Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal

Roach examines the historical phenomenon of Fletcherism, a chewing fad promoted by Horace Fletcher in the early 1900s. Fletcher advocated for extremely thorough mastication—sometimes over 700 chews per bite—claiming this practice could revolutionize nutrition and economics. Despite lacking medical training, Fletcher gained remarkable influence through charisma and strategic networking, attracting followers including Henry James, Franz Kafka, and government officials.

Fletcher’s central premise was that excessive chewing would double nutrient absorption, allowing people to consume half their normal food intake while maintaining health. He estimated this could save the United States half a million dollars daily and argued that thorough mastication would reduce bodily waste to nearly odorless, compact pellets. His theories gained scientific credibility when he befriended a hotel doctor, Ernest van Someren, who provided medical terminology and conducted studies, leading to follow-up research at prestigious institutions like Yale and Cambridge.

The movement reached its peak during World War I, when Fletcher secured a position with Herbert Hoover’s relief mission, attempting to make extreme chewing part of official wartime policy. However, Hoover wisely rejected these proposals. Meanwhile, prison administrators and military officers, attracted by potential cost savings, briefly experimented with Fletcherist principles in institutional settings.

Roach contextualizes Fletcher within a broader pattern of dubious nutritional schemes targeting the poor, including gelatin-based broths and guano extracts promoted as meat substitutes. These ventures often exploited vulnerable populations under the guise of scientific advancement.

Modern research provides mixed conclusions about thorough chewing. A 1979 study showed that extensively processed peanuts (represented by peanut butter) were better absorbed than whole peanuts, but scientists argue this applies only to particularly difficult-to-digest foods like nuts. Contemporary digestive experts dismiss extreme chewing as unnecessary, noting that human evolution already optimized nutrient extraction. They warn that Fletcher-level mastication could paradoxically lead to overeating by extending meals so drastically that one’s appetite returns before finishing a meal.

Roach chronicles the complex relationship between Army surgeon William Beaumont and his research subject Alexis St. Martin, whose accidental gunshot wound in 1822 created an unprecedented opportunity for digestive research. The injury left St. Martin with a permanent opening into his stomach, allowing Beaumont direct access to observe human digestion processes.

The chapter examines the power dynamics inherent in their 30-year association. St. Martin, a French-Canadian voyager from the lowest social class, became entirely dependent on Beaumont after the shooting. When county funds for medical care expired, Beaumont moved St. Martin into his family home, ostensibly for charitable reasons, though Roach suggests Beaumont recognized the research value immediately. He treated St. Martin like a servant, having him perform household duties while also serving as Beaumont’s experimental subject.

Roach describes the uncomfortable intimacy of their scientific partnership through detailed accounts of Beaumont’s procedures, including extracting gastric juices through tubing and having St. Martin hold test vials under his arms for hours to simulate stomach conditions. The experiments were physically unpleasant, causing nausea and weakness for St. Martin, who twice abandoned Beaumont’s employ.

The chapter illustrates Beaumont’s obsession with his research through his extensive correspondence attempting to lure St. Martin back, offering increasingly generous financial incentives. Roach uses letters and historical documents to demonstrate Beaumont’s sense of entitlement and his view of St. Martin as property rather than person. When St. Martin died, his family refused to allow an autopsy, protecting his remains from further scientific exploitation.

Roach contextualizes their relationship within 19th-century social structures and the underdeveloped state of medical ethics, noting that informed consent was not yet standard practice. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the role of obsession in scientific breakthroughs, suggesting that while Beaumont’s methods were problematic, his dedication exemplifies the single-minded focus often necessary for scientific advancement.