Besides, in pulse food, quant.i.ties of purins are found as important as in meat. If the part they play has not been systematically studied from the point of view of their effects on the nervous organism, they still give rise to the same terminal products, such as uric acid. One can quite well argue that the pulse purins have physiological effects comparable to those of meat purins. On the other hand, vegetable purins have the considerable advantage of being less easily precipitated in the urine, after the human interorganic metabolism, than those resulting from the metabolism of flesh material.

This explains why a frequent use of a vegetable diet offers appreciable advantages in the amelioration of arthritic diatheses so common amongst us. Certain effects observed in these diatheses arise from the purins, from their localisation in the system, and their vitiated metabolism. The use of a moderate vegetable diet is the best means of treatment in order to relieve, to ameliorate, even to cure, arthritic diathesis.

IX

Such are the certain physiological advantages which the predominant use of vegetable products are capable of offering. If one takes the pure energy-producing point of view, the superiority of the vegetarian diet becomes greater still. From the fine works of A. Chauveau, modern physiology has shown us that muscle, in working, consumes sugary materials. These are provided by ingestions of sugar in a natural state, of dextrine or of starch; for a less important part, the glycogen of the system may also arise from hydrocarbonated cords existing in the molecule of certain alb.u.mins. Therefore it is only in an infinitesimal part, due to the fibrine of meat, and to the small proportions of glycogen which it contains, that flesh diet intervenes in the direct production of kinetic energy.

The demonstrations which have been essayed, touching the muscular superiority of vegetarians, appear superfluous to us. Such experiments could only have a positive value if they were made on both series of antagonistic subjects, with alimentary powers of energy-producing equality.

It should be distinctly understood that the vegetarian does not profit by any mysterious forces. The habit of preferring to nourish oneself with vegetable foods, can, at most, or at least, favour the physiological integrity of the subject, shield him against disease and a.s.sure his revictualment with foods recognised as active and easily measurable.

One cannot leave alcohol out of the list of advantageous vegetable foods. In fact, provided one keeps to strictly limited doses, it may be included among the alimentary foods, on a footing comparable to that of sugar. If one knew how to use without misusing it, alcohol might become a daily food.

X

Another order of ideas which one cannot pa.s.s by in silence at the present time militates in favour of vegetable alimentation. Dietetics cannot neglect economic problems. A flesh diet is very costly. In large towns, like Paris, at a time when everything is increasing in cost, one must be favoured by fortune to be able to indulge in the real luxury of consuming the calories of meat. As we said in 1905, with Prof. Landouzy and M. Labbe, in our inquiry into popular Parisian alimentation, the calorific energy of meat comes, on an average, to between 15 to 20 times dearer than that of bread or pulse foods.

The diet with a vegetable predominance may therefore, by those who adopt it, be considered as much less costly than a mixed one. Does not this fact, then, deserve to be taken into consideration and compared--startlingly ill.u.s.trative--to the ingenious calculation recently made by Lefevre in his examination of vegetarianism? One acre of land planted for the purpose of breeding cattle produces three times less living strength than an acre planted with wheat!

Is it not criminal, or at any rate ill-judged, for the richness and health of the country to have, by the laws of a draconian protectionism, spurred the French agricultural population along the road to the breeding of cattle, thus turning it away from cultivation?

These laws are the cause, on the one hand, of the high price of wheat, owing to the abandonment of its culture and the barriers opposed to its entrance, and on the other, of the dearness of meat, owing to the stock and the land which the cattle require.

Under these facts economists have indeed a direct responsibility, as for more than fifty years economic orthodoxy has presented meat as a necessity, whereas it is the least advantageous particle amongst so many others.

In conclusion, let us hope that future distinctions of "Vegetalists,"

vegetarians or flesh eaters may be completely abolished. _In medio stat virtus._ The dietetic regimen, the general adoption of which must henceforth be desired, must reject all preconceived and hereditary ideas, and unite in one harmonious use all foods with a hygienic end in view. The place of each one amongst them and its predominance over the others should be determined only by conforming to reasons at the same time physiological and economic.

H. LABBE.

+--------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | #To Our Readers.# | | | | Readers who appreciate the independence and all-round nature | | of _The Healthy Life_ can materially a.s.sist the extension of | | its circulation by tactfully urging their local newsagent to | | have the magazine regularly displayed for sale. An | | attractive monthly poster can always be had free from the | | Publishers, 3 Tudor Street, London, E.C. | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------+

HEALTH AND JOY IN HAND-WEAVING.

_This article gains additional interest from the fact that it has been written by one who works her own loom and teaches others the ancient and healthy art of hand-weaving._--[EDS.]

Hand-weaving is an art, a handicraft, one aspect of which we are apt to forget--namely, that it is a splendid health-giver. Indeed, all who have felt the rhythm of the loom, as they throw the shuttle to and fro, and in blending colours and seeing the material grow thread by thread, can witness to the power of the work to banish both the large and small worries that eat away our health of mind and body. The hand-weaver learns to look upon his (or her) loom as a very good friend.

The possibilities in weaving are immense, and the great difficulty that always confronts the weaver is the impossibility of letting gussets into the day: the end of the week comes all too soon.

One very satisfactory thing about weaving is the fact that from the very first we can use the things woven, even those we learn on.

First, there is plain weaving, with which we can make dress materials and many things for household use. Then come fancy and striped materials, which require more knowledge and ingenuity.

There are endless varieties in bands of different patterns thrown in with the shuttle, or shuttles, sometimes as many as a dozen of which may be in use at a time. These can be used for the purpose of ornamentation. In weaving these no end of play of colour can be made, by using many colours in rotation, either as the groundwork of plain material, under the patterns, or as the pattern itself.

Metal threads can also be used of various kinds, either as an entire texture, or to enrich the fancy bands.

Lastly, there is inlay weaving, by which we can put in by hand, with little separate bobbins, as we go along, any cross-st.i.tch design, lettering, monograms, figures and designs of every description.

Anyone with a knowledge of carpentry can make his own loom, the construction being of a very simple nature. In fact, the Orientals erect a few sticks, dig a hole in the ground to sit in, tie their warp up to a tree, and then produce the most charming work, both in texture and colour.

The warp can also be made as these people often make theirs, by fixing it to sticks stuck into the ground, and walking backwards and forwards with the thread, singing as they go. Yes, singing! I think we English folk might learn from them to put more joy into our work, that fountainhead of life and health. We are apt to take such a serious view of ourselves and of all we do. So often, too, we only feel the dull and quiet colours, instead of using the many brilliant ones that nature loves so well. Once we begin working in, and appreciating, these we realise the exhilarating effect on our spirits. Indeed, I think we are only beginning to realise what a great influence colour has upon us, and all that colour signifies, each colour having various meanings of its own.

Many people are now realising that we are surrounded by a halo of colour woven by our character--the most highly developed people being surrounded by clear, bright colours. It is strictly true that we are all weavers, every day of our lives. By following the laws of nature we make the finest texture composed of all the most glorious colours or qualities in the Universe, so by degrees bringing ourselves, and others, into perfect harmony and peace.

MINNIE BROWN.

HOW MUCH SHOULD WE EAT?

_This discussion arose out of the article with above t.i.tle, by "M.D.,"

which was published in our July number._--[EDS.]

IV

In dealing with this vitally important question, we shall most of us, I take it, agree upon certain points. In the light of recent knowledge upon, and extended experience of the subject, one such point which now appears incontrovertible is that there are thousands die annually--directly or indirectly--through overfeeding where one dies through insufficient nourishment. And it may at once be said that, as regards these thousands, the death certificates are practically valueless as data in relation to erroneous dieting, so that in this way we can never get at a correct estimate as to the actual number of deaths due to overfeeding. Bright's disease, gastric and intestinal affections, growths of various kinds, cancer, etc., are each in their turn certified as the "Cause of Death." Most often, however, the initial cause is the overloading of the system with an amount of food beyond that which is necessary or healthful--and thereby clogging up the tissues, the organs and smaller bloodvessels.

But it may be said: "How can you substantiate such a general and sweeping statement?" In the first place--and this is profoundly significant--other things being equal, it must be acknowledged by all unbiased people that the small and moderate feeders do not contract disease in anything like the proportion that big feeders do, and as a natural consequence live longer lives.

Further, it must surely be quite evident by this time that there is a sufficiently large enough number of people who are thus existing in good health--and steadily regaining it where it has been lost--on the lines of moderate feeding. And the number is acc.u.mulating at a rapid pace; more and more are coming into line with those of us who, having thus found health in themselves, their patients and friends, are preaching the practice of two meals a day, and sometimes only one where there is serious organic disease to combat--thus defying the dicta of those eminent physiologists who "settled" the question years ago.

Now I quite admit--it would be impertinence to do otherwise--that "M.D.'s" statements and views must not be ignored, must indeed be respected. And he tells us that he "heard of," in one day, three cases which "went wrong" through underfeeding; well, for those three cases we can point to hundreds who are _going right_ through eating just enough and not too much. I am prepared, on the other hand, to admit the danger of a continued semi-starvation diet; our difficulty is to define in each individual case what exactly would be a semi-starvation, and what a sufficient diet. It is impossible to have a fixed standard for everybody. After all, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"; often it is a matter of experimenting for some little time, and in this way we could judge largely of the result of our dieting by our state of general health.

On some main points of the question I am now absolutely convinced--viz.:

1. Excessive bulk is always dangerous, often disastrous, causing sudden death in a large number of cases.

2. Starchy foods are best strictly limited as we get along towards middle age and beyond.

3. A life which is largely mental or sedentary will be healthier and longer on a strictly moderate diet.

4. A life largely of physical labour must be dealt with on its own particular conditions.

5. At all times due regard, of course, must be paid to age, weight, etc.

6. On the whole, "eminent physiologists" have erred on the side of excess of proteid being advised.

7. Middle age is the critical time of life in respect to a man's diet in other words, I would say in axiomatic form that as a man feeds at or about middle age, so will he be for the rest of his life.