In regard to domestic animals we are on more solid ground; only it is

constantly necessary to remember that we are dealing with creatures

domesticated and subdued in some degree to the will of man. It is a

common notion that salt is necessary to the well-being, if not the

preservation, of horses and horned cattle. It is, I am persuaded, a

great mistake. In the first place, although it is undoubtedly true

that some domestic cattle will eat salt, and follow impatiently to get

it, it is not true of wild cattle. I am assured by many of the great

herders in Texas, Colorado and California, that the native cattle are

not fed salt, never see it, and will not eat it if offered. Of course

it is a transparent absurdity that salt could be hauled hundreds of

miles to feed these great inland herds; and it is not done, as is

supposed. They derive salt enough from the grass of the plains to

supply nature’s demand, if any there be. This, if it furnishes any

analogy at all, points to the food itself as the true source of supply

for the human species.

But in regard to the craving of horses and cows kept within fences,

enclosures and buildings, it is susceptible of proof, and has been

proved many times, that it is an artificial and not a natural appetite.

I have seen both horses and cows which will not eat salt if offered

to them. The parents, when the supply was cut off, did not suffer

perceptibly, and in a short time unlearned the habit. Neither the old

ones nor their progeny will touch it now. I have not space here to

enter into the question of the great injury done to the health, and

consequently to the wholesomeness of the flesh of both improved and

native or Texas varieties of cattle, by the pernicious practice of

thrusting salt into their food, while preparing for, or on the way to,

market, in order that the weight may be increased. It is worth the

while of the State to institute an inquiry to see if this be not one of

the provoking causes of the cattle diseases, and rinderpests of America

and Europe.

The tendency in the human mind—the more so with the untrained

intellect—to find the class of facts it is seeking for, and to overlook

or ignore the class which makes against its preconceived notion or

desire, is always to be guarded against. It is a little singular

that the advocates of the salt habit should have selected the one or

two species of wild animals, and the two or three allied species or

varieties under domestication which do or can be made to eat salt,

while the vastly greater number of both classes of animals which do

not and cannot be made to, are overlooked. True enough, a hungry cow

will eat what is called “salt hay,” whereon the brine from the sea has

crystallised, but invariably the same cow will turn from it to good

well-cured meadow hay. Hunger is a terrible temptation, hence many of

our animals (and the same is true of children) acquire their taste for

salt by its mixture with their food; and a reprehensible practice has

begun of mixing salt, or lime, with the new hay in the stack in order

to “cure” it—that is, to prevent its decay by excess of moisture—on

the theory that the hay is improved thereby. Surely no argument can

properly be drawn from appetites so engendered. On the same principle

might we sprinkle sawdust with a horse’s oats, because, if kept up, he

will gnaw away the boards within reach. For this, by the way, there are

good physiological reasons.

Look, however, at the other side of the argument as drawn from the

lower animals. How numerous are they by whom salt is rejected or to

whom it is hurtful? The whole of the birds avoid salt. It is fatal

to chickens and tame birds, as every housewife knows. Indeed, there

is strong ground for supposing that much of what is called “chicken

cholera,” “gapes,” and the like, is in part due to the presence of

salt—not always in minute quantities—in the food taken from the table.

Wild birds have no such epidemic diseases affecting the mucous linings

of their organs. It is also fatal to the hog, that foulest and hardiest

of omnivora, which, out of some stress of famine, or from its peculiar

prolificacy, men have been led to dwell with and propagate as a food

supply. I believe it is well ascertained that when hogs get a moderate

amount of brine, or pickled salt meat, it is impossible to save them.

To vary the phrase a little: that which will make a hog sick cannot,

_prima facie_, be good food for his owner. Of all the range of wild

animals, clean or unclean, it is yet to be shown that a single one eats

salt voluntarily as food. Why should man be the exception?

It is further claimed that salt is a necessary constituent of the

diet, for the reason that, when the body is examined, _post-mortem_,

a certain amount of salt is found therein. From this it is argued

that salt is therefore necessary to the human body! It is queer logic.

Were opium or nicotine found in the body of the dead man, would it be

argued that _therefore_ opium or nicotine were necessary to the body in

health? Yet the argument is just as logical, and the conclusion just as

warranted.

All that can be urged, logically, is that salt is a necessary article

of diet; and that, no one would deny. Certainly I would not. But

I must insist that this salt can be supplied to the body in its

_organic_ form—just as any other salt can. It is contained in fruits

and vegetables, together with other salts: why not eat it in that way,

just as we eat those other salts? To be sure, we need common salt, just

as we need iron, and potash, and sulphur, and lime, and other mineral

salts; but no one thinks of sprinkling lime and potash and iron filings

over his food, just the same! There is no more reason why we should

sprinkle sodium chloride, or common salt, over our food, than there

is why we should sprinkle any of these other salts. Both are equally

mineral elements: both are inorganic substances; and hence both are

equally unusable by the system. Salt can have no more effect upon the

economy than iron filings can; and there is no more reason for taking

the one into the system in this crude form than there is for taking the

other. Only habit and prejudice sustain the custom.

It is urged, again, that salt preserves the waste of the tissues, and

that animals, fed upon salt, become fat. There is but little evidence

for this; but I shall grant its truth, for the sake of argument.

Granting it to be true, what then?

We know that the antiseptic property of salt, its affinity for

moisture, makes it valuable in the arts for some purposes, among which,

of course, are conspicuous the preservation of dead animal meats.

We see its effect in the beef or pork barrel, or on dried fish. It

hardens and keeps dry the fibrous tissue so that oxygen enough cannot

be reached to oxidate and break down the tissue by what is known as

decomposition. If the salt were all withdrawn by solutions of water

(whatever might be the effect on the meat itself) there would ensue no

harm in its use in preserving food. Notoriously it is not done, and

even greater is the necessity for removing the nitrate of potash with

which the curing is assisted.

Is not the action of the salt in the system on the effete or dying

tissues the same, in kind, as upon those in the brine barrel? I

see nothing in the vital economy to negative the presumption. The

particles of dead and oxidised tissue on their way out of the body,

so far as they are brought within the influence of the salt—and this,

as it floats in solution all over the body with the blood, must be

general—are robbed of their moisture, dried, hardened, pickled, and

their passage along the finer canals made more difficult. They lodge

and remain, and hence account, in part, for the increased weight of

the body. The added weight represents in part filth which ought to be

outside of the body, not inside.

Many other objections might be urged to the use of salt, in this place;

but space forbids. When anyone examines the evidence carefully and

impartially, he will find that there is not one solitary argument in

favour of the habit that will stand the test of criticism; while there

are many arguments, on the contrary, which conclusively prove it to

be injurious and unphysiological. The single argument, based upon the

undoubted _fact_ that many hundreds of people in the United States

and elsewhere, have totally abandoned salt, and have not depreciated

themselves in consequence, but have on the contrary, improved their

health and general physical condition, is proof in itself that

salt-eating is a habit— is not necessary, but is, on the other hand,

positively injurious. When we take these facts into consideration, we

can come to no other conclusion but that salt-eating is a _habit_,

pure and simple, which is not only unnecessary, but is exceedingly

detrimental to the physical health of the individual who continually

eats it.

* * * * *

_Pepper_ is not, like salt, a mineral substance; it is a vegetable

poison. Flies will not touch it, neither will they eat salt. Black

pepper, if taken upon an empty stomach in the moderate quantity of a

teaspoonful, will either be promptly ejected, or it will cause great

disturbance in the stomach and bowels, and also in the heart’s action,

after it enters the circulation. It is in no sense a food, but in every

sense a stimulant, which is but another name for a substance non-usable

by the vital organs, and therefore to be thrown out of the vital

domain. Red or black pepper is a prolific cause, as are all stimulants,

of enlargement of the blood vessels, and ultimately of disease of the

heart. Its immediate effect upon the tongue, throat, stomach and bowels

is to cause an increased action, not only of the capillaries, causing

temporary congestion and even inflammation of the mucous surfaces, but

also of the organs which secrete the digestive fluids. Its ultimate

effect is to weaken and deaden these organs, by repeated stimulation,

to abnormal action; it also impairs or destroys the organs of taste

within the mouth, together with the gastric or other nerves which aid

in the process of digestion. When these are weakened by stimulants, the

functions themselves are necessarily impaired, and confirmed dyspepsia,

with its attendant train of bad symptoms, brings up the rear.

It is needless to say that _ginger_, _spices_, _nutmeg_, _cinnamon_,

and all that class of condiments, however much they may vary in

quality, are stimulating to a greater or a less degree, and must

be put in the list of “things forbidden” in the hygienic dietary.

The habit, every year increasing, of using spices and condiments in

almost every article of food, and in such large quantities, cannot be

too severely condemned. The end must be hopeless indigestion, with

prostration of the nerves which supply the digestive organs, and

detriment or ruin to the entire system.

In the language of Sylvester Graham:

“The stern truth is, that no purely stimulating substance of any kind

can be habitually used by man, without injury to the whole nature.”

Nor does Dr Graham stand alone in his views upon this subject. Pereira

says:

“The relish for flavouring or seasoning ingredients manifested by

every person, would lead us to suppose that these substances serve

some useful purpose beyond that of merely gratifying the palate. At

present, however, we have no evidence that they do. They stimulate,

but do not seem to nourish. The volatile oil they contain is absorbed,

and then thrown out of the system, still possessing its characteristic

odour.”

Dr Beaumont is essentially of the same opinion. He remarks:

“Condiments, particularly those of a spicy kind, are non-essential to

the process of digestion in a healthy state of the system. They afford

no nutrition. Though they may assist the action of a debilitated

stomach for a time, their continued use never fails to produce an

indirect debility of that organ. They affect it as alcohol and other

stimulants do—the present relief afforded is at the expense of future

suffering.”

In doing away with spices and condiments we must also dispense with

_pickles_; there is nothing in a pickle to redeem it from hopeless

condemnation. The spices in it are bad, and the vinegar is a seething

mass of rottenness, full of animalculæ, and the poor little innocent

cucumber, or other vegetable, if it had a little “character” in the

beginning, must now fall into the ranks of the “totally depraved.”

* * * * *

_Mustard._—Dr William Tibbles, in his “Food and Hygiene,” p. 213, says:

“Mustard is a greenish yellow powder, without smell, when it is dry,

but when moist, having a pungent taste and penetrating odour, which

is irritating to the nose and eyes. Mustard is the most familiar of

all condiments. It produces a sensation of warmth in the mouth and

stomach and augments the digestive secretions, by increasing the

circulation in the blood-vessels in the alimentary canal. It increases

the appetite and the desire for food, and assists in its digestion.”

In other words, what really happens is this: Mustard is an irritant and

a stimulant to the mucous membranes at all times, and for that reason,

harmful. Delicate membranes, such as those of the nose and eyes, detect

and resent this irritation at once; but the throat and stomach, being

rendered more or less inert and unresponsive, because of years of

perverse living on cooked foods, spices, stimulants, and irritants,

do not resent and react against this particular irritant as forcibly

as do the other membranes. The fact, however, that the secretion

is increased, and that the circulation in the blood vessels of the

stomach is augmented, clearly indicates that nature is endeavouring

to offset and rid the system as speedily as possible of this irritant

poison. When any poison is introduced into the alimentary canal, the

system immediately pours out its secretions, in an attempt to liquefy,

antidote, and wash through the invading poison as rapidly as possible.

That is the _rationale_ of the action of all purgatives, and is the

reason why increased secretion and circulation is noted whenever

stimulants or irritants are introduced into the alimentary canal. The

very fact that these physiological disturbances take place indicates

clearly that the substance that has been ingested is poisonous, and

detrimental to the vital economy. For that reason, and because of these

symptoms, mustard must be debarred from any hygienic diet; and for the

same reason, white, black, and cayenne pepper, paprika, cloves, nutmeg,

curry powder, garlic, salt, and similar substances must be eliminated

from any diet that is to be considered wholesome, and in accordance

with the laws of nature.

Indeed, in writing of all condiments, Dr Tibbles himself was forced to

admit that:

“Healthy individuals with normal digestion do not need them, and they

should most certainly be withheld from children.”

I would add to this that if they are to be withheld from healthy

individuals and children, they should most certainly and more

particularly be withheld from invalids, and from the debilitated and

enfeebled. Were the true _rationale_ of the action of stimulants

understood, this would be so apparent as to render further comment

unnecessary. If it were once fully understood that stimulants, instead

of adding energy _to_ the system, merely called it forth _from_ the

system, there could no longer be any excuse for their use, upon

the ground that they are necessary and suitable articles of food.

Condiments and spices of all kinds might easily be eliminated from a

hygienic diet, and nothing but increased health and energy would follow

the results of this process of elimination.

* * * * *

_Vinegar._—So far from being a true article of food, or an alimentary

substance, vinegar, like alcohol, is a product of vegetable decay, and

is always injurious to the human stomach. In addition to this, it

contains a large number of germs which, introduced into the system, are

liable to cause great havoc. If acid is required, it may be obtained

in a variety of forms, and is readily supplied by all acid fruits, and

particularly by lemons. The citric acid of the lemon is appropriable

by the system, and is one of the most wholesome acids known to us. It

will readily take the place of vinegar—on occasions where we have been

in the habit of using the latter substance. It should be noted in this

connection that lemon juice, when ingested into the human system, is

invariably split up, in the course of a few hours, and the all-day

effects of the acid is to _decrease_ the acidity of the system, and

to increase the alkalinity of the blood. This was conclusively proved

by Dr Haig, in England, and now forms a large part of his treatment

for all uric acid diatheses. The immediate effect of the acid is to

increase the acidity; but, owing to the fact that it is split up, as

stated, the all-day effects are invariably to decrease the acidity,

and rid the system of its uric acid. No such beneficial results are

observable from the practice of drinking vinegar.

* * * * *

_Oils—Olive Oil._—Under “oils” may be classed, roughly speaking,

all fats, animal and vegetable, such as suet, lard, tallow, marrow,

grease, butter, blubber, and the oils of various nuts. Animal oils are

amongst the least nutritious, and most injurious kinds of alimentary

substances. The oils from the vegetable kingdom are far more wholesome,

and, to a normal stomach, almost innocuous. If oils or fatty matter

of any kind are desired in the diet, these might just as well be

supplied from the vegetable world as from the animal; and the oils are

obtained free from the impure materials, which invariably accompany

animal fats. In other words, the same amount of fatty materials may be

obtained, without ingesting at the same time the toxic substances which

invariably accompany the fats derived from the animal kingdom. Of those

fats which are derived from the animal world, more or less directly,

butter and cream are doubtless the most wholesome; but there are many

objections to both of these, as I have pointed out elsewhere.

Olive oil, when obtained pure, is doubtless the best form of oil that

we know. The chief difficulty is in obtaining it in a pure state.

Cotton seed oil is generally sold on the market in place of olive oil,

and is in many ways detrimental to the organism. “Sylmar” olive oil

is a pure oil of the first quality, made from ripe olives, and can

heartily be recommended. A few of the best French and Italian oils are

also excellent, if they are obtained direct and unadulterated.

The ripe olive contains just what an ordinary vegetarian—especially

fruit—diet lacks. In being a wholesome source of fat they materially

add to the value of other vegetarian dishes. Nuts also supply oils in

a healthful form. Those oils are serviceable in nervous disorders,

rheumatism, diabetes, and other diseases.

XII

THE FRUITARIAN DIET

Anyone who has followed me through the preceding chapters will probably

have come to the conclusion that there is no article of diet left which

he can live upon and eat without detriment! Apparently everything has

been condemned in turn. Meat, game, fish, shellfish, soups of all

kinds, vegetables, grains, flours, cereals, milk, cheese, butter, eggs

and dairy products of all kinds, stimulants, spices, jellies—all have

been examined in turn, and found unsuitable for human food. But man

must live, and the question remains: Are there _any_ foods which he can

eat freely and live—not only without detriment to himself, but with

positive benefit—feeling assured that they are upbuilding his body, his

mind, and his energies, and sustaining his physiological integrity,

throughout, in a wholesome and natural manner? It will be seen in

going over the list that two important articles of diet have been

omitted—viz. fruits and nuts. These, and these alone, supplemented,

perhaps, by one or two other articles of diet, can, I contend, sustain

man in a perfect state of health; can supply all the needs of his body,

and preserve the highest standard of health and energy; while the diet

is in accord with his physiological mechanism, and his anatomical

structure. The one or two articles of diet that might be added (though

I do not consider it necessary that they should be added) are honey,

olive oil, and, occasionally, perhaps, whole-wheat bread. It is an

interesting fact that there are only two articles of diet in the world,

apparently, made exclusively for food—milk and honey. The milk is to

nourish the young of the animal which secretes it, and normally the

supply would be terminated when the animal was weaned—if nature were

not perverted, and the process of milking instituted. But we have

considered milk as an article of diet in the former pages. Honey is

manufactured by the bees for the express purpose of supplying them

with food during the winter months, and man only obtains his supply

by robbing the bees of their hard-earned food, and substituting other

food in its place. Honey contains a large amount of valuable saccharine

material, and I have endeavoured to show on a previous page that a

certain amount of saccharine matter, or sweet-stuff, is necessary for

the maintenance of health—probably a larger quantity than we are in the

habit of supposing. This, honey will supply. It may be noted, however,

that certain sweet fruits, notably dates, also contain large amounts

of sugar, and if a quantity of dates were eaten, they would doubtless

supply all the demands of the system for sugar, without recourse to

honey at all. Olive oil is a suitable and nutritive food, when pure.

Its chief value, of course, consists in the large amount of oil or

fatty matter it contains, but this is also contained in nuts of various

kinds in a pure form, and hence is not a necessary article of diet. As

found on the market, moreover, it is generally impure and adulterated.

Whole-wheat bread has certain advantages, but is also open to numerous

objections, as before pointed out; and, if made from the whole grain,

including the husk, it acts as an irritant on the mucous membrane of

the bowel, and hence exercises a slightly purgative action; the same

action, however, may be induced by a plentiful supply of non-irritating

fruit juices, and for that reason they are consequently to be

preferred. We thus come to the conclusion that, although these few

remaining articles of diet are not positively pernicious, as are the

general run of foods, they are, nevertheless, of secondary importance,

and can readily be dispensed with, and their place taken by simple

fruits and nuts.

If any lingering doubt exists in the minds of those upholding a strict

fruitarian dietary, as to its sufficiently nutritive value, these

doubts have been cleared away by the investigations of Professor M. E.

Jaffa, of the University of California. His researches, published by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, make an epoch in the history of

dietetics, and his researches are most conclusive. In his “Nutrition

Investigations Among the Fruitarians and Chinese,” he says, in part:

“It would appear upon examining the recorded data and comparing the

results with commonly accepted standards, that all the subjects were

(_i.e._ should have been) decidedly under-nourished, even making

allowances for their little weight. But when we consider that the two

adults have lived upon this diet for 7 years, and think they are in

better health and capable of more work than they ever were before,

we hesitate to pronounce judgment. The three children, though below

the average in height and weight, had the appearance of health and

strength. They ran and jumped and played all day like ordinary healthy

children, and were said to be unusually free from colds and other

complaints incident to childhood.”[35]

[35] It is an error—though a common one—to suppose that the fruitarian

diet causes a loss of weight. My own weight has remained about the

same for ten years, no matter what I eat, or how much. On this

diet the weight will go _to normal_—and, generally speaking, it is

necessary that some weight should be lost, in order to effect this.

Professor Jaffa then showed that N. was actually _stored_ on this

diet, although these fruitarians were eating but two meals a day, in

place of the usual three of civilised people. He stated (what I have

invariably found to be the case) that _less food_ was required and

was eaten, than is the case with ordinary cooked foods. Further, many

of his subjects were found actually to _gain_ weight—one patient seven

pounds in less than three months! Professor Jaffa was forced to the

conclusion that fruits must be considered as _true foods_, and not mere

food accessories; and was bound to admit that they alone (with nuts)

can sustain a healthy and vigorous life.

“While it is true that 10 cents will buy more animal protein than

fruit protein, it will on the average purchase fully as much energy,

when spent for fresh fruits, and more in the case of dried fruits than

when expended for lean meats. When considering nuts, it is readily

observed that 10 cents will buy about the same amount of nut protein

as of animal protein, except in the case of cheese and skim milk. If

spent on peanuts, it will furnish more than twice the protein and six

times the energy that could be bought for the same expenditure for

porterhouse steak.”[36]

[36] “Further Investigations Among Fruitarians,” etc., p. 79.

I would also refer the reader to Professor C. F. Longworthy’s “Fruit

and its Uses as Food” (Yearbook, U.S. Dept. of Agr.).

Speaking of the value of fruit, Dr Tibbles, in his “Food and Hygiene,”

p. 174, says:

“The value and importance of fresh fruit, especially to dwellers in

towns, cannot be too freely written about.... The organic salts in

fruit arouse the appetite, and aid digestion, by increasing the flow

of saliva, and, indirectly, of the gastric juice; they are stimulants

and sialagogues. As the fruit reaches the intestines, the acids

increase the activity of the chyme, and stimulate the secretions of

the liver and the pancreas, the intestinal glands and muscles; their

influence upon the blood is marked: they render it less alkaline, but

_never acid_. By combining with a portion of the alkaline salts of

the serum, the phosphoric acid increases the phosphates in the red

blood cells; they are anti-scorbutic and of value in anæmia, general

debility, and convalescence from acute illness. Fruits containing

oxalates, as tomatoes, gooseberries and strawberries, are useful in

amenorrhœa and for persons subject to bronchitis and asthma; such

as contain salicylic acid—as strawberries, raspberries, currants,

blackberries, and oranges—are a valuable addition to the dietary of

rheumatic persons. The final stage in the digestion of fruit is the

conversion of fruit acids and salts into alkaline salts, chiefly

carbonates; they are therefore useful in scurvy, rheumatism, gout, and

other diseases of the uric acid diathesis; they increase the secretion

of the urine and its alkalinity—indeed they are one of the most

certain agents to render it alkaline, to stimulate the kidneys, and

indirectly the skin, and thereby increase the total excretion of salts

and other materials. Briefly, fresh fruit is cooling, refreshing, and

tends to correct constipation.”

Only recently, at the Congress of Surgery, Paris, 1909, Dr Victor

Pauchet, surgeon of the American Hospital, stated—when indicating what

in his opinion were the ideal bodily conditions for the successful

performance of an operation—that it was necessary for the subject to

have the colon and rectum empty; the bowels free from gas; the liver

and kidneys washed with pure water in proper quantities, etc., and then

went on to say:

“ ... It is necessary to give foods, which, besides being devoid of

toxins, should at the same time be a bad culture-medium for intestinal

germs. These conditions are fulfilled by a vegetable or especially

a fruit régime. Fruit juice is a purer water than that of the best

spring. Glucose is the best assimilated food. It is the sustaining,

diuretic and nontoxic food. Fruits should be taken fresh, ripe and

of good quality. If unavailable, cooked dry fruits with a little

sugar.”[37]

[37] “La réforme alimentaire,” vol. xiii., No. 2. For much valuable

information on this subject consult Dr J. L. Buttner’s book, “A

Fleshless Diet” (1910).

The general advantages of fruit as food—instead of the usual cooked

diet—have been so far enumerated, and are so numerous, that it would

seem almost unnecessary to dwell upon the advantages of each fruit in

turn. The whole system being so much superior, this detailed defence

would seem unnecessary. Nevertheless, in order to show the great

superiority of this diet, it may be well to enumerate some of the

beneficial effects of each fruit in turn, and point out, briefly, some

of their many excellent qualities. Let us see what these are.

_Apples_ have been called the “king of fruits.” They contain an

abundance of potash, soda and magnesia, also phosphorus, and for this

reason have been considered especially valuable for nerve and brain

food. The natural acid of the apple is excellent for the teeth and

gums; also for the stomach and intestines. It seems to possess a great

antiseptic and germicidal quality. They do not increase the acidity

in the stomach, but, on the contrary, decrease it. They possess fine

tonic properties, and are a valuable food, at the same time. Apples are

naturally laxative, and the proportions of their composition are more

clearly adjusted to the human constitution than any other single fruit.

It is almost possible to live upon apples alone, and an exclusive apple

dietary might be tried for some time during every summer, at least. In

the form of cider they supply us with almost the only wholesome article

of drink, besides water, that can be found.

The _banana_ is a very heavy food, and must be eaten with discretion.

It has been called the “bread of the tropics,” and this fact must be

borne in mind when they are being consumed in large quantities. One

must be sure that the banana is sound and thoroughly ripe when eaten—so

soft, almost, as to be taken with a spoon. The skin should be almost

black, and this should be peeled back, and the outside of the fruit

scraped with a knife, cleaning it of the soft, pulpy covering about

a sixteenth of an inch thick all round the fruit, which is highly

indigestible. Bananas do not agree with many persons, and when this is

found to be the case they should be avoided; but when they have been

treated in the manner indicated, it will be found that many persons can

eat them, when formerly this was impossible. Bananas should be very

thoroughly masticated, and possibly mashed up with a fork before they

are eaten. They combine well with but few foods, and generally should

be eaten alone. Under such conditions, bananas will be found a highly

nourishing and valuable food.

_Pears_, _quinces_, _plums_, _damsons_, _peaches_, _apricots_,

_cherries_ and _grapes_, all contain a fairly high percentage of

carbohydrates, and a high percentage of valuable food-salts. As is

well known, it is possible to live upon grapes alone for several weeks

at a time, as has been abundantly proved at the various resorts where

the “grape cure” is taken. At such places, several pounds of grapes

are eaten daily, and in phthisis and other wasting diseases this cure

has been attended with some remarkable results. Sweet grapes are

exceedingly valuable as a food: they contain a large percentage of

water in the purest form; they also contain glucose, or grape-sugar, in

a condition in which it is readily assimilated into the circulation.

Instead of eating great quantities of starch, therefore, which requires

much effort for proper conversion into this same grape juice within the

body, why not eat the grapes themselves—thereby obtaining this material

in its original and purest form? In chronic bronchitis, heart disease,

gastric and intestinal atony, and frequently in Bright’s disease,

grapes are very beneficial.

_Raspberries_ and _strawberries_ contain a large amount of acid, and

for that reason must be eaten with discrimination, especially at first.

Yet they are as a rule an exceptionally wholesome fruit, their natural

acidity clearing the blood of uric acid and kindred poisons, and acting

as a natural tonic and stimulant. The strawberry also contains a large

quantity of iron, and for that reason is very valuable for anæmic

patients. There are a few individuals who cannot eat strawberries

without unpleasant consequences. Needless to say, such persons should

refrain from eating them, though the fault in such cases is probably

more in the patient than in the fruit.

The _pineapple_ is a spurious fruit, or rather a collection of berries,

each corresponding to a flower which, under cultivation, is seedless.

The juice is highly antiseptic, and of great benefit in certain

afflictions of the throat. In diphtheria it appears to be especially

valuable, the juice possessing a cleansing quality of remarkable power.

Its effect upon diseased mucous is very noticeable, yet, strange to

say, its action upon healthy mucous, in limited quantities, is quite

harmless and rather invigorating. This is proved by the fact that

pineapple juice has often been given to babies less than a year old,

with nothing but beneficial results.

The great value of _oranges_ and _lemons_ is now beginning to be

appreciated. In all uric acid diatheses, the juice of either one of

these fruits—particularly lemons—is exceedingly beneficial, and Dr

Haig, of London, strongly recommends lemonade and lemon juice for

gout, rheumatism, etc., throughout his writings. Lemon juice has

also been advocated as a curative agency in malaria—this having the

support of so orthodox an organ as _The Lancet_. It is now frequently

administered in cases of diphtheria, since it has been found to afford

great relief to the sore and inflamed throat and gullet. Lemons are

strongly germicidal and antiseptic, and, although their immediate

effect is to increase the acidity of the blood, curiously enough, their

all-day effect is to increase its alkalinity. The juice of oranges is

anti-scorbutic, and is said to be valuable in influenza. A patient can

live on oranges alone for several weeks together, while the juice is

free from the excessive acidity noticed in the lemon.

_Bilberries_, _whortleberries_, _cranberries_, _mulberries_,

_gooseberries_, etc., are all more or less laxative and soothing, and

some of them especially valuable in affections of the throat.

_Raisins_ and _currants_, properly speaking, belong to the class of

dried fruits, and possess all the advantages and disadvantages they

possess.

_Rhubarb_, strictly speaking, is not a fruit, but might be classed with

fruit. It is slightly tonic and aperient.

_Melons_ contain but little nutriment, but, on the contrary, nothing

deleterious.

_Citrons_ and _limes_ possess very much the same properties as oranges

and lemons, and are now considered of undoubted value in scurvy and

rheumatism, and for checking nausea and vomiting.

The _tomato_, which might be classed as a fruit, contains a large

amount of saccharine matter, and salts, and is stated to have

beneficial effects upon the secretions of the liver.

_Figs_ contain from 60 to 70 per cent. of sugar, and are very

nutritive. They also contain some valuable food-salts. _Dates_ are the

great sources of sugar in the fruit kingdom. They are very nutritious

and also contain valuable food-salts.

Coming now to _nuts_, they are, as before pointed out, the great

source of proteid—outside meat and certain legumes. When thoroughly

masticated, they are a wholesome and very nutritious article of diet.

They are less liable to cause indigestion when they form the sole

element of the meal, or when mixed only with fruit, than when eaten in

combination with any other food. They contain practically the elements

of a perfect food in due proportion—supplying the system with proteids,

fats, carbohydrates and salts in a concentrated form, with but little

waste. In addition to the nitrogenous matter which they contain, they

are also a valuable, and in fact the chief, source of fats. Brazil

nuts, almonds, filberts, pecans, walnuts, etc., all contain about the

same proportions of carbohydrates, fats and proteids, and all contain

valuable food-salts. On the whole, it may be said that they are the

most valuable articles of food that we know, and when supplemented

by a few fruits, form a perfect and nutritious diet. Occasionally,

it may be found that nuts disagree or cause gastric disturbance. In

such cases, various nut-butters may be substituted, or the nut-food

omitted altogether for a few weeks, as it is more than probable, in

such cases, that the system is already overstocked with nitrogenous

matter. But I believe that, if properly masticated, eaten in limited

quantities, and judiciously combined with a small number of other

foods—especially fruits—it will be found that they do not disagree,

but, on the contrary, are a sustaining and nourishing food—in fact _the

most_ sustaining and nourishing food that can be found.

Fruit juices are especially cooling and refreshing in the heat of

summer. They supply organic fluids to the system, in the form of

water, combined with organic salts, and this water is the purest that

we know. Sour fruits of all kinds are especially valuable in cases

of biliousness, inactive liver, thickening of the blood, and general

clogging-up of the system. They are especially valuable in cases of

disordered digestion. Fruits should not be cooked, but eaten raw,

and upon an empty stomach, or combined with nuts. When combined with

cooked foods, and especially with vegetables, they tend to create, as

we have seen, gastric disturbances. The cooking of fruits ruins many of

their most valuable properties. Ordinary sugar should never be added to

fruits, since it excites fermentation; and, for cooking purposes, if

fruits are cooked and it is desired to sweeten them, dates may be added

for this purpose. By all means fruit should be avoided at the end of a

meal consisting of a combination of foods, and particularly of cooked

foods; they are sure to disagree, and the fruits will then get blamed

for the whole disturbance!

Sylvester Graham, in writing of fruits as food, says:

“It should always be remembered that fruit of every description, if

eaten at all, should be eaten as food, and not as mere pastime, or

merely for the sake of gustatory enjoyment; and therefore it should,

as a general rule, be eaten at the table, or constitute a portion of

the regular meal.... All cooked food, even under the best regulations,

impairs in some degree the power of the stomach to digest uncooked

substances; and therefore, so long as we are accustomed to cooked food

of any kind, we must be somewhat more careful in regard to the times

when we eat fruit and other substances in their natural state.”

Now, if we compare the fruitarian dietary—meaning by this a diet

composed of fruit and nuts, in their natural and uncooked state—with

other diets, we shall ascertain the following facts:—

* * * * *

_First_, that such a diet is suited to man because of his anatomical

and physiological structure. We have seen in Chapters II. and III.

that, were we to judge from his anatomy and physiology, man must be

classed as a frugivorous animal—with the higher apes—and that he is

totally dissimilar in construction to any of the other animals.

* * * * *

_Second._ By comparing these foods with other food-stuffs, we found, in

the chapter on the chemistry of foods, that all the elements essential

for sustaining the physiological integrity were supplied by a judicious

fruitarian diet—the proteids, carbohydrates and fats all being supplied

by such foods.

* * * * *

_Third._ While all these elements are supplied, we do not ingest into

the system at the same time injurious toxic substances as we do in

the case of meats; or enormous quantities of fibrous, indigestible

elements, as we do in the case of vegetables; or innutritious and

constipating substances, as we do in all starchy foods. In addition to

this, condiments and spices are not called for, and in fact cannot well

be eaten with such foods. The oils and fats furnished by this diet are

also pure, and are free from all the objections that can be raised to

these same substances when derived from the animal kingdom.

As a further argument, it will be found that _less food_ in quantity

is eaten and called for upon this diet, and that the system is in less

danger of becoming surfeited, blocked and choked with an excess of

food-matter. Fruits are also easily digestible, and act as a stimulant

upon the various internal organs, and as a mild aperient. They also

contain the minimum amount of earthy matter, which various authors have

contended is the chief cause of obstruction, induration, ossification,

premature old age and natural death.

It will thus be seen that there are many advantages, and no

disadvantages, to this diet. Since it contains all the elements which

the system requires in a purer and better form, and can be assimilated

with less energy; and since, moreover, it does not engender any of

the diseased states or conditions which result from an ordinary diet,

it will be seen that this system presents many advantages over any

other so far presented—or, in fact, any other that can be formulated.

In addition to this, and one very strong argument in favour of the

fruitarian diet, is the fact that a certain _vital energy_—too subtle

to be analysed by the chemist, and which will only be recognised by

science when it becomes less materialistic—is imparted, upon a raw

fruitarian diet, which is invariably lost whenever food of any kind is

cooked. Dr Graham, in his “Science of Human Life,” was probably the

first to call attention to this fact. He said:

“It may be laid down as a general law that all processes of cooking,

or artificial preparation of foods by fire, are, in themselves,

considered with reference to the very highest and best condition of

human nature, in some degree detrimental to the physiological and

psychological interests of man.”

He insists, further, that if man lived upon uncooked foods, he would

have to use his teeth, and would therefore preserve them; he would

masticate his food more thoroughly, and by thorough insalivation fit

it for the stomach; he would swallow it slowly, instead of bolting it

down in a crude condition; he would take it at a proper temperature,

and not weaken the stomach with hot food; he would eat the food as

nature prepares it, not served in the form of a highly concentrated

aliment; he would partake of the simple, individual food substances,

and would not suffer from all manner of injurious combinations; and

finally, he would be less likely to suffer from over-eating than he

would if he lived upon soft, cooked foods. There can be no question

that the thorough mastication of nuts, which is rendered necessary

by their nature, is one of the best means possible of preserving and

strengthening both the teeth and the gums.

Dr Gustave Schlickeysen, in his “Fruit and Bread,” has adduced very

strong arguments in favour of an uncooked fruitarian diet. Writing of

the advantages of such a diet, he says:

“Of all the artificial forms of treatment to which foods are

subjected, that of cooking is the most universal and therefore demands

our special attention. If we rightly consider the influence of this

process upon all the natural properties of a plant, we must perceive

that it is, in almost every case, injurious, and that it must be

dispensed with, so far as our present habits of life will admit of,

with a view of its final and complete disuse. The natural fluids of

the plant are in great part lost in cooking, and with them the natural

aroma so agreeable to the senses and so stimulating to the appetite.

The water supplied artificially does not possess the same properties

as that which has been lost, and all the less so since it has been

boiled. The cellular tissue of the plant loses also its vitality, and

ripe, uncooked fruits and grains with their unbroken cellular tissue,

their stimulating properties, their great content of water, sugar and

acids, and their electrical vitality are calculated to supply to the

human body a rosy freshness; to the skin a beautiful transparence,

and to the whole muscular system the highest vigour and elasticity.

Uncooked fruits especially excite the mind to its highest activity.

After eating them we experience an inclination to vigorous exercise,

and also an increase of capacity for study and all mental work—while

cooked food causes a feeling of satiety and sluggishness. Not only

do plants lose their vital, but to some extent also their nutritive

properties when cooked. The vegetable acids and oils, the latter

being of especial value in the development of the bony structure of

the body, are, by cooking, dissipated; while the albuminoids are

coagulated, and thereby less easily digested, so that the nutritive

value of the food is reduced to a minimum. Another injury that results

from cooked food is that caused by artificial heat. All heat excites,

through expansion, an increased activity, but this activity is not

normal in the case of food eaten hot.

“Again, the sensory nerves of the lips and the nerves of taste are

weakened by hot food to such an extent that they no longer serve as an

infallible test of its quality, and hence articles that seem in the

mouth to be palatable and good may be very injurious to the system,

both on account of their natural properties and their artificial

heat. In a similar manner the sense of smell is blunted; and not less

injuriously does hot food act upon the teeth, the enamel of which is

destroyed, rendering them unfit for their work of mastication, in

consequence of which the food passes unprepared into the stomach.

The eyes are also injured by the action of hot food upon the nerves

connected with them. That condition of weak and watery eyes, so

apparent in the habitual drunkard, exist in a certain degree in all

whose systems are enervated by hot and stimulating food. But the

greatest harm from hot food is caused in the stomach itself, the coats

of which are irritated, reddened, and unnaturally contracted by the

heat, so that they lose their vigorous activity and capacity for the

complete performance of their natural functions. The blood, excited

by the heat, flows in excess to the stomach, and thence feverishly

through the body. One result of this is the flushed condition of the

head after eating. Hot food also causes an excess in eating, so that

it is rather by a sense of fullness and oppression than by a natural

satisfaction of the appetite that one is prompted to cease eating.

An evidence of the weakening of the stomach by hot food is seen when

one eats an apple after the usual hot meal. Fruit thus taken lies

like a stone upon the stomach, the enfeebled nerves being injuriously

affected by its presence; whereas in their normal condition, they are

stimulated to a most agreeable activity by it.

“From the abuse of the organs of digestion result a number of

diseases. A life-long weakness of the gastric nerves, with cramps and

inflammation of the stomach, are its common fruits. To this cause

also is attributable the almost universal prevalence of colds, which

are the direct result of unnatural temperatures of the body. The

blood, artificially heated, causes an excessive perspiration, since

it produces increased but injurious activity of the skin; and upon

the least change of temperature the perspiration is condensed upon

the body, and causes colds and stiffness, and this is all the more

certainly so when the blood is impure and the tissues overloaded. From

the same prolific cause results the uneasiness and languor experienced

after eating hot food. The evil effect cannot be overcome by the usual

after-dinner nap. This cannot replace the elements lost from our food,

nor give the enlivening impulse experienced after partaking of ripe

fruits in their natural state.

“It is indeed argued that our northern climate requires that

food should be eaten hot as one means of maintaining the bodily

temperature; but if this be true of man, it must apply with equal

force to all animals; and since man alone seems to require hot food,

the argument loses its force. In the polar regions the conditions

of animal life show plainly that the natural process of generating

heat is not by putting heated substances into the stomach, but by

the normal action of the vital forces upon food taken in its natural

state. Greater thirst is experienced after eating cooked than uncooked

food, and this results both from the change that the food has

undergone, and from the perspiration caused by the increased heat of

the body. The artificial solution of the food impairs its nutritive

properties, and weakens the natural functions of the body by depriving

them of their natural employment; and this has been so long continued

that we are now almost incapable of digesting uncooked grains, so that

their enlivening and invigorating action is almost unknown.”

Dr Schlickeysen argues very strongly for what he terms the “electrical

vitality” of food, which he contends—I think rightly—is ruined by

cooking. He says:

“Finally—and this is a point which physiologists have hitherto quite

overlooked—the food must contain a certain _electrical vitality_.

Although the real origin and nature of the vital force is not yet

known, we believe that it is closely related to electricity; not

less so, indeed, than to light and heat. Electricity is abundant in

all purely natural products, and indeed, everywhere where a free and

uninterrupted exchange of the influences of light, heat, and air,

exist. It is less abundant in closed dwelling and sleeping rooms

than in the open air. An outdoor walk refreshes us, not only by the

increased consumption of oxygen, but by the increased action of the

electrical forces. The same vitality is stored up in uncooked plants

and fruits, but it is greatly impaired by all our culinary processes.

Fruits act also through their natural acids, their refreshing

coolness, and the easy assimilation of their albuminous products, and

other nourishing materials.

“By the ‘electrical vitality’ of food we do not mean its nutritive

worth, nor indeed any material element of it, but rather an

imponderable fluid, which is related to the vital and electrical

forces of the human system. The organic vital force has not

incorrectly been called the interrogation point of physiology, and the

physiologists and chemists of the old school thought to maintain this

force by supplying albuminoids to the system. The fact, however, is

the reverse. The albuminoids demand rather a great expense of vitality

for their solution and digestion. We know now, with great certainty,

and by practical experience, that the human system is maintained

and strengthened by the consumption of fresh air, fresh water, and

ripe fruits, and grains; but these essential means of sustenance

are reduced from the rank of vital to merely nutritive substances

by any treatment that, through heat or otherwise, destroys their

natural vitality. Our physiologists have not hitherto understood this

difference between the vital and the merely nutritive properties of

food, and hence, as we have already pointed out, have regarded foods

as merely chemical substances. They have discovered and laid down

with wonderful exactness, the chemical elements of the living body,

and hence of the food requisite, according to their views, to its

maintenance; but we hope to show that their methods and consequently

their dietetic conclusions, have been one-sided, and therefore

essentially erroneous. So long as the electrical vitality of food is

overlooked, and the bearings of anthropology upon the question is

ignored, a scientific system of diet must remain impossible.”[38]

This whole question of the injurious effect in cooking food may be

summed up in a very few words. Heat destroys the life and vitality

of the food, and practically nothing is left but the “ashes,” as it

were, which are dead, inert, and comparatively of far less food value

than the raw foods. It can readily be seen why this must be so. At a

temperature of 150° F., certain properties of all organic substances

are destroyed, or even at a temperature below this. This can readily be

proved in the case of all living organisms, and it is also true, to a

large extent, in the case of all vegetables, fruits, and other organic

compounds, whose life is also destroyed at these high temperatures.

A leaf of cabbage immersed in water not too hot to be borne by the

hand will wilt. The effects of heat upon all flowers can very readily

be seen. Their life becomes extinct, and the vital properties of all

organic substances must be ruined by subjecting them to the tremendous

heat necessary for cooking them. A large part of the nutritive value

of the substance cooked is thus ruined, while, in many cases, valuable

nutritive material passes out of the substance into the water in which

it is cooked, or escapes altogether. It will thus be seen that, from

the physiological and chemical sides of this question alone, there

are many strong reasons for believing that the cooking of food is

injurious, lowering its nutritive value, and

[38] If this theory were true, it would agree very well with Professor

Loeb’s recent physiological researches. He has come to the conclusion

that the energy of food-stuffs is not due to the production of heat,

or to chemical energy, but to electrically charged molecules This

would seem to agree very well with the theory outlined above. ruining

many of its most valuable properties. But since fruits are almost the

only form of food that can be eaten in a raw state—or rather as cooked

by nature—this would indirectly prove that fruit is man’s natural

diet, thus agreeing with his anatomical structure; and the fruitarian

diet would, on the other hand, indicate that a raw-food diet is the

best that man can adopt. When we come to consider the fact that no

other animal cooks his food, and that the higher apes—man’s dietetic

counterpart—eats his fruits and nuts in a raw state, we can readily see

that there is no valid reason, apart from custom, for man cooking his

food—so long as the natural or fruitarian dietary be adopted at all.

It is curious to note the attitude various authorities have taken upon

this subject, when writing of foods in relation to man’s relative place

in nature. Thus, Dr Mattieu Williams, in his “Chemistry of Cookery,” p.

295, says:

“At the outset it is necessary to brush aside certain false issues

that are commonly raised in discussing this subject. The question is

not whether we are herbivorous or carnivorous animals. It is perfectly

certain that we are neither. The carnivora feed on flesh alone, and

eat that flesh raw. Nobody proposes that we should do this. The

herbivora eat raw grass. Nobody suggests that we should follow their

example.

“It is perfectly clear that man cannot be classed with the carnivorous

animals, nor the herbivorous animals, nor with the gramnivorous

animals. His teeth are not constructed for munching and grinding raw

grain, nor his digestive organs for assimilating such grain in this

condition.

“He is not even to be classed with the omnivorous animals. He stands

apart from all as _The Cooking Animal_.”

Here it will be seen that Dr Williams classes man as a “cooking

animal” merely because he has no other class (according to his own

classification) in which to place him! But it will be observed that

no mention whatever is made of fruitarian diet, or the possibility of

man living upon fruits and nuts alone. He does not even mention the

fact that there are fruitarian animals! Naturally, if one eliminates

a whole class in this way—that class being the one to which man

belongs—it is impossible to find a rightful place for him; but once

recognise the fruitarian class of animals, and it will be found that

man, structurally, and in every other way, belongs to it; and for that

reason he does not stand apart by himself as a “cooking animal,” but is

simply one member of the fruitarian family.

There are many other reasons for thinking that the fruitarian diet

is the best, and that uncooked foods should form man’s staple diet.

One of these is that they are more economical in the long run. While

certain other foods may be purchased at a less cost, particularly in

the winter-time, they are not nearly so nourishing to the system; and

it can be shown that the nutritive value, per pound, is far greater in

the case of fruits and nuts than is the case with any other articles

of food. For this reason, although fruits and nuts may cost more,

they will ultimately be found to cost _less_—because they contain a

higher percentage of nutriment; and indirectly because they avoid

doctor’s bills, and maintain the body in a higher state of health and

energy. They thus enable it to accomplish more work; and, since work

represents, as a rule, financial return, it will be seen that these

foods are in the end most economic. As before pointed out, moreover,

they do not induce over-eating, as do cooked and stimulating articles

of food.

Fruits also exert a very cleansing and purifying effect upon the

system. Their medicinal value is therefore not to be omitted from

our consideration; and further, were the fruitarian diet followed,

humanity would escape nine-tenths of the ills from which it now

suffers, because of its over-eating, and its living upon gross and

highly stimulating articles of food, and bad food-combinations. The

choking and blocking effects of the more solid and earthy food would be

avoided—while indigestion, fermentation, constipation and all the ills

which accompany them would also be entirely done away with.

This question of the prevention of disease by diet is a very important

one, both from the economic and from the physiological point of view,

and if any diet can be found which will prevent a large percentage

of the diseases from which mankind suffers, that diet should surely

be adopted. Inasmuch as fruits and nuts are man’s natural diet, it

should be obvious that they are the ones best suited to his organism,

and consequently those which will maintain it in the highest state of

health. Let us consider this question a little more fully.

In my previous work, I argued that every article of diet must be more

or less healthful or more or less injurious, and this being so, only

those foods should be eaten which had been proved by philosophy and

experience to be the most wholesome. The fact that the system _can

live_ upon other foods, and maintain a certain degree of health, argues

merely that it can _withstand_ the bad effects of these other foods,

and by no means shows us that they are the best! I further contended

that the same foods are alike detrimental or beneficial to all, and

that the old doctrine which Dr Page called “the most foolish of all

aphorisms”—namely, “one man’s meat, another’s poison”—is totally

false. I contended that, while there might be certain deviations and

variations in the details of the diet, still all men are _rudimentally_

alike, and that the body of each human being is made after a certain

pattern, which pattern is in accordance with the general principles

which apply to all individuals. Man, that is, belongs to a certain

_genus_, and consequently his food must be, within certain limits, the

same as that of the rest of the family to which he belongs. That is,

as we have seen, the frugivora, and his diet must accordingly consist

of fruits and nuts in their uncooked, primitive form. There may be

certain individual differences, and there doubtless are. Thus, some

individuals are unable to eat strawberries, others bananas, others

onions, others mushrooms, but this would show, merely, that these

particular individuals, _while in the peculiar state of body in which

they then are_, are unable to appropriate and utilise, with benefit,

these particular food-stuffs. The chemical composition of their bodies

has become altered in some way unknown to us, and, as the result of

this altered chemical composition, they are unable to appropriate, with

profit, food containing certain elements with which they may already be

overstocked. In other words, this would prove, merely, that, in their

present physical condition, they are unable properly to assimilate

and digest those particular food-stuffs. It does not show that, if

they were normal, these foods could not be appropriated and used with

benefit. In other words, the fault is rather with the individual than

with the food. Still, I admit that these differences have to be taken

into account; and that no two individuals can be treated exactly

alike—especially at first. To use a simile, no two spokes of a wheel

are identical—that is, each spoke is individual, and different from all

other spokes—but they all lead, nevertheless, to the hub, the central

point which unifies and combines them all. In a similar manner, I can

see that there is an ideal diet for the human race, which should be

followed by all who are in health, and could be eaten by all with equal

profit and benefit, if the chemical composition of their bodies were

altered. But, as each spoke must be treated individually at first, so

must each individual be treated individually, and, by gradual changes

in the diet, be brought more nearly to a normal standard, when it will

be far easier for it to adopt a simple fruitarian diet, without any of

the disturbance or unpleasantness that might otherwise follow. As Dr

Jackson expressed it:

“If I had his ultimate good in view, I should seek to change the

state of his stomach that he might eat what was in itself better for

him, rather than to have his morbid necessity say what he should be

compelled to eat.”

Some readers may contend that I have gone too far in thus insisting

upon an ultimate unification of diet, and that such a state can not

only _not_ be hoped for practically, but is false theoretically. I

myself do not think so. When discussing this question in my former

book, I said:

“It must be noticed that, with the single exception of man, every

class of animal feeds upon its own particular and especial kind of

food. All dogs, for example, eat practically the same food, and about

the same amount of it.. .. When a dog is fed upon milk, meat, and

biscuit, in certain amounts, when living in England, we do not think

of modifying his diet to any appreciable degree should we take him

with us to America or to the Tropics. The diet might, in the latter

case, be somewhat _lessened_, but that would effect its bulk only, not

materially effecting the quality of the food-supply. Again, we should

be surprised to find dogs fed upon altogether different substances in

any portion of the globe to which we might travel; if, _e.g._, they

were fed upon turnips, oysters, mince pie, hay and sauerkraut—yet I

must earnestly insist that this unholy combination is no more bad

and unnatural than some that supposedly ‘civilised’ men and women

take into their stomachs in the course of twenty-four hours! To

be sure, there might be modifications or alterations in the diet,

but the changes would not be of _kind_, merely of _degree_, and we

should feel, doubtless, that these dogs, having their diet altered to

an altogether different kind, live under such abnormal and altered

conditions rather _in spite of_ than on _account of_ their newly

acquired régime, and would be inclined to feel that the same dogs

might be infinitely more healthy and live longer lives on their normal

diet. Similarly with every other species of animal; each _genus_ has

its proper and natural food, allotted by nature, and any attempt to

depart from this diet, and to live upon other and altogether unnatural

food, must of necessity weaken, devitalise and eventually destroy the

organism of the animal so attempting to live contrary to nature’s

unchanging dietetic laws.”

Now, since we have seen that man is anatomically and structurally a

member of that family whose normal food is fruits and nuts, he too

should live upon that diet if he wishes to maintain the highest degree

of health. There is only one valid objection to this theory, which

is that man, having lived so many ages upon the cooked diet, is now

more adapted to that diet than to his original uncooked foods, and

that an attempt to return to such a diet would be attended with grave

and possibly disastrous consequences. As Professor Goodfellow put it:

“The conditions of life have so altered that the natural food of our

ancestors would be unnatural now, living as we do under such different

conditions.”[39]

[39] “The Dietetic Value of Bread,” p. 166.

This objection, however, is completely refuted by the fact that

_no anatomical change whatever_ has taken place in man’s digestive

apparatus since the most primeval times. If the body had gradually

grown accustomed to the cooked and unnatural foods, this should not be

the case—certain modifications in the digestive apparatus and perhaps

throughout the body should be noted, corresponding to this altered

adaptability. But no such changes have been observed. As we have seen,

man corresponds structurally throughout with the higher apes, and he

has altered not one whit since the days when he more closely resembled

them than he does now!

The second point to be noted is that such an objection is not in

accord with facts. It is a comparatively simple thing for the majority

of persons to adopt a fruitarian dietary. They can do so almost at

once, having made up their minds to do so, and thereafter live upon

it exclusively, without harm to themselves, but, on the contrary,

with added health and strength. There is no real reason to think

that, because a thing has been done for many generations, it is the

best thing which _can_ be done. Experience merely shows us what _has_

taken place, not what _might_ take place; and, so far as that goes,

experience has shown us in the past that, living upon the diet they

have been accustomed to, human beings have been constantly suffering

from one form of disease or another, and that they almost invariably

become aged prematurely, lose their faculties before their allotted

time, and die a premature death. So far as experience can teach us

anything, therefore, it shows most conclusively that such a state of

affairs as has existed in the past is by no means the most ideal, but,

on the contrary, one which should be avoided and changed, if possible,

and rendered more in accordance with nature’s laws—thus ensuring a

greater degree of health, and a more prolonged and happy existence.

There is another strong argument in favour of the fruitarian dietary,

and an adoption of the simpler foods, which is that the adoption of

this way of living would ensure a practical emancipation of women.

Under the present conditions, a wife—if she has a husband and family,

and if she is forced to do her own work, as a large number are (in

America, at least)—spends four or five hours a day in the kitchen

preparing and clearing up after the three daily meals supplied to

the family. The anxiety and mental tension that she undergoes in

ensuring the correctness of her dishes; the bending over the hot

stove—especially in summer-time—the constant inhaling of smells and

odours, arising from the cooking food, the fumes from the oils and

fats, the constant tasting of dishes which is necessitated, all these

tell against her health, and age her prematurely. In addition to this,

there is the time wasted in the preparation of all these foods, and

in the clearing up of the remnants; and when we stop to consider that

all this cooking is not only useless, but positively detrimental; not

only a waste of time, but an actual injury to the body; and when we

know that far greater health and strength may be preserved upon a diet

consisting wholly of uncooked foods—which require no preparation and

practically no clearing up—we can see how false is the doctrine at

present enunciated, and slavishly followed by the majority, which tends

to keep woman in a state of bondage, and her time filled up with petty

details of a wholly useless nature—which time might be better occupied

in mental pursuits. And when we remember, in addition to all this, that

such foods, even when they are prepared, are by no means so wholesome

as a simple fruitarian diet, but are, on the contrary, positively

harmful, we can see that no time should be lost before we adopt this

simplified diet, and insist upon its acceptance by all persons calling

themselves civilised. From all these points of view, therefore, we see

that there are very strong grounds for believing that the fruitarian

diet is the one most suited to the body’s needs, and is in every way

the most wholesome and hygienic. I shall now proceed to adduce another

whole set of facts showing that fruitarianism is the natural diet of

mankind, and that fruits and nuts, eaten in their uncooked form, are

those most suitable to man, and those best calculated to preserve him

in a high state of mental and physical health.

Not only do fruits and nuts contain a higher percentage of nutriment

than ordinary foods, and particularly cooked foods; not only do they

maintain the system in a better state of physical, mental and moral

health; not only do they simplify the wants of the household, and the

toil of the woman; not only are they more economical in the long run;

not only would the adoption of this diet prevent nine-tenths of the

misery and physical suffering in this world; not only would it prevent

a large part of the crime, debauchery and drunkenness, but, in addition

to all this, the adoption of such a dietary would be the chief factor

in all social, ethical and agricultural reform. This should be apparent

to anyone who has read through the above list of reforms made possible

by this simple change of diet. The practical abolition of the traffic

in alcohol, which would certainly result from an adoption of this diet,

would be in itself a tremendous revolution. In addition to all this,

there would be the increased ease and comfort afforded by the simpler

diet. The economic aspect of this question is one very important

factor. It is possible to live far more cheaply upon fruits and nuts,

when they are in season, than upon any other foods—quite apart from the

general question of health. The freeing of the body from diseases and

the prolonging of useful life would also be strong arguments in favour

of the simpler diet—since there can be no question that both these

results are effected by its means.

There are also other arguments in favour of this diet— arguments that

should appeal to many of my readers. It will be found, _e.g._, that

the texture and the general colouring of the skin will improve, upon

this diet; the complexion will become clear, and the eyes will become

bright. This is very noticeable, in many cases. The brain is also

rendered clearer, and more fitted for continued mental work. Far more

work can be performed, without the exhaustion formerly noted, upon

such a diet. There can be no question whatever that the temper will

invariably improve upon the fruitarian diet. I have seen many cases

of this character. It is only natural that such should be so. On the

ordinary “mixed” diet, the system is surcharged with toxic substances,

which mix with the blood and irritate the brain cells. When these

irritating substances are removed, the mind will become clear, and a

more even and just view of the world will be obtained. There can be

no question that there is a close, even intimate, relation between

the mental life and the state of the body; and nothing demonstrates

this more certainly than the adoption of a fruitarian dietary. I

have already referred to the brutalising effects of meat and the

slaughter-house upon the butcher. It is true, in a lesser degree, with

everybody. The natives of India and elsewhere look with horror at

the practice of meat-eating, and cannot understand how anyone can be

spiritual, or even decently humane, who kills and eats animals. And yet

missionaries, knowing this, continue to eat their roast beef, in spite

of the fact that natives of the more intelligent order must despise

them in consequence. No wonder they can accomplish very little, so

long as they are so totally incapable of appreciating the viewpoint of

others, and are unwilling to reform their diet, and adopt a more simple

and humane one—for the sake of their religion, if not for hygienic

reasons!

There can be no doubt that the adoption of fruit as a food would

relieve many cases of hitherto incurable diseases. In cancer, gout,

eczema, tumour, etc., the exclusive fruit diet has been found to bring

rapid and remarkable cures. Moreover, the salts found in fruits of

various kinds are a very important factor—and this, not only in the

sick but in the well.

Dr H. Benjafield, writing in the _Herald of Health_ says:

“Garrod, the great London authority on gout, advises his patients

to take oranges, lemons, strawberries, grapes, apples, pears, etc.

Jardien, the great French authority, maintains that the salts of

potash found so plentifully in fruits are the chief agents in

purifying the blood from these rheumatic and gouty poisons.... Dr

Buzzard advises the scorbutic to take fruit, morning, noon and night.

Fresh lemon juice in the form of lemonade is to be his ordinary drink;

the existence of diarrhœa should be no reason for withholding it.”

Florence Daniel, in her excellent little book “Food Remedies,” says of

fruits:

“Salts and acids as found in organised forms are quite different in

their effects to the products of the laboratory, notwithstanding that

the chemical composition may be shown to be the same. The chemist

may be able to manufacture a ‘fruit juice,’ but he cannot, as yet,

manufacture the actual fruit. The mysterious life force always evades

him. Fruit is a _vital_ food, it supplies the body with something over

and above the mere elements that the chemist succeeds in isolating

by analysis. The vegetable kingdom possesses the power of directly

utilising minerals, and it is only in this ‘live’ form that they

are fit for the consumption of man. In the consumption of sodium

chloride (common table salt), baking powders, and the whole army of

mineral drugs and essences, we violate that decree of nature which

ordains that the animal kingdom shall feed upon the vegetable and the

vegetable upon the mineral.”

So far back as the beginning of last century, the famous Dr Lambe,

of London, wrote in favour of the fruit diet, and several vigorous

reformers soon followed his example. The system was bitterly attacked,

but these attacks served only to strengthen the defence, and show

the inconsistency of its opponents. Objections to the fruit diet are

constantly being urged, but not one of them has been shown to rest on a

solid foundation.

Take, for example, the notion that the acids of fruit injure the teeth.

Dentists will frequently tell you that acids are injurious to the

enamel of the teeth, and for that reason acid fruits most certainly

should not be eaten! The position sounds perfectly logical, and, if

the acids of fruits had the same effect upon the enamel of the teeth

as mineral acid, it would be true. The fact is, however, that this is

not the case, but one does not really find this out until he becomes a

fruitarian. He then finds that he has no further “use” for the dentist,

and that his fine theoretical knowledge is overthrown by the actual

facts.

Persons often notice that they become—especially at first—much more

acutely sensitive and almost nervous upon a fruitarian diet. Of course

the diet is blamed; but as a matter of fact it is but indirectly

responsible. The sensibility and nervousness is the result of previous

habits of life—and this transitory condition is but the manifestation

of certain nervous, vital energies which had, till then, remained

“smothered,” as it were, by the excess of food eaten. Now they rise to

the surface and tend to become noticeable to us (_v._ my “Vitality,

Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 520-523).

Further, sensibility, it must be remembered, is merely another word

for extreme sensitiveness or a degree of reaction of the nervous

system—which is its normal function. A nervous system is made for

the express purpose of reacting immediately, to the most delicate

stimulus—and if it does not do so, it shows that the nervous mechanism

is in some way out of order. It is only because we constantly keep the

nervous system poisoned, by our perverted food habits, that it does not

react as it should. It merely regains some degree of its normal powers

when the fruit diet is adopted.

But I shall probably be told that there are cases in which a

hyper-sensitiveness has become apparent—the sensitiveness, not of

health, but of disease. That I admit: but I must contend that this

extreme sensitiveness would not have resulted had it not been for

the previous habits of life, which resulted in an accumulation of

irritating poisons within the body; so that, when these habits are

discontinued and the nervous system invigorated by the improved

dietetic habits, the nerves begin to react vigorously against these

irritating poisons. The result is that a great irritability and

hyper-sensitiveness is noted, _pro tem._—which, however, will be found

to disappear (if the diet be persisted in) when the nervous system

again approaches a more normal standard.

There remains one very strong argument in favour of a fruitarian diet,

to which I have not so far referred. Able authorities affirm that many

of the waste places and deserts of the earth once teemed with fertility

and foliage, and that the existing sterility of these deserts has been

brought about by the destruction of their forests. The influence of

trees upon the rainfall, and consequent support of vegetation, is so

well known that some of the foremost nations are fostering tree-culture

and taking means to preserve existing forests by Government enactment.

There can be no doubt but that trees improve the climate, in any

neighbourhood; they improve the soil, reduce the severity of storms and

the cold of winter, and prevent undue evaporation of moisture from the

surface of the ground. But it is unnecessary to enlarge upon the great

value of trees, which is well known. Now, the point I make is this:

if the fruitarian dietary were adopted, more fruits and nuts would be

eaten, and hence a large number of trees would be planted—huge orchards

would exist throughout the land. Whereas under cereal culture there is

a constant temptation to the farmer to cut down his trees to make his

lands available for grain-growing; as soon as a market for fruits and

nuts is established, the same law of pecuniary gain will induce him

to transform his pastures and his grain fields into orchards and nut

groves. This would be highly advantageous in every respect.

I think it probable that fruits alone contain about all the nutriment

that an average man wants, who is not working out of doors, and who

does not take much exercise. Oxen will get fat on apples and pears;

but when we set them to work, we have to supply an extra amount of

grains, and foods containing proteid, to offset the greater destruction

of muscular tissue. It is probably the same with man. In the majority

of cases, fruits alone would probably supply all that the body needs;

but when it was called upon to perform an extra amount of work, nuts

and other proteid-forming foods will be craved and called for. This,

I think, indicates the true place of nuts and of all foods rich in

proteid in the diet.

M. Metchnikoff has argued strongly against the use of fruits and all

raw foods, as liable to introduce bacteria into the intestines! He

believes that old age and natural death are largely brought about

by bacteriological decomposition in the intestines (in which he is

doubtless right) and believes that raw foods are one of the chief

causes of this intestinal putrefaction. I would point out, in reply,

that bacteria can only exist in a locality in which there is a suitable

soil; and if this soil is lacking, they cannot exist, no matter how

many of them may be introduced. Now, when the bowel is kept sweet and

clean, as it invariably is by a fruit diet, it will be apparent that

there is no soil in which such bacteria could multiply, hence their

continued presence would be quite impossible. M. Metchnikoff has only

studied cases in which the patient had been nourished by the ordinary

cooked foods, and his conclusions were drawn from the facts presented

to him; but when the diet is entirely fruitarian, there can be no

doubt that such a state of the bowels would be quite impossible, and

there would consequently be no bacteria present; and if they _were_

introduced, they could not live in such a medium. The bowel, in the

case of those living upon a fruitarian diet, is almost entirely free

from all bacteria; and their infection and action upon the system

would consequently be rendered practically impossible. There would be

no danger of infection if the body were maintained in a high state of

health—as it would be upon a fruitarian diet.

Frequently, throughout this book, I have referred to man’s “natural

diet,” and, it may be asked, what is his natural diet, in what does it

consist? I answer: fruit and nuts—or a combination of these—is man’s

natural diet, and this is proved by all the arguments of comparative

anatomy, of physiology, and all the other evidences I have adduced. I

think there can be no mistake and no hesitation about this, once we

have mastered and appreciated the force of these arguments. They alone

would determine the issue. But, further, I think there is one simple

test that will settle this question—an instinctive test. After eating a

full meal of any article of food, let a man look back, and contemplate

having to eat it all over again, and he can soon tell whether what he

has eaten is “natural” for him or not! If the meal has consisted of

fish and meat, and all the other “luxuries” of modern civilisation,

there can be no doubt that such a thought would repulse and sicken him;

the very idea of it would nauseate him. But if the meal had consisted

of peaches and dates, let us say, the idea of going back and eating as

much again of the same food would not prove in the slightest degree

repellent to him. This instinctive testimony is very suggestive and

valuable, it appears to me, and clearly indicates man’s natural diet.

Let us consider this question of instinct further.

If we take a little child into a room in which there are two tables,

one covered with meats of all kinds (choicely cooked, if you will)

and the other groaning under a multitude of fruit, which one would

the child turn to, without any hesitation? Most certainly he would

turn to the table spread with fruit—in every single instance where

the appetite has not been perverted so early as to render all natural

taste and instinct impossible. The child would turn to its natural

food—fruit, and would in that manner demonstrate his natural cravings

and instinct, and clearly indicate that his natural food is fruit, and

that consequently he is frugivorous by nature. But now let us take a

dog or a cat, or a lion or a tiger into the room, and leave him there.

To which table would _he_ turn, and that without a moment’s hesitation?

We can have no doubt on that point. He would instantaneously show his

carnivorous nature and appetite, and would not, in all probability,

even touch the fruits, even if he were hungry and there was no meat in

the room at all. Our primary instincts, therefore, clearly indicate

that man is frugivorous, and not carnivorous in his nature.

Again, if man were naturally carnivorous, he should eat his meat as

do the carnivora—and he should be provided by nature with the bodily

structure, teeth, claws, etc., for doing so. Were man naturally

carnivorous, he should prey upon his food by night; he should lurk in

the dark places, and pounce upon his rightful prey, rending it with his

teeth, tearing it with his claws, lapping the warm blood as it oozes

from the lifeless body before him! He should catch and eat his prey as

do all the other (naturally) carnivorous animals. If Nature pointed us

to such a diet, we should feel the same instinctive appetite for raw

flesh as we now feel for ripe fruit; and a slaughter-house would be

more delightful to us than an orchard. Yet we know that such is not

the case, and that even the mere thought of such a thing is sickening

to any sensitive person. Why is this? Does it not clearly indicate

that man is not naturally carnivorous by nature, but that he can only

tolerate the idea of flesh-eating because of long deadening of the

higher moral centres, in this direction; and because the food is so

pickled, and spiced, and peppered, and salted, and roasted, and fried,

and smothered in onions, and in other ways covered up and _concealed_,

and its taste and nature so _disguised_, that we can eat it at all?

As Mr Salt so well remarked[40]:

[40] “Logic of Vegetarianism,” p. 27.

“Our innate horror of bloodshed—a horror which only long custom

can deaden, and which, in spite of past centuries of violence, is

so powerful at the present time—is proof that we are not naturally

adapted for a sanguinary diet; and, as has often been pointed out, it

is only by delegating to others the detested work of slaughter, and by

employing cookery to conceal the uncongenial truth, that thoughtful

persons can tolerate the practice of meat-eating.”

If all persons who enjoy “a good, juicy beef-steak,” or a rasher of

bacon, first had to go out and kill the cow or the hog, how do you

think they would like it? And how many of us would or could do such a

thing? Aside from the fact, before pointed out, that, were we naturally

carnivorous by nature, we should eat our flesh warm and bleeding and

quivering—as do the other carnivora—there is this additional objection,

that, even if this were not the case, we must ever entail the duty to

others of killing the animal for us—so disgusting is the very idea of

dipping our hands and mouths in blood before and during each meal!

Granting, then, that fruits and nuts can supply us with all the

essentials for the upbuilding of a healthy body, and that this is man’s

natural diet—the question arises: How would it be best to break away

from the old foods, and adopt this simpler dietary? Certainly this

should not be done at once, in the majority of cases. Many persons

can pass from one diet to another instantaneously, with no harm, but

with decided benefit. My own case is an example of this. Once I was

thoroughly persuaded that this was the ideal diet, I dropped meat at

one meal, and lived upon fruits and nuts the next, and thenceforward

from that day. I never experienced any ill effects from such an

abrupt change, but only benefit. Though, at the present time, I pay

no attention, practically, to exercise, to breathing, or to any of

the other thought-to-be-essentials of the physical culture life (I

claim that all of these measures can be practically dispensed with,

if only the diet be regulated carefully) I am always more or less in

condition, and I may fairly say that I never knew anyone who could work

more continuously and steadily for so many hours at a stretch, and for

so many days together, as can I. Of course this is only one person’s

testimony, and hence my own method might not be suited to all equally

well. But I have introduced this personal item to show that the old

dogma that one cannot make abrupt changes in the diet without detriment

to oneself is all pure nonsense. I never experienced any ill effects

whatever—and no more have numerous other persons of my acquaintance,

who have adopted the fruitarian diet as abruptly as I did.

But, granting that this abrupt change is not desired, what then? In

that case, I should advise the patient to leave off meat at one of his

meals (if he has been in the habit of eating it more than once a day)

and substitute eggs for it—in the morning or evening—or beans, peas,

cheese, etc., at noon. Let him get accustomed to this change before

another step is taken. Then, abolish meat altogether from the bill of

fare, and live on the ordinary vegetarian foods for a few days. Next,

decrease the amount of cooked vegetables, and increase the quantity

of the fruits. Remember the advice previously given regarding food

combinations here. It will soon be found that an egg or two, and a

couple of slices of bread, or a simple vegetarian dish, will supply all

the wants, for the first half of the meal; and this should be followed

by an abundant allowance of fruits. Keep this up until the patient has

grown thoroughly accustomed to the change, and then (preferably in hot

weather) let him try his first meal of fruits, nuts and whole-wheat

bread and nut-butter. Later on, these last articles may be abolished,

if desired; but most persons find it almost harder to give up their

bread and butter than they do their meat! The patient is now fairly

on the diet, and additional alterations and restrictions are merely a

matter of time. Doubtless by this time he is sufficiently interested

in the question himself, and sufficiently delighted in his altered

physical condition, to need but little persuasion, and will gladly

adopt and follow the diet himself.

XIII

FOOD COMBINATIONS

There are very few foods which, if eaten singly, would be found to

disagree. Most of the trouble arises when we combine the various foods

which do not suit or harmonise; and the result is, distress and a

complication of disorders, due to the bad combination of such foods.

Such foods disagree with one another, so to speak, rather than with

us. This question of food combinations is one which has been very

largely overlooked, but it is a highly important one, nevertheless.

Most people have never paid any attention to the relative proportion

of their foods, or thought how each would combine with the other; and

it is largely due to this lack of foresight that so much dyspepsia is

present, and that so many digestive troubles are active throughout

the world. The motto of the average individual would seem to be, “Out

of sight, out of mind”; but it must be remembered that, while the

stomach _receives_ the food, the body has to _retain_ it; and long

digestive processes, involving an enormous outlay of energy, and many

and complicated chemical changes, have to be gone through, before food

is appropriable by the system. Of course, the tendency among civilised

peoples is in the direction of increasing the number of articles of

food at each meal, instead of decreasing it. They like to see the

table spread with a litter of dishes, while a fifteen-course dinner

is supposed to be the height of luxury! Were the processes of living

considered a little more from the physiological, and a little less

from the gormandising point of view, such would not be the case. The

tendency would then be (at least among all intelligent people), to

_reduce_ the number of dishes, as much as possible—limiting them at

each meal to three or two, or even one.

Food should be solid. The digestive juices are fluids, and an excess

of liquid, with the food, tends to dilute these gastric juices, and

consequently to interfere with their converting action. If fluids

be drunk with any meal they will dilute the power of concentrated

action of the gastric juice, and other digestive juices; and will,

further, have a tendency to wash the food through the stomach into the

intestines before it has undergone proper stomach-digestion. Water,

therefore, should not be drunk _at_ meals, but shortly before, or an

hour or so afterwards. In this way the requisite amount of fluid is

supplied to the system, without interfering with digestion in the

manner indicated.

Another result of drinking at meals is to prevent thorough mastication

of the foods. When these are dry, they should be thoroughly insalivated

before being swallowed, for any liquid taken at the time softens these

foods artificially, and will also cause more food to be eaten than

would be the case, were it eaten dry.

Dr Latson, in his “Food Value of Meat,” says:

“Fresh fruits all combine well with one another. As a rule fruits,

fresh or cooked, combine well with bread or cooked cereals, and with

nuts or nuts foods. Fruits do not, as a rule, combine well with

cooked vegetables, nor with meat, eggs, cheese, milk, or cream. Milk

and cream are so liable to decomposition that, if only for that

reason, they are not desirable foods. Milk or cream with cereals,

fruit, sugar, or cooked vegetables is apt to cause difficulty.... In

arranging meals in which flesh-meat is not to be included, it is only

necessary to remember that the nuts and the legumes (peas, beans and

lentils) contain the same food elements as flesh-meat, and may always

be eaten in its place with advantage.... The best breakfast is one

that consists of fresh ripe fruit, and nothing else. To this may be

added, if desired, whole-wheat bread, or some cereal. The cereal may

be served with fruit juice.”

The following are a few sample meals arranged, according to merit—only

those foods being taken which will combine well together.

_Breakfast No. 1._—Raw fruit, cereal with fruit juice, whole-wheat

bread.

_Breakfast No. 2._—Stewed apples, whole-wheat bread.

_Breakfast No. 3._—Cereal with fruit juice, soft boiled eggs,

whole-wheat bread.

The following are one or two sample luncheons:—

_Luncheon No. 1._—Stewed fruit, nuts or nut-butter, whole-wheat bread.

_Luncheon No. 2._—Peanut purée, boiled rice (or baked potatoes),

stewed fruit, whole-wheat bread.

_Luncheon No. 3._—Salad of any kind, garnished with olive oil and

lemon juice; fresh fruit and whole-wheat bread.

The following are a few sample dinners:—

_Dinner No. 1._—Fresh fruit, salad, macaroni, whole-wheat bread.

_Dinner No. 2._—Peas, beans or lentils, browned rice, baked potatoes,

stewed fruit, whole-wheat bread.

_Dinner No. 3._—Soup, eggs, cooked vegetables, whole-wheat bread.

_Dinner No. 4._—Bean soup, or pea soup, boiled rice, baked potatoes,

stewed fruit, whole-wheat bread.

Dr William S. Sadler[41] gives the following directions as to food

combinations:—

[41] “The Science of Living,” p. 145.

GOOD COMBINATIONS

Fruits and grains

Grains and meat or eggs

Grains and nuts

Grains and milk

Grains and vegetables

Grains and legumes

FAIR COMBINATIONS

Grains with sweet fruits and milk

Meat or eggs with vegetables

Nuts and vegetables

BAD COMBINATIONS

Fruits and vegetables

Milk and vegetables

Sour fruits and milk

Milk and meat

Mr and Mrs Christian, in their “Uncooked Foods” (p. 63), give three

elaborate meals, composed of uncooked foods entirely, though it will

be seen that their grouping of combinations is not so strict as that

formulated above. The meals are as follows:—

“_Breakfast._—One ripe apple, two ounces pecan meats, six or eight

black dates, one very ripe banana, sliced with thick cream, one glass

milk.

“_Luncheon._—Two bartlett pears, one ounce pecan meats, three Turkish

pulled figs, one ounce pignolias, cold slaw with olive oil, one cake

of unfired bread, four prunes with thick cream, sweet butter, egg-nog.

“_Dinner._—Half pound of grapes, two ounces mixed nut meats, vegetable

salad with dressing, one cake unfired bread, cream cheese, six or

eight black dates, one very ripe red banana, with thick cream, pint of

whole milk.”

Personally, I think that the above combinations are by no means ideal,

and in addition to that, far too much in bulk has been prescribed for

each meal. Were the breakfast omitted, and but two meals daily eaten,

the amount prescribed would be more proportionate, but even then I

feel certain that the amount is greatly in excess of bodily needs. The

authors, however, have made an extended study of food combinations,

and, in fact, are almost the only writers who have paid much attention

to this subject. In their chapter on food combinations, they say:

“The following combinations have been found by experience to be

chemically harmonious, healthful, and very nutritious:—

“Flaked wheat, with nuts, dates and cream.

“Flaked wheat, nuts, honey, milk and cream.

“Egg-nog, pecan meats, dates, banana and cream.

“Cold slaw with olive oil, pecan meats, unfired bread, sweet apple

with thick cream.

“All foods composed largely of starch, such as cereals, potatoes,

and nearly all legumes, should not be eaten at the same meal with

sweets, especially cane sugar. All foods, whether fluids or solids,

that contain starch or sugar, such as rice, potatoes, corn, oats, in

fact all the cereal class may be eaten with safety at the same meal.

Milk can also be taken with all the carbohydrate family of foods.[42]

All foods containing gluten, albumen, or gelatine, such as meat, eggs

and a few kinds of nuts, are classed as protein, and require an acid

solvent to be digested. Therefore, they can be eaten with safety with

all kinds of fruits. Milk, one of the best foods known, can be taken

with all kinds of fruits, provided no cereal starch be eaten at the

same meal. All foods that contain both carbohydrates and protein

compose healthful combinations.”[43]

[42] It will be seen that the authors are here in disagreement with Dr

Latson. See his advice above.

[43] A number of very good recipes of uncooked foods may be

found in an otherwise very odd book, entitled “Unfired Food: and

Trophotherapy,” by George J. Drews (Chicago).

In balancing any dietary, care must be taken, of course, to keep the

relative proportion of proteids, fats and carbohydrates, equal; and to

see, also, that the proper amount of mineral salts is contained in all

the foods; also that a due supply of water is furnished to the system.

One of the chief causes of failure on the part of those who leave off

meat, and attempt to take up vegetarianism, is that they do not rightly

balance their diet, and do not supply to the system the proper amount

of proteid food, to take the place of that which the meat supplied.

Vegetarians, as a rule, eat far _too much_ food. Under the impression

that they must eat more, in order to offset the supposed greater

“nutritive” value of the meat which they have given up, they eat far

more than they should: while as a matter of fact, the vegetarian foods

are richer and far more nutritious than the ordinary mixed diet.

Consequently, less, instead of more, should be eaten. Anyone leaving

off his meat must expect to feel a certain depression for a few days,

as before pointed out—owing to the fact that the stimulating quality

of the meat is withdrawn; but, those few days once past, a general

invigoration of the system will be noted. Due attention should be paid

to all hygienic auxiliaries, and an excess of food should by all means

be avoided. Substitute eggs, cheese, peas, beans, lentils and nuts for

the meat formerly eaten; in other ways pay attention to the balancing

of the diet, and no inconvenience will be experienced, as a result of

leaving off meat and adopting the newer dietary.

Dr Susana Dodds, in her “Health in the Household, or Hygienic Cookery,”

says, in writing of food combinations:

“It is folly to overlook the fact that there is a certain fitness or

adaptation to be observed both in the selection and classification

of foods which enhances their value as a whole; it will not do to

huddle them together indiscriminately, either on one’s palate or on

the stomach; baked beans and grape-juice are both very satisfactory in

themselves; but they have so little in common that no one would think

of eating them together; though the harm resulting from so injurious

a combination would be more apparent in some cases than in others.

Nearly half a century of close contact with invalids has placed before

the hygienic physician certain _facts_ which cannot be ignored; and

whether the signs behind them are fully understood or not, the facts

themselves remain. For example, if we have a nervous dyspeptic to

treat, we know better than to set before him at one and the same

meal strawberries, and beets, or strawberries and cabbage, or apples

(raw or cooked) and sweet potatoes, or apples and beans. These are

only examples of at least fifty combinations which could be made, any

one of which would give a weak stomach indigestion.... Sweet potatoes

and tomatoes make a good combination and one very acceptable to most

persons—the one being sweet the other acid, the one highly nutritious,

the other decidedly juicy.”

To those who have not made this subject a study the following hints may

be of practical use, though in many things it is next to impossible to

lay down definite rules.[44]

[44] In the following suggestions it will be assumed that the diet is

vegetarian, and not yet fruitarian—these suggestions being offered

as a help toward that diet, by breaking away, gradually, from the

ordinary “mixed” diet.

1. Fruits and vegetables should not, as a rule, be eaten together—that

is, at the same meal. If they are so eaten, persons with feeble

digestive organs will suffer.

2. If vegetables are eaten, the noonday meal is the best time to take

them, two or three varieties being quite sufficient. Tomatoes do well

with vegetables, grains, or meats; but they should not, as a rule, be

eaten with fruits.

3. The Irish potato seems to be an exception among vegetables; it is

so unaggressive in its nature that it seldom quarrels with anything.

It may therefore be eaten (by most persons) with _either_ fruits or

vegetables; and it always does well with grains.

4. Fruits and cereals are particularly suited to the morning and

evening meals; and very little other food is required.

5. A good rule, when suppers are eaten, is to make the meal of bread

and fruit only, these being taken in limited quantities and at an early

hour.

6. Fruits, if eaten raw, should be ripe, and of good quality; and

persons with feeble stomachs digest them more easily at the beginning

of the meal; this is particularly true when warm fruits make a part of

the repast.

7. Fruits, raw or cooked, may be eaten at dinner, provided no vegetable

(unless it be the potato) be taken. But if raw, they should be eaten

_first_, particularly if there are warm foods to follow.

8. Some persons cannot digest certain kinds of raw fruits for

supper, or late in the day; let them take these on sitting down to

the breakfast-table; or the first thing at dinner, unless there are

_vegetables_ at this meal.

9. If meats “must be” eaten—take them at the noonday meal, with or

without vegetables; and in cold weather, rather than warm.

10. The grains digest well with all other foods; though some persons

cannot eat them in the form of mushes. They should always be thoroughly

cooked.

11. Persons with feeble digestions should as a rule confine themselves

to a _single kind_ of fruit at a meal; they can make the changes from

one meal to another.

12. Those who find it difficult to digest vegetables should not attempt

more than one kind at a given meal, until the digestion is improved.

And often it is best to leave them off entirely for a time.

13. In selecting vegetables for a single meal, do not, if there are

several varieties, have all of them of the watery or juicy kinds, as

cabbage, asparagus, white turnips, etc.; nor all of the drier sorts,

such as baked beans, winter squashes, sweet potatoes, etc.; but blend

the more and less nutritious kinds in a judicious manner. Or if you

have only the watery ones at hand, be content with not more than two

varieties; prepare a side dish of something _rather_ nutritious, and

then add a dish of warm corn bread, as an accompaniment, particularly

if it be a cold day.

14. If you have for dinner a thin vegetable soup, follow with

something more substantial, as baked beans, baked potatoes (sweet or

Irish) or corn bread; but if you have bean or split-pea soup, let the

other vegetables be of a kind less hearty.

15. On a very cold day have a warm dinner of good nutritious articles;

select mainly solid foods with grains, rather than thin soups and

watery vegetables.

16. On a warm day make the breakfast largely of fruits, with a moderate

supply of cereals. The dinner may be of young vegetables (or fruits), a

dish of grains, if you like, and a little bread. Eat lightly, and you

will suffer less from heat—particularly if no seasonings are taken.

For supper, a glass of cold grape juice, and a slice of loaf bread, is

excellent in hot weather.

17. In very cold weather take the chill off your stewed fruit, fruit

pies, or other dishes, before serving them. Pastries, if used, are best

at the noonday meal—and so are puddings.