Your Boon My Bane

[Guest guest]

Is Your Boon My

Bane?

Hygienic Review

Vol. V December, 1943 No. 4

Is Your Boon My Bane?

Herbert M. Shelton

The old fallacy that "what is one man's meat (food) is another man's

poison" has served and misled people so long and is, today, so often

repeated even by men who should know better, that I deem it wise to say

a few words in combating it. I am frequently "reminded" by some wise

patient, one of those fellows who has the little knowledge that is

dangerous, that "you cannot feed all patients alike, for 'what is one

man's meat is another man's poison.'" I once saw a man to whom water

was a poison. He drank a glass of coca-cola about every thirty minutes

during the day to satisfy his thirst. The caffeine in this slop did not

hurt him. In fact, he explained to me, that by his athletic activities

he "burned up" the caffeine. But he was afraid of plain water.

I have never yet met a person to whom air is a poison, but have met

several who were "poisoned" by fresh air. Fresh air gave them colds, or

headaches, or other trouble; foul air agreed with them perfectly. For

the most part, however, the claim that what is food for one is poison

for another is applied to those articles of food that are derived

directly or indirectly from the soil. Even here, it is not claimed that

calcium is food for one and poison for another, or that carbohydrates

are food for one and poison for another. I have never seen it stated

that vitamin C nourishes one man and poisons a second. The claim is not

made against the food factors or food elements as such, but against the

food products that contain these elements. And yet, such foods never

enter the body of any one. Cabbage does not circulate in the blood

stream. Potatoes are not rolled through the arteries and veins like

marbles. Imagine a fish-eater having little fish swimming around in his

blood stream!

Foods are broken down in the processes of digestion into a few uniform

and acceptable substances and these alone enter the blood stream. "But

we are not all constituted alike" protests our wise man. It may be true

that life is as chaotic as this implies, but, if it is, physiologists

have not found any evidence of it. Each of us starts life as a

fertilized ovum and follows in the course of our evolution the same

lines of development. We arrive at maturity with the same number of

bones and same number of muscles in our bodies. We possess the same

glands and have the same digestive and excretory systems.

Each of us secretes saliva containing pytalin; each of us secretes

gastric juice containing pepsin. The liver of each of us turns out

bile, while the pancreas of each one produces pancreatic juice with the

same enzymes. The glands of the intestines of each of us turn out the

same juice containing the same enzymes. Structurally and functionally

our digestive systems are so much alike that the physiologist can't

find that different constitution we hear so much about. At the same

time we all require the same food factors to nourish our bodies.

Everything points to the suggestion that we are constituted upon the

same principles, are constructed alike, have the same nutritive needs

and are equipped to digest and utilize the same kinds and classes of

food substances.

I have never seen a man whose constitution was that of a dog, or that

of a cow. They have all possessed human constitutions and, so far as

human observation can go, they are all subject to same laws. Did anyone

ever proclaim that cows, for instance, are so differently constituted

that some cows need and must have grasses and herbs and others cannot

use these, but must eat flesh? Or, has anyone ever declared that,

whereas most lions live on flesh, blood and bones, some lions are so

differently constituted that flesh is their poison and they must graze

like the ox?

All this nonsense about different constitutions is prated by people who

haven't the slightest idea about what is meant by constitution. By

constitution is meant the composition of the body. It is, in other

words, the tout ensemble of organs and functions that constitute an

organism. Man's constitution differs from that of the horse or the

wolf, but not from that of another man.

Man is in subjection to natural law. Every organ and every function in

his body renders unceasing obedience to natural law. His whole organism

is constituted according to and upon immutable law. Will it be claimed

that the laws that govern one man's structures and functions differ

from those that govern the laws and functions of another man? Are all

men subject to the law of gravity? Then all men are subject, and in the

same degree, to all other natural laws.

The laws of nature are such that everything we do or fail to do either

conforms to law or runs counter to it. There is no neutral ground. It

is ridiculous to say that the laws of nature require one kind of

practice in one man and another and opposite kind of practice in

another. Habits and circumstances that are precisely adapted to the

laws of life in one man are habits and practices that are precisely

adapted to these same laws in another man. Because of this false

doctrine that there are many kinds of human constitutions, requiring

different habits and circumstances to conform to the laws of life, we

are misled into all kinds of errors. "Tobacco does not harm my

constitution" says one, while another confidently asserts, that "coffee

agrees with my constitution." Another possesses a constitution that

requires large quantities of food, while another is so constituted that

he requires very little sleep. There is hardly an injurious practice

and indulgence in the whole long catalogue of man's abuses of himself,

that is not defended by those who practice them, or indulge, on the

ground that it agrees with their particular and peculiar constitution.

None of them, so far as I have been able to ascertain, have ever found

that jumping from the top of the Empire State Building agrees with

their constitutions. But if life is as chaotic as they seem to think,

there seems to be no reason why some constitutions should not be found

that would need and require such jumps. Life being what it is and

natural laws being what they are, what is really and permanently best

for one is best for all; and what is injurious for one, is so for all.

None of the above is to be interpreted to mean that human needs do not

vary under different conditions and circumstances of life. No one would

be foolish enough to declare that the three days old infant and the

fifty years old man have identical needs; or that the needs of man in

the tropics and his needs in frigid regions are identical. Nor are the

needs of the sick and those of the healthy identical. This is not due

to any change in the law, but to change in conditions.

There are individual weaknesses and differences, in resistance that

call for temporary modifications of any program of living, but it is

essential that the modification comply with the laws of life. All

programs or parts of programs that violate these laws are ultimately

ruinous. Variations within the law are legitimate. No variations that

step outside the law are ever permissible.

Herbert M. Shelton

-- Peace be with you,

Don "Quai" Eitner

"Spirit sleeps in the mineral, breathes in the vegetable, dreams in the animal and wakes in man."

Nearly all men die of their remedies, and not of their illnesses. ~Baptiste Molière, Le Malade Imaginaire

The obstacle is the path. ~Zen Proverb