DIET AND STIMULANTS.
Dogmatism on any subject is dangerous: in matters of food it is fatal.
One man’s meat is literally another man’s poison, and because one of the
writers knows that personally he can digest without the slightest
discomfort a heavy supper, sleep the sleep of the just, and rise
cheerful and hungry for breakfast, he would be making a great mistake in
recommending such a course for a dyspeptic person, with a view to the
strengthening of his digestive processes. In fact, if a naturally
dyspeptic person persevered in such a system, this unfortunate scribe
would probably be summoned to attend--with shame and dishonour--a
coroner’s inquest. On the other hand, should the dyspeptic so far win
him over as to make him give what he would call a “fair trial” to a
simple diet, “the only diet” he would say “on which it is possible to
keep fairly well,” he would, if it was persevered with, be probably
asked in a public place what he knew about this suicide. But the moral
of these gloomy reflections is clear enough: namely, that in questions
of eating and drinking and smoking, what is to be ascertained is the
diet which will keep A or B in good health for the proper performance of
a citizen’s duties. Whatever diet (or absence of diet) continues to give
good results after a protracted trial is almost certainly good for the
individual in question. Whether it would be good for another individual
it is impossible to say, but if any one person, even though he lived
exclusively on green cigars and Egyptian mummies, continued to be in his
most excellent health on such a diet, it would be foolish to urge him,
except on the score of expense in the way of import duties, to change
it.
_But the majority of people are not at their best, and know it._ When
they are in hard work which, as far as we can see in the present highly
competitive state of the world, is becoming the normal condition for
man, their bodily health, and in particular their bodily activity,
sensibly declines. Then perhaps there comes a lull, and they rush off
into the country to be out of doors all day, and play games, or shoot or
hunt, and get sensibly better. They have more appetite for food, and as
a natural consequence digest it better, since wholesome appetite is a
fair enough sign-post pointing to the pleasant place called “Eat.” Then
the lull ceases; they go back to work again, with a gradual decline of
appetite. At these cross-roads, so to speak, for the most part they take
the wrong turning, and continue to eat much as before. Horrors ensue.
The fact is that most people when taking a great deal of exercise are
able to digest, and, what is not less important, to assimilate, not only
larger quantities of food than they can assimilate when in full
sedentary work, but a different sort of food. As a rule they know of
only one change of diet, alluded to contemptuously as “Vegetarianism,”
and connected in their minds with huge platefuls of damp cabbage, of
which the most valuable salts have been boiled out and thrown away by an
ignorant cook. They are further “put off” by what appears to most people
preposterous notions about the sin, no less, of eating animal food. In
fact, bad cooking and tactless enthusiasm have hand in hand done their
utmost to ruin the vegetarian cause. To eat damp cabbage can be, by no
conceivable process, good for anybody, and to shun animal food because
it implies death to an animal is a motive which does not appeal to the
majority, who, without examining any possible truth it may contain,
label it a fad. And there is nothing which in the minds of ordinary
people, who most naturally and sensibly do not wish to spend the whole
of their lives in discovering the diet which best suits them, is more
strongly prejudicial to any examination of a new system than to suspect
it of being faddy. They naturally desire a _régime_ of which the
common-sense appeals to them, and the common-sense of that which is
ordinarily called vegetarianism is far to seek. Many people have found
that the amount of meat which they usually eat is not very good for
them: that three flesh meals a day are excessive in the way of animal
food; on the other hand they must have something substituted for the
meat, and they turn to vegetarianism, and perhaps try a meal at some
vegetarian eating-house. One of the present writers tried it. For an
hour or rather less he felt that he would never eat again as long as he
lived, then, almost without transition, he felt that he wished to eat
the whole world round. And he fled back to the fleshpots of Egypt.
But nowadays vegetarianism is studied by certain people in a spirit of
scientific investigation, and its results, rationally arrived at, are
likely to prove of the most permanent value. It is the greatest possible
mistake to suppose that all vegetables and fruits are equally
supporting; some are highly nutritious, others are hardly nutritious at
all, and to load the stomach with immense masses of a food which has a
low nutritious value, in order to get sufficient nutriment, will
probably produce results on health worse even than those from which the
man who found that he was taking excessive quantities of animal food
tried to escape.[4]
Briefly, then, the scientific view of food in general is as follows.
Food has to supply waste of tissue and make repairs.
Food has to supply heat (fuel for the continual combustion of the body)
and a certain amount of fat.
Food--so it is usually asserted and largely believed--has to give the
stomach a certain amount of fibrous matter to supply bulk which will
enable the system, by natural means, to cleanse and flush itself
internally, and throw off the waste for which it has no use, but which
exists in greater or smaller quantities in all foods.
Incidentally, also, food should be of such taste and nature as easily to
excite the saliva, which is almost indispensable to procure digestion.
Now the one great necessity without which we die is proteid, because
proteid supplies (and nothing else in the world supplies) the waste
which daily and hourly goes on in the body. It is present in
conveniently large quantities in all meat foods, which is one of the
main causes of their being eaten, but it is present also in large
quantities in cheese, milk-proteid, grains, nuts, and pulses, though in
certain other fruits and vegetables it is almost completely absent. It
would be practically impossible, for instance, to eat enough cabbages to
supply the necessary amount of pure proteid per diem, which must, and
this is important, not only be swallowed but be digested. On the other
hand, it is easily possible to get enough proteid per diem by a meat
diet, but it is even easier to get enough from a diet of grains, nuts,
pulses, and milk-proteid,[5] provided the right sorts are eaten.
The following abridged table giving the values of certain common
articles of diet both in proteids and also in fattening and heating
products will make this clear.
TABLE OF FOOD VALUES.
(ABRIDGED FROM “FAILURES OF VEGETARIANISM.”)
+------------------------+----------+-------+-----------------+--------+
| Foods--uncooked, | | | | |
| unless otherwise | Proteid. | Fat. | Carbo-hydrates. | Salts. |
| stated. | | | | |
+------------------------+----------+-------+-----------------+--------+
| Beef (with moderate | | | | |
| amount of fat) | 20. | 1.5 | ... | 1.3 |
| Mutton (with moderate | | | | |
| amount of fat) | 14.5 | 19.5 | ... | 0.8 |
| Pork | 12. | 26.2 | ... | 1.1 |
| Fresh fish | 10.5 | 2.5 | ... | 1. |
| Milk | 2.3 | 4. | 4.5 | 0.7 |
| Plasmon | 69. | ... | ... | 8.5 |
| Cheddar cheese | 33.4 | 26.8 | ... | 3.9 |
| Eggs (white) | 12.6 | 0.25 | ... | ... |
| Eggs (yolk) | 16.2 | 31.75 | ... | ... |
| Hovis bread | 9.9 | 1.6 | 42.3 | 1.2 |
| Wholemeal bread | 6.3 | 1.2 | 44.8 | 1.2 |
| (“Manhu” is similar) | | | | |
| White bread | 6.5 to 3 | 1.0 | 51.2 | 1.0 |
| Boiled rice | 5.0 | 0.1 | 41.9 | 0.3 |
| Macaroni | 10.89 | 0.45 | 76.05 | 0.64 |
| Dried peas | 21.0 | 1.8 | 55.4 | 2.6 |
| Lentils | 23.0 | 2.0 | 58.4 | 2.7 |
| Haricots | 23.0 | 2.3 | 55.8 | 3.2 |
| Potatoes | 1.2 | 0.1 | 19.1 | 0.9 |
| Turnips | 0.9 | 0.15 | 5.0 | 0.8 |
| Onions | 1.6 | 0.3 | 6.3 | 0.6 |
| Cabbage | 1.8 | 0.4 | 5.8 | 1.3 |
| Tomatoes | 1.3 | 0.2 | 5.0 | 0.76 |
| Cucumbers | 0.81 | 0.1 | 2.1 | 0.4 |
| Apples | 0.4 | ... | 12.5 | 0.4 |
| Plums | 1.0 | ... | 14.8 | 0.5 |
| Cherries | 0.8 | ... | 8.9 | 0.5 |
| Strawberries | 1.0 | ... | 6.3 | 0.7 |
| Bananas | 1.5 to 3 | ... | 22.9 | 0.9 |
| Lemons | 1.0 | ... | 8.3 | 0.5 |
| Dried dates | 4.4 | ... | 65.7 | 1.5 |
| Dried figs | 5.5 | ... | 62.8 | 2.3 |
| Chestnuts | 10.1 | 10.0 | ... | 2.7 |
| Walnuts | 15.6 | 62.6 | 7.4 | 2.9 |
| Sweet almonds | 24.0 | 54.0 | 10.0 | 3.0 |
| Cocoa bean | 6.3 | 50.44 | 4.20 | 2.75 |
+------------------------+----------+-------+-----------------+--------+
It is obvious then, that as far as the theoretical reasons for eating
food at all are concerned, it is perfectly easy to obtain all the
essentials for support without touching animal food, and without in any
way loading the stomach with unnecessary bulk; and leaving out of the
question, for the present, the economical advantage of adopting these
simple foods, there is one enormous advantage which they possess for
many. These are they who, especially in town life, and when they are not
able to take the requisite amount of exercise, suffer chronically from
slight biliousness or congested liver, and the depression attendant
thereon, who feel sleepy or fatigued when in better health they would
feel neither. Their ailments may rarely or never amount to what they
would call “an attack,” but habitually they are slightly clogged. Now in
nine cases out of ten this feeling is due to the presence of uric acid
in the body, which is produced in larger quantities than the system,
without the aid of daily perspiration, which gets rid of acids to a
large extent through the skin, can throw off. This uric acid is a
product of waste within the body, and the foods which cause it are (to a
much larger extent than all others) flesh foods.
Many people know this without knowing it; in other words, many men who
have an attack of biliousness, lumbago, or gout (all direct results of
the presence of uric acid in the body), at once cut off, even without
consulting a doctor, their daily consumption of flesh. But then their
ignorance makes them suffer, for they most likely in the curtailment of
flesh-food do not take enough proteid, with the effect that after a day
or two of such treatment they feel lowered. Naturally: they have been
starving. And the lowered feeling they put down to the absence of
flesh-food, whereas it is chiefly the absence of proteid from which they
are suffering. They could easily have avoided this by eating instead of
flesh some of the fleshless foods which are valuable in proteid, and
they can--humanly speaking--if the abstinence from flesh-foods, as is
almost invariably the case, relieves their attack, guard against such
attacks in the future, by a diet, complete or modified, of the kind
which has relieved them. But, and this is highly important, it is a
fatal mistake not to take enough proteid, and not to remember that it is
easily possible to eat heavy meals without taking enough. Four or five
ounces per diem of proteid, not only swallowed but digested, is said to
be the average required.
Now there are many people in excellent health who live in the ordinary
manner _i.e._, on a varied diet including meat, and as long as they are
well, there seems to be no reason, except to be humane and to save the
money they spend in food--and that may be a great inducement--why they
should try a new diet when their present one suits them well, except
that, for all they can tell, another diet might suit them better. At the
same time there are certainly many people who are perfectly aware that
they have periodical attacks of liver or biliousness directly traceable
to diet, and many others who put themselves down as having chronically
bad digestions, with which any food is continually liable to disagree.
It is to these particularly that a trial of the simpler foods is
recommended, whether they are adopted _in toto_, or used to modify
existing diet. Similarly, also, the simpler foods are recommended as
worth a trial by athletes who are in training for some special event, to
whom either economy is an object (for a most varied diet of simpler
foods can be had at a daily cost of less than a shilling), or whom the
present heavy though wholesome meals do not suit. Furthermore, it is
quite possible, as we said, that even those who consider themselves well
might be still better without flesh-foods.
Another effect of this simpler food diet is that it has been found by
trial to lessen greatly the desire for stimulants. Why this should be so
is a question for physiologists, and cannot be discussed here. It may,
however, be taken as a fact. And those who have tried the diet fairly
(and one of the present writers has lived on simple foods--_i.e._,
scarcely touched meat in any form for some years) find that abstinence
from meat directly increases the activity and promptitude, not only of
the body, but of the mind, while both mind and body are capable of doing
far harder and better work than before. The simpler food diet by itself
will probably be found adequate to reduce the excessive uric acid in the
body to practically nil--_i.e._, natural means will be sufficient to
cope with it; but it is useful to remember that alkalis may also be used
as a preventive or cure.
Another alteration in diet, which we give with the reiterated proviso
that it may not suit everybody, is the habit of having no breakfast, or
if any, only a fruit breakfast. A very great number of people do not
feel hungry immediately on rising, and in America this plan is largely
adopted even by those who have to start the day with severe physical
work. For those who do feel hungry on rising it seems most probable that
breakfast is indicated, but on the other hand it is more than possible
that for those who do not, breakfast is not indicated. And to eat a
typical English breakfast, consisting probably of fish and meat, washed
down with tea--which cannot be recommended as a fluid likely to help
digestion. When one does not want it, is really to require a daily
miracle from the inside if one is so unreasonable as to demand that it
shall dispose of these things without more ado. Similarly, to limit
one’s eating to two meals a day has been found by many to be a valuable
aid to health, though others, on the other hand, find that the quantity
they really feel that they require, if they only eat twice, is apt to
overload the stomach.
Again, it is probably not good for anybody to take violent exertion of
the body, or do headwork immediately after or before any meal. With many
people it is unfortunately impossible to prevent this; a man’s only free
time for his exercise may be immediately after lunch, or he may have to
continue his deskwork till immediately before. In such cases this must
be taken as a necessary evil; for exercise even immediately after a meal
will probably be better for a man than none at all, while not to work up
to the meal may mean neglect of work, which is more culpable than
indigestion. For such, a light meal is strongly recommended, and in
particular a meal as free of flesh-foods as the eater can manage.
It is of the greatest importance that whatever diet is found to suit the
individual taste, this diet should be eaten slowly and thoroughly
masticated, otherwise the most suitable and wholesome food may both
disagree with the eater, and lose most of its nourishing value. Nuts are
a good example of this--they have an odious reputation for
indigestibility which is quite unfounded, for they are perfectly easy of
digestion to most people if only they are very thoroughly masticated.
But swallowed in large pieces, in any pieces in fact except the
smallest, they are exceedingly indigestible. Similarly, also, many nuts
are extremely rich in proteids (the chestnut, for instance, containing
14·6 per cent., the peanut[6] upwards of 28 per cent. of proteid), but
in order to _get at_ the proteid they must be bitten almost to powder
and thoroughly mixed with saliva. Otherwise they are not distributed
(_i.e._, digested), but are passed through the body in the same way as
chests of gold (securely fastened up) can be sent by train, so to speak,
through a country without enriching it. It is of equal importance
thoroughly to masticate all starchy foods (bread, potatoes, &c.), so
that the saliva may penetrate them and begin the work of digestion in
the mouth, and it is largely for this reason that doctors recommend
toast or biscuits to dyspeptic patients rather than bread, because it is
impossible to swallow crisp toast without properly biting it, whereas
lumps of soft bread can be swallowed without actual pain. On this point
we adopt a fearless dogmatism, and assert that it is good for nobody to
swallow unmasticated food, both because the act of mastication is part
of the digestive process, and because mastication itself renders the
nutritive elements of the food accessible to the stomach. Thus less bulk
of food is needed, there is less waste, and the digestive juices of the
stomach are not, so to speak, called on to make violent assaults on what
they receive, to behave like burglars, wresting what is valuable from
the food. The burglary is done by the teeth, which, by the way, seem to
be kept in better repair by mere mastication than by any other means,
and the energy otherwise used by the stomach remains undrawn upon.
Also, if one bites food well it is far easier to know correctly when one
has eaten enough; lumps of food bolted are for the time being “locked
up”; it is uncertain whether they are going to satisfy hunger or not.
Even if unnutritious they will produce a feeling of satiety for the time
being, and an hour later they may be found wanting. A certain amount of
bulk, as we have said, is needed, but beyond that the richer a food is
in the desired qualities of power of repair, and of supply of energy,
the better is that food, provided it is easily digestible. And its full
value cannot be brought into play, especially in the case of starhy
foods, without thorough mastication.[7]
As to drink and stimulants more regard if possible must be paid to what
we have called “the personal equation” than even in matters of food.
Excess of everything--for such is the implication of the word
itself--must be bad for everybody, but there is no earthly foundation
for supposing that what is excess for one person injures another in the
very least. A shower of rain ruins a picture-hat in a few moments: the
same shower does not practically injure a locomotive engine at all, and
is absolutely good for sprouting corn. Alcohol for instance, if indulged
in at all by one man, will assuredly lead either to excess or to
inordinate craving for it, while another man will drink wine at lunch
and dinner for years without ever feeling the slightest desire to
increase his usual quantity. What he drinks, again, would hopelessly
disagree with, or perhaps intoxicate another man, while it seems as far
as we can judge to suit him; he would perhaps even be definitely less
well without it. It is on this point that preachers of total abstinence,
just like vegetarians, are often their own worst foes. They seem to
regard the process of fermentation (a natural one after all) as
productive of something which is in itself immoral. Drunkenness, of
course, is a vice; we all know that; but so, and certain teetotallers
seem to forget this, is gluttony. They each of them turn man into a
brute beast, though what many teetotallers would look approvingly at as
“a good hearty meal” appears to us to partake fully as much of the
nature of debauchery as does the drinking of a bottle of champagne at
dinner. The question of drinking, in fact, seems to us one that each man
must settle for himself, by finding out experimentally whether he needs
stimulant or not. Probably the healthier he is the less he needs it, and
to spur a horse that is already going as well as the rider has any
right to expect is both a cruelty and a false use of energy. It seems
certain, also, that most people who take stimulants at all take more
than they really need, partly because of the pleasant effect of
stimulant in the heightened vividity it gives (leaving anything like
drunkenness out of the question), and because of the taste of alcoholic
beverages, which nine out of ten people find most palatable. Here again
preachers of total abstinence put forward an argument so silly that it
is scarcely worth combating (were it not for the fact that it is so
often repeated), when they say that what we have called “heightened
vividity” is the thin end of intoxication. It is nothing of the kind.
Food itself is a stimulant as well as a nutriment; a mutton chop or a
welsh rarebit when one is hungry gives heightened vividity; so also does
whisky and soda.
But, and here we tread more sensible ground, it must be remembered that
alcohol is _not_ a nourishing stimulant, and that its effect quickly
wears off, leaving reaction, however slight, in everybody. Nor must we
keep out of the question what the continued effects of alcohol are. Its
bad results may not be apparent for a long time. In certain cases there
are bad results; in certain other cases apparently there are none.
Authorities on training are universally agreed that very little, if any,
should be taken when the training has begun; and they are unquestionably
right, because the object of training is to produce before a certain
date or during a certain period a specimen of manhood at its highest
possible physical level, strung up and maintained at concert pitch. To
do this the whole structure must be sound, and stimulant then appears to
be of the nature of a temporary prop, which has again and again to be
set up afresh. Also, repeatedly applied stimulant followed by repeated
reaction is not ideal.
The same remarks apply to the ordinary individual in a less degree; for
though he should aim at ideal health, he does not want the sort of
health which a boat-race crew want. In fact, in a necessarily sedentary
life it would be exceedingly inconvenient to him; for to maintain it it
seems necessary to have hard daily exercise, quantities of open air, and
hours which are practically impossible for the ordinary man who has to
do his daily work. An abstemious man who has been accustomed to alcohol
may easily, if he drops its use altogether, find himself continuing to
desire it, at an expense of nervous fretting which will cost him more
than the possible gain in health may be worth. But when any man who
takes alcohol finds himself desiring it more and more and in increased
quantities, if even at one meal, let us say, he is unable to get it, and
finds himself fretting for it, we have no hesitation in begging him at
whatever cost to drop it altogether and at once. We do not say he is on
the high road to become a drunkard, but somewhere ahead of him there
easily may be that high road. We should further advise everybody to try
at any rate what is the effect of drinking alcohol, let us say, once a
day only. Of course, the difficulty which faces most people is what to
drink instead; and, as far as pleasure goes, the difficulty is a real
one. We cordially recommend total abstainers to try to find a solution.
Various non-alcoholic drinks have from time to time been sedulously
advertised, but most of them are abhorrent to the ordinary palate, being
sickly sweet.
Here comes in the question of the general regulation of drinks, which,
theoretically, we are afraid, is a most uncomfortable gospel. For the
effect of drinking cold things during a meal, except in very small
quantities, is without doubt digestively criminal: since the result of
pouring cold aspersions into the stomach while it is busy with digestion
is to lower its temperature at the time when heat is needed, and also to
weaken and water down the digestive juices.[8] There is no getting over
this: long drinks on hot days at lunch are not to be recommended. But
even here the baffled voluptuary may find a way out which is not so
disagreeable. He may by all means have his long drink half an hour
before lunch, or at a rather long interval after. If he choose after, he
will find, especially if he has eaten fruit at lunch, that he does not
want it, and that though the satisfaction of a real throatful of cold
liquid is denied him, he will have taken during lunch quite sufficient
liquid to satisfy his thirst. But that is the best we can do for him,
and we will not insult him by saying that plenty of hot water or hot
water and lemon is delicious, and so much nicer than whisky and soda
iced. For it is not nearly so nice.
Finally, with regard to that other soother and strengthener, tobacco, we
have no sympathy with extremists, and we assert that the moderate use of
tobacco will not and cannot reduce the ordinary constitution to a wreck
in ten years, while in many cases it is absolutely beneficial, at least
for the time, as a nerve-sedative. Many people, one of the present
writers is one, finds that he can work more steadily and with less
restlessness when smoking. But, and here is a warning, if, after a
spell of hard work of three or four hours, you find the ash-tray a pile
of cigarette ends, most of them probably smoked only half-consciously,
take steps. Put the box of cigarettes in another room, so that you have
to get up in order to procure one. Then, if you find yourself wondering
whether it is worth while getting one, you may be quite certain that you
do not really want it. Furthermore, tobacco is not nearly so insidious
as alcohol; it is perfectly easy for every one who smokes to know
whether it suits him. Many people it does not suit at all, and most of
them know it. Here we should recommend all smokers to try the effect of
abstinence for a couple of days, or at any rate of abstinence up till
dinner-time. This would separate the sheep from the goats: many--the
present writer is one again--will find that apparently no good effects
ensue, and a certain restlessness is the only result. Others will find
themselves distinctly better both in energy and in accuracy of eye and
keenness of perception. These we should recommend to drop it altogether,
and for their comfort the writer can assure them that, having tried this
experiment himself, he found that the craving for it lasted only a few
days, and that during those few days it was always possible to
neutralise it for periods of an hour or so, by chewing an ordinary dried
camomile-flower (2d. per ounce), the extreme and rather pleasant
bitterness of which renders the thought of tobacco literally abhorrent
as long as the taste of it remains in the mouth.
But here again strict training for a special event almost, if not quite,
unanimously demands a total abstinence from tobacco from the beginning
of training. The use of this we confess ourselves utterly unable to
see, since we do not believe at all that, as in the case of drink, to
take a little necessarily means a desire for more, but rather the
extinguishing of the desire for the time being. The case is, in fact, in
our judgment, a parallel to the shower of rain on the locomotive: it is
inconceivable almost that it should do so much harm as its
uncompromising opponents assert, and in many cases we believe its very
moderate use would save a certain amount of restlessness, which in
present systems of training is far more common than it ought to be. It
is not in fact rare, whereas it should be not only rare, but almost
unknown. For training is supposed to be the ideal way of living with a
view to complete physical fitness, but under most systems severe
training entails an almost total cessation of brain work, while it does
not imply a total cessation of mental worry. Men often get fidgetty and
stale before their weeks of training are nearly over, and this is due
partly, no doubt, to the absurd system of training a whole crew, for
instance, as if they were identical specimens of the same man, but also
to the very fact that brain work is practically tabooed, just as tobacco
is tabooed. Neither, in strict moderation, we believe, particularly
brain-work, can possibly be as bad as they are frequently accused of
being, and both might very possibly be found a sedative for a body that
is bursting with condition. Besides, if training unfits a man for
brain-work there is something probably wrong with the system of
training, whereas if any brain-work unfits a man for training, it is
seriously to be considered whether it is worth while to train at
all.[9]
For the right training, so we believe, is that which shall enable a
man--this is no fanciful idea, but one that has and is now being put
into practice by both the writers--to be capable of hard brain-work
during the whole time that he is putting his body into the best possible
condition both for general health and also for a special event. The
_mens sana_ should not be left out of the _corpore sano_, and health
consists in the efficiency not of one at the cost of the other, but of
both to the benefit of each. Finally, with regard to special training,
we believe that it cannot possibly fail to be injurious to a man to go
out of severe training with the completeness and suddenness with which
many do when the event is over. After a training of weeks, the desire
for certain foods and stimulants, if they were in themselves unhealthy,
should have ceased, the body in fact should have been brought into such
a condition that it would feel by now a natural repugnance for them. If,
then, this repugnance, or at any rate absence of desire is not felt,
either they were not unhealthy, and might have been allowed in
moderation, or the resumption of them with that extreme freedom--not to
say excess--which marks the end of training, is only compassed with a
certain effort. Is it worth while?
Finally, also, with regard to general training, the acquirement that is
of really good health, which is within the reach of the majority, and
incumbent upon all to attempt, a fair trial of simpler foods is
recommended to all who habitually feel slightly indisposed when working
hard, and who are cut off to a large extent from regular exercise, and
is suggested, if only on the ground of expense, to many others.
Similarly, a diminution in stimulants is recommended to all who
habitually take them, in order that they may find for themselves what
the effect (on themselves only) is. Similarly, also, with regard to
smoking: for the concensus of professional trainers is dead against it,
as a foe both to eye and endurance. Some, we believe, will not find it
so, but anyone may, and very likely the majority will. In any case, it
will hurt nobody to drop it for a week or two.