As you allowed me to discuss this question in Healthy Life in July and August of last year I must not take up your space by discussing it again. But the answer we give determines the amounts of food that we require to take, since, obviously, if the strength and heat of the body depend upon the food, the more food we take the more strength and heat shall we have; while, if the function of food in the adult or grown body is only to restore the waste of the body, the question is how much is the waste. There are various ways in which this question can be answered and I cannot go into them now; but I say, in my opinion, the waste is very much less than is commonly supposed. The body, I take it, is made by zoo-dynamic or the life-force to be a fit habitation for itself. The body must waste when the life-force acts through it, and that waste must be restored by food and sleep, or the body will die; since things (the body) cannot act as the medium of conveying forces (zoo-dynamic or the life-force) without wasting under their action. But so beautifully has the body been made by zoo-dynamic that it wastes very little, much less than is commonly supposed, by the action of zoo-dynamic through it.

Not seeing this, we ingest into the body far more than is required to restore its waste, and so we fall ill, for, obviously, if we ingest more than the quantity necessary for this purpose we choke the body up and render it inefficient for its purpose as an instrument for work.

Now this is precisely what seems to me to happen in life. As we are all under the double delusion that the strength of the body and its heat come from the food, we all with one accord put far too much food into the body, and when we find that we die, all of us, generation after generation, at from 50 to 70 years of age, we make up little proverbs to justify our unphysiological conduct and say that three score years and ten are the measure of the duration of life. M.D. says that "some twenty years ago most people lived fairly close to the old physiological quantities" (but what are these? for we have seen how they vary), "now they have been cut adrift from these and are floundering out of their depth." May I remind M.D. that people are now living longer than they did twenty years ago. How does he account for that? No doubt some of the increase in the length of life is due to the diminution of the birth rate, but still I suppose M.D. would admit that there is an increase in the duration of life over and above what can be accounted for in this way.

If so, how does he account for it?

M.D. says, further: "For the public it will now probably suffice if they insist on raising (or considering, A.R.) the question of quantity" (of food, A.R.) "wherever they suffer in any way." I agree with all my heart. But M.D. implies, if I read him aright, that the public should increase the quantity of their food when they suffer in any way. I, on the other hand, and rather unhappily for myself, am convinced that the raising of this question implies that it should be answered in the exact opposite way to that of M.D. and that we should diminish our food if we "suffer in any way." And I can point to Nature's own plan as a corroboration of the truth of my view, for her plan when we suffer in any way is to fling us into bed and take away our appetite, or at least to diminish our appetite if we are not so ill as to require to remain in bed.

The whole question of medical practice depends on the answer we give to this question, and therefore one might go on indefinitely with its discussion. Neither the Editors' space and patience nor my time allow of this; but I should like to ask M.D., with all respect, if he remembers what Dr King Chambers said of the starvation that comes of over-repletion? Dr King Chambers occupied one of the most prominent places as a consultant in London (very probably, I suppose) when M.D. was a very young man. My late lamented friend, Dr Dewey of Meadville, Pennsylvania, used the phrase "starvation from over-feeding," not knowing that Dr King Chambers had used practically the same expression before him. That I made the same discovery myself, and independently, is not, I take it, a sign of acuteness of intellect or of observation. The amazing thing is that every practitioner is not compelled to make the same discovery. But if it is a true discovery, then it follows that all the signs of lowered vitality referred to by M.D., while they may be caused by under-feeding, may also be caused by over-feeding and may therefore require for proper treatment, not increase of the diet, but diminution of it. A low temperature, therefore, a slow pulse, languor, pallor, inanition, fatigue, good-for-nothingness, inefficiency, anorexia, anaemia, neurasthenia, etc., etc., may all be due to blocking of the body with too much food as well as to supplying it with too little. Fires may be put out by heaping up too much coal on them. To make them burn briskly we ought to push the poker in and gently lift the coal so as to admit of the entrance of air. Then in a while our fire will become brisk and bright. And so it may be in the body. Nay, my opinion is that almost always these marks of depression are caused by blocking up of the body and that therefore the proper treatment is, as a rule, not increase but diminution of the diet. The place in the body in which the blocking first occurs is the connective tissues or the tissues that connect every part with every other.

It is here that the lymph is secreted, and as the lymph joins the thoracic duct which conveys the products of digestion to the blood, it is obvious that lymph-secretion is a complementary digestive process and it is also obvious how blocking up of the connective tissues, which is the immediate cause of anorexia and inanition, usually comes to exist in the body.

M.D. talks of "natural food." He seems to be a vegetarian? Good. But is not the question of how much food we ought to eat equally urgent whether we are vegetarian or omnivorous? I think it is. I do not think that the chief cause of our illnesses to-day is taking wrong or unsuitable food. In my opinion we are ill mainly because we take suitable food too often and because we take too much of it. My answer to the question, therefore - "How Much Should We Eat? - A Warning" - turns on the previous question: What is the Function performed by Food in the Body? As I think that this function in the grown body is only to restore the waste, the warning in my mind is far rather that we should take less than that we should (as M.D. advises us) take more. I agree with him in the view that "chronic starvation is insidious." But, as I believe that "chronic starvation" is usually a form of Dr King Chambers's "starvation from over-repletion" and of Dr Dewey's "starvation from over-feeding," I am bound to be of the consequent opinion that it is to be met, not by increase, but by diminution of the diet. This is one of my reasons for thinking that none of us ought ever to eat oftener than twice a day, under fifty years of age, and that after that we would do well to eat once a day only.