The Natural Cure of Consumption, Constipation, Bright's Disease, Neuralgia Part 9

[Footnote 65: This is a characteristic of most hunting dogs--not the exception. It is not that they know more about dietetics than their masters, for I do not think they do, but, gluttons as they are, they "rather hunt than eat."]

The importance of rest after meals has never been fully appreciated by people in general. Even those who advocate the need of it, have usually,--perhaps because of the difficulties in the way of demanding more,--asked for only a half, or a whole hour; while it is the popular belief that "exercise after eating promotes digestion," and the fact is cited that Sunday is, to the laborer, the worst day of all the week,--a day of leisure, affording ample time for digestion, if that is all that is required. But that is not all. The "bad feeling" which comes on after the second meal on Sunday--the "Sunday headache," of which so many complain--results from the radical change of habit from the six days of hard labor: accustomed as he is to digesting a large part of his three meals together, at night, after he has _earned_ them, physiologically speaking,--that is, after his labor has provided the digestive fluids in the blood, by means of which his food is dissolved, and made ready for absorption into the circulation,--when Sunday, with its leisure, and possibly even more than usually excessive indulgence, comes, instead of having the blood diverted to the general muscular system, as the result of active labor, it is called to the stomach and the circulation becomes overcharged with nutritive material. Hence lethargy, tendency to sleep, headache, etc.

The fact is,

EXERCISE AFTER EATING

by _preventing_ digestion, often delays or modifies the ill-feeling which would otherwise be experienced shortly after over-indulgence at the table.

Hence gentle exercise in the open air will prove the least of two evils; an emetic, the best of all remedies. The liquids[66] being to a great extent absorbed, plethora is prevented or delayed because the solids remain undigested in the stomach! But this solid residue, favored by the internal temperature, begins to ferment, after a time, and causes more or less irritation and congestion of the mucous lining of the stomach, which gives rise to the sensation popularly called "hunger"; and thus every few hours, and when the patient impatiently awaits the call to dinner and thinks himself most in need of food, he is, in fact, in the very worst condition to take it. Ninety-five persons in every hundred have this disease (for it is nothing less than chronic dyspepsia) throughout life.

The fact that the meal affords immediate relief argues nothing against this position; it is the seventy-five or eighty per cent. of water contained in and taken with the meal that relieves the congestion. It forms a poultice, so to say, for the congested mucous membrane of the stomach; but unfortunately it can not, as when applied externally upon a throbbing sore thumb, for example, be removed when it becomes dry. We see this disease at its worst in infancy, when meals are most frequent and excessive.

[Footnote 66: In case of an ordinary "mixed meal," water composes something near four-fifths of all; solids, pure and simple, one-fifth.

Even roast beef is about three-fourths water, and vegetables the same.]

Jules Virey settled the question, as it seems to me, regarding the effects of work after eating. He took two dogs of same size, age, and general _physique_; gave both a fast-day, and then treated them to a square meal, alike in quant.i.ty and variety. One was sent to his kennel, while the other was permitted to follow the carriage which conveyed the doctor on his rounds. After the coach-dog had had two hours and a half of (not vigorous, but gentle) exercise, and immediately on his return, the doctor had both dogs slain and dissected. The kennel-dog had thoroughly digested his breakfast,--not a trace of it was found in his stomach,--while with the other, the work of digestion had not even begun; the mutton cubes and potato chips remained intact, precisely as when first eaten. It is evident from this that the rule, "Never eat until you have leisure to digest,"[67] is a good one, and that for a hard-working person (what man or woman works as hard as the enthusiastic hunting-dog?) the one-meal-a-day system would often prove the best,--indeed, in some instances, this would be the only means of preventing sickness. We may not know in how many instances the laborer digests his breakfast, dinner, and supper together (or about all that he does digest) after he is in bed for the night. Any approach to such a state is provocative of disease.

[Footnote 67: It by no means follows that the man of all leisure, or the "loafer," can, because of abundant rest after meals, digest the large quant.i.ty of food he may be tempted to swallow. On the contrary, he probably does not digest one-fourth of it. The balance is a.s.suredly retained to work him injury at last. No man really _digests_, speaking strictly, in excess of the physiological needs of his organism; the fact that one man "carries off," so to speak, an immense amount of food without apparent or immediate inconvenience, argues simply that he has greater excretory capacity--perhaps was endowed originally with a greater degree of vitality--than another who is constantly troubled though eating less and working more. Persons of the latter cla.s.s still exceed their normal amount; hence their digestive troubles.]

The dyspeptic's dreams, which disturb his sleep, rob him of needed rest, and often cause him to wake more tired than when he went to bed, would be banished, or at least favorably modified, if, at the close of his day's work, after sufficient rest from the fatigues and cares of the day, he were to take his well-earned ration, and, after a period of recreation, if there still remained time for this, go to his bed.

Another instance I will mention, that of the man who may almost be called the father of hygiene in this country. He says: "I have tested the sufficiency of eating once in twenty-four hours [he has himself lived on this system for eleven years, and continues so to live; and has, besides, tested its advantages upon patients in certain forms of disease] and have done work enough to put a much younger man to his trumps if he had to do it. My food is very simple; I do not eat more at one meal than almost any person eats who takes three meals a day; I keep my body well built up in flesh and in vigor of muscle, considering that incurable organic difficulties render great muscular activity impracticable. I keep up my own strength, and have held in check my const.i.tutional conditions so that I have reached old age" [72 years].

I could mention a score or more of similar instances; and, as stated elsewhere, no person ever tried the plan and found occasion for abandoning it, except from considerations utterly remote from health. In fact, under certain circ.u.mstances, as in travelling, this system is a most beneficent one; it makes a person independent of railway restaurants and lunch-counters; for at some time during the day, usually, as at night in a good hotel, one can obtain, if not always a really hygienic meal, still a comparatively good one.

With reference to the amount of food to be taken at the single meal, I have observed this: those who would be termed hearty eaters, on the three-meal system, will usually eat no more at their one meal than formerly at dinner alone; some, indeed, find much less than this suffices to sustain them in the best manner. This is largely due, however, to the superior quality of their diet, since people of this cla.s.s invariably become, practically, vegetarians and, withal, use a large proportion of bread, a pure nutrient, instead of flesh, a nutro-stimulant. The amount of food taken, under any circ.u.mstances, will depend largely upon one's views as to the true office of eating.

In the case of a certain cla.s.s of dyspeptics who, while going to the table three times every day, yet do not eat, all told, a single satisfactory meal; who in the entire year, perhaps, scarcely know the comfort of eating a full meal, and who live on in this manner year after year, the one-meal system would banish their nausea and lack of appet.i.te within a reasonable time, and, in some instances, such persons would eat, and with a relish long unknown to them, more food every day than they now force down at their three or more attempts at eating. There would also result a corresponding improvement in their general health, more especially if this reform were accompanied by others, when needed, as to fresh air and exercise.

Says Dr. Nichols, of London, who speaks with knowledge, from having tested it: "The one-meal-a-day system will largely increase any person's working capacity."

NOTE.--One item well worth considering, especially by the laboring cla.s.ses who find it so difficult to support a little family on $8 or $10 per week, while imitating the dietetic habits of their employers: Dr. T. L. Nichols, named above, experimenting as to cost of living, has lived week in and week out, in London, at a cost (for food) of sixty or eighty cents per week (taken two meals then), maintaining full vigor, and weight, and performing arduous literary labors, combined with a somewhat active mode of life. Personally, the author was never more vigorous or better fitted for hard work,--in short, better nourished,--than when living for several months on the 1-meal plan and on a diet of unleavened Graham gems and fruit, the total cost of which was less than ten cents per day.

CHAPTER XV.

THE NATURAL DIET.[68]

As the result of personal experience, my mind having been called to the subject by the successful experiment--if, indeed, it can be regarded as an experiment,--of a very intelligent and worthy family in Southern California, I am convinced that the "natural diet,"--uncooked cereals[69]

and fruit,--is the diet _par excellence_, as regards strict purity, digestibility, and efficiency. Not only is much less of it required to maintain the normal weight and strength, but it is in other regards superior. One thought I will suggest, in this connection, and one which is more significant, I believe, than many persons would at first consider: raw grain, as all are aware, will "keep" indefinitely under fair conditions; while cooked, it "spoils" in a day or two. The former is more readily and more thoroughly preserved from undesirable changes in the alimentary ca.n.a.l; hence less liability of indigestion. Such portions of whole grain as may be swallowed without mastication, will pa.s.s on and out without danger of the putrefactive changes which result from an excess, or deficient mastication of cooked food. Regarding the gustatory pleasure to be derived from a diet of this sort, while it is less seductive to the abnormal appet.i.te, still, even here, no individual really needing food would find this disagreeable, though reference were made solely to whole wheat, masticated with the aid of good teeth; or to the meal, mixed with nice fruit juices or the fruits themselves, when, from unnatural living, the teeth are badly decayed. Our teeth would not fail us if, from childhood, we _used_ them, and our food furnished the material to build and maintain them.

[Footnote 68: This subject having been treated in a most masterly manner by Prof. Schlickeysen, of Germany--considering fully the chemical and anatomical theories, and presenting the anthropological, the physiological, and the dietetical arguments so clearly and convincingly--I design here merely to give a few practical tests ill.u.s.trating the advantages of a truly natural and pure diet, while recommending every devout student of this subject, every conscientious and thoughtful person to procure the work, ent.i.tled Fruit and Bread,--translated from the German by Dr. Holbrook, and published by M. L. Holbrook & Co., New York,--and read it for himself.]

[Footnote 69: Even as late as the time of the Roman republic, the baking or other cooking of grain was regarded as injurious. When the grains are first broken, but not finely ground, they may be eaten with fruit, if one gradually accustom himself to it. Let it not be said that this is going too far, for in the recognition and application of truth we can not go too far; rather have those gone too far who have deviated from this method.

The difference between pure cracked wheat and the bread is always considerable. The bread consumes in its digestion [a part of] the power which itself supplies, while the wheat not only nourishes, but, like fresh fruit, _increases the vital strength_.--_Fruit and Bread_, p. 163.

"The vitality stored up in uncooked plants and fruits is greatly impaired by all our culinary processes."--_Ibid._, p. 116.

"Animals in a state of nature, subsisting upon their own chosen foods, are capable of fully digesting the nutritive elements, leaving only an inoffensive residue, while the unsuitable character of human foods is sufficiently indicated by the horrible and disease-breeding product which they yield.--_Ibid._"

"Uncooked fruits, especially, excite the mind to its highest activity.

After eating them we experience an inclination to vigorous exercise, and also an increased capacity for study and all mental work; while cooked food causes a feeling of satiety and sluggishness."--_Ibid._]

Were I to enumerate the foods at present eaten raw by all of our millions of people, less surprise would be felt by my readers at the suggestion of restricting one's diet to such articles as are agreeable in their natural state. Take, for example, apples, pears, peaches, grapes, oranges, etc.; all of the plums; bananas, dates, figs, raisins; cabbage, lettuce, celery, radishes, etc.; and to this list might well be added sweet corn, and the common variety of green corn, and peas; few people but find the latter delicious to their taste, and the corn is as much more crisp and juicy and wholesome raw than cooked, as are peaches or pears. I know individuals who were never fond of corn, would never eat it until happening to try a fresh young ear _au naturel_, who now use it freely every summer. This would be the case with very many, if not most people, if their prejudices were cast aside. I have named only a few articles of a few cla.s.ses, but any one can extend the list at pleasure, adding walnuts, almonds, filberts, etc., etc.

Unfortunately these raw foods have been commonly used as _surfeit dishes_, delicious articles that we can eat after having already over-eaten, and when more steak, potatoes, and gravy, or pastry, would, perhaps, send a shudder throughout the frame, and, often enough, when an emetic would be a more wholesome dessert than even walnuts and raisins. Let any one, first arranging for a clean stomach by skipping supper the previous night, try a breakfast consisting of a couple of bananas, one or two dozen walnuts (or any sort preferred), with a handful of nice raisins,--both the nuts and raisins being thoroughly masticated, the latter to the point of well crushing the stones,--ending, or beginning, the _seance_ with oranges, and, at night, the second and last meal, of favorite fruits, beginning with a small portion of "oat groats" or wheat, (of course any other choice may be made, a dozen, or a score, indeed, from week to week,) taking care to exercise enough to "earn" his food,[70] and see if this principle of alimentation will not cure his disorders, whatever they may be. It would end the wretched business of "colds" and "hay-fever" which, according to the _Boston Herald_, a noted American divine says, "will make a man forget his G.o.d, the Bible, and everything else--but his disease." Even the common hygienic diet, so called, and abstemious living, would make such blasphemy impossible, and would make a better man of the great London preacher, for example,--Mr. Spurgeon,--who recently wrote to a friend, and, apparently without the least shamefacedness: "My old disorder has come upon me like an armed man and laid me low. I can not walk or even stand, and the pain renders it difficult to think consecutively upon any subject." And this with reference to a disorder (the gout) caused by eating and drinking unwholesomely--the injury being augmented, directly and indirectly, by the use of tobacco or wine. Mr. Spurgeon's weight is fifty, if not seventy-five pounds greater than is normal for him, considering fully his natural _physique_, and the use he makes of his muscular system. He may be in the habit of restricting his appet.i.te; he may eat much less than most of his a.s.sociates, and even be esteemed a small eater and very abstemious; nevertheless his form is gross, and he has the gout--two unimpeachable witnesses to the truth of my position.

[Footnote 70: "Live on sixpence a day and earn it," was the "favorite prescription" of a famous London physician.]

"We can not doubt," says Dr. Oswald, "that the highest degree of health could only be attained by strict conformity to Haller's[71] rule, _i.e._, by subsisting exclusively on the pure and unchanged products of Nature.

This view is indorsed (indirectly) in the writings of Drs. Alcott, Bernard, Schlemmer, Hall, and Dio Lewis, and directly by Schrodt, Jules Virey, and others. In the tropics such a mode of life would not imply anything like asceticism: a meal of milk and three or four kinds of sweet fruits, fresh dates, bananas, and grapes, would not clash with the still higher rule, that eating, like every other natural function, should be a pleasure and not a penance. Heat destroys the delicate flavor of many fruits, and makes others indigestible by coagulating their alb.u.men. But,"

continues this authority,--and I am not disposed to dispute the soundness of the position, speaking generally (as, indeed, Dr. Oswald, himself, was speaking),--"in the frigid lat.i.tudes, where we have to dry and garner many vegetable products in order to survive the unproductive season, the process of cooking [some cla.s.ses of] our food has advantages which fully outweigh such objections." To the very rational a.s.sumption that, "few men with post-diluvian teeth would agree with Dr. Schlemmer that hard grain is preferable to bread," I would reply, that for people who could not or would not grind their own grist, as do our most robust animals--well nourished, but hard-working draught or road horses--the whole-wheat meal, freshly and coa.r.s.ely ground, with a light dressing of rich milk,[72] or, more wholesome still, eaten with nuts and thoroughly masticated, is more delicious than bread, even if made from the same quality of Graham. If the Graham be taken dry, with a few raisins at each mouthful, it would require a fine taste to distinguish between this and the walnuts and raisins so generally acceptable to epicures. If the milk dressing is used, it should simply be poured over the (unsifted) Graham, and not made into a batter.

With a dish of Graham as described, and such fruit as can usually be obtained all the year round, either fresh or (in winter) dried, as apples, raisins, dates, figs,[73] prunes (the last, like dried apples, peaches, etc., soaked not overmuch, but until tender), one may make a meal sufficiently delicious, and at the same time absolutely pure--if the _milk_ is derived from a healthy creature. And here I would remark, that although cow's milk is a strictly natural food for the calf only, still, if the cow be properly fed (not "driven,"[74] as is the custom in dairies) and the milk properly cared for--kept free from air vitiated by the emanations of decaying vegetables, meats, or other source of impurity, but _open_[75] in a pure atmosphere--few need abstain altogether from this most delicious food. Nevertheless, no one may feel at liberty to _drink_ milk copiously, as water: calves, babies, etc., whose natural food it is, take it slowly and "chew" it thoroughly! We may well take a hint from this. (See Biliousness.)

[Footnote 71: Albrecht Von Haller, M.D., F.R.S., the father of the science of physiology, born at Berne, Oct. 18, 1708; ... practiced medicine with great applause at Berne, 1729-36; ... became physician to the King of England 1739. He was a voluminous writer on physiology, anatomy, botany, surgery, and practical medicine; author of ... almost an incredible number of reviews and scientific papers. His hypotheses were ... admirable for their scientific spirit, and for the great stimulus which they gave to physiological study throughout Europe.--_Encyclopedia._]

[Footnote 72: See note 4 in Appendix, p. 280.]

[Footnote 73: These three--raisins, dates, figs,--containing as they do in their natural state, about 14, 58 and 62 per cent., respectively, of sugar, require no addition of saccharine matters to "preserve" them; and, accordingly, they const.i.tute, as we find them in the market, a perfectly natural and wholesome food, taken in due proportion, with grain and the various nuts.]

[Footnote 74: A phrase used to describe the process of feeding excessively to produce an abnormal flow of milk. Under this practice the cows soon become tuberculous ("consumptive"); and it is said that they become useless after three or four years, on an average: they are "driven to death," unless disposed of just prior to their decline. Nursing mothers often suffer from this disease, while the infant fattens and becomes sick from overfeeding.]

[Footnote 75: Kept in a close vessel, milk soon becomes foul; and after being thus enclosed requires considerable stirring to aerate it, when it again acquires its normal flavor. Cistern water treated to an occasional deep stirring will remain sweet; and when the water in a cistern has become devitalized for want of air simply, it can be reclaimed readily in the above manner.]

In making the change from cooked to uncooked food, the una.s.sisted novice will experience more or less inconvenience, usually; and this will arise from one of three causes; perhaps two or even all three causes will combine to create the uneasiness (and indigestion, even, sometimes) experienced: (1) the stomach, adapted, so far as possible, to the digestion of cooked foods, requires some time (and experience or practice) to adapt itself to the new order of things,[76] hence indigestion, varied in extent according (_a_) to the abruptness of the change, and (_b_) the quant.i.ty of the new food taken; (2) accustomed to distention from the bulky character of the old diet, if only a physiological ration of the pure and more nutritious food be swallowed, the stomach misses the stimulus of distention: time will be required (in some cases) for the stomach to remodel itself as regards _size_--unless a large proportion of fruit[77] is used in conjunction with the cereals. Some dyspeptics, to be sure, by their "mincing" diet occasioned by nausea and lack of appet.i.te, seem to have reduced the size of their stomachs, even below the normal dimensions of that organ; (3) the uncooked grain being more nutritious than the bread formed from it (and especially than bread made from wheat _starch_--"white bread"), one may readily take an overdose if the wheat _meal_ be used and dressed with milk; but if the whole grain be employed he will be content with a modest ration; the new exercise of chewing--putting the teeth to their normal use--soon wearies the muscles of the face, and he will be tempted to pa.s.s to the "second course"--the fruit--quite early in the engagement. The amount of grain food necessary to thoroughly nutrify the body, is comparatively small. In the form of bread, we are apt to eat altogether too much. But given pure food, and each individual may be safely left to decide the proportion of grain, fruit, and water to suit his own case; the point is to maintain strength and avoid flatulence, and all other symptoms of indigestion.

[Footnote 76: It has been observed that cows are temporarily affected adversely by _any_ change from their established diet--give less milk, _at first_, when grain is _added_ to their pasture rations, as well as when they are deprived of an accustomed feed of grain. "The effect is due to the action of the stomach, to adapt its character to the digestion of an established food. The food may change suddenly, but the action of the stomach can only change slowly, and hence defective digestion follows."--(_National Live Stock Journal_). With humans, as has been already remarked, a change from a very unwholesome to the purest system of diet may, at first, result in defective digestion; but if the change be made discreetly the final result will a.s.suredly be as satisfactory as that which follows a favorable modification of the cow's diet.]

[Footnote 77: Whenever, in making the change under consideration, flatulency or pressure at the kidney follows the use of fruit, the quant.i.ty habitually taken should be lessened. There is a temptation always to continue the habitual distention of the stomach by the use of too much fruit at first. The system accustomed to a small amount of fruit, can not immediately adapt itself to an unusual quant.i.ty: _all_ changes should be somewhat gradual, not necessarily by the continued use of any unwholesome substance, but with relation to the _manner of adopting the new regimen_.]

At the world-famed "Grape Cures" (for dyspepsia and its sequel, consumption), the diet during "the season," consists almost exclusively of ripe grapes: the patients stroll about the vineyards, and pick and eat.

During the balance of the year the diet is composed chiefly of fruit, with a portion of cooked cereals. But we may obtain a more definite lesson from the experience of Mr. and Mrs. Hinde and their children.

For nearly five years, this family, consisting of father, mother, and four children, have lived on this truly natural diet. They are very intellectual and refined people. Their home is in Southern California.

They have enjoyed typical health during these five years; the mother, indeed, recovered her health by means of this diet, having failed, under medical treatment, to obtain relief from serious disorders which would be popularly and medically described as "incident to her s.e.x," but which, when they exist, are everywhere and always incident to _violation of law_.

Every trace of her disorder disappeared during this lady's first year of living on uncooked food and outdoor air, and no vestige of her "weaknesses" has returned. The members of this family all live very active lives; they take two meals,--morning and afternoon,--a small amount of the cereals, and a large proportion of fruit of various kinds. Our national pastime-luncheon, the ubiquitous peanut, forms a part of their regular dietary. It is a very nutritious vegetable, and, certainly, if agreeable enough, as we know it is, to take a prominent part in the sensual enjoyment of a very large cla.s.s, who feel that life is not worth living unless much of their leisure time is spent in palate-tickling, it can not be sneered at as "one of the 'messes' of those peculiar people," (formerly a common remark about hygienists, some of whom have, without doubt, advocated an unnatural asceticism.) I will make a few brief extracts from letters written by the lady in question, at, and after the time I was living on uncooked food. As will be seen, the work was altogether new to me, and I went astray at first, regarding the proportions of grain and fruit: "Your cupful of grain," she writes, "is more than double what my husband takes, and I use still less; but we eat very much more fresh fruit than you do." ... "I had intended to say in my last letter, that some people object to so much cold food, especially in the morning. I did not at all like it myself, at first, being always used to 'a good cup of tea' the first thing; however, use soon becomes second nature, and I prefer it now. In winter, when the apples or melons seem really cold, I bring them to a moderately cold temperature by warming slightly--the same with tomatoes: of these last, quite a lot have ripened up, although it is mid-winter, (Feb. 6, '81.) We find that _too much nut_-food causes indigestion,[78] and it is better to combine a little vegetable-food always, if possible." ... "One little incident in our lives here, may interest you: our oldest daughter, aged 13, has just been on a visit to some friends--the family of a doctor of the old school. His wife remarked one day that she liked the uncooked food very much, and would always use it, only she ate 'what the others did, to keep them company.' Alice replied (and you may imagine how proud I felt when it was repeated to me by the doctor's daughter), 'I am sure you do not understand the importance of it, then!' You would be surprised to see how firm the children are: they could not, by any kind of bribery, I believe, be induced to swerve one iota from the true principles upon which we live, and they have been severely tested, too." I regret to say that a year after the above was written, these people decided to test once more the influence of cooking their food; although it may furnish valuable evidence, and I predict their return to the natural diet with renewed faith. Now (Sept. 1, 1882), after a few months' use of artificially prepared food (their diet is still very simple; they use no animal food, nor fancy dishes, no pastry, nor _hot_ drinks), such sentences as the following are quite significant: "Well, both my husband and myself think it possible there may be more 'ailments'

from the use of cooked food, but there is more enjoyment too, and we shall have to take the bitter and the sweet together." ... "I know it [uncooked food] increases the spiritual perceptions greatly."[79]... "I still believe it would be a sure preventive of disease; but few, however, are prepared to adopt such an extreme mode of living." Once more: "The experiment has done us good, I am sure; and I feel glad of the lessons I have learned through it. I don't think I shall ever be what I was before using it." [_i. e._, sickly]. Of this we can, of course, judge better later on. From an earlier letter, written in January (the 30th), 1881, and while they were enjoying the natural diet for the fourth year, I make a few extracts: "Its effects are truly wonderful, and far exceed my expectations.... The sequel has proved that it not only ensures health to those already healthy, but eradicates former weaknesses when these exist; for instance, rheumatism and 'sciatica,' from which I used to suffer--both have left me, I think never to return. The children frequently suffered with toothache, and occasionally with earache; now they are never troubled. I believe the hot food destroys the teeth, and renders the body generally more susceptible of taking colds. I used to take cold on the slightest exposure; now I don't know what it is to have one. And sore throat was sure to follow a cold; now I am quite exempt, and have been for two years."[80]

[Footnote 78: The oily nuts are nutritious, and a small proportion, only, should be eaten; except in cold weather.]

[Footnote 79: I desire to call the attention and fasten it for a moment upon this feature of the case.]

[Footnote 80: With reference to the prophylactic and curative effects of this diet I quote from "VEGETARIAN LIFE IN GERMANY: _A Paper, by a Lady Member of the German Vegetarian Society, read 15th Jan., 1881, at Manchester England, and reprinted by request_."