---

By Alec Burton
I have never liked the term the “Hygienic” diet. It implicitly suggests a diet designed for everyone that is specific, inflexible and stereotyped. Hygienically diet represents a means of affording the organism adequate nourishment and, in order to accomplish this there may be a thousand different diets which will provide the necessary materials of use in adequate proportions. Diet is merely a vehicle that provides the nutrients the body requires for the maintenance of its health and life. There is no diet that will suit everybody.

Diet does not cure disease. Diet per se does nothing. It is passive. It is acted upon by the organism. The purpose is to secure from it the necessary nutrients which the body needs for growth, development, repair of wear and tear, reproduction and the maintenance of its functions. To speak as though diet performs some function by itself is erroneous. There is no such thing as an eliminating diet, implying in some way that diet is responsible for elimination. Elimination is a physiological process; it is performed by the organism, not by the food it consumes. As the husband told the doctor when he enquired about the reducing diet his wife was following, “It worked well, she disappeared three weeks ago.” It is a fundamental conflict of principle to think that diets work. “Work” is something the living body does. You can easily demonstrate this by putting several different people on the same diet. You will get several different results.

A diet should consist of those materials which are essential to the organism’s survival. These may be broadly classified into proteins, carbohydrates, fats, minerals and vitamins. Proteins that all of these are secured in adequate amounts, in a form, which is usable, the organism will have the necessary materials with which to work. If they are supplied but, deficiently or excessively, nutritional stresses will be incurred. To the extent that they are excessive or deficient will accrue depending upon the activity of the individual organism. Obviously there are considerable limits of toleration, varying from one individual to another. The organism can tolerate slight excesses and occasional deficiencies, at these times drawing upon its own nutritional reserves, but prolonged deficiencies and substantial excesses will incur consequences of malfunction. The means whereby the various materials that the organism requires for its health and life are supplied are not of prime importance. Of first importance is the fact that they are supplied. This does not mean that we can take refined and processed foods as good sources of the materials that we require. What it does mean is, that providing the necessary materials are available to the organism in the diet consumed, free from noxious extraneous substances, in a form which naturally occurs, not tampered with by the food refiner and processor, the organism will be securing the necessary nourishment. It is important that we get away from the idea that specific foods and specific diets have healing properties or have special properties other than the mere presence of nutrients needed by the organism. The idea that we should take beet juice for anaemia, cabbage juice for ulcers or parsley for the kidneys is a vicious reactionary hangover from the medicating superstition. Nor is it desirable that we study the analyses of various foods and select our diet according to some chart that indicates that a particular food is rich in a particular nutrient. This is not good nutrition. From this practice we may learn that whole grain cereals are rich in iron but we may not discover that the presence of phytates renders the iron relatively unavailable to the organism.

We should attempt to secure our nutrients from a wide variety of foods although, obviously, not at the same meal. Over a period of time, eat as wide a variety of foods as is practicable. Introduce new foods into the diet. I am speaking here, of course, of natural foods and by that I mean foods that are provided by the plant or tree in nature, i.e., fresh fruit and vegetables. In fresh fruits and vegetables, I also include nuts, which are botanically classified as fruits. Some of the nuts, which are in common use, are not, strictly speaking, nuts. The peanut is a legume. The cashew, the seed of the cashew apple, always heat treated. However, if we select our protein from almonds, brazils, hazels, macadamias, pecans, pine nuts, pistachios, walnuts, etc., these will supply the essential amino acids required for growth, development, repair and reproduction. To avoid any argument about the importance of taking all of the necessary amino acids at the same meal, eat a variety of nuts, but be careful not to overeat. An amount of three to four ozs. daily is quite adequate. Some additional protein will be taken in the very small quantities present in fruits and vegetables. In some cases this might be quite significant. It is desirable to keep one’s diet simple, not to have a wide variety of foods at a single meal, but to limit the variety to perhaps four different types together with some concentrated food such as nuts for protein. There are those who do not digest nuts well. They are uncomfortable after eating them. They find them too concentrated and rich. They are better not eating them.

Many people can survive quite well on two meals a day; one fruit meal and one somewhat large salad meal together with protein. This does not mean however, that one cannot have two fruit meals or two salad meals. It may be varied as desired. Two fruit meals may be taken one day and two salad meals may be taken, another day. If one is on a three meal a day program, a fruit breakfast is usually the most desirable, but there is no real objection to a salad breakfast. For the remaining two meals, these may comprise a further two fruit meals or two salad meals, or one fruit and one salad meal. Some protein with one of the meals is desirable and I usually some nuts. Basically the Hygienist argues that the natural diet of humans comprises fresh uncooked fruits and vegetables (which includes nuts) and insofar as we deviates from this, we increase our chances of incurring trouble. Dairy products, cheese, yoghurt, milk, eggs, butter, represent a compromise and if taken at all should be used sparingly. Flesh such as meat, fish and fowl represent a departure from food normal to humans.

Nutritional type

It is the general belief among the various authorities on nutrition, the WHO, the FAO, the National Academy of Science, etc., that humans are omnivorous, that is, they eat a diet which can eat both plant and animal matter. Animals that are omnivorous usually lack categoric specialisations in their food-gathering behaviour and anatomic structures. Many animals generally considered carnivores (Lions, tigers, the cat family) are actually omnivorous, among them the red fox, which enjoys fruits and berries, and the snapping turtle, a considerable quantity of whose diet is provided by plants.

The herbivore is an animal adapted to subsist solely on plant foods. They range from insects (such as aphids) to large mammals (such as elephants), but the term is most often applied to ungulates, or hoofed mammals. The specific adaptation of the herbivore include specializations such as the four-chambered stomach of ruminants, the constant growing incisor teeth of rodents, and the specialised grinding molars of cattle, sheep, goats, and other bovids. Certain herbivores are monophagous, that is restricted to one type of food typical is the koala to eucalyptus, but most do have some variety in their diets.

From the conventional standpoint these are the three groups, carnivore, herbivore and omnivore. These have been derived from observations of different organisms associated with differences studied in comparative anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. Obviously, if we observe humans from different and often remote areas of the world we discover that they will eat almost anything. They are omnivorous.

The hygienist, and others, have introduced a fourth category called frugivore because humans and the anthropoids do not seem to fall into the other categories when considered solely on comparative studies of anatomy, physiology and biochemistry (diagram). The orthodox scientist has never accepted this however. Therefore many difficulties arise. Is this category justified? Monkeys and small apes will eat animal foods, this is a certain observation in the wild. Although they do not eat much it does occur. The gorilla has not been observed eating such foods. In fact according to Schaller, in his book the “Ecology and Behaviour of the Mountain Gorilla” the primates would go to great lengths to remove insects from food.

The arguments in support of the inclusion of another category are involved and extensive and it is not appropriate for me to discuss them here, but it is incumbent upon me to state that hygienists question whether or not flesh foods constitute a part of the normal diet of humans. Maybe their use represents a compromise. We have to decide this issue for ourselves.

Systems of Nutritional Classification.

The category into which an organism may be placed varies according to the chemical nature of the nutrients it requires. Three separate classification systems are commonly employed. One system is based on the chemical nature of the foods needed. Therefore, organisms such as green plants, and some bacteria, that require only inorganic compounds are called autotrophic organisms, or autotrophs; all animals, fungi and most bacteria, require organic as well as inorganic compounds and are called heterotrophs.

Another system is based on the type of the energy source utilised by the organism. Those that convert radiant energy (light) to chemical energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) are photosynthetic organisms called phototrophs. The others use inorganic compounds such as oxygen and organic compounds such as the common nutrients to satisfy ATP requirements, called chemosynthetic organisms or chemotrophs.

A third system is based on the type of electron-donor nutrient material utilised to synthesise certain cell constituents. Most plants consume inorganic compounds in this activity, water is the ultimate source of electrons, and are called lithotrophs; conversely and organotrophs uses organic substances, such as carbohydrates, to perform an analogous function.

An organism may be classified according to more than one system. Thus, a green plant is photolithotrophic, certain bacteria are photoorganotrophic, and other bacteria are chemolithotrophic. Animals, including humans, most bacteria, and yeasts are chemoorganotrophic.

Among the most dangerous and health-impairing nutritional habits, I consider the following:

Overeating
Eating refined, processed and chemicalised food
Eating foods that have been significantly chemically manipulated
Excessive consumption of concentrated food
Eating too much cooked food
Overcooked food
Reheated cooked food
Pressure cooked or high temperature cooked food.

I personally view the diet containing a large proportion of fresh raw fruits and vegetables as the most satisfactory. The diet may have to be manipulated in various ways, in disease and during the process of recovery. What I am here discussing represents certain basic principles of dietetics which are generally applicable to the sound and healthy. The diet of the invalid may have to be modified considerably and frequently as their strength and weakness alternate, as the energy ebbs and flows, as the needs fluctuate from day to day. Considerable knowledge and skill are required in order to feed the sick adequately, without imposing nutritional burdens which prove enervating and contribute to the misery of the sufferer. In acute disease it is relatively simple: abstain from food, i.e., fast. But in the case of the chronic sufferer, the problem is far more complex Fasting may be employed but there are limits to its practical application imposed by the organism’s nutritional reserves, and the extent of the toxaemic load. Very few chronic sufferers are likely to recover during a fast. The fast merely provides a foundation for the reconstruction of health and in some cases it may require several fasts to provide this foundation, and the periods of feeding in between are most crucial. Progress may be inhibited if mistakes are frequent and serious. Correct feeding after the fast, in recovery from chronic disease, is an extremely critical and sensitive process requiring an accurate assessment of the nutritional needs and capacities of the invalid, and whilst there can be no mathematical accuracy applied to the provision of nutrients, it must always be kept clearly in mind that we do not nourish the organism by providing nutrients but by providing foods that contain nutrients. The organism is constructed to ingest and digest foods and thereby assimilate nutrients. We do not secure health by feeding nutrients but by providing foods that contain nutrients. The difficulty is encountered in providing the right food in the proper proportion under the correct conditions, at a time when the organism is capable of using them.

People phone me and ask “Can I eat fried potatoes? Fat and starch are all right together?” Now there are two points I wish to stress here:

Combinations are a refinement of food reform, not a basic principle. The rules of food combining are subordinate to eating the right diet and
I did not make the laws of life and I cannot make any special dispensations.

Even if I say you can eat something does not make it either good or right. Some people try to persuade me to let them eat certain foods as though I am in some way responsible for physiological processes in relation to food. As though I control the Laws of Life; I only interpret them. When I am asked these questions I often reply “What do you think?” Then they are forced to refer to their knowledge of Hygiene which usually compels them to accept the facts of reality.

People will argue that the in some way they are special, the usual laws of life have to be modified a little in their case. These are all the subterfuges of compromise. There are only two types that are special, male and female. There are special periods such as infancy, pregnancy, lactation, disease, but this does not mean that lettuce and apples are good at one time and pot and crack at another. Such periods require modifications of feeding and of food. This means that a particular person may have a problem with a particular food. Certainly they may. However, there are biological variations, it is trite but true that we are individuals. It is just that there are limits to the variations. The exception is infancy when the infant secures his fruits, vegetables and nuts through his mother; in her milk. A completely fibre free diet. There are dangers of feeding infants fibre too soon.

In any discussion of diet, there are two considerations, which are frequently confused with each other:

The food and
Feeder

The food remains basically the same in feeding anyone under any circumstance. The use of the food, its employment or feeding varies widely according to many factors: age, work, climate, activity, health and disease, etc…