to prepare for it several days in advance. For three or four days,
before embarking, eat only very simple and somewhat laxative
foods--such as fruits--so as to open the bowels well and tone up the
system. This simple diet should be followed for the first two or three
days aboard--of course not so rigidly, but taking care not to indulge
in many heavy, greasy dishes. Unfortunately, the food on board is
usually very rich and plentiful, and tempts one to eat. If one suffers
from seasickness, there is not this same temptation, to be sure; but
the malady may certainly be warded off, in the majority of cases, if
only reasonable care be taken of the diet before and during the
voyage, and if instructions herein laid down be followed.
As before stated, drugs are as a rule useless for the cure of
seasickness; but on occasion a "seasick cure" of some kind may prove
effective. The harm which results from the drug may perhaps be more
than counterbalanced by the benefits which the system derives from the
cessation of seasickness. A preparation of this kind which is very
highly recommended by many travellers is known as "Antimermal," and
though none of these remedies are to be recommended with assurance,
this one--and perhaps one or two others--might at least be tried, in
cases of dire necessity, when seasickness has already supervened.
It is hardly necessary to say that the patient should remain in the
open air continuously, until all symptoms of seasickness have paused.
_Live_ in your deck chair until you feel quite well and able to get
up and walk round. Do not attempt to go downstairs into the
dining-saloon to meals, if you feel in the slightest "squirmish."
Rather have some hot soup or broth of some kind sent up to you, and
drink it sitting in your chair. Do not be afraid to drink water at all
times, even if you feel ill--as the water is easily returned, and it
is less strain on the stomach to be able to bring up something than to
find nothing in the stomach when an effort is made to eject what is
not there. Water will serve to allay this strain, and thus serve a
useful purpose.
In very severe cases of seasickness, the stomach of the patient should
be emptied and washed out at once. This is usually an easy matter.
Have the patient drink one or two glasses of water, warm or cold, with
a little salt or bi-carbonate of soda added--say a teaspoonful to a
pint of water. This will have the desired result! In extreme cases of
seasickness, dry cold, such as ice-bags, placed behind and about the
ears, will sooth the patient, and help to allay his suffering. Cold
cloths to the forehead will also prove helpful. Full baths had best be
omitted, until the attack has worn off, as they are injudicious on
account of the reactions they induce.
In prolonged cases of seasickness, there is often a craving for acids
and fruit juices. The continued absence or diminution of the acid
contents of the stomach, and the privation from normal food, accounts
in part for this, and it is highly proper to satisfy such a
craving--providing due care is taken not to add to the stomach's
distress by taking too much juice, or the juice of unripe fruit, or by
swallowing the fibre of the fruit, which is allowable only when
recovery is complete.
HEREWARD CARRINGTON.
IMPORTANT.
If readers who possess copies of the first number of _The Healthy
Life_ (August 1911) will send them to the Editors, they will receive,
in exchange, booklets to the value of threepence for each copy.
A SYMPOSIUM ON UNFIRED FOOD.
_In the November number we published a letter from a reader containing
the excellent suggestion that readers who had experimented to any fair
extent with unfired diet should be invited to contribute to a
conference on the subject in _THE HEALTHY LIFE_, and that the
symposium should be gathered round the following points_:--
(1) The effect of the diet in curing chronic disease.
(2) Its effect on children so brought up--_e.g._ do they get the
so-called "inevitable" diseases of chicken-pox, measles, etc., and
_especially_ have they good (_i.e._ perfect) teeth?
(3) The effect of the diet in childbirth.
(4) The cost of maintaining a household in this way, as compared with
the cost under ordinary conditions.
(5) Is the diet satisfying, or is there a longing for conventional
dietary (often found amongst food reformers)?
(6) Is the diet quite satisfactory in winter?
_Two letters were published in the January number. Two more in
February. Others will appear in future issues. We are anxious to
receive a large number of personal experiences, but they must be
brief, and classified under the above heads as far as possible._--[EDS.]
ST ALBANS.
In response to your invitation I am sending you my experience with
vegetarian dietary. Although, as you will see, this has not been
altogether "unfired," I think it should be of interest to many.
(1) I became a vegetarian at the time of my marriage, nearly three
years ago, my husband being already a vegetarian of eleven years. I
considered this a good opportunity to commence. Previous to this I
had for some time suffered from indigestion, which continued for a
few months after marriage. I attribute the cure to the change of
diet, and drinking hot water after meals.
(2) We have one child eighteen months old, totally breast fed for
twelve months, and another four months: on breast and Ixion Food
and some fruit juice.
She has never had any disease whatever, and so far her teeth are
perfect and she has cut them quite easily. She is a bonny, sturdy
little girl, and very intelligent.
(3) With regard to childbirth, I previously followed the advice of
Dr Alice Stockholme in "Tokology," avoiding flesh meats and
bone-making food and adopting a diet of fruit (chiefly lemons) and
rice, brown bread and nut butter, wearing no corsets and taking
frequent baths. The effect during pregnancy was highly
satisfactory. I enjoyed perfect health the whole time, free from
the usual discomforts, and at childbirth I received similar
results: a speedy and safe delivery. Indeed, since marriage, my
husband, baby and myself, have been singularly free from even
minor complaints.
(4) As we do not have the specially prepared, expensive vegetarian
foods (supposed to substitute meat), but mainly the simple foods, I
consider the diet less costly than the meat diet.
(5) We are honestly quite free from the craving for meat or meat
foods.
(6) In the summer-time we live principally on salads, cheese,
rissoles, etc., made from beans, peas, lentils, etc., fresh fruits,
brown bread and nut butter. In the very cold weather we seem to
need rather warmer stuffs, such as porridge (carefully cooked) and
cooked vegetables, etc.
D. GODMAN.
* * * * *
BRIGHTON.
I have read with the greatest interest the correspondence in _The
Healthy Life_ on the unfired diet. As the majority of your
correspondents have not been living _exclusively_ on unfired food,
or have only done so for short periods, may I suggest that some of
your correspondents or contributors live on an _entirely_ unfired
diet, _excluding dairy produce_, for a period of six or twelve
months and then relate their experiences. In this way some valuable
evidence would be obtained. At any rate I am prepared to do this
myself.
With reference to living on the unfired diet on 4d. a day, I have
often had two unfired meals for less than 4d., and two meals a day
are sufficient for anyone. Of course to do this one has to buy the
food which is in season and therefore cheap. Dried fruit and nuts,
followed by a cress salad with oil and lemon dressing, does not
cost more than 2d. An unfired rissole made from grated carrot and
flaked peanuts cost at most a penny, and if followed by dates or
figs would be a sufficient meal, and 2d. would cover the cost.
In conclusion, I have no difficulty in producing a "two course"
unfired meal for 2d.--but perhaps I should have left the subject of
cost for Dr Bell to deal with. Yours faithfully,
ALFRED LE HURAY.
MORE ABOUT TWO MEALS A DAY.
With reference to my article, "Two Meals a Day," which appeared in the
May issue of _The Healthy Life_, several correspondents have asked me
to give more particulars about my life and diet. I do so gladly; but I
must be brief, as the demand upon space in this magazine is now very
great.
Resolved into a single sentence, what all my correspondents wish to
know is this: Is a two-meal dietary best for all?
To this question, however, a definite answer cannot be given, for the
simple reason that scientific experimentation with respect to food
quantities and times of meals, etc., has gone such a little way, so
that it would be presumptuous to set a limit in regard to meals and
food reduction. To my mind, apart from the question of the quantity of
food to be taken, there is a great and important field of inquiry open
with respect to the effect of rest upon the stomach and the
intestines, upon the digestive and assimilative powers of the body.
Now the whole purpose of my article was to show that a reduction of
one's dietary was a matter of training, of gradual adaptation, but
also--and this is the important fact-of gradual strengthening. My
theory is that the two-meal plan is possible owing to the immense
economy in digestive energy that is effected through giving the
stomach adequate rest, and also through keeping the blood stream pure
and unclogged, almost absolutely free from surfeit matter. A rested
stomach will get more nutriment out of a small amount of food-stuff
than an overworked stomach will get out of a much larger quantity. But
experimentation which is sudden and covers a few weeks only, is worse
than useless, as it tends to disprove the very principles that a saner
method of experimentation would probably establish. And if I can
impress this fact upon the reader I shall have performed a good
service.
Carefully undertaken, and properly graduated, I believe there are few
people in these days who would not greatly benefit by a reduction in
the number of meals and in the quantity of food they take. By means of
a healthy and cheerful habit of introspection--not morbid and
feverish--I am firmly convinced that by cutting down their meals most
people would not only greatly improve their health, but their mental
and spiritual condition as well, and also greatly increase their
capacity for work ... And if in this way we can effect such an
improvement in our life and condition it does not really matter
whether we get to the two or even one meal basis or not.
As to myself, my work is chiefly literary and my life moderately
sedentary. But the fact is that I now have two moderate meals a day
whereas I used to have four pretty good ones. But I have many friends
whose work is mechanical, and demands much muscular energy, who are
two-mealists. One lady I know, who is one of the healthiest, strongest
and best physically developed persons I have ever met, is a
two-mealist, and not only does she work at a mechanical occupation for
ten hours a day, but on several evenings each week conducts a ladies
gymnastics class as well. But in her case, as in mine, the two meal
was an ideal that was gradually and slowly attained, and not a sudden
reform. Indeed, the main thing to remember is that it is all a matter
of training, it being quite impossible to say where the limit is. For
of one thing I am quite sure--viz. that most people, were they to
adopt a slow process of food and meals reduction, on the lines I
suggested in my article, would be astonished at the result. The number
of people one meets, chiefly among those whose life is more or less
sedentary, who say they can't work as they should, are subject to
pains and heaviness in the head, constipation and indigestion, is
simply appalling; and on questioning such people I come to the
conclusion that in the majority of cases it is because they eat too
much or too often.
My meals are very simple, and the simpler they are the better I like
them. I like a cold lunch about noon, and a hot meal about six. I have
tried a wholly uncooked diet, but as yet my body does not seem ready
for it: perhaps it will be after a little while. The first meal
usually consists of wholemeal bread and fruit, green or vegetable
salads, just according to my needs at the time. In winter I take a
more liberal supply of dried fruits and nuts. Pulses I eschew
altogether. My second meal consists of a substantial entree with one
or two conservatively cooked vegetables--occasionally I have a soup
and a sweet in addition. But of course it is for everyone to find out
his or her own ideal diet; and let me say that it is worth while to do
so, even though it involves much confusion and perplexity during the
period of experimentation.
WILFRED WELLOCK.
A BALLADE OF SKYFARING.
Ye whom bonds of the city chain,
Yet whose heart must with Nature's be;
Ye who, bound to a bed of pain,
Dream there of torrent and tower and tree,
Here behold them--the magic key,
Turned by a thought in yon gates of blue,
Even now has revealed to me
Alps and Mediterranean too.
Why of the bondage of earth complain?
Wide as heaven is our liberty!
Where are the streets and their smoke and stain
When to the land of the lark we flee?
Where is the sight that we may not see,
Cloudland's citadel passing through?
Switzerland beckons with Sicily,
Alps and Mediterranean too.
Here, 'twixt walls with the marble's vein,
Oared on a river of gold are we;
There we watch, on a sapphire main,
White fleets voyage to victory.
Day unto day flashes grief or glee;
Night to night utters speech anew,
Figuring forest and lane and lea--
Alps and Mediterranean too.
ENVOY
Prince whose course through the world is free,
Fare you better than dreamers do?
Here are the mountains and here the sea--
Alps and Mediterranean too.
S. GERTRUDE FORD.
From _Lyric Leaves_, by S. Gertrude Ford. Cloth, 2s. 6d. net; 2s. 8d.
post free from _The Healthy Life_, 3 Amen Corner, E.C. This charmingly
bound book makes an excellent holiday companion, for it contains many
beautiful lyrics, all characterised by serious thought, generous human
sympathies and a delicate imaginative quality.
A REMEDY FOR LONGEVITY.
Once upon a time there was a little boy whose parents took things very
seriously. They answered all his questions with painstaking precision.
At a comparatively early age he could prove that fairies were
non-existent. At the same time his toys were marvels of mechanical
perfection.
At the age of seven he was sent to a very efficient school, where,
being naturally a bright boy, he gained high marks every term and
passed all the examinations, for he had a wonderful and well-trained
faculty for remembering exactly what his teachers had told him.
When he left school he entered a London merchant's office, where his
knowledge of arithmetic was of the greatest assistance in bringing him
to the front. Moreover, he could argue very tellingly with all the
clerks and warehousemen, and always knew what the morning papers were
saving about health, neck-ties or religion.
In course of time he grew a moustache, joined the Territorials, was
made a partner in the firm, married a well-educated young lady and
became a strong supporter of the local Liberal Club, where his
opinions were so well known that it was unnecessary for anyone
seriously to combat them. He was never known to vote for the
Conservative candidate or to lose his head. His concluding speech in
the historic debate on The National Health Insurance Act will always
be remembered, by those who heard it, for its earnest defence of the
medical profession. In fact, the Mayor, who was in the chair, and was
a doctor himself, warmly congratulated the speaker, who was evidently
very pleased.
Ten years later he became a Town Councillor, opened several Institutes
for the Care of the Poor, and sent his second son to join the eldest
at the same kind of school at which he (the father) had been so well
trained. About the same date he bought a new edition of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica and carefully compiled a list of facts and
figures showing that idealists and all new-fangled ideas were the
greatest danger to the increasing trade and expansion of the Empire.
At the age of fifty he took a house at Surbiton and was continually
congratulated on his hale and hearty appearance. His opinions were
known and respected by all who met him. His sons were models of what
the children of such a father should be, and they supported him in
every argument.
At the age of fifty-two he retired from business. A month later he had
an idea; and it so interfered with all his opinions, and so affected
his general health, that he died.
EDGAR J. SAXON.
A SIGNIFICANT CASE--II.
He stopped smoking tobacco on the second day, and does not mean to
resume its use. Of course he had no alcohol in any form during the
fast, but he never has taken much alcohol, although he was not a
pledged abstainer. The temperature was taken many times and seems to
have been almost always subnormal, about 97 degrees Fahr., but this is
not so unusual a condition as to call for comment. The chief cause of
a subnormal temperature, in my opinion, is blocking of the body with
too much food. No doubt in prolonged fasting the temperature may fall
also; but sometimes a fast will be the cause of raising a subnormal
bodily temperature, as happened in a case of mine in which on the
twenty-eighth day of the fast there was a large elimination of urates
by the kidneys and a rise of temperature from 96 degrees to 98.4
degrees. Subnormal bodily temperature has not received the attention
which it deserves. It is usually one of the forerunners, or prodromata
as they are called, of the onset of incurable diseases like cancer,
Bright's disease or apoplexy. The commonly accepted view that the heat
of the body depends upon the food, and that people eat blubber in the
Arctic and Antarctic regions to keep the bodily heat up, is one of the
chief causes for neglect of the study of subnormal temperature. And it
is quite surprising that physiologists have not thought it necessary
to explain why nature has provided sugar and palm oil and cocoa-nut
oil and ground-nut oil in the tropical regions, as well as abundance
of olive oil in the warm temperate regions of the earth if these foods
keep the bodily heat up. They ought to have been more abundantly
supplied in the Arctic and Antarctic regions if the accepted view is
correct. Besides, if we must eat blubber to keep bodily heat up in the
Arctic regions when the outside temperature is 50 or 100 or more
degrees lower than that of the body, what ought we to eat in the
tropics to keep bodily heat down when the outside temperature is 50 or
even 80 degrees above that of the body? Physiologists have not
explained this, although assuredly an explanation is wanted. But the
true explanation, the correct explanation, would have demolished the
doctrine that bodily heat is due to the food, and so it has not been
given. It is too simple to imagine that the bodily heat is, like the
body itself and all its functions, the effect of the life-force that
inhabits the body and builds up the body so that the body shall be a
fit dwelling-place for itself--this explanation is too simple and too
idealistic for modern science, which is less and less disposed, we are
told, to invoke the aid of a force of life to account for vital
phenomena, although it assumes an attracting force to account for
gravitating phenomena, and an electric and chemic force to account for
electric and chemic phenomena. Modern science (and ancient science,
too, apparently) which sees well enough that an idealistic or a
materialistic explanation would equally account for the nexus of the
phenomena of the universe, deliberately and almost invariably prefers
the materialistic explanation. She is anxious that we should be kept
free of superstition. But the superstition that forces are the effects
of things does not seem to distress her at all. And so we are told
that gravitation is a property of matter, and are forbidden to think
that perhaps gravitation, a force, procreates matter, a thing, in
order that the effects of the fore may be perceived by dull sense. We
are told that the function of the liver and the brain depends on the
structure of the liver and the brain respectively and we are not
allowed to think that perhaps the force of animal life, feeling the
need of an instrument to secrete bile, on the one hand, and to secrete
cerebral lymph to act as a vehicle for the conveyance of thought and
emotion and higher things, on the other, introduces the liver with its
elaborate structure and the brain with its still more complicated
structure, in order that both the one function and the other may be
well performed. And so, although all forms of kinetic energy (and
among them zoo-dynamic, or the force of animal life) manifest warmth
and luminosity as qualities, science attributes animal heat to chemic
force and refuses to consider that perhaps zoo-dynamic uses
chemico-dynamic for its own purposes, even if these purposes are
unconscious, because the higher force always dominates the lower.
Properly speaking, science is out of her sphere, though she does not
seem to know it, in making these suggestions. When she keeps herself
to the investigation of facts, their exposition, their sequence and
their laws, in her painstaking and accurate manner, we accept her
revelations thankfully, and beg her to allow us to make our own
philosophic and other explanations in attempting to account for the
existence, sequences and relations of the facts of life.
After his return home, patient continued to gain weight, as might have
been expected. On the seventeenth day after ending the fast he
weighed 140 lbs. and on the nineteenth day 144 lbs. On that day he
received from a hospital a report that the reaction of the
physiologico-pathological test was negative. This has naturally had a
great effect on the patient; and it is worthy of very careful
consideration. Of course one negative result may not be conclusive
although it was positive before the fast. But if the result should be
repeated, and especially if it should prove to be permanent, the
importance of the fact can hardly be exaggerated, since the suggestion
arises in our minds that perhaps we may be able to cure profound
blood-poisoning by fasting, neither the usual treatment nor the use of
Salvarsan enabling the investigator to say that the result of the
pathological reaction was negative; but this has followed after a
heroic fast of 56 days. The result if confirmed would not be unique.
Quite recently I saw a specific ulcer close to the ankle-joint for
which operation had been recommended. It seemed to me that operation
would be likely to open the joint, and that therefore it was a risky
proceeding. But under a restriction of the diet, putting the young man
on barley-water for a few days and then advising him to eat once a day
only, the ulcer became very much smaller, and no operation has had to
be performed. Blood-poisoning of this nature, of course, is not caused
by improper nutrition, but it may readily be believed to be aggravated
by the ordinary conventional over-feeding to which, so far as I can
see, we are all subjecting ourselves, especially as persons who put
themselves in the way of contracting blood-poisoning do not generally
belong to the class of those who are attracted by the suggestion that
it is noble to keep the body under, and that if we do not strive to
keep the body under, it will be very likely to keep us under. Although
we shall be liable to be infected, however we live, still we may
believe that we shall be more likely to be badly infected (if we put
ourselves in the way of contracting disease) if we have been
previously subjected to the bad effects of over-feeding. This
consideration renders a possible cure by fasting, a not impossible
suggestion. And if, therefore, we have in fasting the suggestion of a
remedy which offers us the hope of eradicating such a fearful disease
from the human system, it certainly behoves us to make use of it.