THE NATURAL DIET.[68]
As the result of personal experience, my mind having been called to the
subject by the successful experiment——if, indeed, it can be regarded as an
experiment,——of a very intelligent and worthy family in Southern
California, I am convinced that the “natural diet,”——uncooked cereals[69]
and fruit,——is the diet _par excellence_, as regards strict purity,
digestibility, and efficiency. Not only is much less of it required to
maintain the normal weight and strength, but it is in other regards
superior. One thought I will suggest, in this connection, and one which is
more significant, I believe, than many persons would at first consider:
raw grain, as all are aware, will “keep” indefinitely under fair
conditions; while cooked, it “spoils” in a day or two. The former is more
readily and more thoroughly preserved from undesirable changes in the
alimentary canal; hence less liability of indigestion. Such portions of
whole grain as may be swallowed without mastication, will pass on and out
without danger of the putrefactive changes which result from an excess, or
deficient mastication of cooked food. Regarding the gustatory pleasure to
be derived from a diet of this sort, while it is less seductive to the
abnormal appetite, still, even here, no individual really needing food
would find this disagreeable, though reference were made solely to whole
wheat, masticated with the aid of good teeth; or to the meal, mixed with
nice fruit juices or the fruits themselves, when, from unnatural living,
the teeth are badly decayed. Our teeth would not fail us if, from
childhood, we _used_ them, and our food furnished the material to build
and maintain them.
[Footnote 68: This subject having been treated in a most masterly manner
by Prof. Schlickeysen, of Germany——considering fully the chemical and
anatomical theories, and presenting the anthropological, the
physiological, and the dietetical arguments so clearly and convincingly——I
design here merely to give a few practical tests illustrating the
advantages of a truly natural and pure diet, while recommending every
devout student of this subject, every conscientious and thoughtful person
to procure the work, entitled Fruit and Bread,——translated from the German
by Dr. Holbrook, and published by M. L. Holbrook & Co., New York,——and
read it for himself.]
[Footnote 69: Even as late as the time of the Roman republic, the baking
or other cooking of grain was regarded as injurious. When the grains are
first broken, but not finely ground, they may be eaten with fruit, if one
gradually accustom himself to it. Let it not be said that this is going
too far, for in the recognition and application of truth we can not go too
far; rather have those gone too far who have deviated from this method.
The difference between pure cracked wheat and the bread is always
considerable. The bread consumes in its digestion [a part of] the power
which itself supplies, while the wheat not only nourishes, but, like fresh
fruit, _increases the vital strength_.——_Fruit and Bread_, p. 163.
“The vitality stored up in uncooked plants and fruits is greatly impaired
by all our culinary processes.”——_Ibid._, p. 116.
“Animals in a state of nature, subsisting upon their own chosen foods, are
capable of fully digesting the nutritive elements, leaving only an
inoffensive residue, while the unsuitable character of human foods is
sufficiently indicated by the horrible and disease-breeding product which
they yield.——_Ibid._”
“Uncooked fruits, especially, excite the mind to its highest activity.
After eating them we experience an inclination to vigorous exercise, and
also an increased capacity for study and all mental work; while cooked
food causes a feeling of satiety and sluggishness.”——_Ibid._]
Were I to enumerate the foods at present eaten raw by all of our millions
of people, less surprise would be felt by my readers at the suggestion of
restricting one’s diet to such articles as are agreeable in their natural
state. Take, for example, apples, pears, peaches, grapes, oranges, etc.;
all of the plums; bananas, dates, figs, raisins; cabbage, lettuce, celery,
radishes, etc.; and to this list might well be added sweet corn, and the
common variety of green corn, and peas; few people but find the latter
delicious to their taste, and the corn is as much more crisp and juicy and
wholesome raw than cooked, as are peaches or pears. I know individuals who
were never fond of corn, would never eat it until happening to try a fresh
young ear _au naturel_, who now use it freely every summer. This would be
the case with very many, if not most people, if their prejudices were cast
aside. I have named only a few articles of a few classes, but any one can
extend the list at pleasure, adding walnuts, almonds, filberts, etc., etc.
Unfortunately these raw foods have been commonly used as _surfeit dishes_,
delicious articles that we can eat after having already over-eaten, and
when more steak, potatoes, and gravy, or pastry, would, perhaps, send a
shudder throughout the frame, and, often enough, when an emetic would be a
more wholesome dessert than even walnuts and raisins. Let any one, first
arranging for a clean stomach by skipping supper the previous night, try a
breakfast consisting of a couple of bananas, one or two dozen walnuts (or
any sort preferred), with a handful of nice raisins,——both the nuts and
raisins being thoroughly masticated, the latter to the point of well
crushing the stones,——ending, or beginning, the _seance_ with oranges,
and, at night, the second and last meal, of favorite fruits, beginning
with a small portion of “oat groats” or wheat, (of course any other choice
may be made, a dozen, or a score, indeed, from week to week,) taking care
to exercise enough to “earn” his food,[70] and see if this principle of
alimentation will not cure his disorders, whatever they may be. It would
end the wretched business of “colds” and “hay-fever” which, according to
the _Boston Herald_, a noted American divine says, “will make a man forget
his God, the Bible, and everything else——but his disease.” Even the common
hygienic diet, so called, and abstemious living, would make such blasphemy
impossible, and would make a better man of the great London preacher, for
example,——Mr. Spurgeon,——who recently wrote to a friend, and, apparently
without the least shamefacedness: “My old disorder has come upon me like
an armed man and laid me low. I can not walk or even stand, and the pain
renders it difficult to think consecutively upon any subject.” And this
with reference to a disorder (the gout) caused by eating and drinking
unwholesomely——the injury being augmented, directly and indirectly, by the
use of tobacco or wine. Mr. Spurgeon’s weight is fifty, if not
seventy-five pounds greater than is normal for him, considering fully his
natural _physique_, and the use he makes of his muscular system. He may be
in the habit of restricting his appetite; he may eat much less than most
of his associates, and even be esteemed a small eater and very abstemious;
nevertheless his form is gross, and he has the gout——two unimpeachable
witnesses to the truth of my position.
[Footnote 70: “Live on sixpence a day and earn it,” was the “favorite
prescription” of a famous London physician.]
“We can not doubt,” says Dr. Oswald, “that the highest degree of health
could only be attained by strict conformity to Haller’s[71] rule, _i.e._,
by subsisting exclusively on the pure and unchanged products of Nature.
This view is indorsed (indirectly) in the writings of Drs. Alcott,
Bernard, Schlemmer, Hall, and Dio Lewis, and directly by Schrodt, Jules
Virey, and others. In the tropics such a mode of life would not imply
anything like asceticism: a meal of milk and three or four kinds of sweet
fruits, fresh dates, bananas, and grapes, would not clash with the still
higher rule, that eating, like every other natural function, should be a
pleasure and not a penance. Heat destroys the delicate flavor of many
fruits, and makes others indigestible by coagulating their albumen. But,”
continues this authority,——and I am not disposed to dispute the soundness
of the position, speaking generally (as, indeed, Dr. Oswald, himself, was
speaking),——“in the frigid latitudes, where we have to dry and garner many
vegetable products in order to survive the unproductive season, the
process of cooking [some classes of] our food has advantages which fully
outweigh such objections.” To the very rational assumption that, “few men
with post-diluvian teeth would agree with Dr. Schlemmer that hard grain is
preferable to bread,” I would reply, that for people who could not or
would not grind their own grist, as do our most robust animals——well
nourished, but hard-working draught or road horses——the whole-wheat meal,
freshly and coarsely ground, with a light dressing of rich milk,[72] or,
more wholesome still, eaten with nuts and thoroughly masticated, is more
delicious than bread, even if made from the same quality of Graham. If the
Graham be taken dry, with a few raisins at each mouthful, it would require
a fine taste to distinguish between this and the walnuts and raisins so
generally acceptable to epicures. If the milk dressing is used, it should
simply be poured over the (unsifted) Graham, and not made into a batter.
With a dish of Graham as described, and such fruit as can usually be
obtained all the year round, either fresh or (in winter) dried, as apples,
raisins, dates, figs,[73] prunes (the last, like dried apples, peaches,
etc., soaked not overmuch, but until tender), one may make a meal
sufficiently delicious, and at the same time absolutely pure——if the
_milk_ is derived from a healthy creature. And here I would remark, that
although cow’s milk is a strictly natural food for the calf only, still,
if the cow be properly fed (not “driven,”[74] as is the custom in dairies)
and the milk properly cared for——kept free from air vitiated by the
emanations of decaying vegetables, meats, or other source of impurity, but
_open_[75] in a pure atmosphere——few need abstain altogether from this
most delicious food. Nevertheless, no one may feel at liberty to _drink_
milk copiously, as water: calves, babies, etc., whose natural food it is,
take it slowly and “chew” it thoroughly! We may well take a hint from
this. (See Biliousness.)
[Footnote 71: Albrecht Von Haller, M.D., F.R.S., the father of the science
of physiology, born at Berne, Oct. 18, 1708; ... practiced medicine with
great applause at Berne, 1729-36; ... became physician to the King of
England 1739. He was a voluminous writer on physiology, anatomy, botany,
surgery, and practical medicine; author of ... almost an incredible number
of reviews and scientific papers. His hypotheses were ... admirable for
their scientific spirit, and for the great stimulus which they gave to
physiological study throughout Europe.——_Encyclopedia._]
[Footnote 72: See note 4 in Appendix, p. 280.]
[Footnote 73: These three——raisins, dates, figs,——containing as they do in
their natural state, about 14, 58 and 62 per cent., respectively, of
sugar, require no addition of saccharine matters to “preserve” them; and,
accordingly, they constitute, as we find them in the market, a perfectly
natural and wholesome food, taken in due proportion, with grain and the
various nuts.]
[Footnote 74: A phrase used to describe the process of feeding excessively
to produce an abnormal flow of milk. Under this practice the cows soon
become tuberculous (“consumptive”); and it is said that they become
useless after three or four years, on an average: they are “driven to
death,” unless disposed of just prior to their decline. Nursing mothers
often suffer from this disease, while the infant fattens and becomes sick
from overfeeding.]
[Footnote 75: Kept in a close vessel, milk soon becomes foul; and after
being thus enclosed requires considerable stirring to aerate it, when it
again acquires its normal flavor. Cistern water treated to an occasional
deep stirring will remain sweet; and when the water in a cistern has
become devitalized for want of air simply, it can be reclaimed readily in
the above manner.]
In making the change from cooked to uncooked food, the unassisted novice
will experience more or less inconvenience, usually; and this will arise
from one of three causes; perhaps two or even all three causes will
combine to create the uneasiness (and indigestion, even, sometimes)
experienced: (1) the stomach, adapted, so far as possible, to the
digestion of cooked foods, requires some time (and experience or practice)
to adapt itself to the new order of things,[76] hence indigestion, varied
in extent according (_a_) to the abruptness of the change, and (_b_) the
quantity of the new food taken; (2) accustomed to distention from the
bulky character of the old diet, if only a physiological ration of the
pure and more nutritious food be swallowed, the stomach misses the
stimulus of distention: time will be required (in some cases) for the
stomach to remodel itself as regards _size_——unless a large proportion of
fruit[77] is used in conjunction with the cereals. Some dyspeptics, to be
sure, by their “mincing” diet occasioned by nausea and lack of appetite,
seem to have reduced the size of their stomachs, even below the normal
dimensions of that organ; (3) the uncooked grain being more nutritious
than the bread formed from it (and especially than bread made from wheat
_starch_——“white bread”), one may readily take an overdose if the wheat
_meal_ be used and dressed with milk; but if the whole grain be employed
he will be content with a modest ration; the new exercise of
chewing——putting the teeth to their normal use——soon wearies the muscles
of the face, and he will be tempted to pass to the “second course”——the
fruit——quite early in the engagement. The amount of grain food necessary
to thoroughly nutrify the body, is comparatively small. In the form of
bread, we are apt to eat altogether too much. But given pure food, and
each individual may be safely left to decide the proportion of grain,
fruit, and water to suit his own case; the point is to maintain strength
and avoid flatulence, and all other symptoms of indigestion.
[Footnote 76: It has been observed that cows are temporarily affected
adversely by _any_ change from their established diet——give less milk, _at
first_, when grain is _added_ to their pasture rations, as well as when
they are deprived of an accustomed feed of grain. “The effect is due to
the action of the stomach, to adapt its character to the digestion of an
established food. The food may change suddenly, but the action of the
stomach can only change slowly, and hence defective digestion
follows.”——(_National Live Stock Journal_). With humans, as has been
already remarked, a change from a very unwholesome to the purest system of
diet may, at first, result in defective digestion; but if the change be
made discreetly the final result will assuredly be as satisfactory as that
which follows a favorable modification of the cow’s diet.]
[Footnote 77: Whenever, in making the change under consideration,
flatulency or pressure at the kidney follows the use of fruit, the
quantity habitually taken should be lessened. There is a temptation always
to continue the habitual distention of the stomach by the use of too much
fruit at first. The system accustomed to a small amount of fruit, can not
immediately adapt itself to an unusual quantity: _all_ changes should be
somewhat gradual, not necessarily by the continued use of any unwholesome
substance, but with relation to the _manner of adopting the new regimen_.]
At the world-famed “Grape Cures” (for dyspepsia and its sequel,
consumption), the diet during “the season,” consists almost exclusively of
ripe grapes: the patients stroll about the vineyards, and pick and eat.
During the balance of the year the diet is composed chiefly of fruit, with
a portion of cooked cereals. But we may obtain a more definite lesson from
the experience of Mr. and Mrs. Hinde and their children.
For nearly five years, this family, consisting of father, mother, and four
children, have lived on this truly natural diet. They are very
intellectual and refined people. Their home is in Southern California.
They have enjoyed typical health during these five years; the mother,
indeed, recovered her health by means of this diet, having failed, under
medical treatment, to obtain relief from serious disorders which would be
popularly and medically described as “incident to her sex,” but which,
when they exist, are everywhere and always incident to _violation of law_.
Every trace of her disorder disappeared during this lady’s first year of
living on uncooked food and outdoor air, and no vestige of her
“weaknesses” has returned. The members of this family all live very active
lives; they take two meals,——morning and afternoon,——a small amount of the
cereals, and a large proportion of fruit of various kinds. Our national
pastime-luncheon, the ubiquitous peanut, forms a part of their regular
dietary. It is a very nutritious vegetable, and, certainly, if agreeable
enough, as we know it is, to take a prominent part in the sensual
enjoyment of a very large class, who feel that life is not worth living
unless much of their leisure time is spent in palate-tickling, it can not
be sneered at as “one of the ‘messes’ of those peculiar people,” (formerly
a common remark about hygienists, some of whom have, without doubt,
advocated an unnatural asceticism.) I will make a few brief extracts from
letters written by the lady in question, at, and after the time I was
living on uncooked food. As will be seen, the work was altogether new to
me, and I went astray at first, regarding the proportions of grain and
fruit: “Your cupful of grain,” she writes, “is more than double what my
husband takes, and I use still less; but we eat very much more fresh
fruit than you do.” ... “I had intended to say in my last letter, that
some people object to so much cold food, especially in the morning. I did
not at all like it myself, at first, being always used to ‘a good cup of
tea’ the first thing; however, use soon becomes second nature, and I
prefer it now. In winter, when the apples or melons seem really cold, I
bring them to a moderately cold temperature by warming slightly——the same
with tomatoes: of these last, quite a lot have ripened up, although it is
mid-winter, (Feb. 6, ’81.) We find that _too much nut_-food causes
indigestion,[78] and it is better to combine a little vegetable-food
always, if possible.” ... “One little incident in our lives here, may
interest you: our oldest daughter, aged 13, has just been on a visit to
some friends——the family of a doctor of the old school. His wife remarked
one day that she liked the uncooked food very much, and would always use
it, only she ate ‘what the others did, to keep them company.’ Alice
replied (and you may imagine how proud I felt when it was repeated to me
by the doctor’s daughter), ‘I am sure you do not understand the importance
of it, then!’ You would be surprised to see how firm the children are:
they could not, by any kind of bribery, I believe, be induced to swerve
one iota from the true principles upon which we live, and they have been
severely tested, too.” I regret to say that a year after the above was
written, these people decided to test once more the influence of cooking
their food; although it may furnish valuable evidence, and I predict their
return to the natural diet with renewed faith. Now (Sept. 1, 1882), after
a few months’ use of artificially prepared food (their diet is still very
simple; they use no animal food, nor fancy dishes, no pastry, nor _hot_
drinks), such sentences as the following are quite significant: “Well,
both my husband and myself think it possible there may be more ‘ailments’
from the use of cooked food, but there is more enjoyment too, and we shall
have to take the bitter and the sweet together.” ... “I know it [uncooked
food] increases the spiritual perceptions greatly.”[79]... “I still
believe it would be a sure preventive of disease; but few, however, are
prepared to adopt such an extreme mode of living.” Once more: “The
experiment has done us good, I am sure; and I feel glad of the lessons I
have learned through it. I don’t think I shall ever be what I was before
using it.” [_i. e._, sickly]. Of this we can, of course, judge better
later on. From an earlier letter, written in January (the 30th), 1881, and
while they were enjoying the natural diet for the fourth year, I make a
few extracts: “Its effects are truly wonderful, and far exceed my
expectations.... The sequel has proved that it not only ensures health to
those already healthy, but eradicates former weaknesses when these exist;
for instance, rheumatism and ‘sciatica,’ from which I used to suffer——both
have left me, I think never to return. The children frequently suffered
with toothache, and occasionally with earache; now they are never
troubled. I believe the hot food destroys the teeth, and renders the body
generally more susceptible of taking colds. I used to take cold on the
slightest exposure; now I don’t know what it is to have one. And sore
throat was sure to follow a cold; now I am quite exempt, and have been for
two years.”[80]
[Footnote 78: The oily nuts are nutritious, and a small proportion, only,
should be eaten; except in cold weather.]
[Footnote 79: I desire to call the attention and fasten it for a moment
upon this feature of the case.]
[Footnote 80: With reference to the prophylactic and curative effects of
this diet I quote from “VEGETARIAN LIFE IN GERMANY: _A Paper, by a Lady
Member of the German Vegetarian Society, read 15th Jan., 1881, at
Manchester England, and reprinted by request_.”
“Others, especially those whose occupations afford little or no exercise,
as writers, artists, official persons, etc., prefer from time to time to
live upon fruits alone, in order to clear their blood and thus prevent
illness. Dr. Richard Nagel, of Burman, was one of the first to try such a
cure, and with brilliant success. As he is a learned man, and his health
rules are accepted by most German vegetarians, I take the liberty to give
you an abridged translation of them:
“I. Take often during the day a drink of pure cool fresh water; rain-water
is best. Vegetarians who live plainly and upon fruits only, have very
little thirst.
“II. Wash the whole body with cool fresh water every morning before
breakfast; poor-blooded persons may use in winter a little warm, but never
hot water.
“III. All kinds of sweet fruits and roots are to be commended in an
uncooked form. These are so nourishing that we can live upon fruit alone.
(Dr. Nagel, himself, so lived in 1871, from February 25th to April 7th,
that is during forty-one winter days, and you know that our German winter
is much colder than yours. During this time he was extremely well, and
worked hard as a physician and writer).”]
Further on, and after describing the two-years-old baby’s remarkable
health and perfect appetite: “He never causes me the least trouble; is
always ready to eat a good breakfast, taking just what we do, and is truly
a marvel of sweet infant life.” After a brief reference to the
persecutions received from their neighbors at the first: ... “But that is
nothing; we have lived it all down, and we are in better health to-day,
all of us, than any family about, for many a mile. Why, they are all
complaining of _colds_ now, and yet we have the loveliest climate and the
most delightful atmosphere under the sun. We never have any colds, or
neuralgia, or rheumatism. Whatever may be said in derision of our diet,
and, of course, there are more or less remarks, we have the best of it
anyway; and, oh, the load of expense, labor and care and anxiety that is
removed! The children are harmonious and happy, devoting their spare time
to useful pursuits——we all have so much more spare time now,” etc., etc.
From another letter:
“... But I must hasten to answer your queries. 1st. As to how we prepare
our food in winter. We have apples, raisins, oranges, and figs, which need
no preparation. Wheat and rye we grind first in a large mill and finish
off in a spice mill, and usually eat it dry with juicy fruits. I can eat
rye, apples, nuts, and raisins, and make a good meal. We confine ourselves
to what we raise here, chiefly because we think it best. We raise our own
peanuts, and if you will take them _unroasted_, and grind with your grain,
you will get a very palatable, strengthening food, alone or with raisins;
they contain a very sweet oil which, as we learn, is beginning to be
appreciated in England. I prefer the peanuts in this form because they
need to be very finely masticated. I can work longer after such a
breakfast and not feel hungry than anything else I have tried. We have
delicious musk-melons now, also water-melons, but the latter are
deteriorating, being out of season. Our ripe tomatoes are nearly over;
after these are gone we shall use our dried peaches, pears, and apples,
merely soaked in cold water until soft——not sloppy. We use rain-water in
winter. I make a salad for dinner, often, as follows: lettuce washed and
cut small, a few ripe tomatoes peeled and cut up, and one or two green
peppers cut fine; pouring over a dressing of raisin syrup, made by soaking
black raisins for twenty-four hours, and straining. This salad I vary by
substituting celery for lettuce. I assure you it is a most healthful dish,
and so sweet and nice with rye. We use oatmeal soaked for twelve hours in
just enough water to soften it, and then well beaten; with either raisins
[grapes] or dried fruits it is very delicious. I did not at first like
rye, but after a little we all came to regard it the sweetest grain we
have. The children are very fond of cauliflower——just the flour part——and
green pease, fresh-picked are a great dish with us. Some like radishes and
garden cress and a few things of that nature. I prefer fruits with my
grain, and we can have them fresh, of some sort, all the year round.
Strawberries come in about March——indeed, we have a few even now
[February]. I’m going to make a ‘natural fruitcake,’ this week, for our
little girl’s birthday. I shall send a piece by post to Mrs. Page, with
full directions for making it. We had one at New Year’s, and even those
who live on cooked food pronounced it ‘as good as they ever tasted.’ But
very little of our time, however, is taken up, usually, with the
preparation of our food; only, on special occasions, we amuse ourselves a
little in such ways, for the children’s sake. At all times, however, we
have a good variety of food; in fact, too much, I sometimes think. We eat
more in quantity than others, but a large proportion is fruit, which
furnishes all our liquid food except fresh water. We all enjoy our food
_thoroughly_; the children never ask for anything between meals [two meals
only], only baby comes as regularly as possible for an apple at half-past
eleven——of course he gets it.”
The following letter from a veteran hygienist refers to the family whose
history I have been relating.
MY DEAR DR. PAGE:
Your letter of February 13th, enclosing letters from Mr. and
Mrs. Hinde for us to read and to make extracts from for _The
Laws_, came duly to hand. I have read them with great interest,
for they do but add to my conviction that, as yet, the divinely
ordained mode of living for man on earth has received, in the
minds of so-called hygienists, small conception, and in the life
of the best of us comparatively poor illustration, and,
therefore, just such experience as these dear people are having
in their search for better methods of realizing, developing, and
making serviceable spiritual power are of great interest to me.
They always have been.
It has been a matter of great regret with me, that being an
incurably diseased man, and being shut up to the necessity of
working up, to the best degree possible for me, a revolution in
the thought and conduct of people at large, in matters
pertaining to their life on earth, I have not been able
physically nor circumstantially to carry out my life as I have
wanted to do. I have done some things, but always under
circumstances that endangered my available power to live and
work, while making such transitions as I was determined to make.
I have settled several principles which enter as constituent
elements into the philosophy of life of the human organism.
Among them I may mention two: One is, the changes from bad to
good, or from worse to better, can never be made
reconstructively, except under the policy which governs
construction. Now, as all growth of any living organism, or any
part of it, is, relatively speaking, slow, so all reparation of
any injured part in such organism relatively has to be slow.
Reconstruction, therefore, is slow if according to law. This of
itself speaks condemningly of the system of drug medication,
because everywhere do drug doctors seek to produce changes from
bad to good, or from worse to better, rapidly. This is
unphilosophical, and, therefore, can be, on the whole, only open
to criticism as being bad practice.
Another is, that where morbid conditions have existed until they
have become chronic, and the organism has become adjusted
thereto, changes from the abnormal to the normal can not be made
without aggravation of those conditions. I have never known a
person to go from chronic derangements of any organ in his body
to normal conditions of it, without passing through an acute
stage,[81] and this acute stage is critical in its nature,
subjecting the organ to added liability for the time, may be
subjecting the whole organism to it. Thousands of persons die
every day under medical treatment in this country from
badly-managed critical changes through which they have to pass.
[Footnote 81: This was illustrated in the case of Mrs. Hinde,
who says of her first experience: “I fully expected suffering as
a consequence, and so there was for a time; but it proved a
blessing in disguise.”——AUTHOR.]
Thirdly, I am satisfied that of all the diseases with which
doctors have to deal, and of which persons die, ninety-five per
cent. of them have their origin in bad dietetic indulgence, and
in deviations from right way of living, caused directly by, and
to be attributed to, bad habits of eating and drinking. If you
take a hundred diseases, as they are called, and study the
predisposing and the provoking causes to their production, you
will find that at least ninety-five per cent. have their origin
in derangements of the stomach and the organs that are in direct
sympathy with it.
I take it upon me to say on my platform very frequently, and I
repeat the same as I would repeat it from any public platform if
I were talking to a public audience: Give me the right and the
power, by and with the consent of any given population, whether
one thousand or one million, to control their dietetic
conditions, and I will take care of their diseases, and, in less
than the life of a generation, will banish from their midst
seven-eighths of all the diseases now common to physicians in
their practice; will stop the diseases, and deaths that grow out
of a prevalence of these diseases and their methods of
treatment; will put an end to the vices and the crimes
everywhere extant, and which it is so difficult for society and
government to manage, and thoroughly revolutionize the physical
and moral status of such people.
We have to go to the bottom of things in order to get to the top
of things, for the home of the eternal righteousness is so high
that no ladder can reach it, unless its lower end rests on
bed-rock. Who builds his house on quicksand runs the risk of his
life. Who climbs to the skies by any false means of ascent that
he may seek to establish, will find his fate foreshadowed in the
simple fact that he does not commence his ascent from a secure
foundation.
Yours very truly,
JAMES C. JACKSON.
Mr. Isaac B. Rumford, and son, hard-working farmers, of Bakersfield, Cal.,
have lived strictly on the “natural diet” for upwards of two years. Mr.
Rumford has been a chronically-diseased man for many years; now, however,
he is so far improved as to be able to do, as he says, “a good day’s
work.” “It is doing for me,” he writes, “what I have been seeking and
sorrowing after, vainly until now, for twenty years——giving me health. My
son also finds it a perfect diet, and would not readily exchange it for
any other; indeed, we both enjoy our food more than formerly on the old
system. By another year,” he adds, “I shall be able to give you still more
information on this subject, as others are beginning to be impressed with
the advantages of this regimen.” (See Appendix.)
A. R. B., of New York city, has lived chiefly on uncooked grain and fruit
for upwards of a year; and his young wife, also, has tried it to a
considerable extent. Two years ago Mrs. B. was threatened with
consumption, and was told by her physician that unless she changed her
diet (she was then beginning the vegetarian regimen) she would certainly
not live a year. She “needed meat and milk in abundance,” he said. But she
only lived the more abstemiously, and on coarse bread, with fruit,
chiefly, and, during the past year, has eaten considerable uncooked
“bread,” and all symptoms of her disease have disappeared. Mr. B. had
nasal catarrh; but this has disappeared, and he now finds himself
thoroughly nourished and better able than ever before to perform his
duties. His diet consists of two meals,——7 A.M. and 6 P.M.,——and with but
little variation, the two combined make about a half cupful each, wheat
and oat groats, with five or six nice apples. His appetite has become
sufficiently normal to enable him to enjoy this diet fully. This is in
winter. In summer less grain and more fruit.
As bearing upon the supposed difficulties in the way of introducing the
natural diet, should any choose to adopt it, I can not forbear relating a
little incident of recent occurrence: For some weeks past, I have been
living exclusively, and with great satisfaction, upon this diet. In a
conversation upon the subject, a friend expressed, along with some
surprise at my statements as to the gustatory pleasures of this diet and
its completeness for nutrifying the body, a curiosity to know just how it
would seem to sit down to a meal without a single dish of cooked food, nor
any odor of smoking viands about. “Very good,” I said, “dine with us
to-morrow, and bring the children.” This he promised, and on the following
day, Sunday, he came up with his two children, a boy of seven and a girl
of three years. Nothing was said to them by their father before, nor by
any one after their arrival, as to the kind of food to be set before them,
they were simply invited out to dinner, and anticipated a good time. The
injudicious comments, or “chaffing,” of parents and friends, will very
easily “set” children against what would naturally be their own
inclinations if given a fair chance, without having their minds
prejudiced, I mean, by the notions, or the dyspeptic idiosyncracies of
their elders. At 4 P.M. the table was set, but with no extras on account
of company, although here “extras” would imply no additional trouble nor,
perhaps, expense. There were dates,——“Persian,” or the kind which are in
regular tiers and handled comfortably,——walnuts, filberts, raisins, a
variety of apples, and, for bread, a fruit-dish containing “oat groats.”
The latter was served as the first course, the children eating of this
natural bread with every appearance of satisfaction, as did all the
company, a few teaspoonfuls each. All united in calling it sweet and good.
Then came walnuts and raisins; some added filberts, others took only the
latter, after which, dates, and then, for dessert, apples; of these, one
or two each were eaten. In the midst of the nuts and raisins, I may add,
and what surprised my visitor more than all else, both children _asked_,
voluntarily, for “a few more oats,” which they received and ate with a
gusto! As we arose from the table, my friend (a banker, by the way, and a
“good liver,”) said, “There, I can truly say that I have never eaten a
more satisfactory dinner; taken all in all, this has been a model meal.”
“How about the children?” I asked, of him, but they answered; “I have had
a splendid dinner,” said the boy. “I’ve had a splendid dinner,” chorused
the little three-year-old. The father added (what was in my own mind),
that he enjoyed the meal all the more because of the non-necessity for
restricting the children in any manner: there was no occasion for
caution——no “mustn’t eat so fast,” no “I’m afraid you are not chewing your
food thoroughly,” “No, dear, no more of the preserves,——they will hurt
you,” nor any nuisance of the sort; nor any risk in consequence; and I
remarked, with my friend’s entire acquiescence, that, often as I had
observed them, both in their home and at my own table, never had I seen
them so apparently satisfied in every respect, from the beginning to the
end of a meal; that, in fact, they had never enjoyed a meal in so utterly
unrestricted a manner; and at the same time, they arose from the table
with no indication of surfeit——no heaviness, nor succeeding sleepiness or
peevishness, as we often witness with children after an ordinary dinner.
Here was a delicious and ample midwinter dinner for six at a total cost of
less than the meat alone for a mixed meal,——with no brewing, baking or
fuming-up the home, or heating up and using up its mistress in the
preparation, and clearing away of the meal, not to mention the other
injurious effects of an ordinary “company dinner.” A few weeks later, in
response to an invitation from my little guests, I had the pleasure of a
return-dinner of the same sort, and a Christmas (1882) dinner at that, at
which a larger company assembled, and all pronounced it complete; and the
servants did not complain of being overworked——nor underfed. One of these
was overheard to say, “_Dessert_’s good enough for me!”
I would ask all prudent parents, Are you not often disturbed about the
little ones’ diet——about the pie, cake, pudding, etc., and are they not
frequently made ill by “over-indulgence,” as it is called, in these
things? How can you expect a little, growing child, with an appetite like
that of a shark (if hot, melting viands, or artificial sweets are before
them), with no sort of physiological knowledge, in fact a normal and
proper disgust for anything of the sort, no idea of prudence, but only a
dread of your frequent and necessary cautions,——how can you expect a
child, with mouth full of hot bread,——or any bread,——with butter, milk, or
sauce, or mashed potatoes, garnished with gravy turkey, stuffing, and
cranberry, all melting in his mouth, to “chew” what requires no chewing
and can not be made wholesome by chewing, and “hold” what will rush away
into the stomach as though impelled by an all-controlling force? It can
not be done, you can not do it yourselves, and as for the young ones, it
is the refinement of cruelty to attempt it;——it means dissatisfaction,
discomfort, and, often, the destruction of what should be a happy season,
to be perpetually badgering them about it; it is unnatural and wrong. Give
your children the sort of food you think best for them, and let them enjoy
it. If this can not be done with safety, the fault is with the food, not
with them.
The best way to effect a change in an obnoxious law, as has been well
said, is to enforce the law. The same principle holds in diet: If you find
that you are furnishing a sort of food which, eaten unrestrictedly and in
their own way, makes your children sick or endangers their health, give
them something better. At the meal of which I have been speaking, there
was no restraint, no cautions, nor occasion for any: the food was of that
strictly natural sort which, while requiring to be well masticated, itself
enforced the law. The sharp teeth of the children cut the oats perfectly;
there was no stimulation, nor temptation to hurry the food into the
stomach without masticating it, no feverish appetency, as with hot,
highly-seasoned viands——all wanted to chew the food as much as it “wanted
to be” chewed, and, consequently, no appreciable amount of it entered the
stomach unprepared for stomach-digestion. For the first time in the lives
of these children, since they were weaned, could this be said of them. It
can not be said of a single child in America, or elsewhere, who sits at a
table supplied with ordinary food. What results from this unnatural manner
of alimentation? Indigestion, inevitably, indicated by various symptoms,
as, for example, flatulency which is popularly regarded as entirely
natural, the odorous emanations from the younger fry being considered
evidence of indiscretion instead of what it really is——disease. And what
from this? Blood-poisoning, as surely; with aches, pains, feverish spells,
with influenza (popularly called “a cold”), which, as can not be too much
emphasized, is, strictly speaking, instead of a disease, the effort of
Nature to “cure” a disease which otherwise would become so deep-seated as
to demand a “run of fever” to eliminate it, and all manner of physical
ailments.
I am often asked, What constitutes the scrofulous diathesis, so called, or
the scrofulous “taint” supposed to be the inheritance of so many of the
children of our times? My reply is this: Scrofulous persons are those,
mainly, perhaps it should be said wholly, who from current bad habits (as
to diet, air, and all the requirements, or any part of them, which are
necessary for the maintenance of health), manufacture bad, instead of pure
blood. Such persons become more and more depraved, and incapacitated for
bequeathing to their offspring great vital power. In consequence the
children of such parents are endowed with a feeble organism; that is, an
organism incapable, at least until virtually, or nearly as possible made
over new, of putting forth in any direction a great degree of force,
whether of the voluntary muscular system, the brain, the digestive or
excretory systems, or what not. Children of this stamp may, they often do,
exhibit precocity in one or another direction——being unbalanced, so to
say——and may evince much alertness, both in muscle and brain, but they
soon tire: it will always be found that they are incapable of prolonged
effort in any direction, without exhaustion. They may develop a fondness
for study and for play, but in neither direction have they any staying
power: they are _called_ over-ambitious, often; they _are_ undernourished
always. And this, not because they do not swallow a large quantity of food
(though some children are kept so surfeited as to have little relish for
food, and may, consequently, eat but little, being all the time a few days
ahead of their stomachs, so to say), but generally because, of all the
food swallowed, not enough is digested and assimilated to sustain them,
and keep them in a vigorous state. They are, like all animals, when not
suffering from nausea or lack of appetite through somebody’s fault, very
ambitious in the way of eating; having——not inherited——but rather, I
should say, _acquired_ during the involuntary cramming of infancy——that
special school for gluttony, which graduates near thirty per cent. of its
pupils into premature graves before their first year is ended——and the
injudicious feeding of the survivors in childhood, a full, perhaps rounded
measure of appetency, especially for the very things which scrofulous
children, of all born children, should not have. They may be greedy for
study and for food (though often enough, excess of the latter makes them
listless and unfit for either study or play), but have for neither,
sufficient capacity for digestion and assimilation, to make them either
learned or strong. It follows, if they are fed like their robust fellows
who can bear up under the burden, that by reason of quality, frequency,
and amount of food eaten, no portion, not even such wholesome articles as
fruit, vegetables, etc., as they may have in abundance,——no portion of
their food is properly digested and assimilated. It is unnatural in
variety, is prepared and eaten unnaturally, and, as has been said, there
ensues, as surely as any effect is simultaneous with its cause,
indigestion, blood-poisoning, and the _current, daily manufacture_ of
“scrofulous humors,” if people choose to call them by that name; and but
for its misleading tendency, as at present interpreted, this name would
answer as well as any. Of _pure food_, these children can digest and
assimilate a given amount——an amount, indeed, suited to their peculiar
needs; the balance, including _all_ unwholesome substances,[82] is so much
for influenza, catarrh, “scrofula,” measles, “nervousness,”
fractiousness, (“measly disposition” was not originally a slang phrase by
any means) scarlet fever, skin, scalp, and all other so-called diseases.
The remedy, then, for the disorders of children of scrofulous, or any
other diathesis, is plain: stop feeding them unnaturally, and feed them
naturally. And the earlier in their lives this is done, and the more
faithfully it is attended to, the more likely they will be to “outgrow
their inheritance.” I do not hesitate to say that, of those weakly-born or
“tainted” children who die in infancy or childhood, or live sickly lives,
in a very large proportion of cases they could, by right treatment,
chiefly as to fresh air and diet, be built up above the plain of disease,
_i.e._, placed upon the highest level possible to _them_, and enabled to
live fairly long lives, a comfort to themselves and a benefit to the
world. And this, too, in a majority of instances, on a rigidly abstemious
vegetable diet, reserving the “natural diet” for the most critical cases,
or the most conscientious persons.[83]
[Footnote 82: I include cream among the forbidden animal fats, especially
for scrofulous subjects, for the reason that in practice I have never
observed other than ultimately injurious effects from its use. I can
account for this only upon the ground that if _milk_ is a proper food for
man, _whole_ milk——like whole wheat, whole apples, whole grapes, whole
beets, instead of white flour, cider, wine and sugar——only can be thus
classed. The fact that many, even robust persons, can not use milk at all,
and a still larger proportion cream, whereas skimmed milk is well borne by
them and in some instances seems to produce lasting good effects, may be
accounted for, perhaps, in the following manner: As our cows are bred and
fed, their milk is abnormally loaded with fatty matters, and when skimmed,
after sitting twelve or more hours, still contains, as compared with
_natural_ cows’ milk, a full proportion of cream. Therefore, by removing
the excess of cream, which is of an excretory nature, we are doing all in
our power to “restore the balance,” or to make the milk natural. Let those
who choose make use of this delicious scum; but its administration to sick
people, though often, like drugs, producing stimulating, and apparently
beneficial effects, will, in the end, like every form of stimulation,
hinder, if not prevent recovery. (See Stimulation.)]
[Footnote 83: See note 5 in Appendix, p. 281.]
Finally, to add so large a line of proper foods to our dietary by a
correct understanding of their real office and value——taking them out of
the category of mere pastime-lunches——should, from any point of view, be
accounted a great gain. We are made by that much more independent, in
being elevated above the otherwise some-time-necessity of eating
unmitigatedly bad, or badly-prepared food, or of going without any; for
almost any corner grocery will furnish a better bill-of-fare than one
often finds at poor hotels or restaurants; besides, this class of foods
may be taken along better than any other: they are the most comfortable to
transport and to handle _en route_, and will “keep.” Moreover, they demand
less time for “preliminary digestion” after eating; if, indeed, one may
not, after a judicious meal of them, resume ordinary mental or muscular
labor with impunity. The effect of a light lunch of fruits, is really,
when one is once accustomed to their use, exhilarating to both the brain
and the muscular system——stimulating, not as with a spur, but, rather, a
“push behind”; or, more truly, by increase of actual strength through
pabulum supplied to the blood, of a character, as I am convinced, unlike
that of any form of cooked food.
Note.——In concluding this theme, while expressing the belief that this
will be the diet of the future——that advancing civilization will demand
it, on the score of economy, as relates to time, care, and health, no less
than the comparatively trifling consideration of money cost (and yet what
an item even this would be to the toiling millions!), and above all in
view of the emancipation of woman from the serfdom of the kitchen, where
she now exhausts herself to the injury of the family, her incessant
kitchen labors tending especially to unfit her for the production of
robust children——yet I would not chill the health-seeker of to-day, by
insisting upon the vital importance of _every_ one’s breaking away
abruptly from _all_ present customs as regards the selection and
preparation of food. To a considerable degree the usage of generations
has, beyond question, adapted our systems to the use of cooked foods——has
even rendered them somewhat unadapted to the _instant_ use of uncooked
foods——so that a radical and complete change, abruptly made, would result
in temporary digestive disturbance, which (however advantageous the
results of the change, finally, if persisted in with faith and courage)
would render it impracticable for some persons, more especially since this
temporary physical inconvenience would be added to the social
inconvenience arising from placing oneself so markedly at variance with
all about him. No one can form a just opinion of this last item until he
attempts a radical change in his dietetic habits: it presents the greatest
check imaginable to rapid progress in this direction.
A reform, however, which is at the same time feasible and, in most
instances, sufficient, speaking generally,——and which, as elsewhere
remarked, already has its hundreds of thousands of adherents in this
country alone,——would be the adoption of the “fruit and bread,” or the
ordinary vegetarian diet even——banishing all doubtful dishes, condiments,
spices, hot drinks——stimulants all——making a lunch (or two, even) in the
course of the day, of fruit, with a biscuit or two at one of them,
perhaps; and at eve, when the tired ones are rested, a regular “full
meal,” consisting of various bread dishes——wheat, corn, rye and oatmeal,
with various admixtures of the same, which may well furnish a different
flavor (several, indeed) for every day in the month——fruit, milk (for
those with whom it “agrees”), vegetables and nuts. Following _this
direction_, and aiming constantly, but _comfortably_, to maintain the
balance between diet and labor——between the food eaten and the needs of
the organism for nutriment——one may not only enjoy, as he ought, the
pleasures of the table, but, in very many cases, absolutely and largely
increase these pleasures, in the aggregate, considering, more especially,
his exemption from sickness with its occasional involuntary fasts, and
with many, the quite frequent periods of slight, or non-satisfaction,
through nausea and lack of appetite arising from an injudicious dietary.
This regimen lessens by one-half the housewife’s burdens, as well as the
cost of living, while it adds immeasurably to her health and that of her
household.