pencil, noting down the names of books one wants to read is a form of
castle-building by no means to be despised.
Some people get the same pleasure out of house-hunting; they see an
empty house and go and get the key in order to see over it. The
chances of their ever living there are practically none, but the view
gives a stimulus to their inventive activity: they plan out how they
would furnish the rooms and fill the empty hearths with dreams.
Is not the same thing the explanation of shop-gazing? The woman who
has bought her winter coat and hat does not as a rule refrain from
looking any more into shop windows till the spring; instead, she
clothes herself in imagination in all the beautiful stuffs she sees
displayed, and if some of the things demand ballroom, racecourse, golf
links or perhaps the Alps for the background, why, so much the better,
the suggestion puts, as it were, a view from the windows of her castle
in the air.
A garden--a dozen square yards or reckoned in acres--is full of
material for our imagination; indeed, a seedsman's catalogue or a copy
of "Amateur Gardening" will often be enough to start us; long lines of
greenhouses will build themselves for us, or rockeries, or wild glens
with streams in them, and the world will blossom round about us.
Sometimes it is ambition that calls us, personal or professional; we
get beforehand the sweet taste of power upon the tongue. It may
perhaps be sometimes the rewards of work, riches and honour and so on,
but more often, I think, the dreams of youth circle round the work
itself. We will be of use in the world, we will find new paths and
make them safe for those coming after us to walk in, we will get rid
of that evil and set up a ladder towards that good; we will heal,
teach, feed, amuse, uplift or cherish the other human beings round
about us. We will store only for the sake of distributing; we will
climb only to be better able to give a helping hand.
Well, there are some danger signals at cross-roads of our dream-way,
some precautions to be observed if we would not let romance obscure
and hinder us in our search after reality. But none of these "castles"
are bad in themselves. In so far as they quicken our attention power,
deepen our thoughtfulness, make our activities more elastic and keep
us from carelessness or sloth, they are surely all to the good as
episodes in our development.
E.M. COBHAM.
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF VEGETALISM.
This article, the earlier part of which appeared in the October
number, is from the French of Prof. H. Labbe, the head of the
_laboratoire a la Faculte de Medecine_, in Paris. It reflects a
characteristic aloofness to a any considerations other than scientific
or economic. But it will well repay careful study.--[EDS.]
V
Though the consumption of vegetable foods seems to offer a slight
disadvantage from the point of view of albuminoid matters, this is not
the case touching hydro-carbonated matters and sugars. The vegetable
kingdom constitutes the almost exclusive source of these alimentary
principles. One cannot indeed take much account of the consumption of
the .5-.6 per cent, of glycogen which exists in the animal muscle
partaken of under the shape of butcher's meat. There is hardly enough
in this for a large eater of between 200 and 250 grammes of meat, to
find in hydrocarbonated matters the 1/300 or the 1/400 of the daily
ration. Hydrocarbons are necessarily borrowed from the vegetable
foods. This is also the case with sugars which do not exist in the
animal kingdom in appreciable quantities. It is the same thing with
alcohol which is obtained only from the vegetable kingdom.
VI
As to fatty matters, animal foods, like vegetable products, are
abundantly provided with them. Moreover, from the point of view of
digestibility and capability of assimilating, one may say that there
is a quasi-absolute identity between animal and vegetable fats. The
reason which would induce us to prefer either would not seem to be of
a physiological nature. The economics, which we shall see further on,
take this upon themselves, as the most serious reproach which can be
made against the use of animal dishes is doubtless their dearness, and
the reason which militates most in favour of the predominance of a
vegetable diet is to a certainty its cheapness.
VII
Such are, briefly expounded and refuted, the fundamental objections
which can be brought against the vegetarian diet and the "vegetalian"
customs. There exists, in fact, no serious physiological or chemical
reason for not satisfying our needs solely with foods of vegetable
origin. It may be interesting to note that, in reality, the most
confirmed flesh eaters support their energy-producing needs mainly
with vegetable products. In the mixed diet universally practised meat
plays but a small part.
In meat the waste in preparation and consecutive waste at table is
considerable. To really introduce 200 grammes of meat into the
stomach, nearly 400 grammes must be purchased, and expensively put
into use. What do these 200 grammes really bring in nutritive
elements?
Meat.
200 gr. (mod. fat.) at 18% albumin = 36 gr. album., about.
" " 5% fat = 10 gr. fat, about.
-----
46 gr.
These 46 grs. constitute barely the 8 per cent. of the total weight of
a ration, averaged in nutritive elements, calculated as follows:--
Albumin 80
Fatty matters 70
Hydrates of carbon 350
This is a very feeble proportion.
If one turns to the calorific point of view, in order to estimate the
share of energy useful to the organism, we arrive at much the same
conclusion. The 46 grs. of nutritive animal elements barely provide
230 thermal units which can be utilised, while the total diet which we
are considering brings a power of disposal of nearly 2,350 thermal
units. It is, even then, barely 10 per cent. of the total energy. The
most convinced flesh eaters, those who buy 400 grs. of meat a day for
their consumption, must learn, willingly or unwillingly, that the
animal element enters only in an infinitesimal part into their real
substance and reparation.
VIII
Beyond this very feeble nutritive help is there, then, in meat,
anything else which makes the use of this article of food necessary,
agreeable or particularly strengthening? It is incontestible that meat
contains stimulating substances, which, as Prof. Armand Gautier has
said, play the part of nerve tonics, and have perhaps a direct action
on the circulation.
These special meat matters are found concentrated in the gravy. Meat
gravy, in fact, beside a feeble proportion of albuminoid matters, or
solubly derived quantities, polypeptides, etc., in notable proportion
of liberated acids, contains a certain quantity of matters, qualified
by the generic name of extractives; a notable quantity of these
extractive matters being creatine and creatinine, as well as
substances of which the fundamental nucleus is the puric grouping.
These purins, by the name which E. Fischer attributes to them, derive
from a special grouping which it would be supposed exists in a
hypothetic body, but which is not known in a state of liberty, purin.
This first term gives rise to a series of bodies in lateral groups, of
which the most interesting are caffeine and theobromine. Amongst these
substances the one which has the maximum of oxidation is no other than
uric acid. Caffeine and theobromine enjoy nervine properties and
energetic vascular actions. These properties minutely studied are
utilised every day for therapeutic purposes. It is probable that the
other bodies of the series which are met with in the extract of meat
enjoy analogous physiological properties. These substances are
ingested without discernment, often in great excess, and daily, by
people who consume meat.
Amongst these latter, many would not dare to drug themselves with a
centigramme of pharmaceutic caffeine, whereas they absorb each day gr.
5 and more, of its homologous constituents.
Therefore, in the same way as chocolate, tea and coffee, meat has a
stimulating effect on the system. He who is accidentally deprived of
it finds that he experiences a passing depression. This obviously
proves that by the exaggerated use of meat, one drugs and doctors
oneself without discernment. However this may be, the judicious part
played by meat must apparently be reduced to that of a condiment food
destined to produce in a measure the whipping-up which is useful, and
sometimes indispensable to the system. We cannot here discuss the
expediency of action and the harmlessness of the dose of substances
reputed stimulating. But one can ask oneself whether, to attain this
object of stimulation, carnivorous feeding is indispensable, and if
vegetarianism could not supply the need.
The reply is easy: the vegetable kingdom disposes of a variety of
stimulating articles, such as tea, coffee, kola and cocoa. Through
their active substances these foods are nerve tonics of the first
order, less dangerous in their use than meat, because more easily
assimilated, of far more continuous effects, less mixed with other
substances, sometimes noxious, and consequently more measurable.
Besides, in pulse food, quantities of purins are found as important as
in meat. If the part they play has not been systematically studied
from the point of view of their effects on the nervous organism, they
still give rise to the same terminal products, such as uric acid. One
can quite well argue that the pulse purins have physiological effects
comparable to those of meat purins. On the other hand, vegetable
purins have the considerable advantage of being less easily
precipitated in the urine, after the human interorganic metabolism,
than those resulting from the metabolism of flesh material.
This explains why a frequent use of a vegetable diet offers
appreciable advantages in the amelioration of arthritic diatheses so
common amongst us. Certain effects observed in these diatheses arise
from the purins, from their localisation in the system, and their
vitiated metabolism. The use of a moderate vegetable diet is the best
means of treatment in order to relieve, to ameliorate, even to cure,
arthritic diathesis.
IX
Such are the certain physiological advantages which the predominant
use of vegetable products are capable of offering. If one takes the
pure energy-producing point of view, the superiority of the vegetarian
diet becomes greater still. From the fine works of A. Chauveau, modern
physiology has shown us that muscle, in working, consumes sugary
materials. These are provided by ingestions of sugar in a natural
state, of dextrine or of starch; for a less important part, the
glycogen of the system may also arise from hydrocarbonated cords
existing in the molecule of certain albumins. Therefore it is only in
an infinitesimal part, due to the fibrine of meat, and to the small
proportions of glycogen which it contains, that flesh diet intervenes
in the direct production of kinetic energy.
The demonstrations which have been essayed, touching the muscular
superiority of vegetarians, appear superfluous to us. Such experiments
could only have a positive value if they were made on both series of
antagonistic subjects, with alimentary powers of energy-producing
equality.
It should be distinctly understood that the vegetarian does not profit
by any mysterious forces. The habit of preferring to nourish oneself
with vegetable foods, can, at most, or at least, favour the
physiological integrity of the subject, shield him against disease and
assure his revictualment with foods recognised as active and easily
measurable.
One cannot leave alcohol out of the list of advantageous vegetable
foods. In fact, provided one keeps to strictly limited doses, it may
be included among the alimentary foods, on a footing comparable to
that of sugar. If one knew how to use without misusing it, alcohol
might become a daily food.
X
Another order of ideas which one cannot pass by in silence at the
present time militates in favour of vegetable alimentation. Dietetics
cannot neglect economic problems. A flesh diet is very costly. In
large towns, like Paris, at a time when everything is increasing in
cost, one must be favoured by fortune to be able to indulge in the
real luxury of consuming the calories of meat. As we said in 1905,
with Prof. Landouzy and M. Labbe, in our inquiry into popular
Parisian alimentation, the calorific energy of meat comes, on an
average, to between 15 to 20 times dearer than that of bread or pulse
foods.
The diet with a vegetable predominance may therefore, by those who
adopt it, be considered as much less costly than a mixed one. Does not
this fact, then, deserve to be taken into consideration and
compared--startlingly illustrative--to the ingenious calculation
recently made by Lefevre in his examination of vegetarianism? One
acre of land planted for the purpose of breeding cattle produces three
times less living strength than an acre planted with wheat!
Is it not criminal, or at any rate ill-judged, for the richness and
health of the country to have, by the laws of a draconian
protectionism, spurred the French agricultural population along the
road to the breeding of cattle, thus turning it away from cultivation?
These laws are the cause, on the one hand, of the high price of wheat,
owing to the abandonment of its culture and the barriers opposed to
its entrance, and on the other, of the dearness of meat, owing to the
stock and the land which the cattle require.
Under these facts economists have indeed a direct responsibility, as
for more than fifty years economic orthodoxy has presented meat as a
necessity, whereas it is the least advantageous particle amongst so
many others.
In conclusion, let us hope that future distinctions of "Vegetalists,"
vegetarians or flesh eaters may be completely abolished. _In medio
stat virtus._ The dietetic regimen, the general adoption of which must
henceforth be desired, must reject all preconceived and hereditary
ideas, and unite in one harmonious use all foods with a hygienic end
in view. The place of each one amongst them and its predominance over
the others should be determined only by conforming to reasons at the
same time physiological and economic.
H. LABBE.
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| #To Our Readers.# |
| |
| Readers who appreciate the independence and all-round nature |
| of _The Healthy Life_ can materially assist the extension of |
| its circulation by tactfully urging their local newsagent to |
| have the magazine regularly displayed for sale. An |
| attractive monthly poster can always be had free from the |
| Publishers, 3 Tudor Street, London, E.C. |
| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
HEALTH AND JOY IN HAND-WEAVING.
_This article gains additional interest from the fact that it has been
written by one who works her own loom and teaches others the ancient
and healthy art of hand-weaving._--[EDS.]
Hand-weaving is an art, a handicraft, one aspect of which we are apt
to forget--namely, that it is a splendid health-giver. Indeed, all who
have felt the rhythm of the loom, as they throw the shuttle to and
fro, and in blending colours and seeing the material grow thread by
thread, can witness to the power of the work to banish both the large
and small worries that eat away our health of mind and body. The
hand-weaver learns to look upon his (or her) loom as a very good
friend.
The possibilities in weaving are immense, and the great difficulty
that always confronts the weaver is the impossibility of letting
gussets into the day: the end of the week comes all too soon.
One very satisfactory thing about weaving is the fact that from the
very first we can use the things woven, even those we learn on.
First, there is plain weaving, with which we can make dress materials
and many things for household use. Then come fancy and striped
materials, which require more knowledge and ingenuity.
There are endless varieties in bands of different patterns thrown in
with the shuttle, or shuttles, sometimes as many as a dozen of which
may be in use at a time. These can be used for the purpose of
ornamentation. In weaving these no end of play of colour can be made,
by using many colours in rotation, either as the groundwork of plain
material, under the patterns, or as the pattern itself.
Metal threads can also be used of various kinds, either as an entire
texture, or to enrich the fancy bands.
Lastly, there is inlay weaving, by which we can put in by hand, with
little separate bobbins, as we go along, any cross-stitch design,
lettering, monograms, figures and designs of every description.
Anyone with a knowledge of carpentry can make his own loom, the
construction being of a very simple nature. In fact, the Orientals
erect a few sticks, dig a hole in the ground to sit in, tie their warp
up to a tree, and then produce the most charming work, both in texture
and colour.
The warp can also be made as these people often make theirs, by fixing
it to sticks stuck into the ground, and walking backwards and forwards
with the thread, singing as they go. Yes, singing! I think we English
folk might learn from them to put more joy into our work, that
fountainhead of life and health. We are apt to take such a serious
view of ourselves and of all we do. So often, too, we only feel the
dull and quiet colours, instead of using the many brilliant ones that
nature loves so well. Once we begin working in, and appreciating,
these we realise the exhilarating effect on our spirits. Indeed, I
think we are only beginning to realise what a great influence colour
has upon us, and all that colour signifies, each colour having various
meanings of its own.
Many people are now realising that we are surrounded by a halo of
colour woven by our character--the most highly developed people being
surrounded by clear, bright colours. It is strictly true that we are
all weavers, every day of our lives. By following the laws of nature
we make the finest texture composed of all the most glorious colours
or qualities in the Universe, so by degrees bringing ourselves, and
others, into perfect harmony and peace.
MINNIE BROWN.
HOW MUCH SHOULD WE EAT?
_This discussion arose out of the article with above title, by "M.D.,"
which was published in our July number._--[EDS.]
IV
In dealing with this vitally important question, we shall most of us,
I take it, agree upon certain points. In the light of recent knowledge
upon, and extended experience of the subject, one such point which now
appears incontrovertible is that there are thousands die
annually--directly or indirectly--through overfeeding where one dies
through insufficient nourishment. And it may at once be said that, as
regards these thousands, the death certificates are practically
valueless as data in relation to erroneous dieting, so that in this
way we can never get at a correct estimate as to the actual number of
deaths due to overfeeding. Bright's disease, gastric and intestinal
affections, growths of various kinds, cancer, etc., are each in their
turn certified as the "Cause of Death." Most often, however, the
initial cause is the overloading of the system with an amount of food
beyond that which is necessary or healthful--and thereby clogging up
the tissues, the organs and smaller bloodvessels.
But it may be said: "How can you substantiate such a general and
sweeping statement?" In the first place--and this is profoundly
significant--other things being equal, it must be acknowledged by all
unbiased people that the small and moderate feeders do not contract
disease in anything like the proportion that big feeders do, and as a
natural consequence live longer lives.
Further, it must surely be quite evident by this time that there is a
sufficiently large enough number of people who are thus existing in
good health--and steadily regaining it where it has been lost--on the
lines of moderate feeding. And the number is accumulating at a rapid
pace; more and more are coming into line with those of us who, having
thus found health in themselves, their patients and friends, are
preaching the practice of two meals a day, and sometimes only one
where there is serious organic disease to combat--thus defying the
dicta of those eminent physiologists who "settled" the question years
ago.
Now I quite admit--it would be impertinence to do otherwise--that
"M.D.'s" statements and views must not be ignored, must indeed be
respected. And he tells us that he "heard of," in one day, three cases
which "went wrong" through underfeeding; well, for those three cases
we can point to hundreds who are _going right_ through eating just
enough and not too much. I am prepared, on the other hand, to admit
the danger of a continued semi-starvation diet; our difficulty
is to define in each individual case what exactly would be a
semi-starvation, and what a sufficient diet. It is impossible to have
a fixed standard for everybody. After all, "the proof of the pudding
is in the eating"; often it is a matter of experimenting for some
little time, and in this way we could judge largely of the result of
our dieting by our state of general health.
On some main points of the question I am now absolutely
convinced--viz.:
1. Excessive bulk is always dangerous, often disastrous, causing
sudden death in a large number of cases.
2. Starchy foods are best strictly limited as we get along towards
middle age and beyond.
3. A life which is largely mental or sedentary will be healthier and
longer on a strictly moderate diet.
4. A life largely of physical labour must be dealt with on its own
particular conditions.
5. At all times due regard, of course, must be paid to age, weight,
etc.
6. On the whole, "eminent physiologists" have erred on the side of
excess of proteid being advised.
7. Middle age is the critical time of life in respect to a man's diet
in other words, I would say in axiomatic form that as a man feeds at
or about middle age, so will he be for the rest of his life.
J. STENSON HOOKER, M.D.
V
As a very interested reader of this discussion I should be very glad
to know exactly what "M.D." means by _each pound_ of _bone_ and
_muscle_ in the body weight? What proportion (approximately) is it to
total body weight? I have been trying to keep up to Dr Haig's 9 grains
per lb. of "body weight" and find that it is too much for my digestive
powers, which are very weak owing to chronic nervous dyspepsia. If I
take 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. _less_ proteid my troubles are so
greatly lessened that I feel that to continue to take the lower amount
would mean perpetual relief. But there have been so many warnings,
including M.D.'s, of the dangers of under-nutrition, that I am in a
quandary; and others of your readers too.
If M.D. means grains per lb. of _something less_ than total body
weight, a lesser amount of proteid than I try to take may have his
sanction, and be safe for me.
JNO. A. COOKSON.
* * * * *
There appears to be a sincere attempt in "M.D.'s" article to prove
that a physiologist is the best guide in diet. But, as one can get the
degree of M.D. without any scientific knowledge of dietetics, the
inference that one would be likely to make from such an alarming
article is erroneous. I say "alarming" because vague statements are
made as to patients who were rescued just in time to be stimulated by
over-feeding into a semblance of health, and we are treated to a list
of very alarming symptoms in the last paragraph on p. 443.
"M.D." says, "Suppose that the animal fed for years on unnatural food
has become so pathological that it can no longer take or digest its
natural food." How grateful to M.D. for this statement will be those
who long for an excuse to cling to the spoiled, boiled and unnatural
dishes of which the popular diet mainly consists! And how they will
continue to overeat themselves, content to avoid the truth regarding
food quantities.