Volume 5 — HOW MUCH SHOULD WE EAT?

This discussion arose out of the article with above title, by “M.D.,” which was published in our July number.—[Eds.]

IV

In dealing with this vitally important question, we shall most of us, I take it, agree upon certain points. In the light of recent knowledge upon, and extended experience of the subject, one such point which now appears incontrovertible is that there are thousands die annually—directly or indirectly—through overfeeding where one dies through insufficient nourishment. And it may at once be said that, as regards these thousands, the death certificates are practically valueless as data in relation to erroneous dieting, so that in this way we can never get at a correct estimate as to the actual number of deaths due to overfeeding. Bright's disease, gastric and intestinal affections, growths of various kinds, cancer, etc., are each in their turn certified as the “Cause of Death.” Most often, however, the initial cause is the overloading of the system with an amount of food beyond that which is necessary or healthful—and thereby clogging up the tissues, the organs and smaller bloodvessels.

But it may be said: “How can you substantiate such a general and sweeping statement?” In the first place—and this is profoundly significant—other things being equal, it must be acknowledged by all unbiased people that the small and moderate feeders do not contract disease in anything like the proportion that big feeders do, and as a natural consequence live longer lives.

Further, it must surely be quite evident by this time that there is a sufficiently large enough number of people who are thus existing in good health—and steadily regaining it where it has been lost—on the lines of moderate feeding. And the number is accumulating at a rapid pace; more and more are coming into line with those of us who, having thus found health in themselves, their patients and friends, are preaching the practice of two meals a day, and sometimes only one where there is serious organic disease to combat—thus defying the dicta of those eminent physiologists who “settled” the question years ago.

Now I quite admit—it would be impertinence to do otherwise—that “M.D.'s” statements and views must not be ignored, must indeed be respected. And he tells us that he “heard of,” in one day, three cases which “went wrong” through underfeeding; well, for those three cases we can point to hundreds who are going right through eating just enough and not too much. I am prepared, on the other hand, to admit the danger of a continued semi-starvation diet; our difficulty is to define in each individual case what exactly would be a semi-starvation, and what a sufficient diet. It is impossible to have a fixed standard for everybody. After all, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”; often it is a matter of experimenting for some little time, and in this way we could judge largely of the result of our dieting by our state of general health.

On some main points of the question I am now absolutely convinced—viz.:

1. Excessive bulk is always dangerous, often disastrous, causing sudden death in a large number of cases.

2. Starchy foods are best strictly limited as we get along towards middle age and beyond.

3. A life which is largely mental or sedentary will be healthier and longer on a strictly moderate diet.

4. A life largely of physical labour must be dealt with on its own particular conditions.

5. At all times due regard, of course, must be paid to age, weight, etc.

6. On the whole, “eminent physiologists” have erred on the side of excess of proteid being advised.

7. Middle age is the critical time of life in respect to a man's diet in other words, I would say in axiomatic form that as a man feeds at or about middle age, so will he be for the rest of his life.

J. Stenson Hooker, M.D.

V

As a very interested reader of this discussion I should be very glad to know exactly what “M.D.” means by each pound of bone and muscle in the body weight? What proportion (approximately) is it to total body weight? I have been trying to keep up to Dr Haig's 9 grains per lb. of “body weight” and find that it is too much for my digestive powers, which are very weak owing to chronic nervous dyspepsia. If I take 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. less proteid my troubles are so greatly lessened that I feel that to continue to take the lower amount would mean perpetual relief. But there have been so many warnings, including M.D.'s, of the dangers of under-nutrition, that I am in a quandary; and others of your readers too.

If M.D. means grains per lb. of something less than total body weight, a lesser amount of proteid than I try to take may have his sanction, and be safe for me.

Jno. A. Cookson.

There appears to be a sincere attempt in “M.D.'s” article to prove that a physiologist is the best guide in diet. But, as one can get the degree of M.D. without any scientific knowledge of dietetics, the inference that one would be likely to make from such an alarming article is erroneous. I say “alarming” because vague statements are made as to patients who were rescued just in time to be stimulated by over-feeding into a semblance of health, and we are treated to a list of very alarming symptoms in the last paragraph on p. 443.

“M.D.” says, “Suppose that the animal fed for years on unnatural food has become so pathological that it can no longer take or digest its natural food.” How grateful to M.D. for this statement will be those who long for an excuse to cling to the spoiled, boiled and unnatural dishes of which the popular diet mainly consists! And how they will continue to overeat themselves, content to avoid the truth regarding food quantities.

Living on a right and natural diet, a man or woman will correct the effects of wrong living. This will bring crises, and unless they know that this is Nature's attempt to rid the body of unwanted and effete matter they may be duped into returning to their high feeding, either by those whom “M.D.” calls diet quacks or by qualified quacks.

I do not believe it possible for anyone to die for lack of indication that they were eating too little.

The opposite is what people die of. If we carefully read Dr Rabagliati's article in the same issue we shall rightly ask what would be the results of analyses and measurements in such a case.

About a year ago we had a young woman under our care who had suffered with deafness and other troubles for years. She had tried dietetic treatments, “uric-acid-free” and otherwise, and had at last been told that her deafness was incurable, being due to heredity and deficiency in the organs of hearing. She was extremely thin when she came to us, but we did not measure her, nor analyse unclean excreta, nor weigh her.

She saw an M.D. who was in sympathy with the philosophy of fasting, and she fasted (taking water only) for 28 days. She then had four days of fruit juice, and was so disappointed at having broken her fast prematurely that she continued it for another 12 days, making 44 in all—40 days actual fasting.

[During this period she was living an almost complete out-door life.—Eds.]

During the fast many interesting phenomena were witnessed, chief among which was the discharge from ears and nose—significant indeed to all who study Nature's ways. Result: normal hearing restored. This was nearly twelve months ago; and, having heard of her recently, we find that, though she had had a cold, there has been no recurrence of deafness. I wonder what assistance measurements would have been in this true cure. The patient (an adult) weighed 4st. 8 lbs. at the end of her fast and could then walk short distances.

The way in which “M.D.” dismisses “a little gout” in his last paragraph but one almost leads one to think that he is unaware of the failure of the natural defences of the body that must have gone on in a very serious degree before the manifestation of gout became possible.

I respectfully submit this problem to “M.D.”:—If a very thin patient can go without food entirely for 40 days, with only benefit accruing, how many centuries will it take for a fairly fat person to die through slightly under-eating?

As Dr Haddon has said, the proteid myth will die hard, but there are physiologists who, with their faces to the light, are finding the truth of man's requirements in food and who know that absolute purity and simplicity are the ideals to be sought and that all food we eat more than is absolutely necessary is a diversion of energy to carnal channels.

Ernest Starr.