Transcriber’s Notes

Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations in hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.

A paragraph on the [Mincopies] in Chapter VI refers to the killing of guianas and bugongs, this may be misspelling of iguana and dugong. Additionally the Mincopies are referred to as African whereas they were Andaman Islanders.

The layout of the tables in Chapter IV has been modified to improve clarity and manage width. In addition the large table "Selections from Atwater and Bryant’s Tables", originally occupying pages 64 to 71, has been relocated to the end of the book as an additional appendix in order to preserve the flow of the text. This has been added to the TOC and a link placed in the original location.

Proteid and protein are both used and have not been standardised.

The index refers to pages 332 and 333, these do not exist.

The cover was prepared by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

THE NATURAL FOOD
OF MAN

BEING AN ATTEMPT TO PROVE FROM COMPARATIVE
ANATOMY, PHYSIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY AND
HYGIENE, THAT THE ORIGINAL,
BEST AND NATURAL DIET OF
MAN IS FRUIT AND
NUTS

BY

HEREWARD CARRINGTON

AUTHOR OF

“VITALITY, FASTING AND NUTRITION,” “THE COMING SCIENCE,” “DEATH:
ITS CAUSES AND PHENOMENA” (JOINTLY), ETC., ETC.

LONDON
C. W. DANIEL
AMEN CORNER, E.C.
1912

To
MY MOTHER
IN LOVING MEMORY

PREFACE

America has just passed through a great financial crisis—one of the many which occur from time to time, because of badly adjusted financial conditions, and as the result of greed—and we hear much talk of “hard times,” and the lack of money wherewith to buy the necessities of life. Now, I believe that such “hard times,” and such conditions, could be largely averted if only the people were taught to live correctly: taught how to economise their food, and how to take care of their bodies. There can be no doubt but that much of the waste which occurs throughout the land is due to ignorance of the great laws of life and health; and if people were only taught how to reduce their food-supply scientifically—and not to expend so much money on their bodies, and especially on their food—there would be but a small amount of suffering compared with that which has existed in the past. Teach the public how to preserve the body in a state of health, upon a small amount of money, and we shall have solved one of the greatest economic factors confronting us to-day. I believe that this may be brought about, in a large part at least, by adopting the principles of nutrition outlined in this book; and I submit it to the public largely with that idea in mind. But that is only part of my object, none the less. My desire is to help humanity to secure better health—to teach them how to live cheaply and economically; above all, how to live so as to preserve the highest standard of health, strength and energy. We should thus have a cleaner, a hardier and a happier race of individuals; and I firmly believe that all true reform—social economic religious—must come primarily through the body—i.e. these reforms can only be effected by first of all reforming the body, and its habits; and when that has been rendered clean and pure, the coveted mental and moral reforms will be found to follow of themselves. External conditions and environment may count for much, but the internal factor counts for much more. The internal personality of the man is what we should aim to reach first of all; and this can be reached most easily and effectually by means if the body—for in that he is most wrapped; with its feelings and emotions he is most closely connected. Reform the inner man, and particularly his body, and trust to man to reform his environment. Make men and women what they ought to be, and they will soon reform their external conditions.

I have attempted to deal, in this volume, with the quality of foods, as I dealt with their quantity, in my former book. In this way, the ground will have been pretty thoroughly covered, from the particular point of view from which I have attacked these problems. I can only hope that, as the result of these two volumes, many persons may find health and a long life, who would otherwise have sunk into a premature grave. If I could feel that I had in any way helped to accomplish this, I should be more than satisfied.

H. C.

CONTENTS

The Natural Food of Man

I
THE NATURAL FOOD OF MAN

There can be no doubt that, whatever other function food may or may not have, it replaces broken-down tissue. The tissue-wastes of the preceding day are replenished by the food eaten; so the body remains about the same in weight, no matter how much exercise be taken, or how much tissue is broken down. These tissues are very complex in their nature, and a variety of food is consequently necessary to restore the tissues destroyed—food containing a number of elements (the counterpart of the elements destroyed), being necessary to offset the waste. Proteid, fats, carbohydrates, and various salts are, therefore, necessary in the food; and no food that does not contain these constituents, in larger or smaller quantities, can be used by the body, or can be classed as a true “food.” Other things being equal, therefore, it may be said that a food is nutritious and capable of sustaining life in proportion to its complexity—the best food being one that most nearly supplies the wastes of the tissues. If an article of diet contains only one of the essential elements necessary for supporting life, the body, if fed upon it, will waste away and die—no matter how much of that food be eaten. In certain experiments conducted upon dogs, it was found that, when they were fed upon fat—e.g. they became round, plump, embonpoint, and yet died of inanition! The same would be true of any other single article of diet. If an animal were fed upon it, he would surely die, sooner or later. Proteids are supposed to supply most of the muscle-forming elements, and a part of the energy expended by the body; fats and carbohydrates are supposed to be of use chiefly in supplying heat and energy to the system. The mineral salts that are contained in the foods do not fulfil any definite function, so far as is known; but they are very essential, nevertheless. If a diet lacks these salts entirely, the body wastes away and dies of “saline starvation.” It will thus be apparent that foods very rapidly and very forcibly affect the state of the health, and even the life of the individual. Food, it must be remembered, makes blood; and the blood is absolutely dependent upon the food supply for its character and composition. If the food be poisonous in character, the blood soon becomes tainted, and the mind, no less than the body, shows the effects of this poisoning process. On any theory we may hold of the nature of mind, and its connection with the body, it is certainly dependent upon the body for its manifestation, in this life; and is coloured and influenced by the state of the body, and by the condition of the blood. This I have shown more fully in another place. We shall also see the effects of diet upon the mind, more clearly, as we proceed in the present volume.

From what has been said, it will at all events be apparent that this question of the food supply is a very important one—indeed one of the most important before the world to-day. The first thought, the first instinct, of any animal, is to search for and secure food; self-preservation is the most powerful instinct in the world, and the nutrition of the body occupies first place, as one means of preserving life. In the lower organisms, we see this very clearly; they spend almost the whole of their lives in searching for and devouring food; but as we ascend the scale of evolution, we find less and less space devoted, in the body, to the digestive organs, and more and more to the brain, and instruments of the mind. It would appear, therefore, that the higher we ascend in the scale of evolution, the less proportionate space in the body is devoted to the purely animal processes, and the more to the mental and spiritual sides of man. As the mentality increases, the need for food decreases: this is a very significant law—for such I believe it to be. It would seem to indicate that man attained the highest level, so far as his physical or physiological structure was concerned; and that evolution thenceforward tended to develop that side of man which rendered possible the increased mental and spiritual characteristics. However, I shall not dwell too strongly upon that point now.

Although an adequate supply of food is very necessary to all organisms, there is but little danger that anyone in a civilised community would run the risk of starving to death, because of the lack of food. The tendency is all the other way, and most persons eat, not too little, but far too much, food. Even the very poor, and especially the babies of the very poor—eat too often, and too much. This may seem strange, but it becomes more rational and intelligible when we take into account the fact that the human body needs so little food, in reality, to supply the wastes of the day, that the very poor, even if they have far less food than the majority, still have too much. The average person eats at least three times more food than his system really requires; and it is due to this very fact, I earnestly believe, that much of the suffering and of the insanity, and many of the diseases, are so constantly with us. In his recently published works, Professor Chittenden has shown with great detail that the average standard “dietary tables” of the physiologists have been far too high; and that the average man can cut down his proteid intake fully one third, without detriment, but, on the contrary, with added benefit to himself. The majority of persons eat far more than the physiologists have said to be necessary; and now it has been shown that the physiologists have set the standard three times too high! It would appear, therefore, that most persons eat more than three times too much proteid; and the same has been found to hold good of the fats and carbohydrates, in a lesser degree, also. But while the fats and carbohydrates can be eliminated by the system, or stored up within it, without positive danger, proteid in excess creates an abundance of uric acid, and causes much harm to the system throughout. It is the excess of proteid that is the chief cause of many of the diseases from which mankind suffers; and, if health is to be maintained, we must see to it that this great excess is not ingested into the body. While keeping up the due allowance, we must be careful not to eat those foods which tend to introduce this excess into the system; and, by avoiding them, it will be seen that we thereby avoid all danger of creating an undue amount of uric acid, and consequently of suffering from the induced diseases.

Now, it is a well-known fact that meat contains a large proportion of protein; and further, that it has a great tendency to create uric acid in the system, owing to the decaying cell-nuclei that form a large part of its structure. Meat is by no means a clean article of diet, but on the contrary a very unclean one; and many foods, supplying an equal amount of proteid matter, are to be preferred, for the reason that they supply less toxic material—which invariably accompanies flesh-meat. It must be remembered that the tissues of all animals contain a certain amount of poisonous material—simply by reason of the fact that the animal has lived at all—since all animals are constantly creating poisons within their bodies, by the very process of living. These poisons are being thrown off by the body every minute throughout the day; and it is because of that fact the animal is enabled to remain alive at all. Were this process of elimination checked for a few hours, death by poisoning would inevitably result—in consequence of the poisons formed by the body itself. All animals, then, create these poisons; and it would be impossible to find an animal body without them. So that, when we eat the flesh of any animal, we must eat, together with the nutritious portions, these poisons—which are practically inseparable from all animal tissue. That is, whenever we eat meat, we invariably eat, at the same time, a certain quantity of poison—which it is impossible to avoid! I shall elaborate this idea at considerable length in my chapter on the hygiene of diet. In this place I shall only call attention to that fact—the strongest argument of all, to my mind, for abstaining from flesh; and shall point out that, if any diet furnishes all the nutritious properties of meat, without these poisons, it is certainly to be preferred, on that account. We shall see, when we come to the chapter devoted to the chemistry of foods, that all the elements contained in meat are also contained in a purer and better form in other substances—grains, some vegetables, and in nuts—and in as large or larger proportions than they are in meat.

It will thus be seen that certain foods are better for us than others—a fact which daily observation confirms. Everyone knows that certain articles of diet are indigestible, others not so much so: that some are nutritious, and others hardly of any food value at all. Some foods are better for us than others, therefore; and, if we wish to maintain our health, it is obvious that we should eat those foods, and only those foods, as a general thing, which can be shown to be of use and benefit to the body. If some foods are thus more wholesome than others, does it not behove everyone interested in the health and care of his body—and especially all those interested in hygiene, or the improvement of the race—to endeavour to ascertain what these foods are, those most natural and best for the human body; and, having found them, to advise all who wish to maintain their bodies in the highest state of health, to live upon these foods—or at least to make them the staple articles of their diet? Believing this to be most certainly true, I shall devote myself, in the present volume, to a careful search through the records and evidences of science, and endeavour to ascertain in what man’s natural food consists; and, having found the food which is indicated by nature as the best and most natural for man, I shall proceed to give my reasons for thinking that this food is the most wholesome, and why it is that all other foods must be more or less harmful to the system. This done, we shall be in a position to define what foods are “natural” for man, and indicate why it is that they are the most wholesome.

In order to clarify the problem, then, and clear away any misconceptions that may arise in the reader’s mind, I shall state here what my conclusions are, and my reasons for thinking them sound. Assuming that there is an “ideal” diet of some sort—that upon which the human race originally lived, and which it should still live upon, if it wishes to maintain the best possible health—I have gone carefully through the various food-stuffs, and, by careful analysis, have shown that all meats are injurious to the body, for the reason that they are not suited to it, by reason of its anatomical structure—and, further, by the facts of experience and hygiene, which clearly indicate that if man eats meat, he suffers in consequence. These arguments will be found in full in the book. I also found that there were many objections to all vegetables, to cereals, grains and flour of all kinds; to soups, to bread and eggs, to butter, milk, cheese, and to all dairy products. Most cookbooks and works devoted to the hygiene of foods have been in the habit of pointing out all the beneficial and good qualities of these foods, and saying very little about their bad qualities. In this book, I have pointed out all the bad qualities, and have insisted that these so far offset their good qualities as to show them utterly unfitted for human food, and consequently to be discarded from any truly hygienic diet. Thus, by a process of elimination, we are forced to the conclusion that the only foods that are really natural to man, those best suited to his organism, are fruits and nuts—the diet of his anthropoid brethren, and man’s own natural diet, as is clearly indicated by his anatomical structure. Fruits and nuts will alone suffice to maintain the human body in the highest state of health; and are the foods which should be adopted, and eaten, by mankind, to the exclusion of all others. From them, he can obtain all the elements necessary for the upbuilding of a healthy body; and from them he can derive the greatest amount of health and strength, and the greatest amount of energy.

Many persons would be willing to concede, I fancy, that man can live without meat—indeed, there is no escaping this conclusion, since thousands of persons are actually doing so. But not very many would be willing to concede, probably, that all breads, grains, and vegetables are to be abandoned as unfit for human food also! They would be unwilling to admit that! And yet I think it can be shown very conclusively that none of these foods are intended for the human being, any more than is the grass of the field. Each genus has its own particular food, allotted by nature; and man’s food consists—or should consist—of fruit and nuts. Further, these fruits and nuts should be eaten uncooked—in their original, primitive form. I am convinced that cooking ruins nearly all foods treated in that manner—my arguments for this will be found in full in the chapter on “The Fruitarian Diet.”

If this be true, as I most firmly believe it is—it will be seen that practically all other foods are naturally barred out, by the very nature of the case. Certainly no one would care to eat his meat raw; and all vegetables, with very few exceptions, would also fall under the ban, for but few of them can well be eaten without cooking. Grains, also, are very unappetising, when eaten raw, and it is now well known that but a small amount of their starch is converted properly, in the body, unless the grains are well cooked; so that all these foods would be eliminated from the diet, and practically nothing left but fruits and nuts! Although this may seem appalling to the average reader, it is the logical outcome of the theory, and I am convinced the right interpretation of the facts. The fruitarian diet is the one best suited for man; and the one upon which he can live best and longest. I myself have lived upon this fruit and nut diet almost exclusively for several years, and I may perhaps say that I am always in excellent spirits and condition, and a source of constant surprise to my friends in that I seem to possess an untiring energy and ability for work. I say this, not to boast, but to show that a diet of this character is perfectly compatible with health and strength; and I believe that almost any person could double his energies, his health, and his self-respect by adopting a diet of this character. For it has a tremendous effect upon the mental and moral, no less than upon the physical life, as I shall presently endeavour to show.

With the invention of fire, however, many articles of food became edible which had not been edible before. Finding that grains and roots, and certain weeds (vegetables) could be eaten, when cooked, although they were uneatable when raw, man took to cooking his food, and substituting this food for a portion of his original diet—which was probably scarce at the time. In this way, the cooking of food probably originated. It began in the far-off ages, and has been handed down to us—a legacy of barbarism, to which man rigidly clings, in the vain effort to preserve a distinction between himself and other animals—who do not cook their food—because of this fact! He prides himself that he is the only “cooking animal”! If man would only learn that it is owing to this very process of cooking that much of the suffering, and many of the ills from which mankind suffers, are due!

Many persons imagine that, if they returned to a primitive diet of this character, they would become as the savages—wild and uncivilised. They “don’t want to become like the animals,” they will say. They wish to remain “civilised,” and not return to a state of savagery and barbarism! There is no logic in this argument—indeed, no sense. Because a man lives upon fruits and nuts, it is, of course, no reason why he should return to a primitive state, mentally; indeed, there is far less evidence for this than there is that man becomes like the carnivorous animals by eating meat. There is evidence for that! But living upon fruits and nuts has no other effect than to elevate the tone and character of the body; to increase its energies and to render the mind clearer and more active. If these objectors to the fruitarian diet would only study physiology and human nature before passing any such absurd judgment upon the facts, their arguments would have more force—but then, in that case, they would not raise the arguments at all! Of course, this whole idea is conclusively proved to be erroneous by the facts in the case.

There is one other point I should like to touch upon, though briefly, before passing on to the main argument of the book. The usual position with regard to food, and its functions in the body is this. Food has three functions: (1) The replacement of tissues which have been broken down as the result of the day’s work; (2) the maintenance of the bodily energy; and (3) the maintenance of the bodily heat. Now, in my former book,[1] I advanced a number of facts tending to show that food has but one function—replacing broken-down tissue. It supplies no heat and no energy whatever to the body, at any time, or under any circumstances. Both the heat and the energy are due to another source altogether, and not to the food ingested.[2] I cannot enumerate the arguments in support of this position here; they will be found in full in the work referred to; but I would point out that, if this theory were true, it would cause us to modify very largely the views entertained as to the necessary amount of food required by the body. Now, a large percentage of the food eaten is supposed to create heat and energy, or at least liberate it, and is eaten for that express purpose. But if it be true that food has no other function than to supply the body with material for the rebuilding of its structures and tissues, it will be apparent that far less food is necessary than is usually thought to be necessary by the physiologists; and this would account for the enormous differences in quantity said to be

necessary by the various physiologists. The truth of the matter doubtless is, that the smallest amount of food is that which is necessary, and all amounts over and above this are passed through the body at an expense of the vital energies, and to the detriment of the vital economy. However, I shall not dwell unduly upon this point, in this place; partly because Dr Rabagliati and myself are, as yet, practically alone in our belief that the energy of the body does not come from the food; and partly because this book is devoted to the quality of the various foods, rather than to their quantity—as was my former book. Both—quantity and quality—are of great interest and importance; but as I have already said all that is necessary regarding one aspect of this question—that of quantity—I feel that a somewhat detailed discussion of the “quality” of food could not fail to be of interest. I accordingly turn to this aspect of the problem; and shall devote the remaining pages of this book to a discussion of the relative qualities and proportions of the various foods.

II
THE ARGUMENT FROM COMPARATIVE ANATOMY

Perhaps the most important factor of all, in considering this question of man’s natural diet, is the anatomical argument—the argument, that is, which says that man must or should naturally eat certain foods, for the reason that he belongs to the class or genus of animals which lives upon that class of foods—and that, consequently, he should live upon them also. Comparative anatomy affords us one of the most tangible and at the same time one of the most forceful and convincing arguments that can be furnished in favour of man’s natural diet (whatever that may prove to be)—for the reason that its facts are so well-attested that they cannot be gainsaid by anyone who is in possession of them; and only the inferences drawn from these facts can be disputed—which is a question that will be considered later. As before stated, this line of argument is in many ways the most important with which we shall have to deal; it will tend either to condemn or to confirm my argument most strongly. From a scientific standpoint, the study of this subject is founded upon the fact that the diet of any animal, in its natural state, is always found to agree both with its anatomical structure and with its several digestive processes and general bodily functions. So clearly is this fact recognised, indeed, by comparative anatomists and scientists generally, that animals have been divided, according to their dietetic habits, into four great classes—herbivorous, frugivorous, carnivorous and omnivorous. There are various sub-and minor-divisions that can be and in fact are made—such as the gramnivora, or grain-eaters; the rodentia, or gnawers; the ruminants, or cud-chewers; and the edentata or creatures without teeth. These subdivisions need not concern us here, however; and I shall not discuss their anatomical structure or food-habits at any length. Their names sufficiently classify them—in a work of this nature, which deals with foods, and is not a natural history. For practical purposes, the gramnivora may be included in the class of frugivora—since most frugivorous animals eat grains to some extent. This understood, we can proceed to a consideration of the facts; and we shall see to which of these classes man belongs.

In order to classify an animal, and place him in his proper division, it is necessary first of all to make a careful examination of his physical structure, and examine his organs in turn and severally, with the utmost care; when, by a comparative study of his organs, and by comparing them with those of other animals, living upon other foods, we shall be enabled to classify man properly—at least, so far as the evidence afforded by comparative anatomy enables us to reach a decisive conclusion one way or the other. There are numerous other facts and arguments to be taken into consideration; but, as said before, the argument drawn from comparative anatomy is the most complete and convincing of all—since that alone practically settles the case for all other animals. Let us, therefore, consider the structure or anatomy of man, from this point of view; and see how far these arguments lead us, and to what class we should naturally assign man, from a study of these facts alone. I shall take up for discussion first of all the teeth.

The Teeth

The Herbivora.—Let us consider first the teeth of the herbivorous animal. The horse, the ox, and the sheep are typical of this class of animals—living, as they do, almost entirely upon grass and herbs. The character of their food is peculiar. It is bulky, coarse, and covered with sharp, cutting edges—ill suited for tender mouths and gums. It must be mashed and ground thoroughly between the teeth and in the mouth before it is fit to be swallowed; and teeth of a peculiar construction and mutual relation are necessary in order properly to perform this function. Just such teeth they possess. There are twenty-four molars, six on each side in each jaw; and in the lower jaw, in front, eight incisors, or cutting teeth, with none on the upper jaw. In place of any of these teeth on the upper jaw, there is simply a horny plate upon which the long incisors of the lower jaw impinge when the jaws are closed. This renders possible the tearing, grinding motions necessary for biting off and masticating the food upon which these animals live. Not only that. The actual structure of their teeth is peculiarly suited to their food and its mastication. Unlike our teeth, they are not covered with enamel, but are composed of alternate layers of enamel and dentine—a soft, bony substance lying between the layers of enamel, and wearing away more rapidly than it does. The result is that there is soon formed a series of jagged edges, which form cutting, grinding surfaces, and are especially adapted for the food which these animals feed upon. No such formation is present in any other class of animals, since their food is different from that of the herbivora. It is a wise provision of nature, precisely adapted to the desired ends.

The Insectivora.—The insect-eaters are more nearly related to the Rodentia than to the Carnivora. The form of teeth varies with the species. The incisors and canines are not especially prominent, but the molars are always serrated with numerous small-pointed eminences, or cusps, adapted to crushing insects. The three leading families of the Insectivora are the moles, the shrew-mice, and the hedgehogs. They are of small size, and are found in all countries, except in South America and Australia.

The Rodentia.—The Rodentia is a peculiar order of animals, characterised by two very long and strong teeth in each jaw, which occupy the place of the incisors and canines in other animals. Back of these there is a toothless space, and then four or five molars, which, when they have a roughened crown, indicate a vegetable, but when pointed, an insectivorous, diet. Their principal foods are grains and seeds of all kinds, and with these, often, fruits, nuts and acorns. To this order belong the families of the squirrel, marmot, all species of mice, the beaver, porcupine, hare, and others.

An especial dietetic subdivision of the Rodentia is the Rhizophaga, or root-eaters, which includes some species of the Marsupials, and of mice. The food often consists exclusively of the roots of the beet, carrot, celery and onion.

The Edentata.—Occasionally, though rarely, animals of this class have rudimentary back teeth. Their food consists of leaves, blossoms, buds, and juicy stalks. Some also devour insects, especially ants. To this order belong the sloth, armadillo, pangolin, and great ant-eater.

The Omnivora.—Omnivorous animals have very distinctive teeth. The canines are markedly developed, forming regular tusks at the side of the mouth. These are used for attack and defence, and also to dig up roots, upon which these animals largely feed. The hog is typical of omnivorous animals of this character, and we all know his disposition no less than his anatomy! Animals of this class can live upon both animal and vegetable food, and man is supposed to be included in this category! The great argument brought forward by those who recommend a “mixed” diet (i.e. one composed of flesh, vegetables, fruits, roots, grains, etc.), is that man can live on all these foods, and retain life and some degree of health, and that therefore he is omnivorous. We shall come to consider this argument somewhat at length presently. For the moment, it is enough to say that (so far as his teeth are considered, at any rate) man is in no way similar to the hog, or to any omnivorous animal whatever, but totally different from all of them. The most casual glance at the mouth and teeth of the hog should convince us that we are not in that class! The other considerations we shall come to later.

The Carnivora.—The next great class that we must consider is the carnivora. Their teeth are very distinctive, and their shape and arrangement are entirely different from those of any of the other animals. There are the incisor teeth in front, and molars behind; but the most distinctive teeth are the canine, which especially distinguish this class of feeders. There are four of these—two in each jaw, placed upon the sides, and they are long, sharp, and pointed. The more nearly the animal is purely carnivorous, the more are these teeth developed, and the less meat the animal eats, the less are they developed. Thus, the feline species, which is perhaps the most typically carnivorous of all, have canine teeth very well developed; in them, they are most marked. In such animals, the canine teeth are also set considerably apart from other teeth. In the dog, however, the teeth are less prominent than they are in the cat; his claws, eyes, etc., are also less distinctly carnivorous, and it will be observed that his habits are decidedly less like those of the preying animal than are those of the cat: he sleeps at night instead of in the daytime; does not adopt the stealthy methods for catching birds, etc., which the cat follows. All this has its significance when it is remembered that dogs are much more easily weaned away from a flesh diet, on to one of milk, bread, biscuits, etc., than are cats, who are very difficult to wean from their carnivorous habits. This, however, is by the way.

In the bear family, again, the carnivorous characteristics are still less marked. The canine teeth are less and the molars and incisors more developed—the latter having a flat but roughened crown. All this indicates a still nearer approach to a vegetable and fruit diet—as is actually the case. The bear, as is well known, is fond of berries, fruits of all kinds, milk and honey.

Man, has, of course, two “eye teeth,” which are more or less pointed, and that I do not deny. But these teeth are comparatively so small, when compared with the corresponding canines of the real carnivora, as to be altogether insignificant. When we examine the mouth of a person with normal teeth, we find that the teeth are almost exactly similar in size and shape—so much so, in fact, that any person ignorant of the fact that we have “carnivorous teeth” in our heads (supposedly) cannot pick them out from the others! He does not experience any such difficulty in selecting the carnivorous teeth of the tiger or the cat! Strange, is it not? Even the omnivorous hog has teeth so much larger as to be totally dissimilar to those of man. Man’s teeth are so uniform that all traces of his carnivorous nature have entirely disappeared. The only reply that can be made to this criticism is that, although man’s carnivorous teeth are considerably smaller than those of the pure carnivora, they are still there, none the less, and consequently man is entitled to live upon a certain amount of meat—though not to make it his chief or exclusive diet, as do the pure carnivora. The very fact that he has such teeth in his head at all is proof positive, it will be urged, that man should, or at least can, without injury, live upon flesh to some extent. For otherwise how came these teeth into his head?

The answer to this is very simple. The gorilla—a typical example of the frugivorous animal—has these teeth much more strongly and markedly developed than man; and yet he does not feed upon flesh to any appreciable extent; and in fact lives almost entirely upon fruits, nuts, roots, etc. If we were to argue that man must eat meat, because of the carnivorous teeth in his head, much more must we insist that the orang and the gorilla should live upon flesh-food—and yet we know that these animals in their natural state do not eat flesh-foods at all, or only when they cannot obtain their own food in abundance! They are clearly frugivorous by nature; and, inasmuch as their eye-teeth are far more developed than are the same teeth in man’s head, we must come to the conclusion that man is certainly not adapted to a flesh diet, on account of his teeth or because of them. He is more certainly frugivorous than the gorilla—were we to judge by the teeth alone! They are mere rudiments—atrophied relics of bygone ages. Their use has ceased to be. Orangs and gorillas have some need of their teeth for purposes of cracking nuts, for digging up roots, for attack and defence, and perhaps other purposes in extreme necessity. But we have no need of teeth for any of these reasons, and hence the teeth are not developed in us, to any such great extent. All reason and analogy, therefore, clearly indicate that our teeth are far more indicative of a frugivorous diet than any animal living.

“I can never mention vegetarianism to a flesh-eating medical gentleman,” said Dr Trall,[3] “who does not introduce the teeth argument as the conclusion of the whole matter, as he asks triumphantly, ‘What were carnivorous teeth put in our jaws for if not to eat flesh?’

“I have an answer. They were never put there at all! If they really exist in particular cases, it must be by some accident. They were no part of the original constitution of humanity. And in truth, they have no existence at all, except in the imaginations of medical men—in medical books and journals, in the public newspapers, and the jaws of carnivorous animals....

“And now I propose to put this matter of teeth to the proof. Hearing may be believing, but seeing is the naked truth. I ask medical men to show their teeth; to open their jaws and let their teeth be seen. Let us have the light to shine in upon this dark and perplexing question. I appeal from their statements to their faces; from their books and schools to their own anatomy.

“Is there a person here who believes that, in the anatomy of his teeth, he is only part human? that he is a compromise of human and brute? Let him come forward and open his mouth.... I think, if we make a careful examination, we shall readily discover that he is, ‘toothically considered,’ neither perdaceous nor beastial; that he is, dietetically, neither swinish nor tigerocious; neither dogmatical nor categorical; nor is he exactly graminivorous, like the cattle; he is not even sheepish—but simply, wholly, and exclusively human!

“True, there are some resemblances between the teeth of men, women and children, and the teeth of cats, dogs, lions, tigers, hogs, horses, cattle, crocodiles, and megalosauruses. But there are differences, too! And the differences are just as significant as are the resemblances. There is a resemblance between a man’s face and the countenance of a codfish. There is also a striking difference. There is some resemblance between a man’s features—especially if he does not shave—and the features of a bear. There is some resemblance between a woman’s hair and a peacock’s feathers; between a man’s finger-nails and a vulture’s talons; between his eye-teeth and a serpent’s fangs. But, luckily for us, they are not the same, nor precisely alike. Man resembles, more or less, every animal in existence. He differs, too, more or less, from all animals in existence....

“There is one class of scholars who are competent and qualified by their studies to give an opinion on the question of the natural dietetic character of man. I mean naturalists, who have studied comparative anatomy with a special reference to this question. And it gives me pleasure to inform medical gentlemen that all of them without a single exception, with the great Cuvier at their head, have testified that the anatomical conformation of the human being, teeth included, is strictly frugivorous.

“There are indeed specimens of the human family who very closely resemble carnivorous animals, not only in their teeth, but also in their expressions of face and habits of eating—the Kalmuck Tartars, for example. But it is precisely because they have for many generations fed on the grossest animal food and offal, that their forms and features became coarse, brutal and revolting. No such example can be found in any nation or tribe whose dietetic habits have long been wholly or even chiefly vegetarian. I repeat, if these persistent advocates of a flesh-diet based on the anatomical argument will but come forward and let us look into the interior of their countenances, we will show them that they are much better than they supposed themselves to be. We will prove that they are higher in the scale of being than they have given themselves credit for. They have been altogether too modest in their pretensions. In consequence of a little mistake in the anatomy of their masticators, they have humbled themselves quite unnecessarily. Instead of ranking themselves high above the highest, of the animal kingdom, and close on to the borders of the angel kingdom, where God placed them, they have degraded themselves to the level of the scavengers....”

Further, it is interesting in this connection to note that anthropoid apes, as soon as they are deprived of their natural food and their natural life, soon become diseased and die. Says Dr Hartmann:

“Anthropoids when kept in confinement suffer from caries of the teeth, and jaws, from chronic and acute bronchial catarrhs, from inflammation and consumption of the lungs, from inflammation of the liver, from pericardial dropsy, from parasites of the skin and intestine, etc.”[4]

This is interesting as an illustration of the effects of perverted living upon apes; and suggests that man cannot depart from his natural food to any great extent, either, without dire consequences to himself. The thousands of sick and dying in every part of the country, the well-filled hospitals and overflowing graveyards unfortunately prove this to be the case!

Moreover, the eye-teeth of the anthropoid apes are of a totally different character from the canine teeth of the carnivora. The former are small and stout, and somewhat triangular; while the latter are long, round and slender. It is a noteworthy fact that the anthropoid eye-tooth is rough and cartilaginous at the point of contact between the external tooth and the gum, while that of the carnivora at the same point is smooth and sharp. The eye-tooth of the anthropoids is adapted for use in cracking nuts and the like, while those of the carnivora are exclusively employed in seizing and tearing flesh. Professor Nicholson, in his “Manual of Zoology,” pp. 604-605, says of the anthropoid apes:

“The canine teeth of the males are long, strong and pointed, but this is not the case with the females. The structure, therefore, of the canine teeth is to be regarded in the light of a sexual peculiarity, and not as having any connection with the nature of the food.”

The teeth of man are inferior in strength to those of the anthropoid apes, but the cause of this is to be sought not so much in their original character as in the fact that they have been weakened and degenerated by the use of cooked food for thousands of years.

It may perhaps be objected that anthropoid apes, which have been cited as typical frugivorous animals, are not so much so as I have contended; that, while their chief food is doubtless fruits and nuts, they do occasionally feed upon all kinds of substances—roots, insects, small animals when they can catch them, etc. Thus Professor Robert Hartmann in his “Anthropoid Apes” p. 255 says:

“Although they are for the most part content with vegetable diet, gibbons sometimes eat animal food, such as lizards; and Bennet saw a siamang seize and devour one of these animals whole.... They do not, however, display the keenness of scent and quickness of sight which distinguish some animals of a lower order; such as canine beasts of prey and ruminants manifest in many different ways.” (p. 256).

Now, it will be noticed in the above connection that (1) these apes are, by reason of their peculiar anatomical and physiological construction, incapable of competing with the carnivora for food of that character—and hence naturally disqualified to live upon it; and (2) these animals do not naturally live upon this food by choice, when other and, to them, more natural food is forthcoming. Only in the last stages of hunger do they resort to food of this nature, which they are obviously driven to by extremity, and are disqualified to eat by reason of their peculiar construction. An animal can be driven to eat anything if he is hungry enough. That does not prove that what he eats is his natural food, nevertheless! Instinct, and other considerations, must determine that.

The Frugivora.—The orang and the gorilla are perhaps the best examples of this class of animals. Some bats and kangaroos may be included in it also. Animals belonging to this class have thirty-two teeth—sixteen in each jaw; four incisors or cutting teeth; two pointed teeth, known as cuspids, four small molars, known as bicuspids, and six molars. The eye-teeth project somewhat beyond the others and fit into a blank space in the lower row, the other teeth articulating uniformly. I have referred to the uses of this large eye-tooth elsewhere (p. 29).

The Teeth of Man.—Now when we come to consider the teeth of man, we are at once struck by the fact that they correspond, in almost every particular, with the teeth of the gorilla and other frugivorous animals; and the fact they do not at all resemble or correspond to the teeth of any other animal! To the teeth of the herbivora, the carnivora, the omnivora, etc., they bear but the slightest resemblance, while they agree in almost every respect with the teeth of frugivorous animals. If we compare the teeth of man with those of the orang, the gorilla, or other frugivorous animal, we find that the number, the arrangement, the structure, the nature, and the size of the teeth are almost identical; while they bear but the smallest resemblances to the teeth of any other animal or genera. The complete absence of intervening spaces between the human teeth characterises man as the highest and purest example of the frugivorous animal. Man possesses no long, canine tooth, capable of catching and holding a captured prey; he possesses no tusks, like the omnivorous animals, and in every other way bears no resemblance whatever to any other animal—while his teeth do bear the very greatest and most detailed resemblance to the teeth of the apes and frugivorous animals generally. Bearing all these facts in mind, then, we surely can have no hesitation in classifying man as a frugivorous animal—so far as his teeth are concerned. Considered from that point of view, man must be classed with the pure frugivora.

Not only in the number and structure of the teeth, but also in the manner of masticating the food—in the movements of the teeth and jaws themselves—there is a distinct resemblance between man and the apes and other frugivora, and a radical distinction between him and all other animals. In herbivorous animals the jaws have three distinct motions—a vertical, or up-and-down motion; lateral or sidewise; and forward and backward. These movements are frequent and free, the result being that food eaten by these animals undergoes a thorough grinding process well suited to the nature of their food. In the carnivorous animals, on the other hand, the movements of the jaws are in one direction only—they open and shut “like a pair of scissors,” as one author said, and are well adapted for tearing and biting off food that is to be swallowed more or less en masse, to be acted upon by the powerful gastric juices of the stomach. No such limited action is the case with man. With him also the jaws can move in three directions—as in the case of the herbivora—but the extent of such motion is much more limited. In other words, the jaws of man are adapted to a diet necessitating more or less grinding, and he may be classed with the herbivora on that account. Whatever might be said, however, by way of associating man with the herbivora, he is certainly as distinct as possible from the carnivora, and resembles other animals far more than he resembles them. He is certainly not carnivorous, whatever else he may be!

Having thus passed in review the evidence presented by the teeth for the naturally frugivorous nature of man, we must now turn and examine the evidence afforded by the other organs of the body; and see how far comparative anatomy affords proof of the nature of man’s diet—as derived from a study of the other portions of his bodily frame. I shall review these in turn. First let us consider the extremities.

The Extremities.—According to Huxley, there are three great divisions in the animal kingdom, as regards the extremities—viz. those which possess hoofs, those possessing claws, and those possessing hands. To the first division belong the herbivora and the omnivora. Almost all animals possessing claws are carnivorous, while animals possessing hands are almost invariably frugivorous. To this rule there are very few exceptions. Since man certainly belongs to the class possessed of hands, he is certainly frugivorous by nature. The reason for this becomes apparent when we stop to consider the habits of the various animals. The herbivora have no need for hands; they have merely to walk about the grassy plains, and partake of what nature has offered to them in abundance. The carnivorous animal, on the other hand, takes his food by violence—suddenly springing upon some defenceless and unresisting animal, and tearing it to pieces with its sharp teeth and claws. For this reason they are developed to the size and extent we see—capable of inflicting such terrible injuries. And here I would again call attention to what I said before—as to the carnivorous traits and characteristics of the cat as compared with those of the dog. The teeth and claws are far more developed in the former than in the latter. In man, of course, his teeth and claws are entirely unfitted for any such office. The soft, yielding nails are absolutely unlike the long, sharp claws of the carnivora: nothing could be more dissimilar. But if we compare the hands and extremities of man with those of other frugivorous animals, there is a very close similarity between them. The reason for this is that man (like the apes) can and should go out into the open fields and forests and pick his food off the trees. The human hand is eminently adapted to this end and for this purpose; but is quite unadapted for any such purposes as the claws of the carnivora are adapted for. I may remark here, incidentally, that all carnivorous animals drink by lapping up the water or other liquid with their tongues; while man, and all vegetarian animals, drink by suction—by drawing up the fluid directly into the mouth. This is a very distinguishing characteristic, to which there are few if any exceptions. Needless to say, since man drinks by suction, he is eminently a vegetarian animal, and is quite distinct from the carnivora in this respect, as in all others.

The Alimentary Canal.—“One of the most interesting comparisons,” says Dr Kellogg,[5] “which has been made by comparative anatomists is the length of the alimentary canal. This is very short in the carnivora, and long in the herbivora. When compared to the length of the body of the different classes of animals, the proportion is found to be as follows:—In the carnivora, the alimentary canal is three times the length of the body; in the herbivora, as the sheep, thirty times the length of the body; in the monkey, twelve times; in the omnivora ten times; in man, as in the frugivora, twelve times. Here, as before, we see that anatomy places man strictly in the frugivorous class. Some writers have made the amusing blunder of making the proportionate length of the alimentary canal in man 1 to 6, instead of 1 to 12, by doubling the height through measuring him while standing erect. This measurement is evidently wrong, for it includes the length of the lower extremities, or hind legs, whereas in other animals the measurement is made from the tip of the nose to the end of the backbone. In omnivorous animals, the alimentary canal is shorter than in the apes and in man, thus affiliating this class more nearly with the carnivora than with the herbivora.

“A curious fact had recently been observed by Kuttner, as related by him in an article published in Virchow’s Archives. This author has made extensive anatomical researches respecting the lengths of the small intestine in different classes of persons. He finds that in the vegetarian peasants of Russia, the small intestine measures from twenty to twenty-seven feet in length, while among Germans, who use meat in various forms quite freely, the length of the small intestine varies between seventeen and nineteen feet. The author attributes the difference in these two classes of persons to the difference in diet. Of course differences of this sort must be the influence of the diet exerted through many generations. This observation would seem to suggest that the special anatomical characteristic of the carnivorous class of animals is due to the modifying influence of their diet, acting through thousands of years. If the length of the intestine in man may be shortened by the use of flesh, with other foods, for a few hundred years, more extensive modifications may easily result from the longer experience of animals that subsist upon an exclusively carnivorous diet.”[6]

The Stomach.—The position and form of the stomach are also of significance. In the carnivora, it is only a small roundish sack, exceedingly simple in structure; while in the vegetable feeders it is oblong, lies transversely across the abdomen, and is more or less complicated with ringlike convolutions—according to the nature of the food. This appears conspicuously in the primates, which include man, in the Rodentia, Edentata, Marsupials, and, above all, in the Ruminants. In the latter, it presents a series of from four to seven wide, adjoining and communicating sacks.

At a first superficial glance at the exteriors of the stomachs of the carnivora and that of man, we apparently perceive a far closer resemblance than between man’s stomach and that of a herbivorous animal. In one sense, there can be no question that there is a closer similarity; in another sense, it is not so. In man this organ is simple, but is divided into a cardiac and pyloric portion—thus occupying, as in many other anatomical respects, a middle line between the carnivorous and herbivorous mammalia. The inner surface of the stomach is covered with rugæ, or wrinkles, formed by the mucous membrane, which lines the whole intestinal canal, and which forms valvular folds; while in the carnivora the stomach is a simple globular sac, without these corrugations. As Dr Trall observed[7]:

“Some may imagine, at a first glance, a closer resemblance between the human stomach and the lion’s than between the human and that of the sheep. But when they are viewed in relation to their proper food, their closer resemblance will vanish at once. It should be particularly observed that, so far as mere bulk is concerned, there is a greater similarity between the food of frugivorous animals and carnivorous animals than between frugivorous and herbivorous. The digestion and assimilation of coarse herbage, as grass, leaves, etc., requires a more complicated digestive apparatus than grains, roots, etc., and these more so than flesh and blood. The structure of the stomach, therefore, in such cases, seems precisely adapted to the food we assume Nature intended for it.”[8]

The Liver.—Dr John Smith, in calling attention to the many distinctions between the bodily structure of man and that of the carnivora, pointed out the following differences among others:—

“In the carnivora and rodentia, which present the most complex form of liver among the mammalia, there are five distinct parts; a central or principal lobe, corresponding with the principal part of the liver in man; a right lateral lobe, with a lobular appendage, corresponding to the ‘lobulus Spigelii’ and the ‘lobus caudatus,’ and a small lobe or lobule on the left side. Through the whole animal series, however, the magnitude of the liver varies in inverse ratio to the lungs.

“In man, the liver is much less developed than the same organ in many other mammalia; and presents, as rudimentary indications, certain organs which are in other animals fully developed. Europeans, and the inhabitants of Northern climes, who partake more of animal food, have the liver much larger, and its secretions more copious, than the inhabitants of warm climates. Perhaps this, in some measure, depends upon the amount of non-azotised articles taken along with the flesh of animals, by which means the system is supplied with more carbon than is needed. So that the enlarged liver is attributable to gross living on mixed diet, rather than to an exclusively animal diet.”

This author also says elsewhere (p. 79):

“The temporal and masseter muscles, by which the motion of the lower jaw is effected, are of immense size in carnivorous animals. The temporal muscle occupies the whole side of the scull, and fills the space beneath the zygomatic arch, the span and spring of which are generally an index of the volume of this muscle; while the extent and strength of the arch indicate the development of the masseter muscle. On the contrary, the pterygoid muscles, which aid the lateral movement of the jaw, are extremely small. The zygoma is of great size and strength in the carnivora; consisting of a long process of the masseter bone, overlaid by the usual process of the temporal bone, which is equally strong. The arch extends not only backward but upward, by the bending down of the extremity; the line of anterior declination falling precisely on the centre of the carnassière tooth—the point in which the force of the jaws is concentrated, and where it is most required for cutting, tearing, and crushing their food. In ruminants, the zygomatic arch is short, and the temporal muscles are small; but the masseter muscle on each side extends beyond the arch, and is attached to the greater part of the side of the maxillary bone. The pterygoid fossa is ample, and its muscles are largely developed. The arch is small in man, the temporal muscles moderate, and the force of the jaws comparatively weak.”

The Placenta.—Let us now turn to another important distinction between the carnivorous and non-carnivorous animals. Of these, perhaps the most important is the character of the placenta—one of the most distinguishing marks or characteristics of any species of animal. This subject has been so well and ably summed up by Professor Schlickeysen, in his “Fruit and Bread” (pp. 48-57), that I cannot do better than quote the main portion of the argument, as stated by this learned and able author. He says:

“We now come to consider the peculiar structure, form and size of the placenta, as well as the exact method by which, through it, in different species of animals, the nourishment is effected. One of the most striking differences presented in placental animals relates to the method of union between the mother and the fœtus. There are two very distinct types of the placenta, and, according to Professor Huxley, no transitional forms between them are known to exist. These types are designated as follows:—

1. The non-deciduate placenta of the Herbivora.

2. The deciduate placenta, of which there are two kinds:

(a) The zonary deciduate placenta of the Carnivora.

(b) The discoidal deciduate placenta of the Frugivora.

“The deciduate placenta is a distinct structure, developed from the wall of the uterus, but separated from it at parturition, and constituting what is known as the ‘after birth’; of this the human placenta is regarded by Huxley as the most perfect example; while, of the non-deciduate placenta, that of the pig and horse are the typical representatives. The word ‘decidua’ signifies ‘that which is thrown off.’

“The Non-Deciduate Placenta.—This form is thus described by Professor Huxley: ‘No decidua is developed. The elevations and depressions of the unimpregnated uterus simply acquire a greater size and vascularity during pregnancy, and cohere closely to the chorionic villi, which do not become restricted to one spot, but are developed from all parts of the chorion, except at its poles, and remain persistent in the broad zone thus formed throughout fœtal life. The cohesion of the fœtal and maternal placentæ, however, is overcome by slight maceration; and at parturition the fœtal villi are simply drawn out, like fingers from a glove, no vascular substance of the mother being thrown off.’ To this class belong all the ruminants and Ungulata (hoofed quadrupeds); the camel, sheep, goat and deer; the ant-eater, armadillo, sloth, swine, tapir, rhinoceros, river-horse, sea-cow, whale, and others.

“The Zonary Deciduate Placenta.—A zonary placenta surrounds the chorion, in the form of a broad zone, leaving the poles free. This form characterises all the land and sea carnivora, and thus includes the cat, hyena, puma, leopard, tiger, lion, fox and wolf; the dog and bear, the seal, sea-otter and walrus. It includes, also, certain extinct species, as the mastadon and dinotherium, which, although not wholly carnivorous, were, to judge from their teeth, partially so. The elephant, the only living species of these ancient animals, is also of this class.

“The Discoidal Deciduate Placenta.—The discoidal placenta is a highly developed vascular structure, lying on one side of the fœtus, in the form of a round disc, leaving the greater part of the chorion free. It is thus united only on one side, at one circular point, with the mucous membrane of the uterus, from which, as already mentioned, it is separated at parturition. The orders of the animals characterised by this form of placenta are the rodentia, ant-eaters, bats, and various species of apes, and man. All these are very closely united by homologous anatomical forms. The human placenta does not differ, in its general character, from that of the others, and there is no good reason for separating man from his placental classification.”

Relations between placental forms and Individual Characteristics.—From our entire knowledge of the development of races and of individuals, we may conclude, upon the basis of Huxley’s classification, that an intimate relation exists between the form and character of the placenta and the entire nature of the individual. We find among the non-deciduata, besides the toothless sloths, only the Ungulata, or hoofed quadrupeds, and others developed from them. The arrangement of their teeth, as of their entire digestive apparatus, marks them as belonging to a single family—namely, the herbivora.

The zonary placenta characterises a very large family of animals whose peculiarities are distinctly marked, especially with regard to their teeth and digestive apparatus. These belong to the widely diffused and numerous orders of the carnivora. But the most interesting and important group, with reference to our present study, is that characterised by the discoidal placenta; for, since it includes man and the fruit-eating apes, it gives occasion for the comparison between these and other placental animals from the standpoint of dietetics.

We observe here at once that the majority of animals having a discoidal placenta subsist chiefly upon fruits and grains, and that the typical representatives of this class, namely, those whose plactental formation is most distinctly discoidal, are also the most exclusively frugivorous.

Here, as elsewhere in nature, an exact line cannot be drawn. Transitional forms exist everywhere, and to this the placenta is no exception. The most striking accordance, however, exists between the placenta of man and that of the tailless apes—namely, the gorilla, orang, chimpanzee and gibbon. Between other discoidal species, the differentiation, though minute, is clearly marked; but between man and these apes the resemblance is so exact as to stamp them plainly as members of the same family.

The completely developed placenta is in the form of a circular disc, about eight inches broad, one inch thick and weighing about two pounds. Its manner of development is identical in the human subject and that of the above-named anthropoid apes. Its exact formation is thus described by Huxley:

“From the commencement of gestation, the superficial substance of the mucous membrane of the human uterus undergoes a rapid growth and textural modification, becoming converted into the so-called decidua. While the ovum is yet small, this decidua is departable into three portions: The decidua vera, which lines the general cavity of the uterus; the decidua reflexa, which immediately invests the ovum; and the decidua serotina, a layer of especial thickness, developed in contiguity with those chorionic villi which persist and become converted into the fœtal placenta. The decidua reflexa may be regarded as an outgrowth of the decidua vera the decidua serotina as a special development of a part of the decidua vera. At first, the villi of the chorion are loosely implanted into corresponding impressions of the decidua; but, eventually, the chorionic part of the placenta becomes closely united with and bound to the uterine decidua, so that the fœtal and maternal structures form one inseparable mass.”

The fœtus thus united to the mother is nourished by means of numerous arterial and venous trunks, which traverse the deeper substance of the uterine mucous membrane, in the region of the placenta. These are connected with the placenta by means of the umbilical cord, which consists of two arteries and two veins. The length of this cord is greater in the case of man and the anthropoid apes than in any other animals, reaching in them a length of about two feet. The strict accordance which thus appears between the placental structure of man and the ape indicates, upon the basis of Huxley’s principles of classification, the same physiological functions and the same dietetic character. There exists a complete similarity between the corresponding organs in each: Their extremities end in hands and feet. Their teeth and digestive apparatus indicates a frugivorous diet. Their breasts and manner of nursing suggest the same tender care of the new-born creature; while the brain and mental capacity are also of a like character—differing only in degree; indeed, the difference between the ape and animals of the next lower grade is much greater than between the ape and man; there being in the latter case really no essential anatomical or physiological differences.

The fact that man has four cuspid teeth affords no evidence whatever that he is either partially or wholly carnivorous as regards his dietary. If in diet he is naturally omnivorous, his teeth should have the structure and arrangement of those of omnivorous animals—as exhibited in the hog, for example.

That the cuspid teeth do not indicate a flesh dietary, either in whole or in part, is shown by the presence of the so-called cuspids in purely herbivorous animals—as in the stag, the camel and the so-called “bridle-teeth” of the horse.

I am convinced that no animals were created to eat flesh, but that so-called carnivorous animals were originally nut-eating animals (see p. [55]). The squirrel eats birds as well as nuts, which closely resemble meat in composition. This view readily explains the close resemblance in many particulars existing between the human digestive apparatus and that of the so-called carnivorous animals. It is reasonable to suppose that these nut-eating animals were at some remote time forced by starvation to slay, and eat, by the failure of their ordinary food supply—just as the horses of the Norwegian coast have been known to plunge into the sea and catch fish, when driven to this extremity by starvation. Suppose the carnivorous animal’s natural diet to be nuts, in the absence of his normal food he would find nothing else so closely resembling his ordinary food as the flesh of animals, since the two have about the same proteid percentages.

Dr Kellogg, in his excellent little book, entitled “Shall We Slay to Eat?” (pp. 30-32), sums up a number of remarkable facts in favour of a fruitarian diet, or at least in favour of a non-flesh diet, as follows:—

“In carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous animals, the mammary glands are located upon the abdomen, while in the higher apes and man they are located on the chest. This is an interesting anatomical fact to which there is no exception.

“In carnivorous animals the colon is smooth and non-sacculated. In the higher apes and man the colon is sacculated. In herbivorous animals the colon is sacculated, as in man.” (The great importance and significance of this fact will be apparent presently, when we come to consider the physiological arguments against flesh-eating.)

“In carnivorous animals the tongue is very rough, producing a rasping sensation when coming in contact with the flesh. In the higher apes and man the tongue is smooth.

“In carnivorous animals the skin is not provided with perspiratory ducts—hence the skin does not perspire in the dog, the cat, and allied animals. In the ape, the skin is provided with millions of these glands, and in man they are so numerous that if spread out, their walls would cover a surface of eleven thousand square feet. In the pig, an omnivorous animal, only the snout sweats. In horses, cows and other vegetable-eating animals, the whole skin sweats, as it does in man.” (The great importance of this fact will be apparent when we come to consider the physiological arguments against a flesh-diet: see p. 55.)

“Carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous animals are all supplied with an extension of the backbone—a tail. In the higher apes, as well as in man, the tail is wanting.

“Carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous animals go on all fours, and their eyes look on either side, while many of the higher apes walk nearly or entirely upright, as does man, and their eyes look forward.[9]

“Carnivorous animals have claws, herbivorous and omnivorous have hoofs, while apes and men have flat nails, not found in any other animal. Carnivorous, herbivorous and omnivorous animals are all quadrupeds, or four-footed, while the higher apes and man are provided with two hands and two feet. The hinder or lower extremities of the ape are sometimes erroneously called hands; according to Dr Huxley, they are, from both bony and muscular structure, properly classified as feet, and not as hands.

“In carnivorous animals, the salivary glands are small, and the saliva which they secrete has little effect upon starch, while in the apes and man the glands are well developed and the saliva is active” (see pp. 47-48).

In addition to all the facts that have been pointed out, there are others of lesser interest, but all of which, nevertheless, go to confirm the fact that man is closely related to the apes, and consequently intended for a fruitarian diet, and that he is in no wise related to the carnivora or their diet. Metchnikoff has summarised many of these facts, extending the work of Darwin, Huxley, Haekel, etc. These other, minor, facts might perhaps be summarised as follows:—

There is an exact agreement between the skeleton of man and the higher apes—all the bones corresponding, each to each, while there is a great dissimilarity between man and any other animal whatever. The nerves, the viscera, the spleen, the liver, the lungs, the brain, the skin, nails and hair—all present the closest possible analogy and similarities. The eyes are strikingly similar, while the chemical and microscopical character of the blood is also very similar in man and the higher apes. This fact is of especial importance and significance, when we bear in mind that only apes and men are subject to certain blood diseases—to which all other animals are impervious. In structure, as in habits, man and the apes are in many respects remarkably alike, and proportionately dissimilar to all other animals.

CHAPTER III
THE ARGUMENT FROM PHYSIOLOGY

“After structure—function!” Having seen in the last chapter that man is constructed throughout for a diet composed entirely of fruits, nuts, grains, and other non-flesh foods, we now turn to a consideration of the functions of the various organs of the body—the chemical composition of the organic tissues, secretions, etc.—in order to see if these will further bear us out in our argument. There can be no question that the most important argument of all, on this subject of diet, is the argument based upon comparative anatomy—since that argument places man in his right class immediately, and in a manner that cannot be evaded by any amount of argument. But other aspects of the question are also of importance, and afford strong proof of the natural character of man’s diet. The next argument we should consider, therefore, is the physiological, and we shall first of all consider the secretions.

The Saliva.—The differences between the saliva of man and that of any of the carnivora is striking. In man, this secretion is alkaline—though only slightly so, in a healthy man. Nevertheless, that is its normal reaction, and to this there is no exception. In the carnivora, on the other hand, the reaction is acid, and because of this fact is capable of dissolving the food more or less whole, and without the long process of mastication necessary for the herbivora and frugivora. The saliva in the human being effects many chemical changes in the food—notable among these being the conversion of starch. Were man intended to live on flesh, the saliva would be acid also—instead of alkaline as it is.

The Gastric Juice.—Dr Schlickeysen says of this:[10]

“A leading element of the gastric juice is lactic acid. This excites a slight fermentation of the chyme, and thus exerts an influence upon the digestion of vegetable, but not upon that of animal, food. It is far too weak to act upon the fibres of animal flesh. All fats are insoluble in water, spirits of wine, and acids. Flesh, when eaten by man, tends to undergo a process of decay in the stomach, causing a scrofulous poisoning of the blood. In this unnatural action lies the cause of many complaints and disturbances of the system: as bad breath, heartburn, eructions and vomiting. In the case of the carnivora, the gastric juice exerts a decomposing influence upon flesh, and causes its assimilation and excretion. Since the pancreatic juice of the duodenum, into which the chyme passes from the stomach, bears a close resemblance to the saliva, it follows that the chyme here, also, can have only a slightly acid property, which it indeed can only have when it is of a vegetable character. Bile, which is here poured into the intestines, has only a slight alkaline reaction, and its use seems to be limited to the prevention of decay; which, however, can only occur in the case of flesh-food; so that the effort of nature to maintain flesh-food in its proper condition by the secretion of bile must be excessive, and must eventually cause an excitement and weakening of the whole organism.”

And Dr Kellogg has pointed out[11]:

“Another property possessed in a high degree by the gastric juice of carnivorous animals is its antiseptic or germicidal quality. When exposed to the conditions of warmth and moisture, flesh, whether that of mammals birds or fish, readily decomposes or decays, giving rise to poisonous substances of the most offensive character. The gastric juice of the dog is capable of preventing this putrefactive change while the food is undergoing the process of stomach digestion. That such changes occur later, however, while the food residue is lying in the colon previous to expulsion from the body, is evidenced by the extraordinarily offensive character of the fæcal matters of this class of animals.”

In man, this secretion is very weak, comparatively speaking, and hence of small value in preventing such putrefactive changes as those mentioned above. Take any piece of meat, and expose it for some considerable period to an environment of heat and moisture, and see the result! Putrefaction soon occurs—except where the meat is “embalmed” or preserved by powerful chemicals—thus rendering it unfit for human food. But it will be seen that just such conditions prevail in the human alimentary tract as are most suitable for the speedy and deadly decomposition of the food eaten; and, in the case of flesh-foods, the resulting products are poisonous in the last degree. The gastric juice of the human stomach being so far weaker than that of the carnivorous animal, the flesh is far less completely acted upon and digested in the stomach—much more work being passed on to the intestines, in consequence. Now comes in a most important factor. The bowel of the carnivorous animal is, as we have seen, short, (three times the length of the body) when compared to the frugivora, whose alimentary tract is about twelve times the length of the body. That is, the digestive tract in man is, roughly, about four times as long as in the carnivorous animal. The result of this is that any food eaten would take, ceteris paribus, four times as long to pass through the tube in the one case as in the other. This fact alone is sufficient to condemn the use of flesh-foods in any form for frugivorous animals, since the less active antiseptic and germicidal properties of the gastric juice in these animals render unsafe the long retention of such easily decomposable substances as flesh.

But more than that, and worse still; the character of the internal structure of the tract is not alike in the two cases! In the carnivora, this is smooth, and offers but few impediments to the free passage of the food through it. In man, on the contrary, as with the higher apes and the herbivora, the intestine is corrugated or sacculated—this being for the express purpose of retaining the food as long as possible in the intestine, and until all possible nutriment has been abstracted from it. This is admirably suited to such foods as the herbivora and frugivora enjoy, but is quite unsuited for flesh-foods of all kinds—being, in fact, the worst possible receptacle for such foods. The intestine, in the carnivora, is suited for its particular food—it is short and smooth, and well adapted to dissolve the food quickly and pass it out of the system as rapidly as possible; while in frugivora, on the other hand, the intestine is adapted to retain the food a much longer time—the sacculated surface retaining the food as long as possible. The result of this is that, when flesh-foods are eaten, disastrous results are sure to follow.

As previously shown, the liver is much larger, proportionately, in the carnivora; and not only is this the case, but the amount of bile secreted is far greater in the carnivora than in man. It has been found, by careful experiments upon dogs, that the quantity of bile might increase fifty per cent., and even more, under a purely meat diet; but rapidly decreased when the quantity and proportion of the meat was reduced. Thus it appears that the use of a meat diet requires a far greater degree of activity on the part of the liver than any other diet. This is amply provided for in the carnivore by the increased size and power of that organ, but in man and the frugivora such is not the case, and the result is that if meat be eaten by man, the liver is called upon to do an extra amount of work, and this may ultimately result in its premature breakdown.

The kidneys also are greatly affected by the diet. It is now well known that uric acid is created in large quantities by a flesh diet—the measured excretions showing that from three to ten times as much uric acid is secreted when flesh is eaten as when no meat is ingested; and when we bear in mind the exceedingly disastrous effects of uric acid upon the system, and what a powerful disease-producing agency it is, I think that we must conclude that this symptom is strongly suggestive, and strongly indicative of the fact that man cannot eat meat without running grave chances of diseasing and ruining his organism.

The Excretions.—There is also a marked difference in the excretory products of the various animals. While, in the carnivora, the action of the urine is acid, it is alkaline in the herbivora (or should be). In man it is frequently acid—though this varies with the nature of the food. Thus, if the diet be largely one of flesh, the urine will become far more acid, and will also become very offensive; the perspiration will also be tainted, and very noticeable to those with a keen sense of smell, and who do not eat meat themselves! This has frequently been observed, and may account for the fact that flesh-eating animals will always eat a horse or a sheep in preference to man, if it be possible. Doubtless, their keen sense of smell detects the fact that man is (usually) largely carnivorous in his habits, and their instinct teaches them that the flesh of the purely herbivorous animal is for this reason superior to that of man. Has anyone thought why it is that a cat will kill a mouse, and eat it, while a dog will kill a cat, but will not eat it? It is because the mouse is a vegetarian animal, and the cat is a carnivorous animal. Instinct teaches the cat that the tissues of the mouse’s body are more or less pure and inoffensive—owing to the nature of the diet; while the same instinct teaches the dog that the cat’s body is impure and more or less poisonous, for the reason that its flesh is tainted and full of poisons, because of its diet. If any animal lives upon flesh, that animal’s body is bound to be tainted more or less in consequence; and those animals which prey upon others know that fact, by reason of their sense of smell and instinct. This is a remarkable and most instructive fact; a rule which will rarely be found to fail. Its significance and interpretation is obvious. Professor Schlickeysen also informs us that “the overloading of the blood with flesh-food causes, in order to effect their decomposition, an excessive consumption of oxygen, and hence the difficulty of breathing, and asthmatical affections of many flesh-eaters, and their excessive excretion of carbonic acid.” I have referred to some of these poisons, formed within the system, and the harm they must doubtless exert upon the organism, elsewhere.

In addition to all these arguments, there are other forcible reasons for considering man as one of the non-flesh-eating animals—which reasons may be included in this chapter. The habits of any animal are distinctive; and they, collectively, indicate man’s position—though this argument must always be confirmatory, and not proof in itself. For instance, all naturally carnivorous animals sleep in the daytime, and prowl about in search of their prey at night; while with the vegetarian animals (man included) this is not the case. The manner of eating and especially of drinking, is also highly characteristic—all carnivorous animals lapping their liquids—while the herbivora and frugivora drink—as I have previously pointed out. The peculiar mode of functioning of various organs might also be pointed out and insisted upon. But one of the most striking arguments is that based upon the anatomical structure of the skin. As before stated, this perspires, in the case of all vegetarian animals, while the glands are atrophied and inactive in all carnivora. Let us now consider the significance of this fact.

“Recent researches show us that uric acid arises from the decay of cell nuclei. That portion of uric acid which has its origin in the digestive organs is, like other alloxanic bases, changed into urea—or rather should be. But a diseased liver (or a healthy one which is overworked, owing to an excessive ingestion of food containing cell nuclei, and therefore an excessive amount of uric acid) is unable to transform all the uric acid formed into urea. The quantity of uric acid arising from the normal decay of the tissue is small; in fever, when there is a more rapid decay of cells, the quantity of uric acid and other related alloxanic bodies is considerably increased. The greater the quantity of useless body-material, and the worse (more dysæmic) it is in quality, the greater is the danger of a more rapid decay of cells, and a precipitation of uric acid and related products taking place.... The uric acid, passing through the liver, may perhaps be transformed into urea by a special action of the cells; but the uric acid drawn directly from the digestive canal, and that formed directly from the assimilated food or from the body-material, has to be oxidised, in order to be excreted in the innocuous form of urea. An organism possessed of the faculty of oxidation is protected against a precipitation of uric acid, but in a dysæmic organism, the faculty of transforming uric acid into urea is lessened.... It is a fact well worth considering that the urine of carnivorous animals—e.g. dog and cat—is often quite free from uric acid, while human urine varies in this respect according to the food taken: if vegetable food alone is consumed, the urine will contain, like the urine of herbivorous animals, only traces of uric acid (from ·2 to ·7 grammes in 24 hours); but if a large proportion of flesh-food be taken, the urine will contain 2 grammes or more. Man is the only creature which suffers from the uric acid diathesis; is it not likely that this arises from a wrong choice of food?

“Now, if the excretion of the uric acid always took place easily, we should not have much trouble about its formation, but it is this excretion which constitutes the difficulty. Uric acid and the acid salts of the uric acid dissolve with difficulty in cold water; but more easily in warm; still, one gramme of uric acid requires from 7 to 8 litres of water at the temperature of the body for its solution. The acid urate of soda dissolves in 1100 parts of cold and 124 parts of boiling water. The ammonia salts and the salts of the alkaline earths do not dissolve nearly so easily.

“The ‘warm water’ which keeps the uric acid and the uric acid salts dissolved in the body is the blood and tissue fluids. Serious disturbances must take place if this fluid becomes cooler or diminished in quantity; for a deposit of crystalline uric acid would occur in the body.

“A person who has to daily excrete 2 grammes of uric acid, is constantly liable to this precipitation, as he may at any time lose large quantities of water through perspiration. It is, therefore, undoubtedly safer to have the uric acid combined with soda, as an acid urate; but where is soda to be obtained if it is absent from the blood, owing to dysæmia?

“The more acid the urine is, the more easily will a precipitation of the uric acid occur in the organism—for instance, in the kidneys or bladder. The urine of a person eating flesh contains a large amount of uric acid, as we have seen before; it is also strongly acid in reaction whereas the urine of herbivorous animals is generally alkaline in reaction....

“A very acid urine rich in uric acid is also produced by salt meat and salt fish, because in the process of salting, the basic salts (basic alkaline phosphates and carbonates) pass into the pickle water and neutral common salt takes their place. Russian physicians have told me that in certain parts of Russia, where the people eat a great deal of salt fish, urine stones are frequent.... Now, if we wish to prevent by the use of alkalies the formation of uric acid sediments, or gradually to dissolve such concretions as have already formed in the bladder, it is certainly more rational to prescribe a diet of fruits and potatoes than to order alkaline mineral waters—which, when taken constantly, may produce all sorts of disturbances.

“If, then, it is true that our ordinary diet consists chiefly of foods rich in albumen and phosphoric acid but poor in soda, and that in consequence of this a tendency towards the accumulation of uric acid in the body is pretty generally found, the very slightest extra strain on the system will be sufficient to cause a precipitation of uric acid and uric acid salts in the body. This result is very often brought about by a chronic acid catarrh of the stomach, which in its turn depends upon dysæmia, and is in 95 out of 100 cases the predecessor of gout. The fermentation acids, especially oxybutyric acid (which is found in the urine both in acid catarrh of the stomach and in diabetes mellitus), combine with some of the alkalies of the blood, and thus lessen its alkalescence (basic character); and as catarrh of the bowels and periodic diarrhœas are frequently associated with acid catarrh of the stomach, these bases may be even directly excreted in the stools, and thus the quantity of alkalies in the blood be further diminished.

“Now we find that men consuming vegetable food form only small quantities of uric acid, herbivorous animals as well as carnivorous hardly any, but men living on flesh-food very large quantities, we must come to the conclusion that men cannot properly manage flesh-food. The organism of the flesh-eating animal has the faculty of completely digesting flesh-food, whereas the organism of man is unable to accomplish this. Consequently man cannot be classed as carnivorous and cannot eat flesh unpunished....

“To illustrate this further, we may mention another important point here. Carnivorous animals have atrophied, inactive sweat glands, whilst man and herbivorous animals possess well-developed sweat glands. There is no doubt, therefore, that the herbivora must have preceded the carnivora in point of time—the carrion feeders being the connecting link between them.[12] The carnivora have retained the sweat glands as atrophied (rudimentary) organs, and as a sign of their origin, but have given up the habit of sweating, or, in other words, have adapted their skin to the changed conditions of feeding. An animal whose food contains large quantities of urea as well as of creatin, creatinin, xanthin, hypoxanthin, guanin, etc. (the early stages of uric acid), and thus increases the quantity of urea and uric acid already present in the body, must take care always to keep these substances in solution. But the urea and uric acid can only be dissolved in comparatively large quantities of warm water (blood). Such an animal must, therefore, be exempt from the possibility of suddenly losing a large part of its blood and tissue fluid by sweating—or else a precipitation of the above substance will take place. Nor should an organism allow of any sudden cooling down of portions of the skin—such as might be caused by evaporation of the sweat, or else a precipitation would again take place. In a word, such an animal must not be subject to sweating, or else it would be troubled with acute and chronic rheumatism, gout, etc....

“Now as man is subject to sweating, it is evident that he was not intended to live on flesh, but on vegetables, or rather on fruits, for he was never meant to live on cereals.... Man may eat a limited amount of meat and cereals without doing himself much harm; but he must always remember that they ought never to form his principal food.

“As soon as it is really understood that we were never intended to live on flesh and cereals, the uric acid diathesis as a trouble of mankind will disappear. We must, of course, not forget to restrict the consumption of common salt and to use such vegetable foods as are rich in food salts, and not those which are rich in albumen; for a diet consisting of bread, pulses, and cereals, and potatoes will tend to produce gout just as much as a diet consisting of flesh, fish and caviare....”[13]

It is only by reason of the excessive functioning of the liver that we are not soon poisoned, as the result of such food, and when this organ is constantly over-taxed, as it often is, for a lifetime, it is apparent that it must sooner or later break down, and be ruined from overwork.

IV
THE ARGUMENT FROM CHEMISTRY

Having seen in the preceding chapters that man is adapted by nature of his constitution to live upon vegetable foods (meaning by this latter term not only vegetables, but fruits and nuts as well), we must next turn to a consideration of the question as to whether these foods would supply all the necessary elements for the nutrition of the human body. The bodily tissues being in a constant state of flux—worn-out particles of the body being continuously thrown off by means of the various eliminating organs, and fresh material constantly taking their place and being built into living tissue—it is obvious that the nature of this material supplied to the body should be of the best in quality; and that best adapted to maintain its structural integrity. If certain elements are lacking in the food material supplied, these elements will be lacking throughout every stage of the process of digestion, and the tissues ultimately become impoverished because of the lack of them. The chief reason why we eat meat (apart from mere custom), is that it contains a fairly large percentage of proteid—that material from which the muscles are largely built, and which physiologists have lately come to believe is one of the true sources of the bodily energy. Meat being a highly concentrated article of food, and, as before said, containing a large percentage of this proteid, it has always been considered necessary that more or less of it should be consumed in the course of the day in order to offset or replace the wastes necessitated by physical exercise and other causes. Professor Russell H. Chittenden, in speaking of the value of proteid in the human body says:

“The organic substance of all organs and tissues, whether of animals or plants, is made up principally of proteid matter.... Proteid substances occupy, therefore, a peculiar position in the nutrition of man and of animals in general. They constitute a class of essential food-stuffs without which life is impossible. For tissue building, and for the renewal of tissues and organs, or their component cells, proteid or albuminous food-stuffs are an absolute requirement. The vital part of all tissue is proteid, and only proteid food can serve for its growth or renewal; hence, no matter how generous the supply of carbohydrates and fats, without some admixture of proteid food, the body will weaken and undergo ‘nitrogen starvation....’ It is thus quite clear that the true proteid foods are tissue builders in the broadest sense of the term, and it is equally evident that they are absolutely essential to life, since no other kind nor form of food-stuff can take their place in supplying the needs of the body. Every living cell, whether of heart, muscle, brain or nerve requires its due allowance of proteid material to maintain its physiological rhythm. No other food-stuff stands in such intimate relationship to the vital processes; and, so far as we know at present, any form of true proteid, whether animal or vegetable, will serve the purpose.”[14]

It will be seen from the above, therefore, that proteid is doubtless the most essential element in our diet; and a lack of proteid material in the food ensures more disastrous consequences to the organism than any other single deviation from a normal diet. Meat, as we have said, contains a large percentage of proteid, and, this being the case, it is evident that, if we are to discard it as an article of diet, we must replace it by other foods which contain an equal amount of proteid, or must eat a proportionate bulk of foods which contain proteid, in order to maintain that physiological equilibrium which ensures health.

The simplest, and in fact the only way to settle this question, therefore, is to compare the chemical analyses of the various food-stuffs, and see if any non-flesh foods contain as much proteid as meat does. If they do, and if it can be shown, further, that their proteid is as easily assimilable and as nutritious as animal proteid, then the case will have been won—for the reason that there will no longer be any grounds for defending flesh-eating, upon the basis that that is the only article of diet capable of supplying the body with the requisite amount of proteid. I shall take these chemical analyses from the latest official bulletins—those issued under the supervision of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and corrected up to 1908. The bulletin from which I quote these tables is entitled “The Chemical Composition of American Food Materials,” and is written jointly by Professors W. O. Atwater and A. P. Bryant. These authors first of all define what they mean by the “composition of food materials,” as follows:—

Composition of Food Materials

“Ordinary food materials, such as meat, fish, eggs, potatoes, wheat, etc., consist of:

”Refuse.—As the bones of meat and fish, shells of shellfish, skin of potatoes, bran of wheat, etc.

“Edible portion.—As the flesh of meat and fish, the white and yolk of eggs, wheat flour, etc. This edible portion consists of water (usually incorporated in the tissue and not visible as such), and nutritive ingredients or nutrient.

“The principal kinds of nutritive ingredients are protein, fats, carbohydrates, and ash or mineral matters.

“The water and refuse of various foods and the salt of salted meat and fish are called non-nutrients. In comparing the values of different food materials for nourishment they are left out of account.

”Protein.—This term is used to include nominally the total nitrogenous substance of animal and vegetable food materials, exclusive of the so-called nitrogenous fats. Actually it is employed, in common usage, to designate the product of the total nitrogen by an empirical factor, generally 6.25.

“This total nitrogenous substance consists of a great variety of chemical compounds, which are conveniently divided into two principal classes, proteids and non-proteids.

“The term proteid, as here employed, includes (1) the simple proteids—e.g. albuminoids, globulins, and their derivations, such as acid and alkali albumins, coagulated proteids, proteoses, and peptones; (2) the so-called combined or compound proteids; and (3) the so-called gelatinoids (sometimes called “glutinoids”) which are characteristic of animal connective tissue.

“The term albuminoids has long been used by European and American chemists and physiologists as a collective designation for the substances of the first two groups, though many apply it to all three of these groups. Of late a number of investigators and writers have employed it as a special designation for compounds of the third class.[15]

“The term non-proteid is here used synonymously with non-albuminoid, and includes nitrogenous animal and vegetable compounds of simpler constitution than the proteids. The most important animal compounds of this class are the so-called “nitrogenous extractives” of muscular and connective tissue, such as creatin, creatinin, xanthin, hypoxanthin, and allied cleavage products of the proteids. To some of these the term “meat bases” has been applied. The latter, with certain mineral salts (potassium phosphates, etc.), are the most important constituents of beef tea and many commercial “meat extracts.”

“The non-proteid nitrogenous compounds in vegetable foods consist of amids and amido acids, of which asparagin and aspartic acid are familiar examples.

“The ideal method of analysis of food materials would involve quantitative determinations of the amounts of each of the several kinds or groups of nitrogenous compounds. This, however, is seldom attempted. The common practice is to multiply the percentage of nitrogen by the factor 6.25 and take the product as representing the total nitrogenous substance. For many materials, animal and vegetable, this factor would be nearly correct for the proteids, which contain, on the average, not far from 16 per cent. of nitrogen, although the nitrogen content of the individual proteids is quite varied. The variations in the nitrogen of the non-proteids are wider and they contain, on the average, more than 16 per cent. of nitrogen. It is evident, therefore, that the computation of the total nitrogenous substance in this way is by no means correct. In the flesh of meats and fish, which contain very little of carbohydrates, the nitrogenous substance is frequently estimated by difference—i.e. by subtracting the ether extract and ash from the total water-free substance. While this method is not always correct, it is oftentimes more nearly so than the determination by use of the usual factor.

“The distinction between protein and proteids is thus very sharp. The latter are definite chemical compounds while the former is an entirely arbitrary term used to designate a group which is commonly assumed to include all of the nitrogenous matter of the food except the nitrogenous fats.

“In the tables herewith the common usage is followed, by which the protein is given as estimated by factor, i.e., total nitrogen multiplied by 6.25. In the analyses of meats and fish, however, the figures for protein ‘by difference’ are also given. Where the proteid and non-proteid nitrogenous matter have been estimated in a food material the proportions are indicated in a footnote.

“Fats.—Under fats is included the total ether extract. Familiar examples of fat are fat of meat, fat of milk (butter), oil of corn, olive oil, etc. The ingredients of the ‘ether extract’ of animal and vegetable foods and feeding stuffs, which it is customary to group roughly as fats, include with the true fats various other substances, as fatty acids, lecithins (nitrogenous fats), and chlorophylls.

“Carbohydrates.—Carbohydrates are usually determined by difference. They include sugars, starches, cellulose, gums, woody fibre, etc. In many instances separate determinations of one or more of these groups have been made. The determinations of ‘fibre’ in vegetable foods, i.e., substances allied to carbohydrates but insoluble in dilute acid and alkali, and somewhat similar to woody fibre, are given in a separate column. The figures in parenthesis in the crude-fibre column show the number of analyses in which the fibre was determined. The figures for ‘total carbohydrates’ include the fibre, as well as sugars, starches, etc. Where the sugars or starches have been determined separately footnotes are added giving the average results.

“Ash or Mineral Matters.—Under this head are included phosphates, sulphates, chlorides, and other salts of potassium, sodium, magnesium, and other metallic elements. Where analyses of the mineral matters have been found they are added in the form of footnotes. These results usually give the percentage composition of the ash as produced by incineration rather than the proportions in which the different mineral ingredients occur in the food material.

“Fuel Value.—By fuel value is meant the number of calories of heat equivalent to the energy which it is assumed the body would be able to obtain from one pound of a given food material, provided the nutrients of the latter were completely digested. The fuel values of the different food materials are calculated by use of the factors of Rubner, which allow 4.1 calories for a gram of protein, the same for a gram of carbohydrates, and 9.3 calories per gram of fats. These amounts correspond to 18.6 calories of energy for each hundredth of a pound of protein and of carbohydrates, and 42.2 calories for each hundredth of a pound of fat in the given food material. In the following table the fuel value per pound has been calculated by use of these factors. In these calculations the values of protein by factor have been used in all cases with the exception of salt cod and hens’ eggs, in which the value of protein by difference was used.”

I now present a few extracts from these lengthy tables of the chemical composition of food materials—mentioning, first, some typical meats, then fishes, vegetables, grains, flours, etc., dairy products, fruits, nuts, and various sundries. I take but a few of each, in order to show the typical proteid value of the various foods, without making these tables too long; and the reader can readily see, by referring to the column of proteid percentage, that many articles of diet contain a far larger percentage of proteid than the best meats! I present the tables, however, before discussing this question at greater length.

See the [Displaced Table].

In the above selections from Atwater and Bryant’s tables, I have chosen, in every case, the best parts or cuts of the meat, and those meats which are supposedly most nutritious, to balance against my selected list of vegetables, etc.—containing the highest percentage of protein. If the tables be examined carefully, the following astonishing facts will be brought to light:—That while in lean ribs of beef (considering only the edible portion) we find that the protein percentage is but 19.6, with a fuel value per pound of 870; that while cooked mutton contains a protein percentage of 25.0, with a fuel value of 1420 cal. per pound, almonds (nuts) contain a protein percentage of 21.0, with a fuel value of 3030! Again, we find a protein percentage of 27.9, with a fuel value of 3165 for butter-nuts; a protein percentage of 25.8, with a fuel value of 2560 for peanuts; a protein value of 27.6 and a fuel value of 3105 for black walnuts; and a protein value of 16.6 and a fuel value of 3285 for California walnuts (to mention but a few instances). The protein percentage of ribs of beef is but 17.8! Even cocoa, as purchased, contains a far greater protein percentage and a higher fuel value than the choicest portions of almost all meats—for it contains a protein percentage of 21.6 and a fuel value of 2320! This is to be compared, be it observed, with, say, a protein percentage of 17.8 and a fuel value of 1330 for ribs of beef—this being the average for all analyses. Many meats fall far below beef and mutton, which have been cited as standard and sample meats—while only the lean and edible portions have been used for purposes of calculation. Were we to compare the protein percentages and fuel values of other meats, and especially game and fish, we should find that they fall far below, not only nuts, but also grains and the legumes, in both protein percentage and fuel values. For instance, we find that fricasseed chicken, taking the edible portion only, contains a protein percentage of 17.6 and a fuel value per pound of but 885; that the edible portion of bass contains but 18.6 protein, with a fuel value of 465; that cod contains but 16.5 protein percentage, with a fuel value of 325, as against a protein percentage of 22.5 with a fuel value of 1600 for dried beans—against a protein percentage of 25.7, and a fuel value of 1620 of dried lentils, and as against 24.6 protein percentage, and a fuel value of 1655 for dried peas! The comparison is astonishing. Even evaporated potatoes contain an average of 8.5 protein percentage, with a fuel value of 1680, as against a protein percentage of 6.2 with a fuel value of 235 for oysters; and a protein percentage of 4.6, with a fuel value of 150 for mussels! Hens’ eggs contain a large proportionate percentage of protein; the average being 13.4, with a fuel value of 720; but this must be balanced against a protein percentage of 28.8 for American cheese, with a fuel value of 2055; or a protein percentage of 25.9 with a fuel value of 1950 for cream cheese.

As against the figures just quoted, let me cite two or three analyses of meat soups, which have frequently been administered to invalids under the idea that they are “strengthening” and “heating”—thus supporting or maintaining the temperature and the energy of the sick person. Apart from the fundamental error contained in this theory—that we do derive our strength and the heat of the body from the food eaten (which I have endeavoured to prove incorrect in my “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 225-303; 332-350; 448-459; etc.), there is the direct evidence afforded by the chemical analysis of these articles of diet. As opposed to an average of more than 20.0 protein percentage, and a fuel value averaging more than 1600 calories, we find for beef soup, as purchased, a protein percentage of 3.2 and a fuel value of 295; a protein percentage of 1.8, and a fuel value of 195, for clam chowder; and a protein percentage of 4.6 and a fuel value of 370 for ordinary meat stew! Quite apart, therefore, from the argument based upon the fact that all meat juices and extracts contain, in addition to the nutritious principles, a large amount of poisonous or toxic material, we have here direct evidence of the fact that these meat soups, so generally administered to invalids, are totally lacking both in high protein value and in fuel value; and when we consider that, in addition to all this, they contain a large amount of poisonous matter in solution, it will be seen how false is the doctrine of administering soups of this character to patients, under the impression that we are helping them to sustain their bodily heat, their energies and their strength!

Let us now make another short list of comparisons. Fresh ham, medium fat, average edible portion, contains 15.3 protein percentage, with a fuel value of 1505; dried cow peas, on the other hand, have a protein percentage of 21.4, with a fuel value of 1590. Leg of veal averages a protein percentage of 20.7, with a fuel value of 670; as against a protein percentage of 18.1, and a fuel value of 1625 for lima beans; leg of lamb, medium fat, edible portion only, averages 19.2 protein percentage, with a fuel value of 1055; compared with a protein percentage of 33.9 and a fuel value of 2845 for pignolia-nuts. Again, we compare a protein percentage of 23.9, and a fuel value of 875, for sirloin steak, with a protein percentage of 29.3, and a fuel value of 2825 for pea-nut butter, as purchased! If we compare all the analyses of loin of beef, we find the average for the edible portion to be 19.0 protein percentage, and a fuel value of 1155; while the protein percentage of this same article of diet, as purchased, would be but 16.4, with a fuel value of 1020, as against a protein percentage of 28.1, and a fuel value of 2945 for Sabine pine-nuts; even “malted nuts” contain a protein percentage of 22.7, with a fuel value of 2240—this being far ahead of all but a few meats. And many of the grains are equal, both in protein percentage and in fuel value, to many of the best meats. Thus, rolled oats contain a protein percentage of 16.7, and a fuel value of 1850; gluten wheat flour, a protein percentage of 14.2, with a fuel value of 1665; while, turning to the vegetables, we find a protein percentage of more than 20 per cent. (often running up as high as 25) and a fuel value averaging 1600 calories per pound, for all the bean and pea family. Practically all the nuts contain a far larger percentage of protein than any meats, while even such articles of food as chocolate and yeast, contain an equal amount (12.9 and 11.7)! It will be seen from the above tables, therefore, that so far as protein is concerned, the same amount may be extracted from an equal amount of other foods, and even a far greater amount of protein from a lesser quantity of other foods. This being the case, it becomes obvious how absurd it is to talk of the necessity of meat as an article of diet, because of the large amount of protein it contains. But since, as we have seen, the chief object (if not the only one) for our eating meat at all is to obtain this protein in what has always been thought to be a “readily digestible and condensed” form, it will be seen that there is no basis whatever for this belief, and that it is, in fact, totally disproved by the direct evidence in the case. We can obtain all the protein we need from an equal or lesser quantity of food of non-animal origin.

Let us now briefly examine the other constituents of food, in order to see if the requisite amount of fats, carbohydrates, salts, etc., are supplied. As before stated, our chief reason for eating meat at all is that it is supposed to contain a larger percentage of protein than any other article of diet; but we have seen that this is not the case. It is generally conceded by all those who defend a “mixed,” or partly flesh diet, that vegetable foods and fruits will supply all the fats and carbohydrates needed by the system—the percentage of protein being always the point in dispute.

However, in order to make this perfectly plain to the reader, I shall adduce a few examples of the various food-stuffs, in order that it can be seen at once that all these other constituents of food are likewise contained, in far greater quantities than they are in meat, in almost all other articles of diet. A few examples will render this clear.

First of all, let us take the fats. In the edible portion of very fat beef we have a percentage of 32.3 and 27.6 per cent. fat on the edible portion of fat loin of beef. We find a percentage of 35.6 fat on fat ribs of beef. But when beef is cooked, as it must be before eating, we find the amount of this fat greatly reduced. Thus sirloin steak contains but 10.2 per cent. of fat; the edible portion of tenderloin averages 20.4 per cent.; roast beef averages 28.6 per cent.; veal contains an average of but 7.7 per cent., for the edible portion; fat leg of lamb, edible portion, 27.4 per cent.; but when it is cooked, there is here, as in all other cases, a great reduction in the percentage of fat—there remaining but 12.7 per cent. in roast leg of lamb. The percentage in mutton is somewhat higher, being 22.6 per cent., as cooked. Ham, of course, contains a large amount of fat; fresh ham, edible portions, medium fat, averaging 28.9 per cent., the total average for fresh ham being 33.4 per cent. When ham is cooked, however, there is the invariable reduction in the percentage, being especially noticeable in this case—the average of luncheon ham, cooked, being but 21.0 per cent. Poultry and game contain a smaller percentage of fat than most meats. Capon, chicken, and roast turkey average from 10 per cent. to 11 per cent. in fat. All fresh fish and shellfish contain very much less fat, from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. on the average. Eggs contain about half the percentage contained in meat, as a rule, the average being 10.5 per cent. for the edible portion. There is a great disproportion, however, between the white and the yolk of the egg; there being but .2 per cent. of fat in the edible portion of the white, while 33.3 per cent. of the edible portion of the yolk is fat.

Now, when we turn to dairy products and to the vegetable kingdom for our fats, we find that a very large amount of fat is contained in a number of articles of diet—far greater than in any of the fattest meats. Thus, butter contains 85 per cent. fat; American cheese, 38.3 per cent. fat; California cheese, 33.4 per cent. fat; cheddar cheese, 36.8 per cent.; cream cheese, 58.0 per cent.; full cream cheese averages 33.7 per cent.; old English cheese, 42.7 per cent.; etc. Cream, on the other hand, contains less than we should suppose, being but 18.5 per cent. fat, and milk only 4.0 per cent. fat.

Our great source of fats, however—leaving out all dairy products, which, it might be claimed, are indirectly derived from the animal kingdom—is nuts. The great value of these articles of food will become apparent to us when we see that not only are they at the head of the list in protein percentage and in fuel value, but also in the percentage of their fats. Thus we find almonds average 54.9 per cent. fat; beech-nuts, edible portion, 57.4 per cent.; Brazil-nuts, edible portion, 66.8 per cent. fat; butter-nuts, 61.2 per cent. fat; cocoanuts, 50.6 per cent. fat; filberts, 65.3 per cent.; hickory-nuts, 67.4 per cent.; peanuts, 38.6 per cent.; pea-nut butter, 46.5 per cent.; pecans, 71.2 per cent.; pine-nuts, 60.7 per cent.; California walnuts, 64.4 per cent.; black California walnuts, 53.3 per cent.; soft-shell walnuts, 63.4 per cent. Chocolate also contains 48.7 per cent. fat. If now we compare with these figures those “highly nutritious” invalid foods, meat soups, etc., we find the fat percentages to run as follows:—Beef soup, .4 per cent. fat; chicken, .8 per cent.; clam chowder, .8 per cent.; and meat stew, averaging 4.3 per cent. fat.

Let us now compare the relative percentages of carbohydrates. In the majority of meats these are so very low that it might almost be said they contain no carbohydrates at all. In the above tables from Atwater and Bryant’s analysis, it will be seen that no figures at all appear in the column for carbohydrate percentages. With the single exception of tripe, which contains an average of .2 per cent., no mention is made of a percentage of carbohydrates in any of the meats. Hens’ eggs also contain practically none. Poultry and game, when cooked, average from 2 per cent. to 5 per cent.; fish contain practically none, while shellfish range from 1 per cent. to 3 per cent. This is all the carbohydrates that the animal kingdom affords us!

Turning now to dairy products, we find that various cheeses furnish from 2 per cent. to 4 per cent. carbohydrates; milk averages 5 per cent., but condensed, unsweetened milk, or evaporated cream, average 11.2 per cent. It will be seen, therefore, that dairy products, coming as they do, indirectly from the animal kingdom, furnish a comparatively small percentage of carbohydrates.

Let us now turn to the vegetable kingdom, including the grains, and see the relative percentage obtained from them. Taking first the flours and the meals, we find: barley, granulated, contains 79.8 per cent. carbohydrates; buckwheat flour, 77.9 per cent.; corn flour, 78.4 per cent.; corn meal, 75.4 per cent.; oat meal, 67.5 per cent.; rolled oats, average 66.2 per cent.; rice, average 79 per cent.; flaked rice, 81.9 per cent.; entire wheat flour, 71.9 per cent.; dried beans, 59.6 per cent.; beans, frijoles, 65.1 per cent.; lima beans, 65.9 per cent.; dried peas, 62.0 per cent.; cow peas, 60.8 per cent.; potatoes, 18.4 per cent.; evaporated potatoes, 80.9 per cent.

Turning to fruits, we find that some of them contain quite a large percentage of carbohydrates—from 10 per cent., in the case of blackberries, cranberries and peaches, to 22 per cent. in the case of bananas. Other fruits in their fresh condition range between these. Certain nuts also contain a large percentage of carbohydrates. Thus, almonds contain an average of 17.3 per cent.; chestnuts, an average of 42.1 per cent.; dried chestnuts, 74.2 per cent.; cocoanuts, 27.9 per cent.; Lichi-nuts, 77.5 per cent.; peanuts, average, 24.4 per cent.; malted nuts, 43.9 per cent. Chocolate also contains 30.3 per cent.; cocoa averages 37.7 per cent.; and yeast, 21 per cent. Again in comparing with these figures our “nourishing invalid’s food,” beef soups, etc., we find that meat stew contains an average of 5.5 per cent. carbohydrates; clam chowder, 6.7 per cent.; chicken soup, 2.4 per cent.; beef soup, an average of 1.1 per cent.! It is to be noticed in this connection that bean soup contains a percentage of 9.4 per cent. carbohydrates.

Turning now to the column marked “ash” in the various tables, we find that all meats contain an average of about 1 per cent. Corn beef, pickled tongue, etc., cannot be fairly included in the list, because of the mineral salts injected into the tissues of the animal. But in all other cases 1 per cent. will be found a most liberal allowance for this ash. It will be remembered that our authors classified under the heading of “mineral matters,” all phosphates, sulphates, chlorides, salts of potassium, sodium, etc. These are very essential articles of diet, though the part they play in digestive processes is not yet fully understood. They must be considered, however, valuable portions of all food-stuffs; and, other things being equal, the larger percentage of salts contained in organic compound (not as separate mineral elements) the better. Now, when we come to compare the articles of food derived from the vegetable world, with animal products, we find a very much larger percentage of all mineral matters, in these foods. A few references will make this clear. Rolled oats contain 2.1 per cent.; rice flour, 8.8 per cent.; wheat flour, 4.8 per cent.; dried beans, 3.5 per cent.; dried lentils, 5.7 per cent.; evaporated potatoes, 3.1 per cent.; almonds, 2 per cent.; beech-nuts, 3.5 per cent.; Brazil-nuts, 3.9 per cent.; butter-nuts, 2.9 per cent.; chestnuts, 2.2 per cent.; peanuts, 2 per cent.; pignolia nuts, 3.3 per cent.; Sabine pine-nuts, 4.7 per cent.; pistachio-nuts, 3.2 per cent. Most fruits contain a small percentage of mineral matter, averaging perhaps, .5 per cent. Chocolate contains 2.2 per cent. and cocoa, 7.2 per cent. These percentages might, however, be vitiated by the fact that foreign ingredients are used in the preparation of these foods. Beef soups, etc., average from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent.

In thus giving the total percentage of ash contained in any food, however, it must not be forgotten that this is but a crude and imperfect method of arriving at a just estimate of the value of that food, so far as its ash percentage is concerned. Although the percentage of mineral matters contained in the various foods is very small, the part they play in the economy is exceedingly important—altogether disproportionate to the relatively small quantity of this matter. It is well known that if we feed animals (or, for that matter, human beings), upon certain foods, lacking in salts, these individuals will ultimately die of “saline starvation”—no matter how much food may have been eaten, or how well proportioned the proteids, fats and carbohydrates. This is an astonishing fact. These mineral elements, contained in organic compound, must not be confused, however, with the same elements in inorganic form—in which condition they are quite unusable by the system. This is a question, however, into which I do not desire to enter now. It is very necessary, however, to point out and insist upon this fact—that giving the total percentage of ash constitutents or mineral matter, in any given article of food, is of small value to us when attempting to balance a diet, unless we know in what this percentage of mineral matter consists. That is, 1.7 per cent. ash of a given food may be composed of five different mineral elements (in organic form) and the proportion of each would vary largely. It is quite possible, therefore, for there to be a larger percentage of any one mineral element in a certain food, containing a lesser total ash percentage than in one containing a greater ash percentage. That is, supposing there to be two articles of diet, one containing 1.5 per cent. and the other 2 per cent. of ash. The article of food containing the 1.5 per cent. of salts might contain 1 per cent. of potash, while the article containing 2 per cent. of total ash would contain but 5 per cent. of potash. It would be seen from this that an article of food containing less total ash percentage might contain relatively more of a certain element; and if we wish to obtain and supply to the system certain organic salts, it will only be necessary for us to pick out those articles of diet which contain the largest percentage of the required salt, and supply it to the body, as food, for a longer or shorter period. In this manner saline starvation, and the many ills that result indirectly from it, may be avoided. It will be evident from the above, therefore, that any tables, giving the total ash percentage of the various foods are practically valueless, so long as they do not carry the analysis a step further, and tell us in what this total percentage consists. Only in this manner can any definite results be obtained; but it will be evident, at all events, that any of the articles of diet containing such organic salts would be preferable to meats, so far as this aspect of the problem is concerned—since meats contain practically none. It will be of interest to consider, briefly, this question of the relative proportion of each organic salt in the total ash percentage.

So far as I have been able to discover, only two authors have paid particular attention to this question of minute ash percentages: Dr H. Lahmann, in Germany, and Mr Otto Carqué, in America. Both of these authors have gone to considerable trouble to obtain exact figures upon this question.[16] Let us consider Dr Lahmann’s argument first: Taking milk (of the human species) as the standard with which to compare analyses of all foods—since it is to be supposed that this would contain all organic salts as well as proteid, fats and carbohydrates in exactly the right proportion for the upbuilding of the healthy human body—he found, by comparison, that the quantities of soda and lime contained in our ordinary food are far below the quantities necessary to maintain a healthy existence, whereas the quantities of potash, iron and phosphoric acid are generally too high. Although his conclusions may not be accepted in full, it is evident that some of them, at least, are correct; and one of the most important conclusions to be drawn from his argument is that, generally speaking, anæmia has nothing to do with want of iron in the blood. It is due to other causes—principally over-feeding, as I have endeavoured to show in my “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 604-605.

Dr Lahmann shows us that we may replace any quantity of meat or lentils, as well as bread and flour, by fruits or green vegetables, and that the amount of lime and other bone-forming salts will be increased thereby. As a general thing it may be said that there

is a superabundance of potash in vegetable food. A large number of diseases were found to be due to a disproportion of the organic salts—this argument running throughout Dr Lahmann’s book. The following table will show clearly the percentage of the various mineral salts in food-stuffs, and will prove conclusively that certain salts, lacking in the human system, can never be supplied by any amount of meat; and, further, that a number of these salts cannot be supplied in proper quantities by any other articles of food than fruits. These, and these alone, contain many salts in solution which the system needs. I shall, however, consider this question at greater length when I come to discuss the value of the fruitarian dietary. For the moment, let us turn our attention to the tables of ash percentages.

Now, if we compare the figures in the following tables, we find that in practically every case the quantity of any given food-salt is greater in all fruits, and practically in every other article of diet than it is in meat. Taking potassium, for example, we find that meat averages (out of the total percentage of mineral matter) 41.30 per cent., while blueberries average 57.1 per cent.; and olives, 80.9 per cent. If we compare the quantity of sodium, we find that meat contains 3.6 per cent.; while apples contain 26.1 per cent.; strawberries, 28.5 per cent.; dried figs, 26.2 per cent. As some of these, however, are percentages of smaller total ash percentages, the disproportion is not so great as would at first appear, though it is evident that the fruits contain much more, even allowing for this. Making the same reservations, we find that while meat contains, of iron, an average of .7 per cent., strawberries contain 5.9 per cent.; gooseberries 4.56 per cent.; prunes, 2.5 per cent.; while spinach contains 3.35 per cent.; asparagus, 3.4 per cent.; and lettuce, 5.2 per cent.

It is evident that, making all allowances for a smaller total ash percentage, these articles of diet contain a far greater percentage of iron than does meat, and the same is true of practically all other salts, as can be seen by referring to the tables. It is evident, therefore, that other food-stuffs, and particularly fruits, will supply us with more mineral matter than will the best of meats, and are to be preferred in consequence.

It will not be necessary for us to compare the columns headed “Refuse” and “Water,” since these are practically the same in all food-stuffs, on the average, and they do not effect, appreciably, the food-value of any article of diet.

There remains only one valid objection to my argument, and that is based upon the supposed fact that a larger percentage of animal proteid is appropriated by the system than is the case in vegetable foods. That is, given a certain quantity of animal and vegetable foods, both containing an equal amount of proteid, more will be appropriated from the animal than from the vegetable food-stuffs. A great many writers, such as Miss Leppel, in England, have taken this ground. But I would point out, first of all, that, even if it were true, it would not invalidate the argument in the least, for the reason that a far larger percentage of proteid is contained in a smaller amount of non-flesh food, such as nuts; and for that reason it would be easy enough to supply the system with the same amount of proteid from an equal, or even a lesser, bulk of food—even granting the validity of the argument. But I dispute the fact itself. Professor Russell H. Chittenden, of Yale University, one of the most famous physiologists in America, and director of the Sheffield Scientific School, writes in his “Nutrition of Man” as follows:—

“In the digestion of proteid food-stuffs by the combined action of gastric and pancreatic juice in the alimentary tract, a large proportion of the proteid is destined to undergo complete conversion into amino-acids; and, from these fragments, the body, by a process of synthesis, can construct its own peculiar type of proteid. This latter suggestion is worthy of a moment’s further consideration; as is well known, every species of animal has its own peculiar type of proteid, adapted to its particular needs. The proteids of one species directly injected into the blood of another species are incapable of serving as nutriment to the body, and frequently act as poison.... The availability or digestibility of food can be determined only by physiological experiment. By making a comparison, for a definite period of time, of the amount of the different food ingredients, and the amount that passes unchanged through the intestines, an estimate of its digestibility can be made.... In a general way it may be stated that with animal foods, such as meats, eggs, and milk, about 97 per cent. of the contained proteid is digested, and thereby rendered available to the body. With ordinary vegetables, on the other hand, as they are usually prepared for consumption, only about 85 per cent. of the proteid is made available. With a mixed diet, with a variable admixture of animal and vegetable foods, it is usually considered that about 92 per cent. of the proteid contained therein will undergo digestion.”

At first sight, it would appear that this runs counter to the argument that has been advanced; but we must take into account the fact that Professor Chittenden is here speaking only of vegetable proteid, and has made no mention of nuts; and, as we have seen from the tables, nuts contain a far larger percentage of protein than meats. When we take into consideration the small disproportion in the percentage assimilated, and find that when meat is mixed with other articles of food, as it invariably is, the percentage of its availability is reduced to 92 per cent., while vegetable foods are proportionately raised to the same figure, we see that the apparent discrepancy practically vanishes to nothing. And when we further take into account the fact that an equal amount of proteid can be obtained from a far less quantity of non-flesh food, we see that, from an equal bulk of food material, a far larger proportionate percentage would be assimilated from the vegetable foods than from the animal.

Another great argument which has always been advanced in favour of meat-eating, or the ingestion of proteid in the form of animal, as opposed to vegetable food, is that the proteid derived from the animal is far more quickly and readily assimilated by the system than vegetable proteid. The rapidity of the digestion of animal food has always been urged as one of the strongest arguments in its favour, and it is largely for this reason that it has been administered to invalids, and to patients in a depressed and weakened state of body. But now we find that physiological research has completely disproved this old dogma! Professor Chittenden, on p. 30 of his “Nutrition and Man,” says:

“It is evident from what has been stated that the gastric digestion of proteid foods is a comparatively slow process, involving several hours of time; and further, that food material in general remains in the stomach for varying periods, dependent upon its chemical composition.... It is a mistake to assume that the digestion of proteid foods is complete in the stomach. Stomach digestion is to be considered more as a preliminary step, paving the way for further changes to be carried forward by the combined action of intestinal and pancreatic juice in the small intestines.... The importance of gastric digestion is frequently overrated.”

Dr Sylvester Graham, writing on this subject years ago in his “Science of Human Life,” said:

“In vain have they attempted to regulate the diet of man on the chemical principles, and insisted on the necessity for certain chemical properties in the human element to sustain the vital economy. That economy has shown them that it can triumph over the chemical affinities and ordinary laws of organic matter, and bend them to its purposes at pleasure; generating and transmuting from one form to another, with the utmost ease, the substance which human science calls elements; and while the living organs retain their functional power and integrity, elaborating from every kind of element on which an animal can subsist, a chyle so nearly identical in its physical and chemical character, that the most accurate analytical chemists can scarcely detect the least appreciable difference.... Though, while the health and integrity of the assimilating organs are preserved, the physical and chemical character of the chyle are nearly identical, whatever may be the elementary substance from which it was elaborated, yet the vital constitution of the chyle and blood, and consequently of the solids, is greatly affected by the quality of the food. When chyle is taken from the living vessels, the vital constitution of that which is elaborated from flesh meat is capable of resisting the action of bacterial decomposition only a short time, and will begin to putrefy in three or four days at the longest; while the vital constitution of that which is elaborated from pure and proper vegetable elements, will resist this decomposing action for a much larger period, yet it will in the end putrefy with all the phenomena of that formed from flesh meat.”

The bearing of these facts on physical training, the health of the body, and the decomposition of the body after death, need only be pointed out.

It is really extraordinary how writers on dietetics, seem to take a delight, as a rule, in making as many mis-statements and misrepresentations as possible. Take, for example, the following passage in Dr C. S. Read’s Book, “Fads and Feeding”:—

“It is necessary, with the vegetable products, to take the nitrogenous product as Nature gives it to us, which is a drawback; and secondly, vegetable foods are relatively much poorer in this respect than animal foods.... A vegetable diet must needs be bulky, because of its wateriness, especially when cooked, and the large amount of indigestible matter it contains. This tends to abnormally distend the stomach and bowels. The capacity of the stomach becomes greater, more food can be taken, but the distention produces a feeling of satiety before sufficient nourishment has really been ingested. The dealing with such a bulk internally means the expenditure of much nervous energy which might have been better utilised. The wateriness of vegetable foods is extremely disadvantageous, since on absorption it tends to render all the tissues flabby. The individual who leads a sedentary life will feel the disadvantage of vegetarianism more than the active worker.”

Now, not a sentence in the above quotation is correct. If Dr Read had studied vegetarians at first hand, he would have found out his mistakes, and would not have written such rubbish. As a matter of fact, vegetable foods do not supply less nitrogen than meat, but on the contrary more; a vegetable diet need not be bulky, if properly selected—less of it need be eaten than of a mixed diet, because of its greater nutritive value; while the notion that the absorbtion of water from the foods make the tissues “flabby” is, of course, absurd. Altogether, this is almost the greatest string of inaccuracies regarding diet that I have ever come across.

There is one aspect of this question which it might be well to touch upon in this place. The air that we breathe, as we know, contains a large percentage of nitrogen. Might it not be possible for the system to utilise some of this nitrogen, when the body is in a state of nitrogen starvation? Dr De Lacy Evans, surgeon to St Saviour’s Hospital, in London, contended that this might be the case, and in his “How to Prolong Life,” pp. 76-80, wrote:

“It has been argued that fruits will not sustain life, because they do not contain sufficient nitrogen; this argument is founded upon a theory which is demonstrably incorrect, and it is an ascertained fact that fruits alone will support life and good bodily health.... By experiments on ourselves, on friends, and on natives of tropical regions, we find a comparatively small quantity of nitrogen necessary to sustain life; in fact, fruits, taken as a class, contain sufficient nitrogen to sustain human life.... Now fruits will sustain life, and all fruits contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, and most of them a small quantity of nitrogen; and if these fruits which will sustain life do not contain sufficient nitrogen, may not man, who breathes and is in contact with an atmosphere (four-fifths of which is nitrogen), by means of his lungs, the surface of which is supposed to be more than twenty times that of the whole body, absorb the necessary nitrogen directly from the atmosphere? From careful observation of the diet of natives in tropical regions, and from direct experiments in England, we may state that this is positively the case. This is often observed in the herbivora: their natural food contains little nitrogen, still it is found in their flesh in about the same ratio as in the carnivora. Further, the carnivora live on food rich in nitrogen—yet one is as well nourished as the other.... Man may live entirely upon fruits, in better health than the majority of mankind now enjoy. Good, sound, ripe fruits are never a cause of disease; but the vegetable acids, as we have before stated, lower the temperature of the body, decrease the process of combustion and oxidation—therefore the waste of the system—less sleep is required, activity is increased, fatigue or thirst hardly experienced: still the body is well nourished, and as a comparatively small quantity of earthy salts are taken into the system, the cause of ‘old age’ is in some degree removed, the effect is delayed, and life is prolonged to a period far beyond our ‘three score years and ten.’”[17]

The consensus of modern opinion, however, seems to be against any such supposition. Chittenden, for example, writes:[18]

“Man lives in an atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen. He can and does absorb and utilise the free oxygen of the air he breathes; indeed, it is absolutely essential for his existence, but free nitrogen likewise drawn into the lungs at each inspiration is of no avail for the needs of the body.”

As, however, all bodies contain more or less nitrogen in excess, there would be no need to call upon the air for its supply. It would be interesting to note the effects in cases of nitrogen starvation; but the simple fact that animals do die when sufficient nitrogen is subtracted from their food, would seem to indicate that but little nitrogen, if any, can be extracted from the air, even under these circumstances.

After the above lengthy argument, which endeavours to show that sufficient proteid can be supplied the body from vegetable foods, it is somewhat amusing to find that, as a matter of fact, far too much proteid has invariably been eaten by practically all civilised peoples—and that so far from there being any danger of nitrogen starvation, or lack of sufficient proteid, the danger is all the other way, and four-fifths of all the maladies from which mankind suffers are due to the very fact that an excess of proteid has been eaten! All physiologists agree that the majority of people eat far more, not only of proteid, but of all kinds of food, than is required, according to their tables; and Professor Chittenden has recently shown, as the result of an elaborate series of experiments conducted at Yale, that the average proteid standard set by physiologists, as being necessary for the maintenance of health, is at least three times too high! That is, the majority of persons eat considerably more than three times too much proteid! In view of these facts, it is amusing to find so much fear exhibited on all hands in case the proteid supply should not be sufficient in quantity.

These Yale nutrition investigations are now so widely known that it would be useless to do more than refer to them in this place. As the results of experiments upon University professors, upon athletes, and upon a squad chosen from the United States army, it was definitely proved that the proteid standards were far too high: the men flourishing, improving in every direction, and even doing a greater amount of physical work than usual on a diet averaging, in proteid value, about a third said to be necessary by the physiologists. When we take into account the fact that most people eat far more proteid than the physiologists said was necessary, it will be seen at once the tremendous disproportion which exists between the amount actually consumed, and the amount really needed by the body; and how absurd it is, in face of these facts, to persist in demanding an excess of those foods which contain such high proteid percentages! Chittenden says:

“There is no question, in view of our results, that people ordinarily consume much more food than there is any real physiological necessity for, and it is more than probable that this excess of food is in the long run detrimental to health, weakening rather than strengthening the body, and defeating the very objects aimed at.... One-half of the 118 grams of proteid food called for daily, is quite sufficient to meet all the physiological needs of the body, certainly under the ordinary conditions of life; and with most individuals, especially persons not living an active outdoor life, even a smaller amount will suffice.”[19]

The figures and calculations throughout his works, however, show that the proteid intake may be reduced to fully one-third of that said to be necessary in standard physiologies, with nothing but increased health and strength.

In summing up this question of the necessity of meat-eating, one important fact must not be lost sight of, which, in a sense, may be said to settle the argument in favour of the vegetarian dietary without further additional evidence of any kind. It is this: That the bodies of all animals are built from vegetable foods, and consequently, when we eat those animals, we merely eat the vegetable foods, upon which they have subsisted, at second hand! We appropriate or obtain the same chemical elements in organic compound that they originally obtained from their food, but we obtain nothing else. Animals have the power to create nothing. The single fact that all nutritive material is formed by vegetables—animals having the power to appropriate but never to form or create food elements—is proof positive, to my mind, that we can derive all the nutriment we need directly from the vegetable world, and that the best food, and that which is most conducive to man’s highest development—bodily, mentally and spiritually—is found in the use of these vegetables themselves. Those who eat animal food do not get a single element of nutrition, save that which those animals have obtained from vegetables. Hence man, in taking his nutrition indirectly, by the eating of animals, must of necessity get the original nutriment more or less deteriorated from the unhealthy conditions and accidents of the animal he feeds upon—with the impurities and putrescent matters mingled with the blood and in the viscera of animal substances, which are invariably present. Apart from this aspect of the problem—which is one rather of hygiene than of chemistry, and hence will be discussed in the following chapter—it is evident that man can derive no single element of nutrition from the bodies of animals, which he cannot also obtain from suitable vegetable foods. He need not eat grass and herbs, as do the cows and sheep, in order to obtain this material—since chemical analysis of the foods will readily show us that these same elements are contained in fruits, nuts and other substances suited to his economy. This argument alone should, therefore, as a matter of fact, settle the whole case in favour of vegetarianism as against flesh-eating, without any further or additional proof being necessary.

V
THE ARGUMENT FROM HYGIENE

We have seen in the preceding pages that it is perfectly possible for man to live upon vegetable and kindred foods without necessitating the eating of animal foods of any character—which merely confirms the evidence afforded us by a study of comparative anatomy and physiology. Having thus seen that it is possible for man to live and thrive upon these foods, the question at once arises: Can man thrive best upon such foods? Can he maintain a higher level of vital and bodily health, and of mental and moral powers, upon these foods than he can upon the usual mixed diet of to-day—including meat and its various products? If it can be shown that this is the case—that a man cannot only live, but improve in health and bodily strength on the vegetarian régime—then it will be pretty obvious that this is the diet best suited for man, and the diet upon which he can thrive best. It would, in fact, confirm the argument drawn from comparative anatomy, physiology, and chemistry, and would conclusively prove that man can live and thrive best upon a diet devoid of flesh.[20]

In order to understand the evil effects of flesh-eating thoroughly, it will be necessary for us, first of all, to consider the normal body when living, and the process of death. When the body of any animal is living, two processes are simultaneously going on within it—viz. the constructive and the destructive (Anabolism and Catabolism). The former of these processes feeds and bathes the tissues, while the latter is that process whereby the dead matter is thrown off, and conveyed, by means of the venous blood, to the various eliminating organs. The arterial blood conveys the food material to the bodily tissues; the venous blood conveys the dead, worn-out, effete material from the various tissues to the eliminating organs. If either of these two processes ceases, or is in any way interfered with, grave results follow—which, if persisted in long enough, will result in the death of the organism. It must be remembered that all the poisons which are thrown off by the cells, throughout the body, are not really eliminated until they have been conveyed to the depurating organs, and been completely dissipated in that way. If they are still in the venous blood or in the tissues, they are still in the animal, and a part of its flesh. These waste substances are poisonous, and are produced very rapidly by an animal in movement, or even by the very process of living, so that every animal, no matter how healthy, must and does contain a vast amount of these poisons, the accumulation of which would soon kill the animal if not removed—as has often been proved by varnishing the surface of the body, e.g. When the action of the skin is stopped in this manner the animal soon dies. Again, when a man is strangled, and the blood forced to pass through the lungs several times without being oxidised and purified by contact with the oxygen of the atmosphere, the blood soon becomes almost black in appearance (due to retained poisons), and the man dies as the result of the rapid formation of poisons within his system. These facts must be borne in mind, in what follows. This constant formation of deadly poisons, as the mere result of living, is a most important factor in the problem, as we shall soon see; and is one that cannot be overlooked when considering this question of the propriety and wisdom of flesh-eating.

Having grasped the above facts, let us now proceed to apply them to the problem before us. When an animal is killed in any manner whatever, it does not instantly die. It loses consciousness, its heart ceases to beat, its conscious and somatic life end, but its tissues still continue to live—for several hours, in the case of warm-blooded animals, for several days in the case of cold-blooded animals, like the snake and the turtle. During the time which elapses between death, so-called, and the actual death of the cells and tissues of the body, the activity of the animal tissues consumes the soluble food material which is in contact with these cells and tissues—at the same time continuing to produce those waste substances, which, during life, are rapidly removed from the body through the kidneys, lungs, and other excretory organs.

It is by the accumulation of these poisons after death that the tissues are killed. During life, the tissues are washed by a pure stream of blood, which not only bathes but feeds them, and at the same time gathers up the waste substances and carries them to the liver for distribution to the kidneys, lungs and skin, for elimination. “When the heart ceases to beat, this cleansing process ceases, and the poisons which are ever forming, accumulate at a rapid rate until the vital fluids are so saturated that every living structure is killed. The arteries continue to contract after death until all the blood which they contain is forced on into the tissues, and still farther on into the veins, so that the flesh of a dead animal contains nothing but venous blood and poisonous juices, in addition to the organised tissues which have not yet been broken down.

From the foregoing, it will be apparent why it is that meat-eating is so destructive. In addition to the useful and necessary nitrogenous products that are contained within the flesh of the animal, there are also, contained within its tissues, these poisons created during life, and retained within the body of the animal after its death. It is almost impossible to extract these poisons by any process which will also leave the tissues of the animal free from them, and wholesome in consequence. By long continued washing, it is possible to extract the greater proportion of them; but this is never done, as a matter of fact, and even if it were it would leave behind a tough, elastic substance, almost tasteless, which would be quite unappetising to the person attempting to eat the meat. It would no longer have any charms! This, then, is the greatest objection that can be raised against meat-eating (from this particular aspect)—viz. that, in addition to the nutritious portion of the meat, there are and must always remain, and go along with it, these poisons which are consequently eaten with it. Now, I ask, would it not be better to eat that food which provides us with the useful material (proteid) for the upbuilding of the body; but food in which these poisons are not present, and which we consequently escape? Such being the case, why not eat only those foods which supply the nutriment, without the poisons?

I have observed above that certain poisons are invariably retained in the tissues of an animal which has died; and that these poisons may be, to a certain extent, washed out by water—they, of course, remaining in the water into which they have been washed. This is the case with “beef tea”—the boiling having the effect of washing out all these poisons, and dissolving them in the water in which the meat has been cooked. Instead of throwing away this water, however, it is carefully preserved, and given to patients, as valuable and precious nutriment! Instead of regarding it as so much poison and filthy excreta in solution, it is given to patients as a restorative tonic! It is really amazing that patients ever get well at all under such treatment. It is certain that none of the real goodness of the meat can be extracted by any process of boiling or washing, for the reason (1) that all the arterial blood has been converted into venous blood soon after the death of the animal; and (2) because animal tissue is per se indissoluble in water. Were this not so—if our tissues dissolved in water in this manner—then we should melt and dissolve like a lump of sugar whenever we went out in the rain, or when we happened to fall into the water; but we know that such is not the case. It is obvious, therefore, that only the excrementitious products can be washed away in this manner; and these are the parts of the tissue which are soaked and boiled into the water. In beef tea, therefore, we obtain; only the refuse and poisonous excreta of an animal—and very little, if any, of its real nutritive qualities.

But it may be contended that beef tea does benefit sick persons: they really do feel better after taking it! Quite possibly; but this feeling of elation is due to stimulation. If the public understood what stimulation really is, they would not urge any sick patient to eat or drink anything that in any way stimulated him; but would on the contrary forbid him to eat or drink anything which affected him in this way! If they understood the rationale of stimulation, they would never urge or suggest that any stimulating food be administered to the patient again. For how do stimulants stimulate? What is the rationale of their “action”?

When we see a horse plodding slowly along the street, and the driver suddenly cuts it across the back with his whip, the horse jumps, and reaches the end of the street more quickly than if he had not been so whipped. In such a case, does anyone suppose that any strength has been imparted or given to the horse; or is it not rather that the energy already present in the horse has been forced, and expended a little more quickly? Of course, the latter. In other words, the energy has been extracted from the horse, and not imparted to it. It is the same with all stimulants whatever. In every case, their action is the same. It is not that energy has been imparted to the organism, but rather that it has been abstracted from it—in the process of resisting and expelling the stimulant. Stimulation does not impart strength; it wastes it. Vital power does not go out of the brandy into the patient, but occasions vital power to be exhausted from the patient in expelling the brandy. The system expends its force to get rid of the alcohol, but never derives any force, great or small, good, bad or indifferent, from the alcohol. Stimulants merely occasion the expenditure of strength and energy; they do not impart either to the system.[21]

From the above facts, it will readily be seen why it is that beef tea is a stimulant of the highest order; and for that reason an apparent supporter of strength. In fact, it is now becoming to be realised in many quarters that beef tea is more of a stimulant than a food; and, if you believe in the one, you cannot accept the other. These facts will also enable us to understand the stimulating character of meat—a quality which has gained for it the reputation of being “strengthening,” and consequently “good food” for the weak invalid! But it so happens, unfortunately, that because of this very fact it is really disqualified as a food for the invalid; and this would be seen clearly enough if the true rationale of stimulation were properly understood. The fact of the matter is that the more stimulating a food, the less nutritious, and vice versa. Perhaps I cannot do better than quote Dr Trall in this connection. He says:

“Medical men teach us that animal food is more stimulating. Here, for once, the premise is true. But stimulation and nutrition happen to be antagonistic ideas. Just so far as a thing stimulates, it does not nourish. Just so far as it nourishes, it does not stimulate.

“There is no more widespread delusion on earth than this, which confounds stimulation and nutrition. This is the parent source of that awful error—or, rather multitude of errors—which are leading all the nations of the earth into all manner of riotous living, and urging them on in the road to swift destruction. This terrible mistake is the prime cause of all the gluttony, all the drunkenness, all the dissipation, all the debauchery in the world—I had almost said, of all the vice and crime also.

“But what is this stimulus of animal food? Let us see if we cannot understand it. What is a stimulant? It is anything which the vital powers resist with violence and expel with energy. The disturbance of the organism which denotes this resistance, constituting a kind of feverishness, is stimulation. It is a morbid process. It is disease, hence a wasting process. Medical books have a class of medicines which are called stimulants. They are all poisons, and not foods. Among them are alcohol, phosphorus, ammonia, cayenne pepper, etc. Anything which is foreign to the organism may provoke vital resistance, and in this sense be called a stimulant.

“But how does animal food stimulate? It always contains more or less effete materials—the debris of the disintegrated tissues, the ashes of the decayed organism—with more or less of other excrementitious matters. These impurities cannot be used in the organism, and therefore must be expelled; and this expulsive process, amounting to a feverish disturbance, this vital resistance, is precisely the rationale of the stimulating effects of animal food. And thus we prove that animal food is impure precisely in the ratio that it is stimulating, and for this reason objectionable.

“All that can be alleged in favour of flesh-eating because of its stimulating properties can be urged, and for precisely the same reasons, in favour of brandy-drinking or arsenic-eating.”[22]

There is nothing more certain than that the eating of meat, even if the meat be clean and wholesome, and the eating of it be not excessive, will in time produce grave results and diseases of the foulest and worst type. Not invariably, of course, but almost invariably. The rapid increase in uric acid which results from a flesh diet has previously been pointed out, and is now well known. In addition to this, there are numerous other poisons that are formed, or introduced into the body, as the result of flesh-eating—as Bouchard and others have proved conclusively. These poisons and their effects were carefully studied by Bouchard, and the results of his experiments are very interesting and convincing. He succeeded in isolating a number of poisons from the urea of flesh-eaters, and injecting them into animals, and noted the results. “One of the poisons in most minute doses produces death with violent spasms; another causes rapid fall of temperature until death occurs; another influences animal temperature in another direction; still another produces death with most profound coma.”

The basis of the demonstration is this. The urine is really an extract from the tissues; the kidneys do not manufacture poisons de novo, but simply separate from the blood poisons found in solution therein, which have been washed by the blood-current from the tissues which it bathes in passing through the capillary network of systemic circulation. Bearing these facts in mind, Bouchard and his assistants injected into live rabbits certain known quantities of these poisons, and noted the results. Death invariably resulted—frequently in a very short time, and as the result of taking an extremely small dose of the poison. It was also found that, by increasing the amount of meat in the diet, the amount of these toxins could be increased accordingly, and proportionately; the greater the amount of meat consumed, the greater the amount of toxin given off by the animal in its urine, and the more deadly its effects. It was even found that a person living almost exclusively upon a flesh diet increased these toxins to fourfold the normal limit!

Again, it is now well known that in all infectious and contagious diseases there are created within the system certain poisons which play a large part in the disease—they are a factor of immense importance. This being the case, it becomes obvious how important it is to keep out of the system all other and unnecessary poisons—such as might be introduced into the system by foul air, bad water, food containing poisons, etc. Since meat and beef tea contain these poisons in excess, it is certain that they should not only form no part of the diet of invalids, but should be strictly forbidden, just as any other poison is.

Metchnikoff has recently pointed out, with great emphasis, the immense influence upon health of intestinal putrefaction. He insists that it shortens life; is one of the chief causes of premature old age and death, and is the cause of many diseases and much misery during life—in all of which he is doubtless quite right. The method of checking this intestinal putrefaction, however, does not appeal to me as other than a palliative measure. Lactic acid is, for him, the great preventive of putrefaction of this type; but is it not obvious that such a treatment is merely one that aims at results, rather than at causes? one which attempts to patch up existing conditions, instead of trying to find out what gave rise to those conditions, and checking them? M. Metchnikoff has apparently failed to realise the fact that there is no need whatever for the human intestine being in any such diseased and disgusting condition as it is generally; that, in certain cases, it may be rendered absolutely sweet and clean—with virtually no putrefaction going on in the bowel at all. In the case of Mr Horace Fletcher, for instance (and in many of his disciples), no such conditions are present or possible. Mr Fletcher, writing in his “New Glutton or Epicure,” says (pp. 144-145):

“One of the most noticeable and significant results of economic nutrition, gained through careful attention to the mouth treatment of food, or buccal-digestion, is not only the small quantity of waste obtained but its inoffensiveness. Under best test conditions the ashes of economic digestion have been reduced to one-tenth of the average given as normal in the best text-books on physiology. The economic digestion ash forms in pillular shape, and, when released, these are massed together, having become so bunched by considerable retention in the rectum. There is no stench, no evidence of putrid bacterial decomposition, only the odour of warmth, like warm earth or ‘hot biscuit.’ Test samples of excreta, kept for more than five years, remain inoffensive, dry up, gradually disintegrate, and are lost.”

To my mind, it has always been so obvious that, if we supplied no food to decompose, there could be no decomposition, that I hardly thought the question was open to debate at all. It would appear to me to be axiomatic that if we only supplied the body with as much food as it really needed, and of the proper quality, there would be virtually no food left to decompose, or to offer pabulum for germs of any character whatever. Certainly this is the case outside the human intestine, and why not in it? One can quite easily see why it should be—why putrefaction should take place, if the amount of food ingested were excessive in quantity, or poisonous in quality; but not otherwise. The former of these two questions I have discussed at length in my former volume on fasting; the latter aspect of the problem is the one I propose to discuss in this book.

If we compare the decomposition of various articles of food, we find there is a very great difference (both as to the quality and the quantity) in the various food-stuffs. Under the same conditions, and during the same period of time, the extent of the decomposition, and its character, will be very different, in the two cases. Compare the decomposition of a pear, a peach or a plum, e.g., with that of a piece of beef or mutton! Animal tissues and products, when undergoing the process of decay or decomposition are particularly offensive; and this fact is well borne out by a comparative study of the excreta of the various animals. As before pointed out, that of the herbivora and frugivora is comparatively inoffensive, while that of the carnivora is very offensive, and dangerous also. This is particularly the case with man, when he eats meat of any character. His fæces at once assume a characteristic odour and character; and clearly indicate that he has wandered away from his natural diet, and is living upon food altogether foreign and unnatural to him. His tissues also take on the chemical composition of the resulting mass—being coloured and influenced by it. Meat and all animal products easily decomposing, and being in a moist, warm place, where they might easily decompose at once, they assume a most offensive character; and it does not require much imagination to see that the results would be disastrous in a very short time, under such circumstances; and clearly indicate that the individual is living on food unsuited to his needs and his organism.

Even when an animal is perfectly healthy, its tissues begin to decompose as soon as the animal is really dead—as soon as rigor mortis has passed away. Even when meat is kept at a very low temperature, it has been found that it decomposes after the first twenty-four hours; so that the amount of decomposition present in all animals whose carcasses have been hanging up for hours, and even days, in a shop may easily be imagined! In the case of game, the carcasses are frequently green and blue with decomposition, and the chemicals injected into the animal in order to preserve it from such decomposition. For only in this manner can meats be preserved; and it has been proved time and time again that meats are treated and “doctored” with drugs and chemicals of all kinds in order to delay their decomposition. To think that we really eat such stuff, and give it to our children, and even prescribe it for invalids, is too revolting for words! It passes all comprehension! Dr Kellogg, in his excellent little book on this subject, says, when speaking of the deadly effects of the poisons formed within the body:

“Physiologists sometimes, for experimental purposes, separate from its bony attachments one of the muscles of a frog’s leg, and arrange it in such a manner, in connection with a battery and a suitable device, that by a repetition of electric shocks the muscle may be made to contract and lift a small weight. After being thus made to work for a longer or shorter period, the muscle becomes fatigued to such a degree that it no longer contracts in response to the electric stimulus. This is shown to be due to the accumulation of the waste matters, of which mention has been made. If at this point the muscle is washed with a weak saline solution, it at once recovers its ability to work. If now a fresh muscle is thus prepared, and strong beef tea or solution of beef extract applied to it, the muscle at once becomes expanded or unable to contract, the same as if it had been working for a long time, but without having done any work whatever! The reason for this is that the beef tea or beef extract is simply a solution of the same poisons which are developed in the muscles by work, and to the paralysing effect of which its fatigue and inability to contract are due.... By injection of the fluid obtained by compressing a piece of beef steak or so-called beef juice into the veins of a rabbit, it has been proved to be highly deadly in character. The quantity of beef juice required to kill a rabbit of given weight is less than the amount of urine required to produce the same effect.... The juice obtained from the flesh of a dog was twice as poisonous as that obtained from ox flesh; in other words, it required twice as much beef juice to kill an animal of given weight as the juice obtained from the flesh of a dog....”[23]

Upon this subject of beef tea, Dr Tibbles says:

“Beef tea, mutton broth, chicken broth, and other meat infusions are useful for sick persons, for they are stimulating and restoring, but they are recognised now chiefly as stimulants to tissue change or to metabolism rather than as foods proper. They do not prevent wasting of the body; indeed, when given alone, they cause more rapid wasting than no food at all. Dogs fed on beef tea die sooner than when they are not fed at all.”[24]

In the U. S. Dept. of Agr. Bulletin, No. 102, “Experiments on Losses in Cooking Meat,” we read:

“Beef which has been used for the preparation of beef tea or broth has lost comparatively little nutritive value, though much of the flavouring material has been removed” (p. 64).

It will thus be seen that beef tea extracts practically nothing from the meat; and that the bulk of the nutriment, such as it is, remains in the meat. This, however, is invariably thrown away! We thus see that neither the beef tea nor the remaining mass of meat is of any use; while both are certainly harmful. So much for beef tea!

It is now a well-known fact that meat-eating is the more or less direct cause of various diseases. Tapeworm is one of these, most easily and directly traceable to meat; and a very serious disease it can become. Beef and pork are two great carriers of the cysts, or tapeworm embryos; and they develop in the intestine, whence it is most difficult to extract them. Fish is another great cause of tapeworm; and no matter how fresh these meats may be, this same danger is run, and can never be completely guarded against. These facts are now so well known that it is unnecessary to quote authority in support of them. The deadly trichina, found mainly in pork, but also in fish, fowls, and in other meats, is the direct cause of trichinosis—a disease so closely resembling cerebro-spinal meningitis that it is impossible to distinguish between the two at first, and without a detailed diagnosis. The history of the infection is said to be somewhat as follows:—rats visit a cemetery, and become infected with trichinæ. After a time, the rat dies of infection. The hog—the universal scavenger—eats it. Man—the greatest of all scavengers—eats the hog, and thus becomes infected in turn! It is not a very pleasant thought, or one calculated to elevate man to a position “a little lower than the angels!”

Tuberculosis is another disease that is very frequently communicated to the human organism from the carcasses of dead cattle. In his “Human and Bovine Tuberculosis,” Dr E. F. Brush contends most strenuously that phthisis is very frequently contracted in this manner, and advances strong evidence in support of his claim. He says (pp. 9-10):

“The total number of cows in the United States for the year 1887 was 14,522,083—that is, one cow to every four and three-fourths (4.7) persons. There exists, according to Lynt, a true parallel between human and bovine phthisis; the curves of double mortality are the same for different districts in the Duchy of Baden. Now this must mean that a larger proportion of the bovine race dies from phthisis than of the human race, because of the difference in the length of life between the races. We have no statistics of this kind in the United States, but Professor R. A. McLean tells me that, where cows are affected by tuberculosis in great numbers, the death rate from phthisis is correspondingly large in the human race in the same districts. This is his observation from his large experience among diseased cattle.”

It would be useless for me to enumerate in full all the numerous diseases that are traceable to meat-eating. That alone would occupy an extensive volume. Typhoid fever has frequently been traced to the eating of oysters. A disease closely related to hog-cholera has been known to be contracted by the human being, as the result of eating pork. Meat-eating is known to be one of the chief and most direct causes of the decay of the teeth—the small fibres of the meat becoming wedged in between them, and, decomposing, cause rapid decay of the teeth. It is probable that this is one of the chief causes of the bad teeth we see about us. Gout and rheumatism are now well known to result from the eating of meat. The reasons for this might perhaps be given. As the result of excessive meat-eating, and eating too much food, the body becomes choked with an excess of mal-assimilated food material, and particularly with uric acid—a product of the meat. The blood, being surfeited with this material, deposits some of it in the vicinity of the joints, and this gives rise to the various symptoms of gout. It is beginning to be realised that this disease, formerly thought to be the direct result of the drinking of wine and other alcoholic beverages, is due to “good old English beef.” Rheumatism is largely due to the same cause. Meat poisoning shows itself in various forms; but the cause is the same. It is now known that meat-eating is the chief cause of Brights disease; and to all unprejudiced minds, it will be obvious that this must be so. The excess of albumen in the system cannot well be due to any other cause: and the mode of cure thus becomes apparent also.

It is certain, to anyone who has studied the facts carefully, that meat-eating predisposes the body to all forms of disease. In pestilences of any character—statistics, so far as they have been kept, conclusively show that the vegetarians escaped the disease, and that the meat-eaters were the chief sufferers. The excess of poisons introduced into the system predispose it to any form of disease to which it may be exposed at the time; the general tone of the system being lowered, owing to the lessened resistance, it becomes a ready prey to any contagious disease which might be prevalent at the time. In further support of this, it has long been known that wounds heal far more rapidly in vegetarian soldiers and in all others who live upon foods of this character, than in those who live largely upon meat. Carnivorous animals are far more subject to blood poisoning than are vegetarian animals. These latter may be very badly wounded, and escape with a scar; but lions and tigers and other carnivorous animals frequently die from blood poisoning, though but slightly wounded. There can be no reason for this, beyond that indicated above. The tissues of the animal’s body are more or less saturated with poison, in the first place; and it required but a small amount in addition, to turn the scale against the animal, and cause its death. It is surely the same, to a great extent, in the case of human beings.

Epilepsy is another disease which has been more or less directly traced to meat-eating. A few years ago, Dr Warner, of the Eastern Illinois Insane Asylum, called attention to the profound influence of flesh dietary upon epileptics. He found that it had a most pernicious influence. By experiment he also ascertained that cats fed upon meat, or allowed to eat the mice they caught, frequently become epileptic.

It has been ascertained, further, that a strictly vegetarian diet is the best possible preparation that can be made for a surgical operation of any kind; and that vegetarians die less frequently, as the result of severe operations, than do meat-eaters. Paget, in his “Lessons on Clinical Surgery,” states that there is a higher death rate from operations in cities than in rural districts; and he considers that this is largely due to the greater amount of meat consumed in the cities.

Of late years much attention has been devoted to the relations of cancer and meat-eating. Several authors have called attention to this fact; Dr Alexander Haig, in his “Uric Acid in the Causation of Disease,” strongly contends that the consumption of flesh is one of the chief causes of cancer, and points out that any irritant to the tissues will invariably be one of the chief factors in the causation of this disease. As he showed that meat-eating created much uric acid in the system, and that this uric acid acts as an irritant upon the tissues, it is obvious that the consumption of flesh-foods is one of the chief causes of this dreaded disease. Lately, the Hon. Rollo Russell, in his book, “The Reduction of Cancer,” has defended this view very strongly, and has gathered together a great deal of evidence bearing upon this problem—showing that there is a definite connection between the amount of flesh consumed and the number of cases of cancer, in any one locality. He has also advanced strong reasons for supposing that the one is directly caused by the other. As a result of comparing the food habits and the mortality tables of a large number of countries and districts, it was found to be the invariable rule that when, in any locality, meat-eating was excessive, the cancer rate was high; and where meat-eating was small, it fell to a comparatively low figure. A number of other authorities could be quoted in this connection. Thus Dr Lambe remarks:

“The effects of animal food, and other noxious matter, in inducing and accelerating fatal disease, are not immediate, but ultimate effects. The immediate effect is to engender a diseased habit or state of constitution; not enough to impede the ordinary occupations of life, but, in many, to render life itself a long-continued sickness; and to make the great mass of society morbidly susceptible to many passing impressions which would have no injurious influence on healthy systems.”

Drs Clarke, Buchan, Abernethy, Sir Edward Berry, Drs Sigmond, Copland, Alphonus Lercy, Graham, Wardell, Trall, and many other of the older writers were of the same opinion; and a number of recent authorities have taken the same stand. It is beginning to be realised that meat-eating is one of the most potent of all the causes of deadly and fatal diseases of many kinds—all more or less directly traceable to it. But, in addition to these varied diseases, there are induced states of the body which must rightly be looked upon as diseased—though they are not actual diseases, in the sense generally understood by that term. Meat-eating is, however, one of the most potent of all factors in inducing that state of the body known as “predisposition” to disease—and in deadening and lowering the vitality, and in enfeebling the senses. I shall now proceed to adduce evidence in support of these various statements, and show that the effects of meat-eating are far more insidious and widespread than is generally believed; and that the effects of this practice, even among the supposedly healthy, are indeed baneful and disease-engendering.

In the first place it must be pointed out and insisted upon that meat is a highly stimulating article of food, and for that reason, innutritious. Stimulation and nutrition invariably exist in inverse ratio—the more the one the less the other, and vice versa. The very fact, then, that meat is a stimulant, as it is now universally conceded to be, shows us that it is more or less an innutritious article of diet, and that the supposed “strength” we receive from the meat is due entirely to the stimulating effects upon the system of the various poisons, or toxic substances, introduced into the system, together with the meat. It is for this reason that those who leave off meat, and become vegetarians, experience a feeling of lassitude and weakness, for the first few days—they lack the stimulation formerly supplied, and now notice the reaction which invariably follows such stimulation. This feeling of weakness, or “all-goneness,” is therefore to be expected, and is in no wise a proof that the diet is weakening the patient. Let him persist in his reformed manner of living for some time, and he will find that this reaction wears off, and that a general and continued feeling of energy and well-being follow.

It is commonly supposed that only by eating large quantities of animal foods can the bodily heat be maintained in cold climates. Such is by no means the case. Although the Esquimaux, and the inhabitants of Greenland and Iceland, do subsist almost entirely upon fats and animal substances, many of the peasants of Northern Russia and other parts of the globe, eat very little meat—for the reason that they cannot secure it. Dr Graham, in his “Lectures,” went so far as to say that: “All other things being precisely equal, the man who is fully accustomed to a pure vegetable diet, can endure severer cold, or bear the same degree of cold much longer than the man who is fully accustomed to a flesh diet.” The truth probably is, as Dr Trall pointed out, that, “the ordinary farinaceous foods and fruits contain all the carbon and hydrogen requisite to sustain the animal heat in all climates, and under all circumstances of temperature; and if ever surplus carbon or hydrogen is taken into the system, it is, of course, thrown off; and when a large amount of surplus carbon and hydrogen is taken, the labour of expelling it is attended with a feverish excitement—which, instead of warming the body permanently, only wastes its energies, and renders it colder in the end.” The body is, in other words, continually in a more or less feverish condition.

In discussing this question in my “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition” (Book III., ch. 4, “Bodily Heat”) I said:

“There can be no doubt that the oxidation of the tissues throughout the system, and the combination of the oxygen with the carbon are sources of animal heat, in common with all the organic functions and chemical changes which take place in the body. All the conditions requisite for the due regulation of the animal temperature are: good digestion, free respiration, vigorous circulation, proper assimilation, and perfect depuration; in two words—good health.”

It is thought by many that “stamina” can only be maintained upon a diet derived largely from flesh, but this is not at all the case. In the chapter on the experience of nations and individuals, I shall adduce a considerable quantity of evidence tending to show that a greater amount of endurance can be secured upon a vegetarian than upon a mixed diet! But many persons do not mean by the word “stamina,” endurance alone. It is often difficult to get a definition of this word, as it varies with individual conceptions. If, however, by “stamina,” is meant stoutness of person, and fullness of blood, such “stamina” constitutes the very food of disease, and the person in such a state is not only more liable to febrile and epidemic attacks, but is also in much greater danger while labouring under them, than one whose development is such as to allow all the secretary functions to be performed with ease, and whose blood is not so charged with either natural or extraneous elements. How frequently do we hear of those who are said to be looking well and healthy being suddenly cut off by apoplexy, or some malignant disorder! The fact is, we are deceived by appearances, by what we erroneously consider the indications of health; for those whom we are taught to regard as healthy and robust are generally the farthest from safety, and only need a slight exciting cause to bring on a fatal disease. It is not the apparent disease which is the real cause of death, but men die because the body is worn out; the tone of the fibres is destroyed, and the principle of motion fails. The obvious disease is the mask under which the condition is concealed.

I have referred before to the protection against epidemics afforded by a strictly hygienic life, and particularly by the vegetarian diet. There is an abundance of testimony on this point to which it is impossible to more than refer. Bush, in his “Works,” vol. iv., p. 55, observed that the negroes of the West India Islands, were at that time almost wholly exempt from yellow fever, which cut off the resident upper classes in large numbers. Mr Hardy, a noted Scotch philanthropist, escaped the yellow fever in New York, he asserts, by his course of living; while Mr Whitlaw, of New Orleans, Dr Rush, of Philadelphia, and Dr Copeland, also assert that they escaped yellow fever by abstinence. The poet Shelley, in his “Vindication of Natural Diet,” p. 18, says:

“There is no disease, bodily or mental, which adoption of vegetable diet and pure water has not infallibly mitigated, wherever the experiment has been fairly tried. Debility is gradually converted into strength, disease into healthfulness; madness, in all its hideous variety, from the ravings of the fettered maniac, to the uncontrollable irrationalities of ill-temper, that makes a hell of domestic life, into a calm and considerable evenness of temper—that alone might offer a certain pledge of the future moral reformation of Society. On a natural system of diet, old age would be our last and our only malady: the term of our existence would be protracted; we should enjoy life, and no longer preclude others from enjoyment of it. All sensational delights would be infinitely exquisite and perfect; the very sense of being would then be a continued pleasure, such as we now feel in some few and favoured moments of our youth. By all that is sacred in our hopes for the human race I conjure those who love happiness and truth to give a fair trial to the vegetable system. Reasoning is surely superfluous on a subject whose merits and experience of six months would set for ever at rest. But it is only among the enlightened and benevolent that so great a sacrifice of appetite and prejudice can be expected—even though its ultimate excellence would not admit of dispute.”

Another argument in favour of the vegetarian dietary, as against meat-eating, is found in the fact that such a diet is conducive to symmetry and normal development of the human frame. We shall see (p. 142) how the abdomens of the pigmies were greatly reduced, as a result of abandoning their exclusive flesh diet. Many men are said to have reduced their weight from ten to one hundred and fifty pounds by an abstemious, non-flesh diet. The body also assumes a more symmetrical form, and the skin and complexion a ruddier and more healthful glow. It must be admitted, however, that the flesh of meat is not, of itself, a fat-forming food; and many persons are put upon a diet of minced beef and hot water, in order to reduce their weight. This they do, generally, however, at the expense of the general bodily health. In the Banting cure, and the various cures which are followed in America and in England, the weight is reduced, but with doubtful benefit to the patient. The large amount of beef creates an excess of acid within the system, which has a tendency to eat away the fatty tissues; and it is in this manner that they are destroyed. The excess of acid which is thus manufactured, however, remains in the system, and is the chief cause of resulting diseases of various kinds.

In addition to all these arguments, it can be shown that a vegetarian diet improves and renders more acute the various senses. Sight and smell, taste and hearing—all are influenced—in some cases more than in others. Frequently patients are enabled to see distances or to smell odours, after living on this diet for some weeks, which they have never been able to do before. The appetite no longer craves the highly-seasoned and stimulating articles of food formerly desired, but is content with the simpler foods. The general acuteness and sense of well-being will more than compensate for any feeling of deprivation that may at first follow the abolition of meat from the diet. There can be no question that the food exerts a tremendous influence over the mental, moral, and emotional life. Says Dr Haig[25]:

“I believe that as the result of a rational, natural and proper diet, producing the best circulation in the great power-house of the human body, we shall get not only freedom from gross disease, but that we shall get, developing gradually, conditions of mind, thought, judgment, and morality, which will, in the future be as different from what they have been in a diseased and degraded past as the light of Heaven is different from the darkness of the dungeon; and that while there are to-day many things in human nature which all believers in the great, and good, and true, can only most heartily deplore, I believe that in the future there will be more harmony, more strength, more beauty, more unselfishness, more love—in a word, a truer and greater and more complete sanity.”

It can be shown, further, that the length of individual life as well as its usefulness and freedom from disease, are dependent largely upon the character of the diet. Longevity, properly so-called, is not a prolongation of the period of decrepitude and helplessness, as some imagine; but an extension of that period of life when men can fully appreciate the blessings of existence. It has been proved that any animal should live, roughly speaking, five times as long as it takes to mature. The dog matures at two, and lives, on an average, until it is ten; and so on, throughout the animal world. Man, who matures at (say) twenty, should live to be at least one hundred, and probably more, without showing any of the signs of decrepitude and imbecility which at present frequently accompany old age. As a matter of fact, we find that the average length of life is a fraction over forty-two years; and, in addition to this, these forty-two years are filled with diverse diseases and miseries, which should at no time afflict the individual. Something, therefore, is wrong, producing this result. In some way we are consciously or unconsciously perverting the laws of Nature. Now, in no way do we so flagrantly and so continually pervert her laws as in this question of food; and we can for this reason account both for the sicknesses which occur—these being engendered by depraved conditions of the body—and for the shortening of life, which we perceive about us on every hand. Philosophically, as well as practically, this should be so. As Dr Graham pointed out years ago: “A life cannot be both intensive and extensive.” And the more it approaches the one, the less can it approach the other. Anything which tends to rapid living—or, what is perhaps the same thing, rapid bodily consumption or combustion—will consequently tend to shorten life. All stimulants would, of course, produce this effect; and, as meat is a highly stimulating article of food, it will be seen that its consumption, if long continued, will ultimately tend to devitalise and wear out the body—for the reason that it hastens the vital wear and tear, and consequently shortens life. This is, further, in agreement with the fact that “the heart of the habitual meat-eater beats from 72 to 80 beats a minute, while that of the person living on a pure diet of fruits, nuts, etc., will beat ten times less per minute. Fifteen hundred extra heart strokes every twenty-four hours makes a very appreciable strain upon the vital forces.”[26]

These conclusions are further borne out by the fact that the average standard of longevity is higher among those peoples and nations who subsist largely upon a vegetarian diet, than among the meat-eating races.