I'm currently reading "Sandow on Physical Training." In one section he makes a divergence into diet and says the following, which I would like someone to make sense of for me. I'll place in bold the confusing part, but write the whole paragraph for context's sake:
"What chiefy concerns me in this indictment is the failure to recognize and make use of the food best adapted to the body's wants in the generation of heat and energy...Nor is it a bourgeois taste, but a sound medical judgement, that leads this noted expert to illustrate his argumetn by declaring that 'in buying at ordinary market-rates we get as much material to build up our bodies, repair their waste, and give us strength for work, in 5 cents' worth of flour, or beans, or codfish, as 50c. or $1 will pay for in tenderloin, salmon, or lobsters.' He adds that there is as much nutritive value in a pound of wheat flour as in 7lbs., or 3 1/2 quarts, of oysters, and that, compared with a tenderloin at 50c., a round steak at 15c. a lb. contains as much protein and energy, is just as digestible, and fully as nutritive..... The old nonesense on this subject, about raw eggs and underdone meat, seems to be passing away, and more rational views now prevail."
Sandow is clearly saying that wheat flour, beans, and codfish are more nutritious than salmon, and lobsters, and Sandow has been known to live almost exclusively off of oats and and his custom protein powder for several months on end, but what does this last bit in bold mean? Round steak is superior to a tenderloin?
asked byforeveryoung (14952)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!