The A.B.-Z. of our own nutrition

by Horace Fletcher

In view of these results, are we not justified in asking ourselves whether we have yet attained a clear comprehension of the real requirements of the body in the matter of daily nutriment? Whether we fully comprehend the best and most economical method of maintaining the body in a state of physiological fitness? The case of Mr. Fletcher, just described; the results noted in connection with certain Asiatic peoples; the fruitarians and nutarians in our own country recently studied by Professor Jaffa, of the University of California; all suggest the possibility of much greater physiological economy than we as a race are wont to practise. If these are merely exceptional cases, we need to know it; but if, on the other hand, it is possible for mankind in general to maintain proper nutritive conditions on dietary standards far below those now accepted as necessary, it is time for us to ascertain that fact. For, if our standards are now unnecessarily high, then surely we are not only practising an uneconomical method of sustaining life, but we are subjecting ourselves to conditions the reverse of physiological, and which must of necessity be inimical to our well-being. The possibility of more scientific knowledge of the natural requirements of a healthy nutrition is made brighter by the fact that the economic results noted in connection with our metabolism examination of Mr. Fletcher is confirmatory of similar results obtained under the direction and scrutiny of Sir Michael Foster at the University of Cambridge, England, during the autumn and winter of last year; and by Dr. Ernest Van Someren, Mr. Fletcher’s collaborateur, in Venice, on subjects of various ages and of both sexes, some account of which has already been presented to the British Medical Association and to the International Congress of Physiologists at its last meeting at Turin, Italy. At the same time emphasis must be laid upon the fact that no definite and positive conclusions can be arrived at, except as the result of careful experiments and observations on many individuals covering long periods of time. This, however, the writer hopes to do in the very near future, with the coöperation of a corps of interested observers.

The problem is far-reaching. It involves not alone the individual, but society as a whole, for beyond the individual lies the broader field of the community, and what proves helpful for the one will eventually react for the betterment of society, and for the improvement of mankind in general.

INTRODUCTION TO DR. HARRY CAMPBELL’S CONTRIBUTION ON THE IMPORTANCE OF MASTICATION

[Since the publication of Van Someren’s paper, “Was Luigi Cornaro Right?”, read before the British Medical Association, and reprinted elsewhere in this volume, much more attention has been given to the study of mastication than had been previously reported. Mr. Gladstone’s advice to his children, which was commonly current and was repeated whenever mastication was mentioned, was usually accompanied and met by an amused smile that showed that the full importance of better mouth-treatment of food was not appreciated. Glutton or Epicure, a little book by the present writer, published in 1898, insisted on thorough use of the functions of the mouth in alimentation but did not go into the anatomical, physiological and dental details.

Dr. Harry Campbell of Northwest London Hospital has performed this latter service to science and humanity, with splendid carefulness, and must have devoted much time and study to the collection of evidence and suggestion which is given here following in full, reprinted from the London Lancet.

The authors acknowledge with much gratitude, the courteous permission of both Dr. Campbell and of the editor of the Lancet, to reprint all four articles which composed the series.

In our own study of the subject of mouth-treatment of food we have been led to give more credit to the chemical feature of preparation than Dr. Campbell yet attributes to the chemical side of the problem. Comminution of hard food is of first importance, undoubtedly, but insalivation and neutralisation or alkalinisation are, seemingly, much more easily and quickly accomplished in the mouth than farther on in the alimentary canal. The intestines can do all in the way of digestion, even if the mouth and stomach are passed and their assistance in the digestive process is entirely neglected, but it is done at tremendous disadvantage in the supplementary digestive tract of the intestines. We have proven the economy of letting the mouth do all it can, by the insalivation (sipping and tasting) of liquids that have taste up to the point of compulsory swallowing (a sucking-up by the Swallowing Impulse which naturally occurs in the course of treatment in the mouth if not fought against too strongly). If Dr. Campbell will extend his observations to liquids, say milk, and for a sufficiently long time to measure results by continued economy of assimilation and saving of solid excreta, he will find that it pays to let the mouth do all it can do, and that while it cannot do too much it may do too little. The natural instincts of the mouth, or those that attach to the mouth, become much more discriminating also if exercised on liquids as well as on solids. This they do not learn to do so well if sapid liquids are habitually rushed past their field of discrimination.

Taste enjoyed in the mouth is good, and a good part of the pleasure of living comes from taste gratification, but taste that returns from the stomach and is belched by eructation or is lingeringly reminiscent in the mouth or nose is indicative of indigestion.

Hence it is better to dissipate taste in the mouth, which is the sole region of taste. Spirits tasted into absorption in this way leave no odour upon the breath, and asparagus munched and tasted to the limit in the mouth, carries no odour to the urine. Even the stale and disagreeable odour of onion or garlic can be neutralised by saliva and killed in the mouth.

It is extremely difficult to get observers to practise tasting taste out of liquids as the wine tasters do, and as the tea tasters have to do or die; or, at least, become useless in their profession. Once the efficacy of the liquid-tasting precaution in digestion is understood, however, to swallow anything but pure water without tasting it into absorption produces a shock. This care becomes instinctive quite easily and regulates itself automatically. It is also a distinct gain to the gustatory possibilities, which are very limited at best.