[1] “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition.”

[2] At first sight this position seems, of course, absurd, and opposed to the well-known facts of calorimetry: but such is not the case. All the known facts as to the equivalence of energy, heat, work, etc., can be accounted for just as readily on my theory of the relations of food and bodily energy—viz. that the energy is restored by sleep (the nervous system, like an electric motor) and not by combustion, as in the steam engine. As to the equivalence noted, this can be accounted for by assuming that as energy acts upon matter, it wastes; and this waste is made good by a proportionate amount of food. There is therefore an equivalence, a relation, but it is not that of cause and effect. For the details of this theory, however, see “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition,” pp. 225-303 et seq.

[3] “Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism,” pp. 25-26.

[4] “Anthropoid Apes,” p. 284.

[5] “Shall We Slay to Eat?” pp. 28-29.

[6] I would point out, in this connection, however, that, apart from this possible shortening of the small intestine, no anatomical changes whatever have resulted from a partially carnivorous diet for the hundreds of years that have preceded us, and upon which man still largely subsists. Doubtless this is partly due to the fact that much other food was always eaten with the meat consumed; and also the fact that the poorer classes—the peasantry, etc.—were unable to purchase large quantities of meat at any time—and hence to eat it. With them it was always an occasional luxury, rather than a steady article of diet. The interesting fact is, however, that, in spite of these hundreds of years of abuse, the human alimentary tract still maintains all the characteristics of the frugivorous animal, and in no way resembles the carnivorous alimentary tract! Had our hundreds of years of flesh-eating enabled us to subsist upon such a diet with impunity—or even adapted the human body to the diet in any degree—as is frequently contended—then our alimentary tract would indicate that fact by its evolutionary modifications. As this is not the case, however, what becomes of the argument that meat is a necessary article of diet, because man has subsisted largely upon it for hundreds of years?

[7] “Fruits and Farinacea,” pp. 82-83.

[8] “Fruits and Farinacea,” p. 84.

[9] Dr Woods Hutchison and other writers upon the subject have contended that all flesh-eating animals have their eyes set in the front of their heads, and all herbivora on the side. Because man’s eyes are set in the front of his head, it is contended, therefore he is carnivorous! This argument is completely disproved by the fact (among others) that the higher apes, which, in a state of nature, are pure frugivora, have their eyes set in the front of their heads—as has man. This is consequently no argument whatever in favour of a flesh diet.

[10] “Fruit and Bread,” pp. 108-109.

[11] “Shall We Slay to Eat?” p. 35.

[12] This is most interesting. It shows conclusively that at one time there were no carnivora on this globe: they merely developed through countless ages, as the result of deprivation and lack of their proper and natural food.

[13] “Natural Hygiene,” by H. Lahmann, M.D., pp. 76-85.

[14] “The Nutrition of Man,” pp. 4-5.

[15] U.S. Dept. Agr., Office of Experimental Stations Bul. 65, p. 118.

[16] In a letter to Mr CarquÉ, on this subject, Dr Wiley writes:

[17] “On one occasion, when living for five days entirely upon oranges, our temperature was lessened, still we felt a pleasant glow throughout the system; but to other individuals we felt cold; animal heat is therefore only relative. We further found that only three or four hours sleep was required in the twenty-four hours.”

[18] “Nutrition of Man,” p.4.

[19] “Physiological Economy in Nutrition,” pp. 274-275.

[20] “ ... The American must be educated in the principles of the frugivorous diet. ‘Its never too late to learn,’ and ‘now is the appointed time.’ Unquestionably man can live on a diet of fresh meats—proof of which is amply afforded by the very fact that the larger part of the people of the North American continent of to-day are living almost wholly or largely on such a diet. When it comes to a discussion of the relative merits of the two diets ... we need go no further than to chemistry and physiology, which show that the flesh meats do not begin to contain the same amount of nutriment as do the nuts, and some of the other articles of vegetable origin.” “The Art of Living in Good Health,” p. 197. By Daniel S. Sager, M.D.

[21] “See pp. 34-44 of my “Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition,” where this question is discussed at length.

[22] “Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism,” pp. 23-24.

[23] “Shall We Slay to Eat?” pp. 53-56.

[24] “Food and Hygiene,” p. 138.

[25] “Life and Food,” pp. 8-9.

[26] “Food Value of Meat,” p. 45. By W.R. C. Latson, M.D.

[27] See, in this connection, H.P. Fowler: “Vegetarianism, the Radical Cure for Intemperance”; Dr Jackson’s “How to Cure Drunkards,” etc.

[28] Abstract from the Annual Report of the Bureau of Animal Industry.

[29] “Logic of Vegetarianism,” pp. 67-68.

[30] “Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism,” p. 20. As a matter of fact, all the work in the world is done by vegetarian animals—the horse, ox, camel, elephant, etc.

[31] Cf. Genesis i. 29, where man is distinctly told that he is a fruitarian; and not only that, he is told the character of fruit he must eat. “And God said. Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” The seed-fruits are here clearly indicated, as well as man’s originally frugivorous diet.

[32] “Logic of Vegetarianism,” p. 55.

[33] “Hydropathic Cook Book,” p. 107.

[34] It is important to note, in this connection, that but a small percentage of the starch is ever converted into sugar, even by the most thorough mastication. I say this on the authority of Dr John Goodfellow, F.R.C.S., author of “The Dietetic Value of Bread,” etc., who conducted a number of careful experiments on this very point. (See his letter to Dr Densmore, in “How Nature Cures,” pp. 237-239.) In raw cereals, only about one per cent. was converted! As this process of conversion cannot go forward in an acid medium—i.e. in the stomach—it is evident that the bowels must be called upon to effect this conversion—a useless tax upon them, and a cause of constipation as well.

[35] It is an error—though a common one—to suppose that the fruitarian diet causes a loss of weight. My own weight has remained about the same for ten years, no matter what I eat, or how much. On this diet the weight will go to normal—and, generally speaking, it is necessary that some weight should be lost, in order to effect this.

[36] “Further Investigations Among Fruitarians,” etc., p. 79.

[37] “La rÉforme alimentaire,” vol. xiii., No. 2. For much valuable information on this subject consult Dr J.L. Buttner’s book, “A Fleshless Diet” (1910).

[38] If this theory were true, it would agree very well with Professor Loeb’s recent physiological researches. He has come to the conclusion that the energy of food-stuffs is not due to the production of heat, or to chemical energy, but to electrically charged molecules This would seem to agree very well with the theory outlined above.

[39] “The Dietetic Value of Bread,” p. 166.

[40] “Logic of Vegetarianism,” p. 27.

[41] “The Science of Living,” p. 145.

[42] It will be seen that the authors are here in disagreement with Dr Latson. See his advice above.

[43] A number of very good recipes of uncooked foods may be found in an otherwise very odd book, entitled “Unfired Food: and Trophotherapy,” by George J. Drews (Chicago).

[44] In the following suggestions it will be assumed that the diet is vegetarian, and not yet fruitarian—these suggestions being offered as a help toward that diet, by breaking away, gradually, from the ordinary “mixed” diet.

[45] “Human and Bovine Tuberculosis,” pp. 6-7.

[46] “Hydropathic Cook Book,” p. 177.

[47] “The Diet Cure,” p. 19.