PROTEIN MINIMUM 485 



no means as great as would appear at first glance. How- 

 ever, the exact proof that an individual can increase his 

 bodily strength on a moderately restricted diet is a matter of 

 lasting practical value. "The laudation of temperance, " 

 says Magnus-Levy, "is sounded in Chittenden's book, it is 

 true, less philosophically and aesthetically than in the pages 

 of a Ludovico Cornaro and a Huf eland, but certainly with no 

 less enthusiasm and impressiveness. ... If Chitten- 

 den's followers feel so much better in their new mode of life 

 than formerly, there should be considered many other fac- 

 tors besides the reduction of protein in their diet in explana- 

 tion. The great regularity of their plan of living, perhaps 

 the different distribution of their hours of eating, the almost 

 complete abstention from alcohol, condiments and other irri- 

 tative agents, must also be considered. . . . Special promi- 

 nence is due, too, to the return to the simple life, or as it is 

 often spoken of, 'back to nature/ in bringing about what 

 is almost a new birth to Chittenden and some of his young 

 men. Vegetarianism, natural methods of treatment and 

 other modes of nonscientific therapy are indebted to them, 

 too, for their actual and apparent results. " 6 



For the other points upon the theories of protein metab- 

 olism and the questions of protein minimum and protein 

 requirement it seems best to make reference to the recent 

 clear and well directed monographs by W. Caspari 7 and the 

 American physiologist, Lafayette B. Mendel. 8 In these 

 publications there may be found full presentations of the 

 views held upon this difficult subject by the authors and other 

 experts in this field. These are matters which to-day cannot 

 be put aside with a brief statement without sinning against 

 the law of objectivity. A glance at Caspari 's reference list, 



6 A. Magnus-Levy, 1. c., pp. 326-330. 



'W. Caspari, Handb. d. Biochem., 4', 722-825, 1911. 



8 L. B. Mendel (New Haven), Ergebn. d. Physiol., 11, 418-525, 1911; cf. 

 also K. Thomas, Arch. f. Anat. u. Physiol., 1910, Spplbd., 249, 1911 ; M. Rubner, 

 ibid., 1911, 39-61, 67. 



