Chapter XIII: Section 17: Par. 3.—“Carcasses or parts of carcasses found infected (4)

“It is indeed argued that our northern climate requires that food should be eaten hot as one means of maintaining the bodily temperature; but if this be true of man, it must apply with equal force to all animals; and since man alone seems to require hot food, the argument loses its force. In the polar regions the conditions of animal life show plainly that the natural process of generating heat is not by putting heated substances into the stomach, but by the normal action of the vital forces upon food taken in its natural state. Greater thirst is experienced after eating cooked than uncooked food, and this results both from the change that the food has undergone, and from the perspiration caused by the increased heat of the body. The artificial solution of the food impairs its nutritive properties, and weakens the natural functions of the body by depriving them of their natural employment; and this has been so long continued that we are now almost incapable of digesting uncooked grains, so that their enlivening and invigorating action is almost unknown.”

Dr Schlickeysen argues very strongly for what he terms the “electrical vitality” of food, which he contends—I think rightly—is ruined by cooking. He says:

“Finally—and this is a point which physiologists have hitherto quite overlooked—the food must contain a certain _electrical vitality_. Although the real origin and nature of the vital force is not yet known, we believe that it is closely related to electricity; not less so, indeed, than to light and heat. Electricity is abundant in all purely natural products, and indeed, everywhere where a free and uninterrupted exchange of the influences of light, heat, and air, exist. It is less abundant in closed dwelling and sleeping rooms than in the open air. An outdoor walk refreshes us, not only by the increased consumption of oxygen, but by the increased action of the electrical forces. The same vitality is stored up in uncooked plants and fruits, but it is greatly impaired by all our culinary processes. Fruits act also through their natural acids, their refreshing coolness, and the easy assimilation of their albuminous products, and other nourishing materials.

“By the ‘electrical vitality’ of food we do not mean its nutritive worth, nor indeed any material element of it, but rather an imponderable fluid, which is related to the vital and electrical forces of the human system. The organic vital force has not incorrectly been called the interrogation point of physiology, and the physiologists and chemists of the old school thought to maintain this force by supplying albuminoids to the system. The fact, however, is the reverse. The albuminoids demand rather a great expense of vitality for their solution and digestion. We know now, with great certainty, and by practical experience, that the human system is maintained and strengthened by the consumption of fresh air, fresh water, and ripe fruits, and grains; but these essential means of sustenance are reduced from the rank of vital to merely nutritive substances by any treatment that, through heat or otherwise, destroys their natural vitality. Our physiologists have not hitherto understood this difference between the vital and the merely nutritive properties of food, and hence, as we have already pointed out, have regarded foods as merely chemical substances. They have discovered and laid down with wonderful exactness, the chemical elements of the living body, and hence of the food requisite, according to their views, to its maintenance; but we hope to show that their methods and consequently their dietetic conclusions, have been one-sided, and therefore essentially erroneous. So long as the electrical vitality of food is overlooked, and the bearings of anthropology upon the question is ignored, a scientific system of diet must remain impossible.”[38]

This whole question of the injurious effect in cooking food may be summed up in a very few words. Heat destroys the life and vitality of the food, and practically nothing is left but the “ashes,” as it were, which are dead, inert, and comparatively of far less food value than the raw foods. It can readily be seen why this must be so. At a temperature of 150° F., certain properties of all organic substances are destroyed, or even at a temperature below this. This can readily be proved in the case of all living organisms, and it is also true, to a large extent, in the case of all vegetables, fruits, and other organic compounds, whose life is also destroyed at these high temperatures. A leaf of cabbage immersed in water not too hot to be borne by the hand will wilt. The effects of heat upon all flowers can very readily be seen. Their life becomes extinct, and the vital properties of all organic substances must be ruined by subjecting them to the tremendous heat necessary for cooking them. A large part of the nutritive value of the substance cooked is thus ruined, while, in many cases, valuable nutritive material passes out of the substance into the water in which it is cooked, or escapes altogether. It will thus be seen that, from the physiological and chemical sides of this question alone, there are many strong reasons for believing that the cooking of food is injurious, lowering its nutritive value, and

[38] If this theory were true, it would agree very well with Professor Loeb’s recent physiological researches. He has come to the conclusion that the energy of food-stuffs is not due to the production of heat, or to chemical energy, but to electrically charged molecules This would seem to agree very well with the theory outlined above. ruining many of its most valuable properties. But since fruits are almost the only form of food that can be eaten in a raw state—or rather as cooked by nature—this would indirectly prove that fruit is man’s natural diet, thus agreeing with his anatomical structure; and the fruitarian diet would, on the other hand, indicate that a raw-food diet is the best that man can adopt. When we come to consider the fact that no other animal cooks his food, and that the higher apes—man’s dietetic counterpart—eats his fruits and nuts in a raw state, we can readily see that there is no valid reason, apart from custom, for man cooking his food—so long as the natural or fruitarian dietary be adopted at all. It is curious to note the attitude various authorities have taken upon this subject, when writing of foods in relation to man’s relative place in nature. Thus, Dr Mattieu Williams, in his “Chemistry of Cookery,” p. 295, says:

“At the outset it is necessary to brush aside certain false issues that are commonly raised in discussing this subject. The question is not whether we are herbivorous or carnivorous animals. It is perfectly certain that we are neither. The carnivora feed on flesh alone, and eat that flesh raw. Nobody proposes that we should do this. The herbivora eat raw grass. Nobody suggests that we should follow their example.

“It is perfectly clear that man cannot be classed with the carnivorous animals, nor the herbivorous animals, nor with the gramnivorous animals. His teeth are not constructed for munching and grinding raw grain, nor his digestive organs for assimilating such grain in this condition.

“He is not even to be classed with the omnivorous animals. He stands apart from all as _The Cooking Animal_.”

Here it will be seen that Dr Williams classes man as a “cooking animal” merely because he has no other class (according to his own classification) in which to place him! But it will be observed that no mention whatever is made of fruitarian diet, or the possibility of man living upon fruits and nuts alone. He does not even mention the fact that there are fruitarian animals! Naturally, if one eliminates a whole class in this way—that class being the one to which man belongs—it is impossible to find a rightful place for him; but once recognise the fruitarian class of animals, and it will be found that man, structurally, and in every other way, belongs to it; and for that reason he does not stand apart by himself as a “cooking animal,” but is simply one member of the fruitarian family.

There are many other reasons for thinking that the fruitarian diet is the best, and that uncooked foods should form man’s staple diet. One of these is that they are more economical in the long run. While certain other foods may be purchased at a less cost, particularly in the winter-time, they are not nearly so nourishing to the system; and it can be shown that the nutritive value, per pound, is far greater in the case of fruits and nuts than is the case with any other articles of food. For this reason, although fruits and nuts may cost more, they will ultimately be found to cost _less_—because they contain a higher percentage of nutriment; and indirectly because they avoid doctor’s bills, and maintain the body in a higher state of health and energy. They thus enable it to accomplish more work; and, since work represents, as a rule, financial return, it will be seen that these foods are in the end most economic. As before pointed out, moreover, they do not induce over-eating, as do cooked and stimulating articles of food.

Fruits also exert a very cleansing and purifying effect upon the system. Their medicinal value is therefore not to be omitted from our consideration; and further, were the fruitarian diet followed, humanity would escape nine-tenths of the ills from which it now suffers, because of its over-eating, and its living upon gross and highly stimulating articles of food, and bad food-combinations. The choking and blocking effects of the more solid and earthy food would be avoided—while indigestion, fermentation, constipation and all the ills which accompany them would also be entirely done away with.

This question of the prevention of disease by diet is a very important one, both from the economic and from the physiological point of view, and if any diet can be found which will prevent a large percentage of the diseases from which mankind suffers, that diet should surely be adopted. Inasmuch as fruits and nuts are man’s natural diet, it should be obvious that they are the ones best suited to his organism, and consequently those which will maintain it in the highest state of health. Let us consider this question a little more fully.

In my previous work, I argued that every article of diet must be more or less healthful or more or less injurious, and this being so, only those foods should be eaten which had been proved by philosophy and experience to be the most wholesome. The fact that the system _can live_ upon other foods, and maintain a certain degree of health, argues merely that it can _withstand_ the bad effects of these other foods, and by no means shows us that they are the best! I further contended that the same foods are alike detrimental or beneficial to all, and that the old doctrine which Dr Page called “the most foolish of all aphorisms”—namely, “one man’s meat, another’s poison”—is totally false. I contended that, while there might be certain deviations and variations in the details of the diet, still all men are _rudimentally_ alike, and that the body of each human being is made after a certain pattern, which pattern is in accordance with the general principles which apply to all individuals. Man, that is, belongs to a certain _genus_, and consequently his food must be, within certain limits, the same as that of the rest of the family to which he belongs. That is, as we have seen, the frugivora, and his diet must accordingly consist of fruits and nuts in their uncooked, primitive form. There may be certain individual differences, and there doubtless are. Thus, some individuals are unable to eat strawberries, others bananas, others onions, others mushrooms, but this would show, merely, that these particular individuals, _while in the peculiar state of body in which they then are_, are unable to appropriate and utilise, with benefit, these particular food-stuffs. The chemical composition of their bodies has become altered in some way unknown to us, and, as the result of this altered chemical composition, they are unable to appropriate, with profit, food containing certain elements with which they may already be overstocked. In other words, this would prove, merely, that, in their present physical condition, they are unable properly to assimilate and digest those particular food-stuffs. It does not show that, if they were normal, these foods could not be appropriated and used with benefit. In other words, the fault is rather with the individual than with the food. Still, I admit that these differences have to be taken into account; and that no two individuals can be treated exactly alike—especially at first. To use a simile, no two spokes of a wheel are identical—that is, each spoke is individual, and different from all other spokes—but they all lead, nevertheless, to the hub, the central point which unifies and combines them all. In a similar manner, I can see that there is an ideal diet for the human race, which should be followed by all who are in health, and could be eaten by all with equal profit and benefit, if the chemical composition of their bodies were altered. But, as each spoke must be treated individually at first, so must each individual be treated individually, and, by gradual changes in the diet, be brought more nearly to a normal standard, when it will be far easier for it to adopt a simple fruitarian diet, without any of the disturbance or unpleasantness that might otherwise follow. As Dr Jackson expressed it:

“If I had his ultimate good in view, I should seek to change the state of his stomach that he might eat what was in itself better for him, rather than to have his morbid necessity say what he should be compelled to eat.”

Some readers may contend that I have gone too far in thus insisting upon an ultimate unification of diet, and that such a state can not only _not_ be hoped for practically, but is false theoretically. I myself do not think so. When discussing this question in my former book, I said:

“It must be noticed that, with the single exception of man, every class of animal feeds upon its own particular and especial kind of food. All dogs, for example, eat practically the same food, and about the same amount of it.. .. When a dog is fed upon milk, meat, and biscuit, in certain amounts, when living in England, we do not think of modifying his diet to any appreciable degree should we take him with us to America or to the Tropics. The diet might, in the latter case, be somewhat _lessened_, but that would effect its bulk only, not materially effecting the quality of the food-supply. Again, we should be surprised to find dogs fed upon altogether different substances in any portion of the globe to which we might travel; if, _e.g._, they were fed upon turnips, oysters, mince pie, hay and sauerkraut—yet I must earnestly insist that this unholy combination is no more bad and unnatural than some that supposedly ‘civilised’ men and women take into their stomachs in the course of twenty-four hours! To be sure, there might be modifications or alterations in the diet, but the changes would not be of _kind_, merely of _degree_, and we should feel, doubtless, that these dogs, having their diet altered to an altogether different kind, live under such abnormal and altered conditions rather _in spite of_ than on _account of_ their newly acquired régime, and would be inclined to feel that the same dogs might be infinitely more healthy and live longer lives on their normal diet. Similarly with every other species of animal; each _genus_ has its proper and natural food, allotted by nature, and any attempt to depart from this diet, and to live upon other and altogether unnatural food, must of necessity weaken, devitalise and eventually destroy the organism of the animal so attempting to live contrary to nature’s unchanging dietetic laws.”

Now, since we have seen that man is anatomically and structurally a member of that family whose normal food is fruits and nuts, he too should live upon that diet if he wishes to maintain the highest degree of health. There is only one valid objection to this theory, which is that man, having lived so many ages upon the cooked diet, is now more adapted to that diet than to his original uncooked foods, and that an attempt to return to such a diet would be attended with grave and possibly disastrous consequences. As Professor Goodfellow put it: “The conditions of life have so altered that the natural food of our ancestors would be unnatural now, living as we do under such different conditions.”[39]

[39] “The Dietetic Value of Bread,” p. 166.

This objection, however, is completely refuted by the fact that _no anatomical change whatever_ has taken place in man’s digestive apparatus since the most primeval times. If the body had gradually grown accustomed to the cooked and unnatural foods, this should not be the case—certain modifications in the digestive apparatus and perhaps throughout the body should be noted, corresponding to this altered adaptability. But no such changes have been observed. As we have seen, man corresponds structurally throughout with the higher apes, and he has altered not one whit since the days when he more closely resembled them than he does now!

The second point to be noted is that such an objection is not in accord with facts. It is a comparatively simple thing for the majority of persons to adopt a fruitarian dietary. They can do so almost at once, having made up their minds to do so, and thereafter live upon it exclusively, without harm to themselves, but, on the contrary, with added health and strength. There is no real reason to think that, because a thing has been done for many generations, it is the best thing which _can_ be done. Experience merely shows us what _has_ taken place, not what _might_ take place; and, so far as that goes, experience has shown us in the past that, living upon the diet they have been accustomed to, human beings have been constantly suffering from one form of disease or another, and that they almost invariably become aged prematurely, lose their faculties before their allotted time, and die a premature death. So far as experience can teach us anything, therefore, it shows most conclusively that such a state of affairs as has existed in the past is by no means the most ideal, but, on the contrary, one which should be avoided and changed, if possible, and rendered more in accordance with nature’s laws—thus ensuring a greater degree of health, and a more prolonged and happy existence.

There is another strong argument in favour of the fruitarian dietary, and an adoption of the simpler foods, which is that the adoption of this way of living would ensure a practical emancipation of women. Under the present conditions, a wife—if she has a husband and family, and if she is forced to do her own work, as a large number are (in America, at least)—spends four or five hours a day in the kitchen preparing and clearing up after the three daily meals supplied to the family. The anxiety and mental tension that she undergoes in ensuring the correctness of her dishes; the bending over the hot stove—especially in summer-time—the constant inhaling of smells and odours, arising from the cooking food, the fumes from the oils and fats, the constant tasting of dishes which is necessitated, all these tell against her health, and age her prematurely. In addition to this, there is the time wasted in the preparation of all these foods, and in the clearing up of the remnants; and when we stop to consider that all this cooking is not only useless, but positively detrimental; not only a waste of time, but an actual injury to the body; and when we know that far greater health and strength may be preserved upon a diet consisting wholly of uncooked foods—which require no preparation and practically no clearing up—we can see how false is the doctrine at present enunciated, and slavishly followed by the majority, which tends to keep woman in a state of bondage, and her time filled up with petty details of a wholly useless nature—which time might be better occupied in mental pursuits. And when we remember, in addition to all this, that such foods, even when they are prepared, are by no means so wholesome as a simple fruitarian diet, but are, on the contrary, positively harmful, we can see that no time should be lost before we adopt this simplified diet, and insist upon its acceptance by all persons calling themselves civilised. From all these points of view, therefore, we see that there are very strong grounds for believing that the fruitarian diet is the one most suited to the body’s needs, and is in every way the most wholesome and hygienic. I shall now proceed to adduce another whole set of facts showing that fruitarianism is the natural diet of mankind, and that fruits and nuts, eaten in their uncooked form, are those most suitable to man, and those best calculated to preserve him in a high state of mental and physical health.

Not only do fruits and nuts contain a higher percentage of nutriment than ordinary foods, and particularly cooked foods; not only do they maintain the system in a better state of physical, mental and moral health; not only do they simplify the wants of the household, and the toil of the woman; not only are they more economical in the long run; not only would the adoption of this diet prevent nine-tenths of the misery and physical suffering in this world; not only would it prevent a large part of the crime, debauchery and drunkenness, but, in addition to all this, the adoption of such a dietary would be the chief factor in all social, ethical and agricultural reform. This should be apparent to anyone who has read through the above list of reforms made possible by this simple change of diet. The practical abolition of the traffic in alcohol, which would certainly result from an adoption of this diet, would be in itself a tremendous revolution. In addition to all this, there would be the increased ease and comfort afforded by the simpler diet. The economic aspect of this question is one very important factor. It is possible to live far more cheaply upon fruits and nuts, when they are in season, than upon any other foods—quite apart from the general question of health. The freeing of the body from diseases and the prolonging of useful life would also be strong arguments in favour of the simpler diet—since there can be no question that both these results are effected by its means.

There are also other arguments in favour of this diet— arguments that should appeal to many of my readers. It will be found, _e.g._, that the texture and the general colouring of the skin will improve, upon this diet; the complexion will become clear, and the eyes will become bright. This is very noticeable, in many cases. The brain is also rendered clearer, and more fitted for continued mental work. Far more work can be performed, without the exhaustion formerly noted, upon such a diet. There can be no question whatever that the temper will invariably improve upon the fruitarian diet. I have seen many cases of this character. It is only natural that such should be so. On the ordinary “mixed” diet, the system is surcharged with toxic substances, which mix with the blood and irritate the brain cells. When these irritating substances are removed, the mind will become clear, and a more even and just view of the world will be obtained. There can be no question that there is a close, even intimate, relation between the mental life and the state of the body; and nothing demonstrates this more certainly than the adoption of a fruitarian dietary. I have already referred to the brutalising effects of meat and the slaughter-house upon the butcher. It is true, in a lesser degree, with everybody. The natives of India and elsewhere look with horror at the practice of meat-eating, and cannot understand how anyone can be spiritual, or even decently humane, who kills and eats animals. And yet missionaries, knowing this, continue to eat their roast beef, in spite of the fact that natives of the more intelligent order must despise them in consequence. No wonder they can accomplish very little, so long as they are so totally incapable of appreciating the viewpoint of others, and are unwilling to reform their diet, and adopt a more simple and humane one—for the sake of their religion, if not for hygienic reasons!

There can be no doubt that the adoption of fruit as a food would relieve many cases of hitherto incurable diseases. In cancer, gout, eczema, tumour, etc., the exclusive fruit diet has been found to bring rapid and remarkable cures. Moreover, the salts found in fruits of various kinds are a very important factor—and this, not only in the sick but in the well.

Dr H. Benjafield, writing in the _Herald of Health_ says:

“Garrod, the great London authority on gout, advises his patients to take oranges, lemons, strawberries, grapes, apples, pears, etc. Jardien, the great French authority, maintains that the salts of potash found so plentifully in fruits are the chief agents in purifying the blood from these rheumatic and gouty poisons.... Dr Buzzard advises the scorbutic to take fruit, morning, noon and night. Fresh lemon juice in the form of lemonade is to be his ordinary drink; the existence of diarrhœa should be no reason for withholding it.”

Florence Daniel, in her excellent little book “Food Remedies,” says of fruits:

“Salts and acids as found in organised forms are quite different in their effects to the products of the laboratory, notwithstanding that the chemical composition may be shown to be the same. The chemist may be able to manufacture a ‘fruit juice,’ but he cannot, as yet, manufacture the actual fruit. The mysterious life force always evades him. Fruit is a _vital_ food, it supplies the body with something over and above the mere elements that the chemist succeeds in isolating by analysis. The vegetable kingdom possesses the power of directly utilising minerals, and it is only in this ‘live’ form that they are fit for the consumption of man. In the consumption of sodium chloride (common table salt), baking powders, and the whole army of mineral drugs and essences, we violate that decree of nature which ordains that the animal kingdom shall feed upon the vegetable and the vegetable upon the mineral.”

So far back as the beginning of last century, the famous Dr Lambe, of London, wrote in favour of the fruit diet, and several vigorous reformers soon followed his example. The system was bitterly attacked, but these attacks served only to strengthen the defence, and show the inconsistency of its opponents. Objections to the fruit diet are constantly being urged, but not one of them has been shown to rest on a solid foundation.

Take, for example, the notion that the acids of fruit injure the teeth. Dentists will frequently tell you that acids are injurious to the enamel of the teeth, and for that reason acid fruits most certainly should not be eaten! The position sounds perfectly logical, and, if the acids of fruits had the same effect upon the enamel of the teeth as mineral acid, it would be true. The fact is, however, that this is not the case, but one does not really find this out until he becomes a fruitarian. He then finds that he has no further “use” for the dentist, and that his fine theoretical knowledge is overthrown by the actual facts.

Persons often notice that they become—especially at first—much more acutely sensitive and almost nervous upon a fruitarian diet. Of course the diet is blamed; but as a matter of fact it is but indirectly responsible. The sensibility and nervousness is the result of previous habits of life—and this transitory condition is but the manifestation of certain nervous, vital energies which had, till then, remained “smothered,” as it were, by the excess of food eaten. Now they rise to the surface and tend to become noticeable to us (_v._ my “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 520-523).

Further, sensibility, it must be remembered, is merely another word for extreme sensitiveness or a degree of reaction of the nervous system—which is its normal function. A nervous system is made for the express purpose of reacting immediately, to the most delicate stimulus—and if it does not do so, it shows that the nervous mechanism is in some way out of order. It is only because we constantly keep the nervous system poisoned, by our perverted food habits, that it does not react as it should. It merely regains some degree of its normal powers when the fruit diet is adopted.

But I shall probably be told that there are cases in which a hyper-sensitiveness has become apparent—the sensitiveness, not of health, but of disease. That I admit: but I must contend that this extreme sensitiveness would not have resulted had it not been for the previous habits of life, which resulted in an accumulation of irritating poisons within the body; so that, when these habits are discontinued and the nervous system invigorated by the improved dietetic habits, the nerves begin to react vigorously against these irritating poisons. The result is that a great irritability and hyper-sensitiveness is noted, _pro tem._—which, however, will be found to disappear (if the diet be persisted in) when the nervous system again approaches a more normal standard.

There remains one very strong argument in favour of a fruitarian diet, to which I have not so far referred. Able authorities affirm that many of the waste places and deserts of the earth once teemed with fertility and foliage, and that the existing sterility of these deserts has been brought about by the destruction of their forests. The influence of trees upon the rainfall, and consequent support of vegetation, is so well known that some of the foremost nations are fostering tree-culture and taking means to preserve existing forests by Government enactment. There can be no doubt but that trees improve the climate, in any neighbourhood; they improve the soil, reduce the severity of storms and the cold of winter, and prevent undue evaporation of moisture from the surface of the ground. But it is unnecessary to enlarge upon the great value of trees, which is well known. Now, the point I make is this: if the fruitarian dietary were adopted, more fruits and nuts would be eaten, and hence a large number of trees would be planted—huge orchards would exist throughout the land. Whereas under cereal culture there is a constant temptation to the farmer to cut down his trees to make his lands available for grain-growing; as soon as a market for fruits and nuts is established, the same law of pecuniary gain will induce him to transform his pastures and his grain fields into orchards and nut groves. This would be highly advantageous in every respect.

I think it probable that fruits alone contain about all the nutriment that an average man wants, who is not working out of doors, and who does not take much exercise. Oxen will get fat on apples and pears; but when we set them to work, we have to supply an extra amount of grains, and foods containing proteid, to offset the greater destruction of muscular tissue. It is probably the same with man. In the majority of cases, fruits alone would probably supply all that the body needs; but when it was called upon to perform an extra amount of work, nuts and other proteid-forming foods will be craved and called for. This, I think, indicates the true place of nuts and of all foods rich in proteid in the diet.

M. Metchnikoff has argued strongly against the use of fruits and all raw foods, as liable to introduce bacteria into the intestines! He believes that old age and natural death are largely brought about by bacteriological decomposition in the intestines (in which he is doubtless right) and believes that raw foods are one of the chief causes of this intestinal putrefaction. I would point out, in reply, that bacteria can only exist in a locality in which there is a suitable soil; and if this soil is lacking, they cannot exist, no matter how many of them may be introduced. Now, when the bowel is kept sweet and clean, as it invariably is by a fruit diet, it will be apparent that there is no soil in which such bacteria could multiply, hence their continued presence would be quite impossible. M. Metchnikoff has only studied cases in which the patient had been nourished by the ordinary cooked foods, and his conclusions were drawn from the facts presented to him; but when the diet is entirely fruitarian, there can be no doubt that such a state of the bowels would be quite impossible, and there would consequently be no bacteria present; and if they _were_ introduced, they could not live in such a medium. The bowel, in the case of those living upon a fruitarian diet, is almost entirely free from all bacteria; and their infection and action upon the system would consequently be rendered practically impossible. There would be no danger of infection if the body were maintained in a high state of health—as it would be upon a fruitarian diet.

Frequently, throughout this book, I have referred to man’s “natural diet,” and, it may be asked, what is his natural diet, in what does it consist? I answer: fruit and nuts—or a combination of these—is man’s natural diet, and this is proved by all the arguments of comparative anatomy, of physiology, and all the other evidences I have adduced. I think there can be no mistake and no hesitation about this, once we have mastered and appreciated the force of these arguments. They alone would determine the issue. But, further, I think there is one simple test that will settle this question—an instinctive test. After eating a full meal of any article of food, let a man look back, and contemplate having to eat it all over again, and he can soon tell whether what he has eaten is “natural” for him or not! If the meal has consisted of fish and meat, and all the other “luxuries” of modern civilisation, there can be no doubt that such a thought would repulse and sicken him; the very idea of it would nauseate him. But if the meal had consisted of peaches and dates, let us say, the idea of going back and eating as much again of the same food would not prove in the slightest degree repellent to him. This instinctive testimony is very suggestive and valuable, it appears to me, and clearly indicates man’s natural diet.

Let us consider this question of instinct further.

If we take a little child into a room in which there are two tables, one covered with meats of all kinds (choicely cooked, if you will) and the other groaning under a multitude of fruit, which one would the child turn to, without any hesitation? Most certainly he would turn to the table spread with fruit—in every single instance where the appetite has not been perverted so early as to render all natural taste and instinct impossible. The child would turn to its natural food—fruit, and would in that manner demonstrate his natural cravings and instinct, and clearly indicate that his natural food is fruit, and that consequently he is frugivorous by nature. But now let us take a dog or a cat, or a lion or a tiger into the room, and leave him there. To which table would _he_ turn, and that without a moment’s hesitation? We can have no doubt on that point. He would instantaneously show his carnivorous nature and appetite, and would not, in all probability, even touch the fruits, even if he were hungry and there was no meat in the room at all. Our primary instincts, therefore, clearly indicate that man is frugivorous, and not carnivorous in his nature.

Again, if man were naturally carnivorous, he should eat his meat as do the carnivora—and he should be provided by nature with the bodily structure, teeth, claws, etc., for doing so. Were man naturally carnivorous, he should prey upon his food by night; he should lurk in the dark places, and pounce upon his rightful prey, rending it with his teeth, tearing it with his claws, lapping the warm blood as it oozes from the lifeless body before him! He should catch and eat his prey as do all the other (naturally) carnivorous animals. If Nature pointed us to such a diet, we should feel the same instinctive appetite for raw flesh as we now feel for ripe fruit; and a slaughter-house would be more delightful to us than an orchard. Yet we know that such is not the case, and that even the mere thought of such a thing is sickening to any sensitive person. Why is this? Does it not clearly indicate that man is not naturally carnivorous by nature, but that he can only tolerate the idea of flesh-eating because of long deadening of the higher moral centres, in this direction; and because the food is so pickled, and spiced, and peppered, and salted, and roasted, and fried, and smothered in onions, and in other ways covered up and _concealed_, and its taste and nature so _disguised_, that we can eat it at all?

As Mr Salt so well remarked[40]:

[40] “Logic of Vegetarianism,” p. 27.

“Our innate horror of bloodshed—a horror which only long custom can deaden, and which, in spite of past centuries of violence, is so powerful at the present time—is proof that we are not naturally adapted for a sanguinary diet; and, as has often been pointed out, it is only by delegating to others the detested work of slaughter, and by employing cookery to conceal the uncongenial truth, that thoughtful persons can tolerate the practice of meat-eating.”

If all persons who enjoy “a good, juicy beef-steak,” or a rasher of bacon, first had to go out and kill the cow or the hog, how do you think they would like it? And how many of us would or could do such a thing? Aside from the fact, before pointed out, that, were we naturally carnivorous by nature, we should eat our flesh warm and bleeding and quivering—as do the other carnivora—there is this additional objection, that, even if this were not the case, we must ever entail the duty to others of killing the animal for us—so disgusting is the very idea of dipping our hands and mouths in blood before and during each meal!

Granting, then, that fruits and nuts can supply us with all the essentials for the upbuilding of a healthy body, and that this is man’s natural diet—the question arises: How would it be best to break away from the old foods, and adopt this simpler dietary? Certainly this should not be done at once, in the majority of cases. Many persons can pass from one diet to another instantaneously, with no harm, but with decided benefit. My own case is an example of this. Once I was thoroughly persuaded that this was the ideal diet, I dropped meat at one meal, and lived upon fruits and nuts the next, and thenceforward from that day. I never experienced any ill effects from such an abrupt change, but only benefit. Though, at the present time, I pay no attention, practically, to exercise, to breathing, or to any of the other thought-to-be-essentials of the physical culture life (I claim that all of these measures can be practically dispensed with, if only the diet be regulated carefully) I am always more or less in condition, and I may fairly say that I never knew anyone who could work more continuously and steadily for so many hours at a stretch, and for so many days together, as can I. Of course this is only one person’s testimony, and hence my own method might not be suited to all equally well. But I have introduced this personal item to show that the old dogma that one cannot make abrupt changes in the diet without detriment to oneself is all pure nonsense. I never experienced any ill effects whatever—and no more have numerous other persons of my acquaintance, who have adopted the fruitarian diet as abruptly as I did.

But, granting that this abrupt change is not desired, what then? In that case, I should advise the patient to leave off meat at one of his meals (if he has been in the habit of eating it more than once a day) and substitute eggs for it—in the morning or evening—or beans, peas, cheese, etc., at noon. Let him get accustomed to this change before another step is taken. Then, abolish meat altogether from the bill of fare, and live on the ordinary vegetarian foods for a few days. Next, decrease the amount of cooked vegetables, and increase the quantity of the fruits. Remember the advice previously given regarding food combinations here. It will soon be found that an egg or two, and a couple of slices of bread, or a simple vegetarian dish, will supply all the wants, for the first half of the meal; and this should be followed by an abundant allowance of fruits. Keep this up until the patient has grown thoroughly accustomed to the change, and then (preferably in hot weather) let him try his first meal of fruits, nuts and whole-wheat bread and nut-butter. Later on, these last articles may be abolished, if desired; but most persons find it almost harder to give up their bread and butter than they do their meat! The patient is now fairly on the diet, and additional alterations and restrictions are merely a matter of time. Doubtless by this time he is sufficiently interested in the question himself, and sufficiently delighted in his altered physical condition, to need but little persuasion, and will gladly adopt and follow the diet himself.

XIII

FOOD COMBINATIONS

There are very few foods which, if eaten singly, would be found to disagree. Most of the trouble arises when we combine the various foods which do not suit or harmonise; and the result is, distress and a complication of disorders, due to the bad combination of such foods. Such foods disagree with one another, so to speak, rather than with us. This question of food combinations is one which has been very largely overlooked, but it is a highly important one, nevertheless. Most people have never paid any attention to the relative proportion of their foods, or thought how each would combine with the other; and it is largely due to this lack of foresight that so much dyspepsia is present, and that so many digestive troubles are active throughout the world. The motto of the average individual would seem to be, “Out of sight, out of mind”; but it must be remembered that, while the stomach _receives_ the food, the body has to _retain_ it; and long digestive processes, involving an enormous outlay of energy, and many and complicated chemical changes, have to be gone through, before food is appropriable by the system. Of course, the tendency among civilised peoples is in the direction of increasing the number of articles of food at each meal, instead of decreasing it. They like to see the table spread with a litter of dishes, while a fifteen-course dinner is supposed to be the height of luxury! Were the processes of living considered a little more from the physiological, and a little less from the gormandising point of view, such would not be the case. The tendency would then be (at least among all intelligent people), to _reduce_ the number of dishes, as much as possible—limiting them at each meal to three or two, or even one.

Food should be solid. The digestive juices are fluids, and an excess of liquid, with the food, tends to dilute these gastric juices, and consequently to interfere with their converting action. If fluids be drunk with any meal they will dilute the power of concentrated action of the gastric juice, and other digestive juices; and will, further, have a tendency to wash the food through the stomach into the intestines before it has undergone proper stomach-digestion. Water, therefore, should not be drunk _at_ meals, but shortly before, or an hour or so afterwards. In this way the requisite amount of fluid is supplied to the system, without interfering with digestion in the manner indicated.

Another result of drinking at meals is to prevent thorough mastication of the foods. When these are dry, they should be thoroughly insalivated before being swallowed, for any liquid taken at the time softens these foods artificially, and will also cause more food to be eaten than would be the case, were it eaten dry.

Dr Latson, in his “Food Value of Meat,” says:

“Fresh fruits all combine well with one another. As a rule fruits, fresh or cooked, combine well with bread or cooked cereals, and with nuts or nuts foods. Fruits do not, as a rule, combine well with cooked vegetables, nor with meat, eggs, cheese, milk, or cream. Milk and cream are so liable to decomposition that, if only for that reason, they are not desirable foods. Milk or cream with cereals, fruit, sugar, or cooked vegetables is apt to cause difficulty.... In arranging meals in which flesh-meat is not to be included, it is only necessary to remember that the nuts and the legumes (peas, beans and lentils) contain the same food elements as flesh-meat, and may always be eaten in its place with advantage.... The best breakfast is one that consists of fresh ripe fruit, and nothing else. To this may be added, if desired, whole-wheat bread, or some cereal. The cereal may be served with fruit juice.”

The following are a few sample meals arranged, according to merit—only those foods being taken which will combine well together.

_Breakfast No. 1._—Raw fruit, cereal with fruit juice, whole-wheat bread.

_Breakfast No. 2._—Stewed apples, whole-wheat bread.

_Breakfast No. 3._—Cereal with fruit juice, soft boiled eggs, whole-wheat bread.

The following are one or two sample luncheons:—

_Luncheon No. 1._—Stewed fruit, nuts or nut-butter, whole-wheat bread.

_Luncheon No. 2._—Peanut purée, boiled rice (or baked potatoes), stewed fruit, whole-wheat bread.

_Luncheon No. 3._—Salad of any kind, garnished with olive oil and lemon juice; fresh fruit and whole-wheat bread.

The following are a few sample dinners:—

_Dinner No. 1._—Fresh fruit, salad, macaroni, whole-wheat bread.

_Dinner No. 2._—Peas, beans or lentils, browned rice, baked potatoes, stewed fruit, whole-wheat bread.

_Dinner No. 3._—Soup, eggs, cooked vegetables, whole-wheat bread.

_Dinner No. 4._—Bean soup, or pea soup, boiled rice, baked potatoes, stewed fruit, whole-wheat bread.

Dr William S. Sadler[41] gives the following directions as to food combinations:—

[41] “The Science of Living,” p. 145.

GOOD COMBINATIONS

Fruits and grains
Grains and meat or eggs
Grains and nuts
Grains and milk
Grains and vegetables
Grains and legumes

FAIR COMBINATIONS

Grains with sweet fruits and milk
Meat or eggs with vegetables
Nuts and vegetables

BAD COMBINATIONS

Fruits and vegetables
Milk and vegetables
Sour fruits and milk
Milk and meat

Mr and Mrs Christian, in their “Uncooked Foods” (p. 63), give three elaborate meals, composed of uncooked foods entirely, though it will be seen that their grouping of combinations is not so strict as that formulated above. The meals are as follows:—

“_Breakfast._—One ripe apple, two ounces pecan meats, six or eight black dates, one very ripe banana, sliced with thick cream, one glass milk.

“_Luncheon._—Two bartlett pears, one ounce pecan meats, three Turkish pulled figs, one ounce pignolias, cold slaw with olive oil, one cake of unfired bread, four prunes with thick cream, sweet butter, egg-nog.

“_Dinner._—Half pound of grapes, two ounces mixed nut meats, vegetable salad with dressing, one cake unfired bread, cream cheese, six or eight black dates, one very ripe red banana, with thick cream, pint of whole milk.”

Personally, I think that the above combinations are by no means ideal, and in addition to that, far too much in bulk has been prescribed for each meal. Were the breakfast omitted, and but two meals daily eaten, the amount prescribed would be more proportionate, but even then I feel certain that the amount is greatly in excess of bodily needs. The authors, however, have made an extended study of food combinations, and, in fact, are almost the only writers who have paid much attention to this subject. In their chapter on food combinations, they say:

“The following combinations have been found by experience to be chemically harmonious, healthful, and very nutritious:—

“Flaked wheat, with nuts, dates and cream.

“Flaked wheat, nuts, honey, milk and cream.

“Egg-nog, pecan meats, dates, banana and cream.

“Cold slaw with olive oil, pecan meats, unfired bread, sweet apple with thick cream.

“All foods composed largely of starch, such as cereals, potatoes, and nearly all legumes, should not be eaten at the same meal with sweets, especially cane sugar. All foods, whether fluids or solids, that contain starch or sugar, such as rice, potatoes, corn, oats, in fact all the cereal class may be eaten with safety at the same meal. Milk can also be taken with all the carbohydrate family of foods.[42] All foods containing gluten, albumen, or gelatine, such as meat, eggs and a few kinds of nuts, are classed as protein, and require an acid solvent to be digested. Therefore, they can be eaten with safety with all kinds of fruits. Milk, one of the best foods known, can be taken with all kinds of fruits, provided no cereal starch be eaten at the same meal. All foods that contain both carbohydrates and protein compose healthful combinations.”[43]

[42] It will be seen that the authors are here in disagreement with Dr
Latson. See his advice above.

[43] A number of very good recipes of uncooked foods may be
found in an otherwise very odd book, entitled “Unfired Food: and
Trophotherapy,” by George J. Drews (Chicago).

In balancing any dietary, care must be taken, of course, to keep the relative proportion of proteids, fats and carbohydrates, equal; and to see, also, that the proper amount of mineral salts is contained in all the foods; also that a due supply of water is furnished to the system. One of the chief causes of failure on the part of those who leave off meat, and attempt to take up vegetarianism, is that they do not rightly balance their diet, and do not supply to the system the proper amount of proteid food, to take the place of that which the meat supplied. Vegetarians, as a rule, eat far _too much_ food. Under the impression that they must eat more, in order to offset the supposed greater “nutritive” value of the meat which they have given up, they eat far more than they should: while as a matter of fact, the vegetarian foods are richer and far more nutritious than the ordinary mixed diet. Consequently, less, instead of more, should be eaten. Anyone leaving off his meat must expect to feel a certain depression for a few days, as before pointed out—owing to the fact that the stimulating quality of the meat is withdrawn; but, those few days once past, a general invigoration of the system will be noted. Due attention should be paid to all hygienic auxiliaries, and an excess of food should by all means be avoided. Substitute eggs, cheese, peas, beans, lentils and nuts for the meat formerly eaten; in other ways pay attention to the balancing of the diet, and no inconvenience will be experienced, as a result of leaving off meat and adopting the newer dietary.

Dr Susana Dodds, in her “Health in the Household, or Hygienic Cookery,” says, in writing of food combinations: