Fisher — The Effect of Diet on Endurance. 41 



into tlie case, to which, and not to the diet, the improvement in 

 endurance was due ; but in view of all the facts recited, this is 

 extremely improhable. What slight doubt i-emains should be resolved 

 by further studies. I earnestly hope that other and more careful 

 studies may be made by more competent investigators than I. 



We conclude that the improvement in endurance was exclusively 

 due to dietetic causes. The only dietetic causes at work were (1) 

 thorough mastication, (2) implicit obedience to appetite, (3) (during 

 the second half of the experiment) when appetite did not clearly 

 determine the choice, the voluntary selection of the non-flesh and 

 low-proteid foods, and (4) an ample variety of good foods, well 

 cooked. 



So far as cooking is concerned, this cause, as has been said, entered 

 iinintentionally. But there is no evidence that it was a prime factor 

 in the experiment, while there is some evidence to the contrarj^ 

 Thus, E., who especially remarked the culinary virtues of the cook 

 and who missed her services more than any one else during the brief 

 period of her absence, was the one member of the club who failed to 

 improve in endurance. 



If we allow oui'selves to speculate as to the changes in the' charac- 

 ter of diet which were produced by thorough mastication, we may 

 draw an inference from the fact that the carnivorous animals are fast- 

 eaters, whereas the grain-eating animals are slow-eaters. It would 

 seem, therefore, when man changes his habits from fast eating to 

 slow eating he naturally changes his food from the food of a fast- 

 eating to that of a slow-eating animal. The question, therefore, 

 which is the natural food for man, may possibly be associated with 

 the question, which of the two methods of eating is natural to man. 

 Was the slow eating of the nine men an artificial and unnatural prac- 

 tice, as would be indicated from the fact that the majority of men 

 eat far faster ? Or, are the ordinary habits of man in respect to the 

 manner of fast eating themselves unnatural ? I have not attempted 

 to gather the facts necessary to solve this problem, but it certainly 

 constitutes an interesting one for the physiologist and anthropologist. 

 The few facts upon which I have chanced to fall would seem to 

 indicate that man is naturally a slow eater, and that the huny-habit 

 to which most of us are prone is a consequence of the artificial high- 

 pressure to which modern civilization has subjected us. Certain it is 

 that the conditions which give rise to quick-lunch counters and to the 

 short stops of trains for refreshments, were produced, not in order to 

 meet any natural propensity to eat fast, but on the contrary, in the 



