The Healthy Life, Vol. V, Nos. 24-28: The Independent Health MagazineVarious
Science
The Healthy Life, Vol. V, Nos. 24-28: The Independent Health Magazine
Various
Health -- Periodicals; Medicine, Popular -- Periodicals; Nutrition -- Periodicals
My contention is that the average person, throwing over his or her
accustomed meat diet, requires some definite guidance as to the
quantity of proteid, such as Dr Haig's wide experience and much
patient research have proved needful, or at least advisable, for the
continuance of a healthy and vigorous life; and I will say that it
does not help this average person in the least to put before him the
misty statement that "the quantity depends on the development that is
in progress, and is only discoverable by the natural guides of
appetite and taste, ruled by reason and love of others." All very
noble and very well in another place, but hardly meeting the case of
the ordinary person who is seeking a healthy diet. Nor can you "make
the body a more harmonious instrument for the true life of man" by
habitually underfeeding it. I thought that was a mediaeval notion that
had been knocked on the head long ago.
Is there any man, lay or scientific, Mr Voysey notwithstanding, who
can claim to have as wide an experience of diet in its relation to
health and disease as "M.D.," to say nothing of the trained mind and
long years of patient thought that have been exerted in dealing with
the facts of this wide experience. For myself, I have come to see
that, if "M.D." does not hold in his grasp the absolute truth in the
matter of diet, he is nearer to it, and is a safer guide, than all
your low proteid advisers, lay or otherwise, where they come much
below "M.D.'s" standard.
So, using Mr Voysey's phrases, I would urge laymen like myself to shun
that weak-kneed manikin, the low proteid diet, and unite with me in a
long strong pull to get him and others like him out of the rut in
which that sorry weakling holds him.
HY. BARTHOLOMEW.
II
The Editors were quite right in saying that the article under this
heading in the July issue would arouse discussion. My wife and I,
having discussed "M.D." and many others with the title, feel
constrained to put forth a warning against blind faith in anything
which the faculty have to say on dietetics.
There are of course brilliant exceptions, such as Dr Rabagliati, Dr
Knaggs, Dr Haig, the late Dr Keith and others, who give chapter and
verse for every statement made; but when we consider the excellent
work of laymen such as Albert Broadbent, Joseph Wallace, Horace
Fletcher, Alice Braithwaite, Eustace Miles, Hereward Carrington, Edgar
J. Saxon, Bernarr MacFadden, Arnold Eiloart, ordinary folks like
ourselves may be excused if we venture to give our experience as
against that of "qualified" men.
With your permission, then, we reply to "M.D.'s" five suggestions in
the order he gives them:--
1. Food qualities are _not_ of extreme importance.
2. Quantity tables may have been "settled" by physiologists to their
own satisfaction many years ago; but very good reasons have since been
given for altering, or even ignoring, them.
3. The particular number of grains of proteid to be consumed per day
is not of serious moment.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account