COMPARATIVE NUTRITIVE VALUE
GOOD HEALTH.
# Proper Diet for Man.
## MODERN NATIONS. Although all ancient history abounds with this class of testimony, we will not dwell longer upon this branch of the subject, but will now come to consider the testimony of the world at the present time. As already observed, a large majority of the human race are obliged to subsist almost exclusively upon vegetable food; yet when we compare the condition of such nations with those who make large use of flesh food, both mentally and physically, we can come to none but a favorable conclusion in regard to a vegetable diet, at least when we take into consideration the effects of climatic and social influences. Professor Lawrence, although himself a meat-eater, makes the frank admission that the Laplanders, Esquimaux, Tartars, Kamschatdales, and several other nations of similar dietetic habits, although living almost entirely upon flesh, are the smallest, weakest, and most cowardly people upon the globe. On the other hand, we find that, as a general rule quite free from exceptions, the most hardy, long-lived, robust, well-developed nations, both physically and mentally, are those whose diet is almost entirely, if not exclusively, vegetable. We have abundant evidence of this, even in our own country. The men who construct our extensive railways, who dig our immense canals, who bridge our rivers and tunnel our mountains, are almost entirely of foreign birth. The hardy Irish peasant, who comes to this country after having been reared upon a diet almost wholly made up of oatmeal and potatoes, far out rivals the flesh eating American in physical endurance and muscular power. And in point of mental activity, the Irish are proverbial for their ready and characteristic wit. The same is true of the Irish girls who come to this country and engage in domestic service. Their readiness and activity are really surprising. But it is a very significant as well as patent fact that after having spent a few years in this country and becoming accustomed to the diet in common use, this difference rapidly disappears, so that in the second or third generations little vestiges of former superiority remains. The same might be said of other nations as well, as the Germans, Danes, etc., and would be true of them, as also of the Irish, in a much more marked degree, were it not for the baneful influence of their great addiction to the use of alcoholic beverages. But as it may be claimed that in the instances cited the manifest difference may be due to natural disadvantages of climate or some similar causes, we will compare nations to which this objection cannot be raised. Take, for instance, the natives of New Zealand and those of Australia. Neither of these people, when discovered, possessed any domestic animals. The New Zealanders derived a considerable portion of their aliment from various vegetable productions, while the Australians subsisted almost entirely upon animal food, a large portion being procured from the sea. According to the accounts of reliable travelers, the difference between these two races is very great. The former are well-developed, and seem calculated to endure fatigue and hardship. Many of them are really handsome, and excellent models of symmetry. The Australians present quite a different aspect. They are ill-proportioned, with small, thin, dwarfish limbs. One eminent writer says of them that they are "the most miserable of men," while another, in speaking of them, remarks, "They are undoubtedly the lowest created beings that wear the form of humanity and claim the name of man." A similar comparison might be drawn between the Calmucks and the Circassians. Dr. Clarke says, in describing the first mentioned, "Nothing is more hideous than a Calmuck." Their form and features are exceedingly uncouth, and, in the words of the same writer, "so horrible and coarse is the appearance of the women that it is difficult to distinguish sex." The Circassians, on the other hand, have long been celebrated for their great superiority in point of beauty and symmetry. Their women are said to be the most handsome of any nation, and are remarkable for the delicacy and fineness of their features. Says Dr. Lumb, a noted English physician and writer, "Few will hesitate to pronounce that the ugliness of the Calmucks is the natural consequence of their diet." It consists almost wholly of flesh, horses being to them what the reindeer is to the Laplander—his slave during life and food after death. With the Circassians, however, the opposite is the case. They engage largely in agriculture, cultivating barley, millet and various vegetables. The national dish is millet porridge. Here we have given two fair illustrations which ought to settle the question if no further evidence could be advanced; but this is hardly a beginning of the testimony. A large volume would be required to do the matter anything like justice. In addition to these evidences of a national character, we have the testimony of thousands of individuals in this country and England who have during the last twenty-five or thirty years, adopted the vegetarian system. When the change has been properly conducted, it has invariably resulted in salutary effects. COMPARATIVE NUTRITIVE VALUE.
In regard to nutritive value, there is a striking difference in favor of vegetable food. Notwithstanding the generally prevalent opinion that flesh is concentrated nutriment, and far more nutritious than vegetables, grains, etc., the results of analysis, according to our best chemists, unmistakably show that such is by no means the case. Our most reliable investigators have determined, by the most carefully conducted experiments, that one pound of beef contains no more actual nourishment than is afforded by a pound of peas or lentils; and if we include what Liebig terms respiratory food, we find that wheat and barley meal furnish more than twice, and oat meal and rice more than three times, as much nourishment as an equal quantity of flesh. We see, then, that in fact, flesh food ranks below many of our common vegetables in nutritive value.