Note.—One item well worth considering, especially by the laboring classes 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 canal; hence less liability of indigestion. Such portions of whole grain as may be swallowed without mastication, will pass on and out without danger of the putrefactive changes which result from an excess, or deficient mastication of cooked food. Regarding the gustatory pleasure to be derived from a diet of this sort, while it is less seductive to the abnormal appetite, still, even here, no individual really needing food would find this disagreeable, though reference were made solely to whole wheat, masticated with the aid of good teeth; or to the meal, mixed with nice fruit juices or the fruits themselves, when, from unnatural living, the teeth are badly decayed. Our teeth would not fail us if, from childhood, we used them, and our
food furnished the material to build and maintain them.
[68] This subject having been treated in a most masterly manner by Prof. Schlickeysen, of Germany—considering fully the chemical and anatomical theories, and presenting the anthropological, the physiological, and the dietetical arguments so clearly and convincingly—I design here merely to give a few practical tests illustrating the advantages of a truly natural and pure diet, while recommending every devout student of this subject, every conscientious and thoughtful person to procure the work, entitled Fruit and Bread,—translated from the German by Dr. Holbrook, and published by M. L. Holbrook & Co., New York,—and read it for himself.
[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 increases the vital strength.—Fruit and Bread, p. [163].