave up the use of meat have gone back to it again. They did not find a good substitute, because of failure to master the principles of hygienic cooking, which includes a knowledge of physiology, food requirements, and food values. We are told that those who profess to be health reformers “should become good cooks. Those who can avail themselves of the advantages of properly conducted hygienic cooking schools, will find it a great benefit, both in their own practise and in teaching others.”
Again: we are told that “it is a religious duty for those who cook to learn how to prepare healthful food in different ways, so that it may be eaten with enjoyment.” “Skill must be united with simplicity. To do this women must read, and then patiently reduce what they have read to practise. Many are suffering because they will not take the trouble to do this.”
Almost anybody can cook after a fashion when meat is an important part of the bill of fare. As long as the stimulant is there, it matters not so much about the accompaniment. A person may get along for weeks on meat and potato, bread and butter, with tea or coffee. These require not much skill in their preparation, and the stimulation may take the place of good cooking.
Leave the larger part of these accustomed articles out of the bill of fare, and it requires much skill to prepare a menu which will not leave the partaker with a feeling of goneness, an unsatisfied feeling, as though the meal had not been completed.
Some try to make up for quality by quantity, and largely overeat. Now of the two evils, a moderate amount of meat is to be preferred to an immoderate amount of starch foods.
Others, in place of overeating, go to the other extreme. They are conscientious, and perhaps not so much to blame as their instructors in health reform who have left them only partly instructed. It is natural to infer that, if it is wrong to indulge the appetite in meat, tea, coffee, spices, sweets, and all those things we like most, denial of the appetite is in itself a virtue, and anything that ministers to the pleasure of the palate must belong with “the flesh pots of Egypt.”
The conclusion reached (and this is no imaginary case, for I have seen it12work this way in the homes of earnest seekers after truth) is that the more insipid and tasteless the food is, the more healthful it is; and hence the attempt to render food palatable and tempting is not only time lost, it is a snare of the enemy. So some of our good people are on a fare which may have given foundation to the report that Adventists starve themselves.
Such people can never be fully nourished, and can not do their best work, mentally or physically. As I intimated before, the fault lies with the instructors who advocated the disuse of meat and stimulants if they did not take time to give a good insight into the true principles of healthful living.
Most of these evils are the result of faulty cooking. It is for this reason that we are told, “It is the positive duty of physicians to educate, educate, educate, by pen and voice, all who have the responsibility of preparing food for the table.”
“There is religion in good cooking, and I question the religion of that class who are too ignorant and careless to learn to cook.”
An article will follow on the benefits which may result from good cooking.