Digestion is divine

[ExtraMSG]

I'm reading Brillat-Savarin's Physiology of Taste currently. As in lots of older writings on food, an emphasis is often put on digestion and what foods aid digestion and what foods are easily digested. It often seems to be at least as important as flavor. In Indian cookery, eg, too, there is often an emphasis put on things that aid digestion.

However, I don't really see it as a part of modern American food dsicussions. It's all about flavor. And even in my own choices, I rarely consider digestion unless it's a really extreme case like wanting to avoid lactose because I'm lactose intolerant or avoiding an over-abundance of spicy foods for fear of "the ring of fire" or acid reflux.

But in older discussions, it seems that pleasing the stomach is taken quite literally, whereas today we are first and foremost concerned with pleasing the tongue, and our method of pleasing the stomach is just to fill it up, something that would be contrary to the older ideas of encouraging proper digestion.

It seems to say something, maybe, culturally and philosophically, about our relationship to food today.

[fifi]

Interesting thought that hadn't occurred to me. I read a lot of food history and what you say is true. I wonder if the focus on "digestion" wasn't a reasonable reaction to wide spread food problems at the time. We whine a lot here about the quality and safety of our food supply. If you go back just 150 years or so, even in the "industrialized" countries, you will see what REAL problems are.

[Pan]

For one thing, most water was dangerous, and people regularly got cholera and all manner of other noxious and commonly fatal diseases from their wells.

[ExtraMSG]

Interesting thought that hadn't occurred to me. I read a lot of food history and what you say is true. I wonder if the focus on "digestion" wasn't a reasonable reaction to wide spread food problems at the time. We whine a lot here about the quality and safety of our food supply. If you go back just 150 years or so, even in the "industrialized" countries, you will see what REAL problems are.

Or any 3rd world country today where diarrhea is still a major killer.

I wonder, then, if "digestion" plays an important role in 3rd world countries where food and water contamination is still very much an issue.

Although, come to think of it, I do remember it being a part of several Iron Chef comments. I think it plays a much larger role in Asian discussions of food. Is it just the USA, then, where "digestion" really doesn't get any focus anymore. What bout Europe? What about Latin countries? I've never heard it discussed in Mexico.

[fifi]

I don't recall "digestion" being a big part of the discussion in Mexico and I have traveled quite a bit out of the tourist areas and I ask a lot of questions. My impression is that the focus is on ingredients, taste and technique. Theabroma and caroline may be able to chime in here with better information since their experience is much broader than mine.

Is there as much emphasis on "digetifs" in Europe now as there used to be? Has that changed? I had a tummy upset a few months back and my nephew brought me a bottle of Fernet Branca. That stuff was magic!

[Pan]

I recall Italians talking a good deal about digestion and not overtaxing the liver as relevant to eating and drinking.

My experience in Malaysia in the 70s was that they talked about humor (the intrinsically hot/medium/cold quality of something, regardless of temperature) more than digestion as such. Humor does encompass the health or sickness of the digestive system, but only as part of a wholistic concept of bodily and spiritual health.

Edited January 17, 2004 by Pan (log)

[Nick]

Humor does encompass the health or sickness of the digestive system, but only as part of a wholistic concept of bodily and spiritual health.

Pan - If you got into that while you were in Malaysia, and learned something, maybe you could write some more about it. I have a very small understanding and am always interested in learning more.

For now, I'll say that most people don't have enough interest in digestion, and prefer to concentrate on flavor. While flavor has its place in eating, and it's a high place, what good is it if good digestion doesn't then take place?

[JosephB]

I recall Italians talking a good deal about digestion and not overtaxing the liver as relevant to eating and drinking.

For all the talk about digeston among Italians (a good amount), there is probably an even greater amount of talk about taste.

[fresco]

Think the French also pay a lot of attention to their digestive processes, especially the liver. Don't French pharmacies have all sorts of preparations should your liver get out of kilter?

[Pan]

Humor does encompass the health or sickness of the digestive system, but only as part of a wholistic concept of bodily and spiritual health.

Pan - If you got into that while you were in Malaysia, and learned something, maybe you could write some more about it. I have a very small understanding and am always interested in learning more.

Since this topic deals with digestion but goes beyond it to help people determine what to eat with what, what is dangerous to eat too much of, and how medicines are perceived to react to one another and to foods, among many other things, I've started a new topic here:

Food and the Humoral System

Edited January 18, 2004 by Pan (log)

[caroline]

I think one reason (not the only one) is that foods were much less refined. Just getting the stuff through the system was a problem. I'll have to root around in my filles for figures but we have some of the smallest stools in the world.

I'll have to think and chat to a few people about Mexicans on digestion.

Rachel

[fifi]

I think one reason (not the only one) is that foods were much less refined. Just getting the stuff through the system was a problem. I'll have to root around in my filles for figures but we have some of the smallest stools in the world.

Oh Good Lord! Who studies THOSE kinds of statistics.

Too much information.

[fresco]

I think one reason (not the only one) is that foods were much less refined. Just getting the stuff through the system was a problem.  I'll have to root around in my filles for figures but we have some of the smallest stools in the world.

I'll have to think and chat to a few people about Mexicans on digestion. 

Rachel

By "we" do you mean people in developed countries?

[ludja]

I'm sure there were types of home remedies around with varying effectiveness, but there sure weren't a slew of products like Tagamet, Pepcid, Zantac, etc. to deal with upset stomachs, indigestion, etc... Luckily I haven't had to deal (yet?) with things like heartburn, but hearing from people that do, I can imagine that people would go to great lengths to avoid it.

I wonder too with the comparative lack of medical knowledge and most likely poorer sanitation available if people might have combined a whole bunch of symptoms together and ascribed them to 'poor digestion'.

I can't recall the details, but I recently read the Forsythe Sagas (written in and about late 19th and early 20th century England) and there was quite a bit of interesting discourse among characters regarding how to 'manage their digestion, liver, etc...

[Pickles]

I imagine lack of refrigeration played havoc with people's digestion...no matter what was eaten. If you look at the writings of M.F.K. Fisher (whom I believe ExtraMSG and I discussed a while back--she did the annotated translation of Brillat-Savarin's The Physiology of Taste...) her grandmother insisted all food be boiled, and void of taste. This ensured "good digestion." Heaven forbid the food had flavor, or spice as it would upset one's delicate constitution. I find this odd, since the Victorian table seemed more sexy and experimental?? People wanted to show off with a lot of courses and exotic foods. Perhaps some grandmothers were having none of it!

[ExtraMSG]

For now, I'll say that most people don't have enough interest in digestion, and prefer to concentrate on flavor. While flavor has its place in eating, and it's a high place, what good is it if good digestion doesn't then take place?

I have to admit that I don't usually care much about digestion, though. Except in extreme cases, like I said, it plays no role in how I choose my dishes or courses. I just want what tastes good. If it ends up out of me in half an hour, that's fine, that just means I won't gain any weight.

I think one reason (not the only one) is that foods were much less refined. Just getting the stuff through the system was a problem. I'll have to root around in my filles for figures but we have some of the smallest stools in the world.

Really, I've never noticed a size difference when I've gone to bars in other countries.....oh, wait, you didn't mean bar stools....

Seriously, that's a good point. Traditionally, people were looking for more refined foods and more efficient ways to get the nutrients and calories from their foods. These days we're looking for as much fiber and as few calories as possible. We want things that can't be digested.

I imagine lack of refrigeration played havoc with people's digestion...no matter what was eaten. If you look at the writings of M.F.K. Fisher (whom I believe ExtraMSG and I discussed a while back--she did the annotated translation of Brillat-Savarin's The Physiology of Taste...) her grandmother insisted all food be boiled, and void of taste. This ensured "good digestion." Heaven forbid the food had flavor, or spice as it would upset one's delicate constitution. I find this odd, since the Victorian table seemed more sexy and experimental?? People wanted to show off with a lot of courses and exotic foods. Perhaps some grandmothers were having none of it!

The odd thing is that Indians, eg, always talk about how the spices help in digestion. I think this (both really) is one of those cases where the cultural norm is pushed in the name of health whether there's any truth to it or not. btw, Fisher's translation is indeed the one I'm reading.

[ExtraMSG]

I was just doing some reading in regard to Pan's thread on the humors. In it they mentioned that the new understanding of the digestive system ultimately replaced the humors (of course) in Western culture. I was thinking that maybe this emphasis on digestion might be really an intermediary between the humors and nutrition. We do often think about vitamins, minerals, calories, etc. So nutrition has replaced digestion which had replaced the humors.

[Pan]

I think that it's unquestionable that people who believe(d) in humors have and had certain humoral bases for deciding what would be best for their digestion, but I don't see digestion as something that's divorced from an overall medical conception, except inasmuch as there's been a tendency in biomedicine to emphasize specialization over general medicine, giving rise to a compartmentalization of the "digestive system" as opposed to the "endocrine system," the "circulatory system," etc. But the idea of bodily systems as unrelated is not scientific, and if the concepts of vitamins, minerals, proteins, calories, etc. have replaced digestion, why are sales of antacids and laxatives so high? Perhaps because people are trying to substitute "medicines" for a diet that would promote better digestion, and that's where your take on this and mine may come together.

[ExtraMSG]

Let me put it this way:

Ancient peoples emphasized finding and making foods that would balance the humors.

Early modern peoples emphasized finding and making foods that would aid in digestion.

Modern peoples emphasize finding and making foods that will be nutritious.

Obviously none of these are mutually exclusive, but there's an emphasis as far as food's health benefits go. I think people still relate to the prior systems even if unconsciously in the modern era. eg, someone's who's phlegmy may avoid milk. Someone who's lactose intolerant may avoid milk. But it's an issue at the margins, not a central issue. And it certainly doesn't have the nuances of the systems in prior eras.

But nutrition does. Think of all the crazy diets that get created in the name of different nutritional theories -- Atkin's, South Beach, Pritikin, grapefruit, liquid, raw, etc. You see this same sort of complexity in prior eras, but the emphasis is not nutrition as we understand it today -- vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, calories, and so on. It's a concept of proper digestion or maintaining humoral balance.

It's just conjecture of course. I'm certainly no expert. There are probably other systems of thought that create a relationship between food and health.

[JAZ]

I wouldn't say that modern Americans don't think about digestion. It's obvious to me from watching then endless TV commercials for antacids, Gas-X, Beano, laxatives, fiber pills, etc. that many people think about it all the time.

What's changed, though, is that rather than focusing on foods that are digestible, we focus on medicines or other products that will enable us to digest whatever we want to eat.

[jsolomon]

I know a guy who got scurvy in his youth because he didn't want to eat any vegetables or fruit. Just meat, meat, meat. Having eaten more than my fair share of MRE's, I have longed for digestible foods with an--ahem--exit strategy.

So, I don't find it very hard to conceive that people in times or places where eating a varied diet was fashionable, or possible, would have a measure of concern about digestibility of food. Of course, I wouldn't think that most of we e-G-ers are concerned about eating a varied diet.

Of course, I'm also open to the idea that the term digestibility was used as a euphemism for eliminate-abilty.

[mongo_jones]

among bengalis, at least, in india a major component of describing high quality food is how easily and smoothly it is digested--a meal that causes few if any burps is optimal. of course a lot of indian cooking incorporates ingredients that function primarily as digestifs.

[fifi]

I my food history reading, primarily European 17th and 18th century, I get the impression that they included just about all of the accessory organs when concerned about "digestion". There is a lot of discussion about liver, gall bladder and they even threw the kidneys in there... gout you know. It is not always clear that they had a good understanding of how all of those parts work.

[Pan]

I'm following your line of thinking now, ExtraMSG, except that I do think that early modern peoples were very concerned with the humors as well as digestion. As I said, it's my understanding that there was pretty overwhelming belief in the Humoral System through the 19th century in Europe and the U.S. For example, when I was in Nashville in 1996, I visited a replica of the Parthenon from the 1897 World's Fair and looked at an exhibit that included some newspaper coverage of the event. In a local Nashville newspaper from 1897, on a page that included coverage of the World's Fair, I saw an ad for a patent medicine that promised it was "cooling" and got rid of results of an excess of heat such as pimples. I don't remember the rest of it (it mentioned various other symptoms), but you get the idea. It was abundantly clear to me that this advertisement assumed all readers believed in humoral concepts of balance between internal "hot" and "cold" as necessary for optimal health.

jsolomon, I don't understand what you mean when you write that you don't think most eGulleteers "are concerned about eating a varied diet."

mongo_jones, it's ironic that my stomach often gets upset from overly rich (i.e., too much fat) Indian food. I eat it anyway, and there's less of a chance of problems when I don't go to crappy places like most of those on 6th St. (since those always upset my stomach, I don't go to them except when there's absolutely no way to refuse gracefully, so that's almost never), but I have to wonder at what level I'd find no excess of ghee or oil.

[Mabelline]

Pan, I reckon he meant that eGers don't pay too much attention to required crap to be healthy because we pretty much eat from all the food groups by choice and availability.

Edit to disregard the bad english and unintended pun