The question of quantity and quality in diet is very closely related to the question of individuality in diet, and must largely be solved on that basis. There is no doubt that errors with regard to the quantity of food are no less disastrous than errors with regard to the quality - .though the cause, as well as remedy, for the former, must be looked for in the condition and attitude of individuality and moral will.

In cases, however, of chronic dyspepsia and dilated stomach, when the latter through a long chain of dietctic abuses, has been perverted into a state of functional abberations, and may clamor for renewed supplies of nourishment, even at a point of virtually bursting with undigested foodstuffs - the error may be more of judgment than of will. In this case, the remedy, and the only remedy, lies in the close observation of definite, well-ascertained dietic rules, carried into practice, with utter disregard for the abnormal cravings of the irritated, nerve-racked and unbalanced stomach.

According to the latest statements of the science of Physiology, the supply of proteid foods (muscle-builders), required by the average individual to sustain his daily wear and tear of muscle tissue, does not exceed three ounces. Practically applied to our general elements of diet, this means that the daily sum-total of our proteid-bearing foods, such as egg and meat, should not exceed five ounces.

It is chiefly in an excess of the above named foods that the danger of over feeding threatens. After a long series of experimentations and test-cases, Prof. Crittenden of Yale University, has authorized the statement that twelve ounces of cereals, counting as such every form of bread, mush, biscuits, etc., should constitute the limit of a day's supply of grain. It is safe to say that two thin slices of bread at each meal, or the equivalent in other forms of cereals, should amply supply the daily needs of that type of food for any ordinarily active organism.

The absence of sugar, and preparations of fruit-preserves at the dining table, minimizes the danger of overeating. There is no greater tempter to gluttony than sweets in any form, and without the stimulation of the latter, the abnormal craving due to the irritating condiment, will soon give way to a calm, natural state of gastric sensation, with an appetite expressing only the true nutritional needs of the system. The line of safety in matters of diet must always be found on the minimum rather than the maximum side of quantity - even at running the risk of under-eating. As expressed by Oliver Wendall Holmes - himself a physician - "A person seldom has cause to regret that he eats too little." The small meal, well masticated, has twice the nutritional value of the larger meal, hastily and carelessly gulped down.

Nor should the principle of vital expense, as involved in digestion, be left out of con sideration in determining the quantity and quality of food. Digestion means physiological expenditure, which in an elaborate, incongruously mixed and carelessly masticated dinner, may exceed the entire nutritional value of the meal! The saving of vitality in relation to digestion may often mean more to the generation and preservation of efficiency, than a reckless indulgence in high-nutritional, but stomach-distressing foodstuffs. It is not what we eat, that determines our health and vital powers, but what we assimilate under least functional distress and expenditure. The key to the quantity and quality of diet lies in a careful maintenance of balance between the maximum of nourishment and the minimum of digestive labors, coupled with a menu derived from natural, non-concentrated, non-extracted and non-sweetened foodstuffs.