Brain or Stomach; Which?
By John Harvey Kellogg
Every few weeks the announcement is made to the world that another great scholar or statesman has fallen a victim to overwork; and the occasion is improved by a certain class of phlegmatic, leisure-loving people, to declaim against the dangers of severe mental labor. The young men in college are solemnly warned against overstudy, if they are at all anxious to avoid premature death. The poor fellows, if at all susceptible of intimidation, are greatly terrified lest “conic sections” and “differential calculus” will “stretch” their bumps of calculation and so lead to softening of the brain. It would seem to us much more sensible and opportune to give to these students, and to all mental workers, the warning, Do not overwork your stomach, than to be continually raising such an outcry against severe taxation of the mental organs. We more than suspect, and upon just grounds, that, if the whole truth were known, it would be found that a large majority of the so-called martyrs to overwork were, really, victims of a gluttonous appetite. But we would not wish to detract in the least degree from the honor justly bestowed upon such men. Indeed, we may say that in one sense they were killed by excessive mental labors, although this was an indirect cause, and need not have thus operated; for if a man keeps his stomach healthy, he need not entertain any apprehensions concerning the ability of his brain to safely perform all the labor it is capable of doing. The brain receives one-fifth of the whole blood supply of the body; and its structure and vital activities are such that it is of all the organs of the body the least liable to be the seat of primary disease. It is only when it is not properly nourished that the brain manifests evidences of impairment of function. Men who are said to break down from excessive brain labor, find that their stomachs fail first. In no class of persons are the evil consequences of overeating, and other dietetic transgressions, more apparent than among people of literary or other intellectual pursuits. The reason of this is easily discerned. The mental worker and the man whose labor is wholly physical sit down together at the same table, partake of the same kinds of food, and consume equal quantities of nutriment. Both eat more than their absolute wants require, and both are obliged to spend the same amount of force in digesting that which is required to supply the waste of the tissues and disposing of the superfluous amount. This the laboring man can very readily do, for he has a reserve force sufficient to meet the exigency. But the mental worker is not so fortunate; he daily utilizes the full amount of his powers, and so he is obliged to suffer the damage arising from overloading his stomach. It may be queried, Why has not the mental worker as much reserve force as the man whose labor is of a manual or physical character? The labor of the latter is far less exhausting than that of the former. Eminent physiologists tell us that three hours’ severe, consecutive mental work is as exhausting to the system as ten hours of ordinary physical labor. A mental worker who labors ten hours, then, has really done three times as much work as the man who has engaged in manual labor during the same period. In other words, mental labor exhausts the body, that is, wears out tissue three times as fast as physical labor. It must be apparent, from the foregoing, that a mental worker actually requires a larger quantity of food than an individual whose labor is purely physical. This is quite the opposite of the general opinion of people with reference to this point. It seems to be a very prevalent notion that people whose labor is mostly with their brains, require a very small amount of nourishment, and that they should not eat what is termed hearty food. This is another of the many popular fallacies which has not the slightest foundation in fact. It may be said, however, that a man whose labor is wholly of a mental character, although his actual wants are greater, cannot safely partake of so much food as a man whose labor is of an opposite character. The reasons of this have already been given. The conclusion of the whole matter is that if a man will treat his stomach properly, he can use his brain to its utmost capacity without injury. When a person has an unusually severe mental task to perform, he should limit the quantity of food taken to the minimum amount sufficient to satisfy hunger. It is better to fall a little short of the amount requisite to maintain the full weight of the body than to exceed it. We would not be considered as in any way recommending the old “starvation system,” which figured quite largely in the writings of some of the earlier reformers. Abstinence is an excellent remedy in some cases; but it may be carried to an extreme, and sometimes has been. It is better, on the whole, to eat a trifle more than is absolutely required to supply the waste of the tissues than to fall short of that amount as a general habit. We imagine, however, that there are very few places, outside of boarding schools, where there is any need of the latter caution. Brain work is healthy. Severe brain labor is salutary to the intellectual powers. It disciplines and strengthens them. When a man of necessity performs an excessive amount of intellectual labor, a few days of quiet and rest will restore him; but if, instead, he indulges in a midnight “clam bake,” with stewed lobster and tripe, he does himself a tenfold greater injury. He has damaged the very fountain of his life forces, and thus entailed a certain amount of deterioration upon every vital organ of his body. Too much wine, too much ham and eggs, too much stuffed turkey, too much general dissipation, and too little muscular exercise are the agencies which kill so many students, and not too much study as we are so often told.—J. H. K. in Health Reformer.