"Do Yourself Well"

Men who have passed middle age are sometimes told by physicians to "do themselves well" - in other words, to indulge in the usual liberal table; to take soup, joint, fowl, fish and entree, with a sweet containing egg, and cheese to assist in digesting the whole. The man who indulges in this form of fare, with breakfast and luncheon of a congenial character, cannot hope to keep well. He may be persuaded that his system demands it, but if he listens to nature, the most faithful of guides, he learns that with time it will kill him, or make him a martyr for life. Animal foods may be eaten in great moderation by young people, but only one at a meal, and that once a day. The man who has reached middle life is much better without them, while later on they are signally dangerous.

We not only eat the wrong foods, but a great deal too much. I have been forced to this belief as the result of some years of rigid experience. I find, too, that the foods which dyspeptic patients are advised to reject, in accordance with the facts I have already recorded, are precisely those which should be among the most prominent in their daily regime, and that, in a word, instead of scraped meat, minced fish, white bread, farinaceous foods - improperly deprived of the husk - purees and cooked fruits - minus skins, fibre and pips - eggs, cheese and abundance of milk, the menu should include very little meat or fish, cooked in the ordinary way, wholemeal bread, cereal foods with the husks, where this is possible, steamed or baked vegetables, salads, raw fruits of all kinds with the skins and the pips, a moderate quantity of milk, some soft cheese or an egg, and a moderate allowance of butter or margarine. This is opposed to the programme of many physicians, but it confers health, strength, endurance, and that verve which makes living a joy, and gives new zest, new motives, and a new temper to life. The more animal food man consumes the more "animal" his temper becomes, and this, too, is a point of enormous importance, not only to himself but to those depending upon him.

The defence of those who advocate liberality in the use of those foods which are of animal origin is, that they are necessary in the manufacture and repair of the muscular system, and indirectly for the provision of energy. Vegetable foods, however, are equally capable of muscle production, while they are much superior to the lean portion of meat in the production of energy. While, however, I endorse the non-animal mode of nutrition, I do not believe that one small daily portion of meat or fish is an unhealthy addition to the ration of robust young people or adults on the right side of forty. My contention is, that it is a superfluous food, and much too costly for men with small incomes. Apart from these facts it is difficult for those who have been reared as meat-eaters to abandon the practice, and I am conscious, from facts derived from medical friends who, while permitting their patients to eat it three times a week in moderation, have satisfied themselves that, consumed systematically, it is the foundation of serious physical troubles or of organic disease.

How, then, can we obtain muscle-making food in sufficient quantity if meat and fish are abandoned? My reply is based, first upon scientific demonstration by responsible men, and next upon a prolonged test upon myself. Instead of requiring from 4 1/2 to 10 oz. of meat per day I have been able to maintain much better health, to perform far greater physical exercise, and to accomplish considerably more mental work, with abundant enjoyment, without either fish, flesh, or fowl, than when consuming these foods three times a day. Some years ago I was induced by a chance companion in the January snows of the higher Alps to read Physiological Economy in Nutrition, by Professor Chittenden, of the University of Yale. In this work the writer describes how he was induced by the famous Horace Fletcher to commence his great feeding experiments. Mr. Fletcher was himself the first subject of Chittenden, and it was found after months of study of his habits, and of constant observation, that he was able to do the work of trained athletes with great ease, to maintain constant body weight (165 lb.) upon about one-half the minimum diet which an average man is supposed to require, according to the standards of the most famous authorities, and practically without any meat at all. From a physical wreck he became a strong man solely by eating less food, and making the most of that by perfect mastication. Chittenden then experimented upon himself - his food giving him some discomfort at first; but this soon passed away, and was succeeded by improved physical condition, while a rheumatic trouble of long standing quite disappeared. There were no more headaches or bilious attacks, but a keener appetite, appreciation of simpler foods, and a diminution of the weight of the body. With a large reduction in the consumption of meat and similarly rich foods there was less thirst - a fact which I have found so marked that I seldom drink at dinner, nor, unless on very rare occasions, more than 30 oz. of fluid in the day. With a meat diet much more drink is demanded, with a greater desire for stimulants.

During two periods of six and five days respectively Chittenden made complete experiments to test whether he maintained his equilibrium, or whether he was living partly at the expense of his body. His food was varied with meat, fish, peas, potatoes, bread, butter, eggs, sugar, cream, cream-cheese, biscuits, puddings and coffee; and, while he consumed only about one-half the recognised quantity which a man of his weight and occupation is supposed to require, that quantity contained only one-third of the minimum standard of muscle-making food. Yet he accomplished more than he asked, for he says: "Greater freedom from fatigue, greater appetite for work, greater freedom from minor ailments, have gradually become associated with the reduced amount of protein (muscle-making food) and the general condition of physiological economy." He adds, if a man weighing 125 lb. can maintain this condition with continuance of health, strength and vigour, with this small consumption of food, why should he load up his system with three times the quantity? Here is a confirmed advocate of meat-eating, undertaking an experiment with a purely scientific object, so convinced by his results that he has no desire to return to the more liberal but unsafe system of previous years. In spite of these facts, and of the results of the more extensive experiments, to which I now briefly refer, meat is consumed by almost all people in liberal quantities, in conformity with the advice of many professional men, who apparently ignore the work which has completely upset the theory to which they are wedded.