There is much dispute as to the relative value of wheat, and other cereal foods, as articles of diet. Numbers of authors contend that they are in very truth the “staff of life ”; others, on the contrary, maintain that they are totally unsuited for human food, and that it would be far better for the human race if cereals of all kinds were replaced by other articles of food, containing somewhat similar constituents. We shall examine these opposite opinions a little later on. Let us first of all consider these foods, their functions, and how far they may be supported to nourish the body and maintain the health. Let us take first of all wheat. The five outer layers of the bran contain very little except cellulose—a woody, fibrous substance, forming the cell walls. When burned, the ash of bran is found to contain a large proportion of phosphoric acid, potash, and a small amount of other mineral matters. The cereal layer is, of all parts of the grain, the richest in nitrogenous substances—the chief of which is the creatine, from which it takes its name. Gluten is one of the most important constituents of the wheat.

Unfortunately, this is separated from the grain, as is well known, and adheres to the husk, when this is removed; and for this reason “superfine” white flour contains but very little nutriment, and a large quantity of starch—a very constipating food and one which necessitates a large amount of vital expenditure when converting it into bodily tissue. As is well known, all starch must go through several processes or stages of digestion before it can be used by the system. The body can never use starch as starch. It must be converted into glucose sugar before the body can make use of or appropriate it. It must first of all be converted into various substances—dextrose, maltose, etc.—before it is finally transformed into glucose—in which form the body can utilise it. Starch, then, must be converted into sugar (glucose) before the body can use it; and must be transformed into this substance at the expense of the bodily energy, of which a great amount has to be expended in these varied processes of conversion. Now, this being the case, why would it not be easier and better for us to eat those foods that supply this glucose or grape-sugar direct—without necessitating any of these energy-wasting transformations? Were we to take this grape-sugar directly into the system (stomach) as an article of food, we should thereby save all the energy of digestion, which would otherwise be wasted in useless processes of conversion. There can be no valid reason why this should not be the case.[34] And, since fruits contain this very grape-sugar in a free and natural state, it becomes obvious that we can obtain from fruits all that we derive from grains and cereals (with the exception of proteid matter, which we can get from nuts) and in a far better state—because more appropriable by the system. I am strongly convinced that nothing is to be derived from wheat or similar grains and cereals that cannot be derived equally well or better from fruits and nuts of various kinds. And this applies to all other grains—rye, barley, oats, etc.—as well as to wheat. They are all objectionable for the same reason; and a properly balanced diet of fruits and nuts is superior to any diet of grains and cereals.

It is well known that toast is more wholesome than ordinary bread: it is given to invalids, when bread is debarred. The reason for this—which comparatively few persons know—is that a portion of the starch contained in the flour is converted into dextrine, by this process of toasting. In this manner, a portion of the original starch contained in the bread is “predigested,” and hence saves the vital energies so much tax—when it comes to the digestion of this starch. But would it not be better to give the patient fruits, in which all these processes of conversion have already been performed by nature—and hence save far more of the bodily energies than even the giving of toast? It must be remembered that starch contains nothing that is useful to the system except this grape-sugar, which can also be obtained from fruits of all kinds, in a natural and appropriable form. This being so, why not give fruits in the first place—thus saving all this useless expenditure of energy? There is also the additional argument that fruits of all kinds are cleansing and slightly laxative—instead of being constipating—and have also powerful germicidal properties. However, I shall consider this question more at length in the chapter devoted to the fruitarian diet.

Many writers upon the subject of dietetics are very laudatory of wheat and other cereal foods. Dr Tibbles, indeed, in his “Food and Hygiene,” p. 229, says that “so large a part do they fulfil in domestic preparations that it is almost safe to say that if the entire crop of cereals failed for one year nearly 90 per cent. of the inhabitants of the earth would die”! This might be true in a certain sense, for there would be no article of food to take the place of the cereals destroyed; but if nuts and fruits had been cultivated instead, it would be found that all the cereals could be dispensed with easily enough, and that none of the inhabitants would die; but, on the contrary, that they would retain a high degree of health—far higher than they now possess.

If the whole wheat, containing all the grain—the nutritious gluten as well as the (comparatively speaking) innutritious starch—were supplied to the body, there would be far less objection to the use of grains and cereals; but as a matter of fact, this is rarely the case, and only health-reformers insist upon having bread made of whole wheat flour or gluten bread. The majority eat bread made of white, “superfine” flour—flour totally divested of its nutritious elements. Such flour contains none of the valuable salts which the whole grain contains; it is devoid of the proteid matter; it is constipating, and in other ways objectionable. And a practical proof of the correctness of this position is afforded by the fact that dogs, fed by Magendie upon superfine white flour, all died; while those dogs which were fed upon whole-wheat flour lived and retained their health. Such an experiment is worth any amount of theorising, for or against.

Dr S. Rowbatham, writing some years ago on this subject, said:

In the twenty-second and twenty-third chapters of the third book of Herodotus, describing a visit of some Persian ambassadors to the long-lived Ethiopians (Macrobii), the Ethiopians asked what the Persian king was wont to eat, and to what age the longest-lived Persians had been known to attain. They told him that the king ate bread, and described the nature of wheat—adding that eighty years was the longest term of man’s life among the Persians. Hereat, he remarked: “It did not surprise him, if they fed on dirt [bread] that they died so soon! Indeed he was sure that they never would have lived so long as eighty years, except for the refreshment that they got from that drink [meaning the wine], wherein he confessed that Persians surpassed the Ethiopians.”

From what has been said, it will be apparent why I do not consider grains and cereals valuable articles of food—far less the indispensable articles they are usually supposed to be. As generally purchased, these flours and grains are innutritious, clogging, and particularly unwholesome articles of food; but even at their best, and taking the whole grain, they contain nothing that cannot be supplied in a better state by an exclusive fruit and nut diet. We must remember Magendie’s experiments on dogs. One died in forty days, while fed upon fine wheat and flour, while another dog, fed upon brown bread, lived without any disturbance, and in good health. This should show us conclusively that the fine flour upon the market—the flour invariably consumed—is practically useless as food; but since all the nutritive properties of grains may be derived in a better form from fruits, nuts, etc., the only remaining reason for eating grains and cereals vanishes.