o have been taught
physiology. On the one hand, "M.D." gives a proteid standard, now
impossible to myself, and I believe to many others, for it would
involve eating a nauseating quantity; and, on the other hand, another
doctor, presumably acquainted with the same physiology, tells me I
cannot eat too little, so long as I do not persistently violate true
hunger and taste. Then another doctor gives quite a different
standard, and a much lower one. If we discard our natural guides,
which of the claimants to knowledge is to be followed, and is there
any knowledge at all such as is claimed?

Imagine what a mockery it would have been to give such a standard as
that of "M.D." to the agricultural labourer about the middle of last
century, a typical one with a large family, and one who worked as men
do not work to-day, and had to rear his family on a few shillings a
week. How could such a one have provided more than a fraction of what
"M.D." says is necessary, either for himself or his children?

The broad fact is, that all the hardest work of the world has always
been done by those who get the least food. As one who has had some
experience of labour, I doubt if the workers could have done so much
if it had not been for a spare diet. Certain it is, that since they
have more to eat, they are much less inclined to work.

My contention, then, is that there is no fixed standard of proteid
needed by the body, but 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. Moreover, I
contend that even if there were such a standard as "M.D." says
physiology has found, it obviously is not known.

I cannot help recognising in "M.D." one whom I gratefully love and
respect. He helped me on the road, and now that I differ from him I do
not forget it, and I ask his forgiveness if I seem to be arrogant. He
thinks I cannot see what he sees because I am underfed, and I think he
cannot see what I see because he is overfed. In a sense we are both
right, and we form a beautiful illustration of the different states of
mind that belong to different physical conditions. I urge the laymen
like myself not to be afraid of that musty old ill-shaped monster
called Science[7] when he is up against the eternal truths that belong
to every simple untutored man. Shun the monster as you would a priest,
to whom he has a great likeness, and unite wi