As an evidence that after all moderation is the most ideal system, and that the simple deprivation of breakfast is by no means the all-important feature, a new sect has arisen, the votaries of which, whilst approving of a two-meal-a-day plan, suggest that it would be much wiser to omit the midday meal, as there would then be not more than ten or fourteen hours between the times of taking food, instead of six and eighteen hours, as in Dewey's method. This system is, however, categorised by Dewey's disciples as irrational, for the reason that in one of the intervals almost all the day's work is performed and all the energy expended, whereas in the other practically nothing is done. They declare that the division of the time is a purely arbitrary one, for the one half contains all the resting period, all the repair of tissue waste, and all the accumulation of energy, whilst in the other half there is practically no rest, all the expenditure of energy, and a continual breaking-down of the tissue elements. Forgetting their original statement that energy is only accumulated during sleep and in no way dependent on the supply of food, they advance the illogical contention that "an equal amount of food is necessary to supply the loss in both instances."

One would have thought that this admission was a complete avowal of the reasonableness of an early morning and a late evening meal, but there is evidently a confusion of thought in their argument, for they hark back to their original statement that as no energy is expended during the night, no work performed, no tissues destroyed, there can be no possible necessity for tissue replacement. The facts of physiology have been studied to little advantage by one who forgets the ceaseless work of the heart and great blood-vessels, the lungs, the muscles of respiration, and all the other factors contributing to the expenditure of energy in the internal work of the economy, which, though lessened during sleep, is only so in a minor degree.

But the internal work of the body is suddenly brought to the recollection of the disciple of Dewey by the natural desire of his body for its fresh morning supplies of nutriment, of which it is forcibly deprived because, forsooth, strength would be wasted by this untimely food in the stomach. The modicum of truth in this assertion is entirely nullified by his previous statement. Still, it is affirmed that if the denial of the body's demand for food be persisted in, then a clearer head, greater nervous energy, increased vitality and buoyancy of spirits will be the inevitable result. In every case without exception has this benign result happened, and never yet has one of Dewey's disciples apostatised. Such uniformity of conduct seems very surprising in view not only of human nature but of human physiology, and as a matter of experience one constantly meets many who, though convinced of the value of the two-meals-a-day system, have found it intolerable to be deprived of their breakfast. This, of course, would not be remarkable amongst mixed feeders, but the cases to which I refer were almost entirely amongst the ranks of the vegetarians. Mr. Eustace Miles is a case in point. Converted to the two-meals-a-day system by reading Dewey's book, he relates that after two experiments he was compelled to give up the no-breakfast plan. As an alternative he partook of lunch between 10 and 11, and dinner between 4 and 5 p.m., and by this means succeeded in curing a persistent drowsiness which used to attack him for three or four hours in the middle of the day. His subsequent experience is of some interest, for he found that he was able to adopt the no-breakfast plan so long as his last meal on the previous day was not taken too early in the evening. Now, Dewey taught that it was essential that the two meals should be taken at 1 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. respectively, and although he resisted the insinuation, there is little doubt that as much food was taken at the two meals as would in the ordinary course have been consumed at the three or four which are now in vogue.

Clinical

The man who takes a good breakfast and a midday meal as a rule eats very little at his two late repasts, and is therefore ready for a good breakfast. The man who takes a heavy meal at 7.30 p.m., especially if he be employed at a sedentary occupation, is quite unfitted for a heavy breakfast next morning. The secret therefore of the no-breakfast plan appears to lie in the unconscious adoption of the principle of moderation, so beneficial amongst the American nation, where the usual custom is to eat three or four heavy meals, including a particularly hearty breakfast of many courses. When, however, moderation is consistently practised there is no necessity for doing violence to the body by the withdrawal of what is to many the most enjoyable meal of the day.

At Battle Creek Sanitarium the two-meal-a-day system was in vogue for many years, but the three-meal-a-day system has been substituted, and has been found in every way more satisfactory and hygienic than the old method.

Doubtless social habits and convenience are factors of greater importance in the regulation of our meals than scientific pronouncement. Barely two centuries ago breakfast was an unrecognised function in England, having originated in the practice of ladies taking an early dish of chocolate before rising. The chief meal was dinner, which, as in many country districts, to-day, was eaten at noon, and this persisted until the spread of our industrial and commercial system and the enormous growth of cities made it necessary to introduce the system now in vogue. There is no doubt that two good meals a day are sufficient for most people, and in practice it is found that where a good breakfast and dinner are eaten, the lunch and tea are often ignored or replaced by a mere snack at the one and a cup of tea at the other.

"Whatever is true of other countries, the average man in this country finds that it is much better to take a good substantial breakfast, and most people find that they are incapable of very much work before it. A Highlander never faces the ascent of a mountain without a good meal in his stomach, and the late Dr. Milner Fothergill used to say: 'I would always back a good breakfaster from a boy to a game cockerel; a good meal to begin the day is a good foundation.' Whilst resident medical officer of a fever hospital, I was always advised by the visiting physician never to make a night visit to one of the patients without eating some food first, as quite a number of my predecessors had neglected this rule and succumbed to infectious diseases. I cannot vouch for the statement that the body is less liable to fall a victim to infection when there is a meal in the stomach, but I know that a late eminent surgeon used to look upon the inability to eat breakfast as the initial symptom of a breakdown."

It matters little whether the continental system of a light breakfast with early lunch and late dinner be adopted, or our own method of a heavier breakfast with light lunch about 1 p.m., and a late dinner about 6.45 or 7 p.m. All that is necessary is to eat just enough for the nutritive requirements of the body, and see that it is apportioned in such a way that it is not calculated to tax the digestive organs.