The conclusions to which Bell's study led him are worthy of brief mention. He summarized as follows:
2. No grand errors exist in his present system of diet, and no radical change is demanded to ensure a greater amount of health and strength, though many minor, but still important errors exist.
3. The proportion of animal food usually customary is too great, and a considerable reduction would be expedient and advantageous, though it is impracticable to make a precise statement of the extent to which this is required, which must depend upon circumstances, as amount of labor performed, climate, season, bodily constitution, habits of life, etc. A general statement of this fact can alone be made.
4. The amount of food in general, customarily used, is more than is necessary for the maximum of health and strength, though a more specific statement of this abuse is also impossible. It must be left for each individual to attempt to reduce his quantity of food to that point at which he finds his mental and bodily powers most energetic. In searching for this point the New Englander may be almost certain that he must look for it in descending ratio.
5. The great principle in regulating diet is to regard quantity rather than kind.Most students of dietetics will, I think, readily admit the validity of the majority of these statements, even in their application at the present day. In contrasting the conditions during colonial days with those prevailing in our own times it is entertaining, if nothing more, to recall some ideas regarding the diet of the people of the United States at the end of the eighteenth century which were published by the French traveler Volney.[1] A grain of truth may doubtless be gathered from his vivid observations, even though they can not be taken too seriously. Thus he writes:
- ↑ 'View of the climate and soil of the U. S. of America,' by C. F. Volney.