OUR BABIES.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1794, 5 July 1913, Page 11

OUR BABIES.

fßr Htgma/I

6 Published under the auspic«o of th« So- • ciety for the Health •of "Women and b Children. •I "It is wieor to put up a fence at the top I of a procipico than to maintain an ambup lance at tho bottom." 9 1 MASTICATION. J The special feature of the 6ocond year , of normal life, as contrasted with tho first year, iB the progressive development of tho power of mastication. This is a matter of the utmost importance, because upon it depends tho futuro digestivo power, health, , and strength of tho individual. Fortunate indeed tlw baby who during the first ' year of existence obtains his food by energetic suction (from the breast, if possible, and, failing this, by means of a properly- " held bottle with smnll-holed nipple), and who, towards the close of tho first year 1 and throughout tho second year, is made to 1 do 1 proper amount of work on his food ' by active, vigorous munching and chewing. These are the simple means by which we 1 can aid the 1 intention of Nature to pro- ' vide the growing child with, masticatory ' apparatus which shall not prematurely ' atrophy and decay, but shall last sound and good to the end of life. The amount ; of blood supplied to the jaws and adjacent • parts depends on tho daily amount of 1 work they are called on to do. Embedded ■ deep under the gums at the time of birth are ' the two embryo sets of teeth (the tempor--1 ary and the permanent), and the structure, 1 growth, proper setting, and eruption de- • pends on tho 6upply of an abundant stream of rich, healthy blood throughout ; the period of most active growth. One might say, "Take caro of the first two years, and the rest will take care of themselves." This is truo not only of structure, but of function also. Proper feeding habits practised throughout the first two years will tend to last for life. Dr. Harry Campbell (one of the foremost authorities of the day of dietetics and the practical application of physiology to ' everyday life) says:— BREAKING UP THE FOOD. Mastication, by Breaking up the Food, Enables it to bo "More Easily Swallowed.— .Soft, moist, mushy foods, such as milk puddings and porridge, can be—often, indeed, are—swallowed without any mastication at all. On tho other hand, it is diffi-. cult, if not impossible, to swallow large lumps of tough food or large masses of very dry food, even though tho latter is in a finely-divided state, like flour. The tough food needs first to bo broken up by the teeth, and the dry foods to be moistened by'the saliva. If then, wo desire to give foods which compel mastication, we should choose such as tough and dry. Those who are accustomed to bolt their food often swallow large lumps totally unmasticated, but (as Van Som'eren has pointed out) once the habit of efficient mastication' has been acquired'tho swallowing of such masses is effectually prevented by a pharyngeal reflex (i.e., the instinct becomes so shrong that a large unchewed lump cannot bo swallowed). It ia therefore of the utmost importance that children should learn to masticate thoroughly as soon as they have the teeth to do it. COMMINUTING THE FOOD. Mastioation, by Comminuting the Food, Brings it into Intimate Contact with the Digestive Juiccs.—All law vegetable food, tho luscious fruits excepted, requires mastication in order to disintegrate the cellulose and allow the digestive juices to act upon the imprisoned nutriment; but this is not necessary in tho case of cooked' vegetable foods. Some of these, however, uo, on account of their density, call for thorough chewing, as, for example,, stodgy puddings and new potatoes; ; also new bread, which, unlike tiie more crumbly stale bread, is apt to elude the : teeth and pass into the stomach in the ■ form of solid impermeable masses. Simi- j larly, it is because cauliflower and minced • spinach are more finely divided than new potato and cabbage tnat they are more ] digestible. If, now, wo turn to animal ( food, i7O notice that while in tho raw 1 stato it is readily-digestible after little ,( or no previous mastication,■'it'may be' t rendered indigestible by being cooked, as in the familiar case of hard-boiled egg 5 or overdone meat; and putting these facts g together, the deduction is that the rela-

tive digestibility of animal and of vegetable foods alike depends more upon physical consistence than upon chemical composition. Thus it is chiefly on account of their density that veal, pork, lobster, and cheese are indigestible. There is nothing in cheese to prevent digestion; but since its two chief constituents are welded together in an impermeable mass,'

it may, if unmasticated, remain undigested for the physical reason. A plain, wholesome cheese, well masticated or in-

timately mixed with other foods—e.g., with macaroni—most people .can digest without difficulty.

I do not, of course, deny the influence of the chemical factor, Such substances a3 goose-fat may set up violent irritation; pigeon taken several days in succession' is apt to disagree; some there ftro, again, who cannot tolerate eggs in any form; and numerous other dietetic idiosyncrasies are met with; but, making due allowance for any chemical' influence, there can, I think, be little doubt that the digestibility of tho more common articles of diet, whether animal or vegetable, depends in the main upon their physical constitution—that, in fact, they all tend to be equally digestible if reduced to tho same degree of comminution. This, if .true, is, I need scarcely say, a fact of tho greatest importance, for it amounts to this: that we may often allow to those with very weak digestions foods generally debarred as indigestible, provided only that they are thoroughly comminuted, either by mastication or by other means.