General Remarks - Population of a Country depends upon the Quantity and not the Quality of its Food - Immunity from Disease how connected with Salubrity of Diet - The Views of the Political Economist opposed to those of the Physician - On the Periods best adapted for Meals, and on the Intervals which should elapse between each - Breakfast - Dinner - Tea - Supper - On the Quantity of Food that should be taken at each Meal - On the Quantity or Volume of Liquids that should be taken at Meals - Conduct to be pursued previous and subsequent to Meals.

125. The necessity of dietetic regulations has ever been opposed by that popular and sweeping proposition, - that man is omnivorous; that there scarcely exists a species of animal or vegetable being that has not been applied as food by some nation or horde, without inconvenience; that, while one race subsists on roots and fruits, another lives, as exclusively, on raw flesh of the grossest description; and another, again, on a mixed diet, partly animal, and partly vegetable; and yet that all are equally nourished, equally healthy, and equally competent to discharge the various duties which circumstances may have imposed upon them. It would be vain to deny that the Author of Nature has so constructed us and our organs of digestion, as to enable us gradually to accommodate ourselves to every species of aliment, without injury. By the same train of reasoning, the quantity, as well as the period of a repast, would appear as immaterial as its quality. The Esquimaux, who feeds voraciously on the walrus, is frequently, from the precarious nature of its supply, deprived for days of his favourite meal; and yet bodily disease neither follows repletion in the one case, nor privation in the other.

Is it, then, immaterial to our health whether we feast with Apicius or fast with Pythagoras? Such, doubtless, is the conclusion at which those who disparage the utility of a regulated regimen are so anxious to arrive; but it becomes the duty of a writer upon Dietetics to inquire how far such opinions are founded in truth. In the first place, it may be observed, that the population of a country must always advance in proportion to the facility with which children can be supported. The fecundity of the several ichthyophagous nations, as well as that of the inhabitants of our fishing-towns, is to be thus explained, and is not to be attributed, as Montesquieu believed, to the peculiar nature of their diet. In accounting, therefore, for the populousness of a district, the quantity, and not the quality, of the food is to be principally considered. With respect to the general health and vigour of a population, we must be extremely cautious how we attempt to connect the immunity from disease with peculiarity of diet. The robust and healthy will sustain a regimen which would prove destructive to their less hardy brethren.

An innutritious diet may thus contribute to the general health of a community at the expense of its weaker individuals; for, by weeding out the latter, the proportion of the former must be augmented. The same observation applies with equal force to the other non-naturals1. In this respect, then the views of the political economist are in direct opposition to those of the physician: the object of the one, is the promotion of the general good of a community, while that of the other is the preservation of its more feeble individuals.

1 What numerous examples might be adduced in illustration of this subject! The troops of uncivilized countries compensate for their deficiency in discipline by superiority of animal strength; because the less robust are swept from the ranks by the hardships to which they are exposed. This fact has been generally acknowledged, although the explanation of it has been frequently erroneous: the regimen of the Spartans has been a common theme of discussion; and the exclamation of Pausanias, after the battle of Platrea, will readily occur to the reader. But a Spartan regimen will not give vigour to those who are naturally weak; and yet the practitioners of modern times have not unfrequently acted upon such a belief. In examining the bills of mortality, with the view of ascertaining the numbers who have died at different ages, in successive years, it will appear that the number of deaths under two years of age, from the year 1728 to that of 1750, annually fluctuated between nine and ten thousand; and that in the latter half of the last century, it was diminished to six or seven thousand: while, since the commencement of the present century, the number has averaged under five thousand five hundred.

This striking diminution of mortality among children seems imputable to the correction of that vulgar error which led nurses to expose children to cold, in order to " harden their constitutions." The political economist may, perhaps, censure the modern physician, as Plato did Herodicus, for teaching the infirm to regulate their exercise and diet in such a manner as to prolong their lives. If by care and good nursing the sickly infant be carried through the first years of his life, he may possibly fall a victim to the diseases of puberty; and the same principle, therefore, which explains the diminished number of early deaths, will also explain the increasing rates of those of maturer age, and the more frequent occurrence of pulmonary disease: but are the terrors of the spring to encourage the apathy of the nurseryman during the season of winter?

127. Whether nature originally intended that man should feed on animal or vegetable substances has afforded a fertile theme for discussion. It is not my intention to follow the various speculative authors who have attempted to prove that animal food was not eaten before the deluge, but was introduced in consequence of the deterioration which the herbage sustained on that occasion. Such questions may serve to exercise the ingenuity of the casuist, but they present no interest to the physician. It is sufficiently evident, from the structure of our teeth, and from the extent of the alimentary canal being less than that of the vegetable eater, and greater than that of the carnivorous animal, that man is omnivorous, and capable of subsisting on aliment of every description. Broussonet, however, is inclined to believe that man is more herbivorous than carnivorous in his nature; and, from the proportion which the different teeth bear to each other, he even ventures to conclude, that his mixed diet should consist of animal and vegetable food in the proportion of 20 to 12. No rule, however, of this nature can possibly be established; we have only to consider the different effects produced upon the body by these two species of aliment, to perceive that the circumstances of climate, season, exercise, habit, age, and individual peculiarity, must oppose such an attempt at generalization.