BRAN AS A FOOD



And this state of affairs is allowed to continue when the fate of whole nations is dependent upon whether certain foodstuffs which we have in abundance are digestible or not. Ignorance on a point like this is not only dangerous, it is criminal”.

Wiegner now made a series of experiments on his own assistants and a number of students, lasting several days, and obtained the following figures for the digestibility of wheat-bran taken from an 80 per cent. grinding : dry substance 60.4 per cent., protein 53.0 per cent. and carbo- hydrates 75.1 per cent.-a very favourable result indeed considering the coarseness of the bran.

He now had bread made of 100 per cent. wheatmeal, and obtained for all the test-subjects concerned, with very small individual differences, the following figures for the digestibility of the bran contained in the meal : dry substance 87.8 per cent., protein 80.1 per cent. and carbo-hydrates 94.2 per cent.

These figures he compared with Hindhedes derived from a 100 per cent. wholemeal bread of 70 per cent. grinding : dry substance 86.0 per cent., protein 75.0 per cent., and carbo-hydrates 91.1 per cent., and with finer grinding : dry substance 90.0 per cent., protein 85.0 per cent. and carbo-hydrates 94.5 per cent. From a finer grinding Wiegner obtained : dry substance 88.7 per cent., protein 82.3 per cent. and carbo-hydrates 94.4 per cent,-a very small difference indeed as compared with the figures obtained from a coarser grinding. Wiegner concludes :.

“The most rational utilization of the grain is to bake it into 100 per cent. wholemeal bread. An extra fine grinding of the bran, almost to the pulverization of the cells, renders it, as we have shown, on the whole, more digestible, but does not produce any new digestible foodstuffs. As man is able to digest bran just as well as ruminants and pigs, the feeding of animals with bran represents, to human beings, the great loss of nearly nine- tenths of the nourishing parts of the grain”.

Even Rubners chief argument, giving as a cause of mans supposed inability to digest bran as well as ruminants and pigs : “because his digestive juices were not able to dissolve the aleuron-cells which form a thick layer on the inside of the outer skin of the grain”, was disproved by Wiegner, who submitted these cells to a test by immersing then in pepsin-hydrochloric acid, and found that nearly the whole, or 87.2 per cent. of these cells were soluble.

An account of Wiegners experiments is printed in Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft Schweizerischer Landwirte, 1918, No.5.

In support of Hindhedes and Wiegners results two American authorities, Langworthy and Deuel may be quoted. They made thirty-three tests with Graham bread (full wholemeal bread), and arrived at the following average figures : dry substance 92.2 per cent., protein 84.2 per cent., and carbo-hydrates 94.4 per cent.

A greater unanimity in the results of experiments carefully carried out by men of high standing in the scientific world could not be wished for. They have certainly settled, once and for all, the question as to the digestibility of bran in the opinion of everyone who is able to understand the significance of the figures presented above.

There are, however, other scientists who have been interested in the same question, and have made experiments with the digestibility of bran, but who have arrived at other seemingly contradictory results. If we examine their methods and the duration of the experiments we soon find that almost everyone is at fault in some way or other. Much depends upon the percentage of the husks in the bread, and upon other foodstuffs eaten with the bread. It is easy to understand that a bread made exclusively of the husks of the grain is bound to give a less satisfactory result as to its digestibility.

An excess of cellulose will naturally alter the composition of the a fair amount of raw, juicy fruit, which in itself is almost invariably more rich in cellulose than ordinary bread. a meal of that kind will naturally act as an irritant to the walls of the bowels, and may cause slight diarrhoea, with a smaller percentage of the protein content, etc., digested. Still, experiments like this have been carried out by certain scientists who nevertheless claim the results to be valid. They are generally quoted by bread- manufacturers and doctors in favour of white bread, and also by those who are in favour of wholemeal bread but are afraid of the coarser part of the meal, which has therefore been sifted away.

The only experiments which are valid are those carried out with 100 per cent. wholemeal bread eaten, not in conjunction with acid fruits or other foodstuffs even richer in cellulose, but in conjunction with alkaline foodstuffs such as, for instance, vegetables.

Starch digests in an alkaline medium, not in an acid one. It is therefore radically wrong to eat starchy food of any description with acid food, as for instance with juicy acid fruits which partly suspend and prevent their digestion. The great Russian physiologist, Pavlov, proved that the saliva in the mouth changes in its chemical composition according to the food we eat. Acid fruits produce a quite different saliva from that produced by starch and are, furthermore, also likely to interfere with the proper digestion of starch in the small intestine.

If, therefore, a pound of acid fruit is eaten with a pound of bread made exclusively for the sake of experiment, of husks of the grain, the result as to its digestion must necessarily be a poor one, as has been shown to be the case with some experiments referred to by many doctors. As long as scientists remain ignorant of fundamental digestive principles like these, the present confusion about the digestibility of bran will continue.

Another serious point of omission on very much the same lines is the neglect of the fact that foodstuffs digest better in their own natural “milieu” or in the company of other foodstuffs, produced by Nature in the same fruit, berry or vegetable. It is easy to understand that only a berry or vegetable. It is easy to understand that only a bread made of all the constituents in the saliva and in the intestinal juices necessary for the full digestion of its various food elements, as also that certain parts of the grain may provide the digestive juices with the elements needed for the digestion of other parts.

If one part of the grain is eliminated or omitted, the digestibility of the other parts may suffer accordingly, because the accessory elements needed for a better utilization of the others by the human intestine are missing. To use an analogy: if from a piece of music certain parts are omitted, the euphonic value of the component parts will suffer accordingly, producing disharmony instead of a harmonious whole.

We are obviously living in a time when the rudiments of digestion, taken as parts of a symphony or as a whole are only beginning to be realized, and when ignorance concerning the effect of the most primitive food-elements on the alimentary canal is appalling.

Very few of the doctors and scientists who cry out against wholemeal bread because of its bran content are aware that of cellulose, hitherto considered indigestible, whole wheat contains only 2.5 per cent., whilst strawberries contain 2.3 per cent. of cellulose, radishes 2.8 per cent., raspberries 6.7 per cent., raisins 7 per cent., hazel-nuts, almonds, walnuts and hickory nuts 3.7 per cent., and asparagus, cantaloupe, water-melon, mushrooms, apples and celery contain as much cellulose as whole wheat.

Of the protein in wholemeal bread, we digest according to Hindhede 84.5 per cent., according to wiegner 86.3 per cent. and according to Langworthy and Deuel 84.2 per cent. Professor G. Bunge, the great physiologist, demonstrated as long ago as 1889 that the unabsorbed protein of lentils amounted to 40 per cent., of carrots 39 per cent., of potatoes 32 per cent., of cabbage 18 per cent., and of cows milk 7 to 12 per cent.

In view of these facts, the outcry about the indigestibility of bran seems to be based upon assumptions devoid of any foundation whatever. If we take into account the fact that the cellulose part of bran is of the greatest value in fighting constipation, and that it furthermore contains invaluable mineral substances in organic form, the criminality of excluding it from bread must be obvious to every reader.

“White bread”, says the well-known American food expert, McCann, “becomes white because from the ground grain of wheat three- fourths of the mineral salts and colloids are removed”.

The bran is found to consist of rough, canvas-like, brownish particles, with a very remarkable suggestion of woof and warp. The germ, difficult to distinguish from bran with the naked eye, will be found to consist of rich, oily, cream-coloured particles.

A chemical analysis of this bran and germ, which take up large quantities of water and hold it in the intestines for lubricating purposes, shows that they are rich in vitamins, in silicon, sulphur, nitrogen, iron, iodine, potassium, manganese, phosphorus, nucleo proteins, or phosphorized albumens, lecithins, or phosphorized fats, and the simple phytin compounds and phosphates without which no animal can be properly nourished, as proved in a series of experiments carried out in St. Petersburg.

Are Waerland