Palazzina Tasso,

Campo S. Polo, Venezia.

October 3, 1903.

Dear Mr. Fletcher, - A. appears to me to have an exceedingly broad and philosophic grasp of the problem of nutrition.

He recognises that all present data are subject to criticism, and that there are no scientifically accurate data available because:

(a) Observations are taken over too short a period.

(b) They have mainly dealt with one side of the problem, - the output of muscular work. (V) The observations are not sufficiently complete.

He acknowledges that cleavage products from food broken down in the intestines by bacteria are the cause of:

(V) Inefficiency (b) Diseases.

(c) Mental derangements. (See Mott's work).

He recognises that the majority of people eat far too much. He puts this in the following way. If a "mediaeval devil" had wished to discover the most subtle and most effective way to destroy mankind mentally, morally, and physically, he would have arranged for them to be supplied with tasty, well-cooked foods, wines, etc.; in short, he would have used every means to tempt, confuse, and pervert their appetite. He would also have arranged every possible means to prevent their being in the fresh air and taking exercise. He thinks one has here the picture of modern civilisation.

He talked in a very interesting and instructive manner about the necessity and value of exercise and a muscular body for the maintenance of good health. He has evidently worked at and thought a good deal about this side of the subject.

He regrets that there are not more people who realise the huge importance of understanding the nutrition problem for the sake of the progress of humanity. He would like to join all those who are interested in forming an international society, as far as I understood him.

He is most keen on getting subjects, such as myself, for study over a very long period of time, - two to three years, - as he very justly observed "Muscular output is a very small part of the measure of a man's efficiency. Mental efficiency, manual dexterity, and other psychological tests are necessary." He seemed very much interested in my idea of making a large number of curves of daily observations. He said that it appeared to him to offer the best means of ultimately measuring the degree of deviation from the subject's optimum state of health.

He argues the necessity of getting some scientific definition of health.

The phrase that reduces all these people to contemplative silence is this.

"You acknowledge that the state of knowledge is insufficient to prescribe a diet for any individual that he should take daily; or in other words, that there is very little accurate knowledge of the nutrition problem".

Reply. "Yes. I do not feel I could prescribe a diet for any one with any degree of confidence".

"Very well, then. Why should not the body have or acquire the quality that all animals have, in a free, natural state, of knowing what their body wants by appetite and taste?"

This is more or less how you put it to me when I first met you at Cambridge. Its full significance did not dawn on me till much later; till, in short, I commenced the study of my desires at Cambridge.

Now this point of view is the rock on which we stand, and is the cause of H.'s and A.'s interest, and as H. said, is the "most fascinating idea" he ever heard.

It had very much the same effect on A. He was reduced to silence. The more you think of it the more you see there is no answer that could contradict it.

He then admits that:

(a) The food should be finely divided.

(b) That it should be thoroughly insalivated.

(c) That in all probability most diseases are caused by dietetic error. (d) That we have still to find the optimum health and the optimum diet.

He only kicks at the low proteid. Now I don't care a "kuss" for the low proteid, as such, or high proteid. Proteid like everything else will be demanded by the appetite when it is wanted.

Our great danger, to my mind, is the tendency so strongly exemplified by some of prescribing diets and quantities and the length the time food should be chewed.1 Now the very errors we are fighting against are the prescription of methods on insufficient information or knowledge. You have gone straight back to Nature. There is your strength in convincing the scientific world, and we must study the problem from that point of view if we are to get any great degree of success.

A. had nothing to say when I told him that I did not hold by either high or low proteid but only by my appetite and taste, developed by ample mouth opportunity to discriminate, which I hoped, in time, to understand more thoroughly than I do now. He told me that he feared that there would be great physical deterioration after a long period of low proteid. I said that I did not believe it would be the case by your method. For instance, right in the midst of a long period of most satisfactory low-proteid supply, I once ate nearly a whole chicken with some ham at Penegal. I could not get saliva for anything else.1 In short, then, I insisted only on thorough mastication to protect taste and appetite, and had no other theories. I was only concerned in observing the factors determining my taste and appetite. I would be more than contented to leave the question of minimum and maximum quantity of proteid to be settled in the future after normality had been established by practical demonstration.

1 Appetite alone can judge accurately of the former, and the true Swallowing Impulse is the limitation of the latter. If we study the natural instincts, the rest will take care of itself.

Yours faithfully,

Hubert Higgins.