produced in excess. This meant that individuals could be classifi ed
as sanguine (in which case blood dominates), phlegmatic, choleric,
or melancholic. An individual’s humoral makeup, or complexion, determined the
diseases they would be subject to, their character and emotional
state, and, most importantly, what diet they should follow. Thus,
unlike modern nutritional theory, there could be no universal set
of prescribed nutritional guidelines or even an idea of good foods
or bad foods that would apply to all people. Therefore, an accurate
diagnosis and a tailor-made regimen for each individual were
considered crucial in this system.
Another central idea in this system was that each humor has its own
qualitative properties that can be described just like the elements
as hot and moist (blood), cold and moist (phlegm), hot and dry
(choler), and cold and dry (melancholy). These properties are not
so much actual tactile measurements of temperature and humidity
as they are the effect each humor has on the body. This system is
defi ned as allopathic; it corrects ailments by applying remedies
opposite to the patient’s distemperature or imbalance.
Matching the proper foods to the individual was the key to this
entire system. Hot and moist people needed cold and dry foods
when imbalanced; cold and moist people needed hot and dry
foods. The assumption is that few people are ever well balanced
and usually need some form of correction. Theoretically, however,
healthy people should maintain their particular humor by eating
foods similar in qualities to their own humoral makeup.
Another crucial consideration when determining the ideal diet for
a person was the texture and consistency of a given food. How
quickly something would pass through the body and how easily it
could be digested was just as important as its humoral qualities.
We still use these humoral terms to describe mood and character
types: A sanguine person is cheery and optimistic, phlegmatics are