Bulletin No. 32. i" fi - r. S. DEPARTMENT OF ACRKVI/rrkK. OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS. DIETARY STUD / AT PURDUE UNIVERSITY, LAFAYETTE, IND.. IX 1 8 Q 5 BY WINTHROP E. STONE, PL D., PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, PURDUE "UNIVERSITY. WITH COMMENTS. BY W. 0. ATWATEK, and OHAS. D. WOODS. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. X896. Bulletin No. 32. i"' 1 - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS. DIETARY STUDIES AT PURDUE UNIVERSITY, LAFAYETTE, IND., IN 1 S Q 5 BY WINTHKOP E, STONE, Ph. D., PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, PURDUE UNIVERSITY WITH COMMENTS, BY W. 0. ATWATER and OHAS. D. WOODS. WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 18 9G. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. United States Department of Agriculture Office of Experiment Stations, Washington, />. C, June 15, 1896, Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on dietary studies at Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind., in 1895, by Winthrop E. Stone, Ph. D., professor of chemistry at the university. These inves- tigations constitute a part of the inquiries made with the funds appropriated by Congress "to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate and report upon the nutritive value of the various articles and commodities used for human food." They were conducted under the immediate supervision of Prof. W. O. Atwater, special agent in charge of nutrition investigations, in accordance with instructions given by the Director of this Office. Mr. H. M. Smith, special agent of this Department, assisted in carrying on the investigations. The dietary studies previously made in the United States have been confined to a small number of places. In carrying out the provisions of the act above cited, representative localities have been selected in different parts of the country, in order that definite information regard- ing the food supply and consumption of people living under different conditions might be obtained. Lafayette, Ind., is near the eastern edge of the prairie region of the middle West, and it is believed that the food habits of people living in this region would be very much alike. Purdue University possesses well-equipped laboratories, and offered some exceptional facilities for carrying on food investigations. The dietary study with the teacher's family is particularly interesting, since it corresponds quite closely with the current dietary standards, and at the same time the cost is very moderate. It is a good example of what may be accomplished by judicious expenditure of money and careful selection of available food materials. Comments on these investigations made by Professors Atwater and Woods, and appended to Professor Stone's report herewith, indicate the value of the Indiana dietary studies as compared with similar investigations carried on elsewhere. Professor Stone's report and the accompanying comments by the special agents of this Department are submitted; with the recommen- dation that they be published as Bulletin Xo. 32 of this Office. Kespect fully, A. C. True, Director. Hon. J. Sterling? Morton, Secretary of Agriculture. CONTENTS. Page. The dietary studies 10 Dietary of a teacher's family in Indiana 12 Dietary of a tinner's family in Indiana 15 Composition of the food materials 20 Refuse in meats t 21 Relative character and cost of the dietaries 21 Comments on the dietary studies at Purdue University 23 Standards for dietaries 23 Dietaries of mechanics' families 24 Dietaries of families of professional men 25 5 DIETARY STUDIES AT PURDUE UNIVERSITY. Two dietary studies were made at Purdue University, one with the family of a teacher and the other with the family of a meehanic. They form part of a series, carried out in various localities, to learn the habits of food consumption of the people of the United States. The methods followed were those described at length in a previous publication. 1 The observations were made with two principal ends in view: (1) To ascertain the net amount of food materials of various kinds consumed by the families during stated periods; and (2) by sampling and chem- ical analysis of these food materials, to ascertain their composition, and thus the total amount of nutrients consumed during the given time. The general plan of the studies may be briefly outlined as follows: At the beginning of each dietary study a careful inventory by weight was taken of all the food and food materials in the house. During exactly fourteen days all food purchased was weighed and recorded in the same way, and all table and kitchen waste carefully collected, weighed, and desiccated for subsequent analysis. At the close of the period a second inventory of all materials on hand was taken. In this way the necessary data for ascertaining the net amounts of food con- sumed were secured. Samples of food materials on hand or purchased during the period were secured and, when necessary, desiccated in a drying oven at about 90° C. These were ground and mixed in the usual way for analysis, and in these prepared samples the moisture, ash, nitrogen, and fat were determined. The methods employed for the analysis of the specimens of food are the same as those used by Atwater and Woods, 2 and quoted at length in Bulletin Xo. 29 of this Office. The results of the analyses are given in the three tables which follow. Table 1 shows the composition of the food materials as found in the market, including both edible portion and refuse; Table 2 the composi- tion of the edible portion on the basis of the water content at the time in which the samples were taken, and Table 3 the composition of the water-free substance of the edible portion. In addition to the ordinary data of composition, Tables 1 and 2 present also the estimated fuel value or potential energy of the foods. 1 U. S. Dept. Agr. ; Office of Experiment Stations Bui. 21. 2 Connecticut Storrs Station Report 1891, p. 41 et seq. Table 1. — Composition of food materials as purchased (including hoili edible portion and refuse). [Anal;. /< d a1 i. fayette, Ind.] Kind of food material. ence 111110- ber. Refuse. Water. Protein. Fat. Carbohy- dratt s". Ash. Fuel value per pound. ANIM.U. FOOD. Porterhouse steak, native beef 58 79 14.5 11.2 /-. /■ ct. 53.9 50. 6 Per ct, 19.8 16. G Per ct. 10.8 20.7 Per cent. J'erct. Cat 1.0 825 Do . 9 1, 180 12. 9 52.2 ~527T 19.5 55.0 18.2 15. 7 1.0 1.000 80 81 15.3 8.5 14.6 16.6 . 8 900 J)<» . 4 860 18. 3 53. G 11.9 15.6 . 6 880 Ribs 17! 248 233 249 2 : 40. 5 66.2 17. 3 57. 2 5. G 59. 8 12.1 21.6 16.9 18.8 18.1 V, 14.8 .6 1 990 1.1 1 870 Do . 9 640 Do 1. 975 11.5 58.5 17.8 11.2 1.0 805 259 260 17. 3 57. 6 9. 9 66. 8 17.8 19.3 6.3 2.9 1.0 1 595 1>.. 1. 1 480 13.0 62. 2 18.6 4.6 1 . 540 305 319 878 65. 1 13.3 58.0 19.0 16.5 G.l 11.3 1.0 610 Do . 9 785 Average Average VEGETABLE FOOD. Corn meal, gr an iilar.home-grown Hominy ( )at s, rolled Wheat Hour, graham Wheat flour, roller processs Wheat Hour Wheat Hour, pastry Bread, white, baker's Cake, baker's Vanilla wafers Beans, canned, with pork Sweet notatoes, canned 50G6 . 5109 . 5149 . 5256 . 5427 . 5465 . 5504 . 6862 7073 88.8 3.3 13.2 9.7 11.4 9.5 11.2 18.4 10.8 15.5 10.8 14.7 11.5 12.0 10.8 12.3 40. 2 8.7 23. 3 4.6 5.8 6.8 76.1 5.2 42.0 2.6 4.0 .7 5.8 2.8 .7 5.9 15.7 2.1 .5 3.9 71.8 . 7 1.3 78.0 .4 62.8 1.8 69.1 1.8 73.4 .5 75.2 .4 75.9 .4 49. 7 .7 60.5 .7 71.2 .5 15.2 1.4 53.6 1.3 , 1,685 1.655 1. 760 1, 690 1.665 1,660 1. 665 1, 115 1,460 2, 115 465 1,065 Table 2. — Composition of fresh, edible portion of food materials. [Anal] zed al Lafayel te, End.] E bids of food material Refer- ence num- ber. Water. Pro- trill. Fat. < 'arboh\ Ash. I'm 1 value per pound. ANIMAt. FOOD. Beef: Porterhouse Bteak. na1 h e beef Do 58 79 Perct. 63. 1 57. /'- r et. 23.1 18.7 Perot. 12. 6 Per '•' i't. Perct. 1.2 1.0 Calories. 960 23.3 . 60.0 20. 9 18.0 1.1 1,145 -' 80 81 62. 9 68.3 18.5 10.6 17.6 20.6 1.0 .5 1,085 1,065 Do 65.6 U.6 19.1 •' 1,075 Biba 171 2:i3 248 249 56.8 69.2 66.2 63.3 17.(i 20.4 21.6 19.9 25.4 9.3 1.1 1.1 1. 1 1,390 770 Do H.l ' 1.1.7 870 Do 1,035 ■ 66.2 20.6 12.1 | 1.1 890 " xt ' ° Rump Do.. .. 259 260 09. 7 74.2 21.5 21.4 7.6 3.2 1.2 1.2 720 535 Average. Shoulder Do... Average. 305 319 Veal: Leg. round. Do Do Do Do Do Do 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1035 Average Loin, with kidney. Pork: Sound Smoked ham Lard, kettle-rendered . . Do Butter Do Cheese, American I'ullmilk. 1050 2050 2068 4035 4036 22 47 3541 Milk . . Do 72.0 21.4 71.4 66.9 20.8 19.0 (525 6.7 13.1 1.1 1.0 670 905 69.1 74.6 72.8 75.6 73.8 71.8 75. 1 69.3 19.9 21.4 21.1 20.8 21.6 21.0 22.5 20.4 9.9 1.1 2.8 5.0 2.4 3.4 6.0 1.1 9.2 790 515 605 490 545 015 705 73. 3 73.3 57.7 29.7 8.0 8.0 31.6 88.0 89. 5 21.2 14.1 18.8 15.2 .1 .1 37.0 4.3 11.8 22. 1 54. 5 100.0 100.0 89.6 89.6 25. 3 3.9 2.8 1.1 .0 | 2. ;; 2.3 1.4 4.7 4.1 3.6 .1 Average. VEGETABLE FOOD. Corn meal, granular, home-grown Hominy, home-grown Oats, rolled Wheat dour, graham Wheat Hour, roller process Wh eat flour Wheat Hour, pastry Dread , white, baker's Cake, baker's Vanilla waters Beans, canned, with pork Sweet potato, canned 5028 5038 5066 5109 5149 525G 5280 5427 5465 5504 6862 7073 305 250 1,685 1, 655 1,760 1, 1,665 1,660 1,065 1,115 1,400 2,115 465 1,065 10 Table 3. — Composition of water-free substance of edible portion of food materials. [Analyzed at Lafayette, Ind.] Kind of food material. Refer- ence nam- Nitrogen ber. ANIMAL FOOD. i:. . i Porterhouse Bteak, native beef. Do a rerage. Sirloin steak nati\ :>ed Do Average. Ribs... Round. Do Do Protein. Fat. /'. / e< „ ,'. per cent. 10.51 1 82.6 7.25 ; 43.5 Carbohy- drates. Ash. Percent. Percent. Per cent. 34.1 3.3 54.2 2.3 53.0 44.2 8.13 ; 5.35 I 49.9 33.4 47.4 65.0 6.74 41.7 50.2 171 233 248 249 6.49 10.95 10.59 8.93 39.4 66.2 63.9 54.2 58.8 30.2 32.8 42.8 Average. 10.16 61.4 35.3 Hump . Do 259 260 11.46 13.52 71.0 82.9 25.0 12.4 Average. 18.7 Shoulder Do .. 305 319 11.84 9.81 72.7 57.4 23.4 39.6 Average. Veal : Leg. round Do .... Do .... Do .... Do .... Do .... Do .... 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1035 13.72 12.42 13. 53 13.16 11.82 14.50 10.59 S4.3 77. G 85.3 82.4 74.5 11.0 18.4 9.8 13.0 21.3 4.4 30.0 2.8 2.7 l.G 2.1 1.8 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.3 4.0 4.7 4.4 3.9 3.0 4.7 4.0 i. 9 4.6 4.2 5.2 3.6 Average 12.74 1053 8.80 2050 7.55 80.1 52.8 44.4 15.4 44.2 53.0 77. § 4.5 3.0 Pork: 2.6 2068 2.73 .9 4035 ! 4036 100.0 100.0 .1 .1 54.1 Do Butter 22 47 3541 97.4 97.4 37.0 2.5 Do... 2.5 2.0 6.9 Milk 23 44 27.5 32.4 32.5 26.7 34.2 34.3 5.8 Do 6.6 30.0 29.6 4.6 .8 G.5 3.1 . 7 1.0 . 7 1.2 8.2 1G. 7 8.8 .9 34.2 32. 7 70.7 77. 5 82.3 84.9 85.1 83.1 84.4 75.6 63.6 92.4 6.2 VEGETABLE FOOD. Corn meal, home-grown, granular 5028 5038 5066 5109 5149 5256 5280 11.2 10.7 20.7 17.4 16.5 13.6 13.8 14.5 6.4 7.2 21.8 4.5 1.5 .5 2.1 2.0 Wheat Hour, roller process .5 .5 .4 5427 5405 5504 6862 1.2 1.0 Beans, baked, canned, with pork 5.8 7073 2.2 THE DIETARY STUDIES. The results of two dietary studies are given in the following' pages. The tables under both are alike, and one description will answer. The figures in the first three columns of the first table (Tables 4 11 and 7) of cacli dietary show the percentage composition of the foods used, based upon the condition of the food as it was purchased, includ- ing bone or other refuse. The fourth column shows the price paid for the amount of each food purchased, and the remaining columns give the total weight of each kind of food, together with the amounts of the different nutrients — protein, fat, and carbohydrates — contained therein. In all cases where the amount of food was large or of unknown com- position, such as native beef, pork, milk, butter, flour, corn meal, etc., samples were analyzed in connection with the dietary study. In all such cases the letter a is placed after the name of the food material. These analyses are given in Tables 1 to .3, above. Where the article was not analyzed, its percentage composition was taken from the table of average composition of American foods in Bulletin Xo. 31 of this Oflice. The weights of the dried, table, and kitchen wastes 1 and their com- position are given in the last line of the first table in each dietary (Tables 4 and 7). The second table in each dietary (Tables 5 and 8) shows the relative proportion of the several classes of food materials in the dietary and the nutrients furnished by each class. It tells its story so plainly as to require little comment. The last table in each dietary (Tables G and 9) gives the nutrients and fuel values in food purchased, in table and kitchen wastes, and in the portion actually eaten. The estimates of animal and vegetable nutri- ents in the waste are computed as described below. In estimating the fuel values of the nutritive ingredients, the protein and carbohydrates are assumed to contain 4.1 and the fats 9.3 calories of potential energy per gram. It was not practicable in the collection of the wastes to distinguish between that which came from animal and that from vegetable food. It is, however, possible to estimate with more or less accuracy how much of the nutritive materials came from the animal and how much from the vegetable foods. As there were practically no carbohydrates in any of the animal foods except milk and cheese, and but little in these, there is no great error in assuming that all waste carbohy- drates came from the vegetable foods. It will also be fairly accurate to assume that there are the same proportions of protein, fat, and car- bohydrates in the vegetable waste as in the whole vegetable food purchased. In other words, the amount of vegetable protein and vegetable fat in the waste will bear nearly the same ratio to the total ^he "words "refuse" and "waste'' are used somewhat indiscriminately. In gen- eral, refuse in animal food represents inedible material, although bone, tendon, etc., which are classed as refuse, may be utilized for soup. The refuse of vegetable foods, such as parings, seeds, etc., represent not only inedible material, but also more or less of edible material. The waste included the edible portion of the food, as pieces of meat, bread, etc., which might be saved, but is actually thrown away with the refuse. 12 amount of vegetable protein and fat in the food purchased that the carbohydrates of the waste does to the total carbodydrates of the vegetable food. Taking the percentages of the weights of the carbo- hydrates in the total waste as the measure of the protein and fats in the vegetable wastes, the actual weights of protein and fat in the latter are readily calculated. Subtracting these weights of vegetable protein and fat from the total weight of these ingredients in the waste, the remainder gives the amounts of animal protein and fats in the whole waste. Tables 10 and 11 give a summary of the results of the two dietary studies. DIETARY ()F A TEACHERS FAMILY IX IXDIAXA (\o.4i). 1 The study began March 8, 1895, and continued fourteen days. The members of the family and number of meals taken were as follows: Meals. Man between 50 and 60 years old 42 Man 25 years old 42 2 men 22 years old 84 Woman between 40 and 50 years old (42 meals X 0.8 meal of man) equivalent to 34 "Woman 30 years old (42 meals X 0.8 meal of man) equivalent to 33 Total number of meals equivalent to 235 Equivalent to one man seventy-eight days. Remarks. — One of the men was a professor of mathematics, another an instructor in chemistry, the other two, students. The younger woman also was a teacher. They were all healthy, active persons, with good appetites, and used no stimulants, narcotics, or medicines in any form. Table 4. — Food materials and table and kitchen wastes in dietary study Xo.44. Percentage composition. Total cost. Wei- bt used. Kind of food material. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbohy- drates*. Total food ma- terial. ls' utrients. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbohy- drates. ANIMAL FOOD. Beef: Per ct. 16.6 21.6 19.0 18.8 15.3 16.5 16.5 31.8 Per ct. 20.7 11.1 6.1 14.8 14.6 11.3 11.3 6.8 Per cent. $0.20 .15 .45 .16 .28 .36 .42 . 85 Grams. 905 680 2,040 735 1.275 1, 955 2,270 905 Grams. 150 147 388 139 195 323 374 2sS Grams. 187 75 124 109 186 221 257 62 Grams. Do. (a) Do. (a) Do 0.6 Total 2.27 10, 765 2,004 1,221 5 Veal : Round (a) Do. (a) Do. (a) Do. (a) 19.7 20.2 18.9 20.6 19.7 19.9 21.4 2.6 4.7 2.2 3.2 8.9 5.7 1.1 1,020 1,075 540 1.245 1.075 540 1. 105 201 218 102 257 211 107 237 27 51 12 40 96 31 13 270 Do. («) Do. (a) Do. (a) Total 1.84 6.600 1, 333 a Specimen analyzed. See explanation, p. 11. 'The numbers of the dietary studies are laboratory numbers used in the investi. gations of which this study forms a part. 13 Tahlk 1. — Food materials and table and kitchen wastes in dietary study No. 11 — Cont'd. Kind of food material. Percentage composition Pro- tein. AM.M VI. POOD Pork : Round [a).. Lard (a) ... Total . Eggs Butter(a)... Milk (a) .... Mince-meat. nntinitrd. Fat. /V/- et. Per ct. 16.6 L9.8 100.0 Total animal food. VEGETABLE FOOD. Cereals, sugar, etc. ■ Corn meal (a) Hominy (a) Flour, broad (a)... Flour, pastry (a).. Oatmeal Crackers, milk Sugar, granulated. Sugar, "C" Sirup, maple Honey 13.1 .1 3.3 6.5 9.6 9.5 14.8 12.3 15.6 9.3 9.5 ?9.6 3.9 1.4 4.0 .7 .6 .6 7.3 13.1 ( 'arboliy- drates. Per cent. 4.1 60.4 71.8 78.0 73.4 75.9 68.0 69.2 100.0 95.0 70.0 75.1 Total Vegetables : Beans, dried (a) Cabbage Corn, canned Lettuce Parsnips Potatoes (30.9 per cent ref- use) Radishes 22.5 1.8 2.8 1.1 1.3 2.1 1.0 Total Fruits, nuts, etc. : Apples (34.4 per cent ref- use) Bananas (28.6 per cent ref- use) Cranberries Oranges (25 per cent ref- use) Peacbes, dried Prunes, dried Raisins L2 .5 2.9 2.0 2.5 Total Total vegetable food. Total food Table aud kitchen waste («)--- Fat 1.4 1.3 .3 .5 .1 .1 .7 4.7 61.0 4.9 19.3 2.7 12.9 18.0 4.6 Total cost. Weigh! tuft. Total food ma- terial. Nutrient ■ Pro- tein. (./■•mi . Grams. 4.-.:. 2, 495 .70 1.17 1.06 2.57 .16 .08 .02 .25 .30 .02 .03 .24 .43 .25 .20 1.82 2,950 4, 70.") 1,785 55, 055 370 82, 230 2,395 255 7,540 6,945 240 140 2,295 4,310 895 425 Fat. ' drates. (Ifilins. (,r. 90 2,405 76 616 2 1,817 24 :., >72 2'.:2 24 1,116 854 37 13 2, 585 447 1,599 2,147 5 8,274 25,440 ■ 2,276 221 835 2,890 1,210 905 795 6,750 310 1. 44 13, 695 187 52 34 10 10 142 3 438 51 16.6 .40 22.9 .30 10.1 .05 9.7 .20 63.3 .28 58.6 .10 74.7 .01 1, 420 355 540 865 440 45 1.34 | 9,135 4.60 | 48,270 20.8 33. 6 100.0 42.1 14.37 130,500 1,800 10 Total 1,810 27 27 17 11 2 2 4 :; 25 9 3 1 2 85 48 2,799 171 8,594 374 605 10 374 615 J, 257 224 2,486 1,718 199 5, 272 163 97 2,295 4,094 627 319 20, 319 510 141 233 24 103 1,215 14 2,240 325 52 547 258 34 24. 27, 719 205 758 75S a Specimen analyzed. See explanation, p. 11. 14 T.M'.n: 5. — Weights and percentages of food materials and nutritive ingredients used in dietary study No. J4. "Weight in grams. Kind of food niattri; rOB FAMILY 14 DAYS. Food ma- terial. Nutrients. Weight in pounds. P ™' Fat Carbohv- teI1:ii teiu. ' dr Bei f, veal, and mutton. l'ork, lard, etc Butter Milk Mince-meat 17,365 4,705 1,785 55, 055 370 Total animal food Cereals. Bugara, Btarchea _ babies Fruits 82, 230 3, 337 76 016 2 1.817 24 1,491 447 1, 599 2,147 V 1 ma- 2,257 224 38.3 6.5 10.4 3.9 121.4 Nutrients. Pro tein. Fat. Carbohy- 7.:; .2 1.3 4.0 .1 3.3 1.0 3.5 4.7 5,872 Iota] regetabk food .. Total food PEB MAN PKB KAY. Beef, veal, and mutton. Pork, lard, etc Butter Milk Mince-meat 25,440 2,276 13. 695 , 438 9, 135 85 48. 27U 2, 130, 500 8. 671 2,486 181.3 12.9 18.2 221 51 48 20, 319 2,240 2.160 56. 5. .5 30.2 1.0 .1 20. 2 .2 .1 320 24,719 106.4 594 I 27,205 287.7 19.1 Is. 9 222 38 60 23 706 | 5 23 .49 .08. .13 .05 . 1.56 .01 . 02 .04 .07 .01 .05 05 Total animal food 1, 054 106 32 2.32 .23 Cereals, sugars, starches. Vegetables Fruits Total vegetable food. . . Total food PERCENTAGES OE TOTAL FOOD. 326 29 176 6 117 1 260 29 28 .07 .01 . ,01 619 36 4 317 1.37 .08 .01 111 Beef, veal., and mutton. Pork, lard, etc Eggs Butter Milk Mince-meat Per ct. Per ct. Per ct 13.3 38.5 17.3 2.2 .9 30.1 3.6 7.1 5.2 1.4 18.6 42. 2 20.9 25.0 .3 .3 .1 25 Per cent. 8.3 . .8 . Total animal food . Cereals, sugars, starches Vegetables Fruits Total vegetable food. . Total food 100.0 i 100.0 100.0 109.0 5.0 Cost. ?4.11 .70 1.17 1.06 2.57 .16 9.77 44.8 4.9 4.8 1.82 1.44 1.34 54.5 I 4. 60. 14. 37 .07 .06 .18 Perct. 28.6 4.9 8.1 7.4 17.9 1.1 63.0 ! 67.7 96.3 9.1 . 68.0 19.5 10.5 i 7.0 26.2 5.1 1.0 2.6 I .6 .5 | 74.7 ' 12.7 8.2 10. 8.0 9.3 37.0 32.3 3.7 80. 9 32.0 100.0 15 Tabus 6. — Nutrients and potential energy in food purchased, re j ected, and eaten in dietaru si ndi/ No. -//. Nutr: Fuel Kind ot food material. Carboby- value. Fo.nl pnrcba - 4. GO 5, B72 2,799 320 Qrstms. 2.486 24, 719 111.220 Vegetable Total 14. 37 8,071 8,594 n . 227,020 Waste : 283 91 605 10 6.790 738 3, 490 Total 374 615 738 10, 280 Food actually eaten: 5.589 2. 706 7,669 310 2,486 23, 981 104, 430 112,310 Total 8,297 7.979 26. 467 210.740 PER MAX PER DAT. Food purchased : Animal Vegetable .12 .06 75 36 106 4 32 317 1.425 1,485 Total... Waste : Animal Vegetable Total. Food actually eaten : Animal.' Vegetable .18 110 | 349 2,910 130 Total PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL FOOD PURCHASED. Food purchased : Animal Vegetable 106 32 308 340 1,335 1.445 2.780 Percent. Percent. Percent. Percent. Percent. 68. 67. 7 i 96. 3 9. 1 49. 32. 32. 3 3. 7 90. 9 51. Total.... Waste : Animal — Vegetable .J 100.0 j 100.0 I 100.0 3.3 1.0 7.0 100. 100.0 3.0 1.5 Total 4.3 7.0 2.7 4.5 Food actually eaten : Animal. ". Vegetable 64.4 31.3 89.3 3.7 9.1 88.2 46.0 49.5 Total 95.7 93.0 97.3 95. 5 DIETARY OF A TINNER'S FAMILY IX IXDIAXA (Xo.49). The study bejjean April 22, 1895, and continued fourteen day-. The members of the family and number of meals taken were as follows : Meals. Man about 55 years old 42 Man about 20 years old 28 Woman about 48 years old (42 meals x 0.8 meal of man) equivalent to. 33 Visitors 2 Total number of meals taken equivalent to 105 Equivalent to one man thirty-five days. 16 i:> marks, — The family consisted of three adult persons, in good health and with active occupation. They were not very '-hearty eaters." The men smoked tobacco moderately, otherwise none of the family were addicted to stimulants or narcotics. The men conducted a small business of their own and worked rather less hours than hired laborers. TABLE 7. — Food material* and table and kitchen wastes in dietary study Xo. 40. Percentage composition. Kind <>l" food material. ANIMAL FOOD. Beef: Porterhouse (a)... Sirloin (a) Rib roasl Bound (a, Rump (a) Do Total ..., Vial: Loin («). Pork : J Lam (a) Lard (a) Total . Eggs Butter (a) .. Cheesi Milk (a) .... Buttermilk . Protein !'■ r rt. 19.8 12. I' 10. '.) 17.8 19.3 12.8 14.5 Fat. Peret. 10.8 16.6 18.1 7.7 6.3 2.9 Carbohy- drat- a. Per cent. 10.8 51.9 100.0 Total cost. 1.28 .32 13.1 .1 37.0 3.4 3.0 89. G 25.3 2.8 . 5 1.4 3.6 4.8 Total animal food. Weight used. Total food mate- rial. Xutrients. IToU-i., F.t. Carboby. Grams 810 990 1,265 505 4,990 1,825 965 600 Grams. 160 84 154 115 121 110 Cm in*. 87 165 229 43 16 744 234 140 196 501 1,600 Grams. 4.45 VEGETABLE FOOD. Cereals, sugar, etc : Floor, wheat (o) Oats, rolled (rt) Bread, wheat, baker's (a). Cake, baker's (a) ■ Wafers, vanilla (a) Sugar, granulated Sugar, "Coffee A M (a).... Sirup 12.0 18.4 8.7 4.0 6.8 5.8 .7 5.9 15.7 75.2 62.8 49.7 60.5 71. 2 100.0 86.6 72.0 .08 .03 .67 .56 .40 .17 .24 .03 Total 2.18 Ides : Asparagus Beans, baked, canned (a)... Lettuce Onions Potatoes Radishes Rhubarb Sweet potatoes, canned (a). 5.2 1.1 1.5 1.8 1.0 .4 .2 2.1 .3 .4 .1 .1 .4 .5 3.3 15.2 2.7 8.9 15.3 4.6 2.2 53.6 Total .20 .15 .20 .10 .22 .05 .10 .15 2,835 240 7,855 2, 505 935 2,525 1. 530 600 140 407 2 168 353 73 2,181 2,101 339 1. 348 115 291 12 4.994 340 44 118 64 14 55 151 147 19. 085 795 14 7'J5 41 455 D 340 .> 7,770 130 455 .> 850 3 1.175 31 1. 17 12, 035 243 38 Fruits, nuts, etc.: Bananas Blackberries, canned. Grapes, canned Oranges Strawberries .5 2.1 .7 .4 13.7 56.4 13.0 7.1 Total Total vegetable food. Total food .00 2,610 .15 1.330 .15 1.275 .20 1 , 505 . 15 -1"." 1.25 7,175 13 28 58 38.895 1.543 490 06, 630 3. 724 5, 484 Table and kitchen waste (a)... 15.2 20.7, Fat 100. . 63.3 3.715 50 505 50 Total 3.765 565 819 374 117 4:<; 2.132 151 3. 904 1,552 606 2,525 1.326 432 1.249 393 | 12.688 26 121 12 30 189 21 19 629 047 358 750 106 107 31 1.412 16. 147 16,~644 2,35: 2. 352 a Specimen analyzed. See explanation, p. 11. 17 Table 8. — Weights and percentages of food materials and nutritive ingredient* used in dietary study No. 49. Weighl in grams. Weight 11 pounds. Kind of food material. Food mate- rial. Nutrients. Pood mate- rial. Nutrients. Cost. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbohy- drates. Pro- tein. Pat Carbohy- drates. FOR FAMILY 14 DAYS. 6,815 2,565 3,565 1,505 455 10,390 2,440 978 140 467 2 168 353 73 788 2,101 339 1,348 115 291 12 15.0 5.7 7.8 3.3 1.0 22.9 5.4 2.1 .3 1.0 "".'4 .8 .2 1.7 4.6 .8 3.0 .3 .6 $1.60 60 74 Butter .70 6 374 117 18 Milk Buttermilk .8 .3 .57 .06 Total animal food 27, 735 19, 085 12, 635 7,175 2,181 4,994 497 61.1 4.8 11.0 1.1 | 4.45 Cereals, sugars, starches — Vegetables Fruits 1.249 243 51 393 38 59 12, 688 2,047 1.412 42.1 27.9 15.8 2.8 .5 .1 .9 .1 .1 28. ! 2. 18 4.5 1.17 3. 1 1 . 25 Total vegetable food . . 38, 895 1,543 490 16,147 85.8 3.4 1.1 35. 6 4. 60 Total food 66, 630 3, 724 5,484 16, 644 146.9 8.2 12.1 36 7 9 <>?» ' — PER MAN PER DAY. 195 73 102 43 13 297 70 28 4 13 ..... 10 2 23 60 10 38 3 9 .43 .16 .22 .10 .03 .65 .15 .06 .01 .03 *".'6i .02 .05 .13 .02 .09 .01 ..:. 02 Cheese Milk 11 3 02 . Buttermilk .01 .13 Total animal food 793 62 143 14 1.74 .13 .32 .03 545 361 205 36 7 1 11 1 2 363 58 40 1.20 .80 .45 .08 .02 .02 ■-.-a .80 13 Fruits .09 Total vegetable food. . 1,111 44 14 461 2.45 .10 .03 1.02 .13 Total food 1,904 106 _ 157 475 4.19 .23 .35 1. 05 . 26 PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL FOOD. Per ct. 10.2 3.8 5.4 2.3 .7 15.6 3.6 Per ct. 26.3 3.8 12.5 ""4." 5" 9.5 2.0 Per ct. 14.4 38.3 6.2 24.6 2.1 5.3 . 2 Per- cent. 1 Perct. 17.7 6.6 8.2 Pork, lard, etc Eggs Butter " 7.7 2.0 Milk 2.3 .7 6.3 Buttermilk .7 41.6 58.6 91.1 3.0 49.2 Cereals, sugars, starches 28.6 19.0 10.8 33.5 6.5 1.4 7.1 .7 1.1 76.2 12.3 8.5 24.1 12.9 13.8 Vegetables Fruits Total vegetable food . . 58.4 41.4 8.9 97.0 50.8 Total food 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 340 No. 32 ?, 18 TABLE 9, — Nutrients and potential energy in food purchased, rejected, and eaten in dietary study Xo. 49, Cost. Nutrients. Fuel value. Kind Hi' f 1 material. Protein. Fat . Carbohy- drates. Food purchased: $4.45 4.60 (trams. 2,181 1,543 Grams. 4, 994 490 (iranix. 497 16,147 Calories. 57, 420 77, 090 Total 9. or. 3,724 5,484 16,644 134,510 Waste: 459 106 785 34 9 180 2,352 10 400 Total 565 819 2,352 19,580 Food actually eaten: 1,722 1,437 4,209 456 497 13, 795 48, 240 66. 690 Total 3,159 4,665 14, 292 114,930 PER MAN PER DAT. Food purchased: .13 .13 62 44 143 14 14 461 1 640 2 200 Total .26 106 157 475 3,840 Waste : 13 3 22 1 260 67 295 Total 16 23 67 555 Food actually eaten : 49 41 121 13 14 394 1,345 1,940 Total 90 134 408 == Per cent. 3.0 97.0 3,285 PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL FOOD PURCHASED. Food purchased: Per cent. 49.2 50.8 Per cent. 58.6 41.4 Per cent. 91.1 8.9 Per cent. 42.7 57 3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Waste: 12.3 2.9 14.3 .6 6 8 14.1 7.7 Total 15.2 14.9 14.1 14.5 Food actually eaten : 46.3 38.5 76.8 8.3 3.0 82.9 35.9 49.6 Total 84.8 85.1 85.9 85.5 19 Table 10. — Summary of weights and percentage* of food materials and nutritive ingre- dients used in dietary studies Xos. 44 and 49. Weight. Coat. Percentage of total food. Kind of food material. Food mate- rial. Nutrients. Food mate- rial. Nutrient-. Cost. Pro- tein. Fat. Carbo- by- drates. Pro- leili. Pat. Carl 10- drates. PER MAN PER DAY. Teacher's family. Grams. 38 60 23 706 5 drams. 43 1 8 ""23" Grama. 19 33 6 20 28 (') Grams. Cents. 5.2 .9 1.4 1.3 3.2 Per ct. 13.3 2.2 3.6 1.4 42.2 .3 Perct. 38.5 .9 7.1 '20." 6" .3 Perct. 17.3 30.1 5.2 18.6 25.0 .1 Per cent. Ferct. 28. 6 4.9 8.1 7.4 Milk 29 3 8.3 .8 17.9 1. 1 Total animal food. 1,054 75 106 32 12.0 63.0 67.7 96.3 9.1 68.0 Cereals, sugars, starches 326 176 117 29 6 1 3 1 260 29 28 2.4 1.9 1.7 19.5 10.5 7.0 26.2 5.1 1.0 2.6 .6 .5 74.7 8.2 8.0 12.7 10.0 9.3 Total vegetable 619 36 4 317 6.0 37.0 32.3 3.7 90.9 32.0 Total food 1,673 111 110 349 18.0 100.0 100. 100.0 100.0 100.0 Tinner' s family. Beef, veal, and mutton.. 195 73 102 43 13 297 70 28 4 13 ..... 10 2 23 60 10 38 3 9 4.5 2.4 1.7 2.1 .5 1.6 .2 10.2 3.8 5.4 2.3 .7 15.6 3.6 26.3 3.8 12.5 "I" 5' 9.5 2.0 14.4 38.3 6.2 24.6 2.1 5.3 .2 17.7 6.6 8.2 Butter 7.7 2.0 Milk 11 3 2.3 .7 6.3 .7 Total animal food. 793 62 143 14 13.0 41.6 58.6 91.1 3.0 49.2 Cereals, sugars, starches 545 361 205 36 7 1 11 1 2 363 58 40 6.2 3.3 3.5 28.6 19.0 10.8 33.5 6.5 1.4 7.1 . 7 1.1 76.2 12.3 8.0 24.1 12.9 Fruits 13.8 Total vegetable food 1,111 " 44 14 461 13.0 58.4 41.4 8.9 97.0 50.8 Total food 1,904 106 157 475 26.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 100.0 1 Less than 1 gram. Taiii.k 11. 20 Xittrinits and potential energy in food purchased, rejected, and eaten per man per day in dietary studies Xos. 44 and 49. Kind of t'<»o70 grams (1.26 pounds) and 738 grains (1.G2 pounds), of which 548 grams (1.21 pounds) and G32 grams (1.39 pounds) were consumed in the respective families. The relative cost of the two dietaries was as 1 to 1.44 and the relative consumption of nutrients was as 1 to 1.15. These results are exceedingly instructive with regard to economy of living and well worth careful study. They show very plainly that the more costly dietary is not necessarily the more attractive or nutritious. It could not be said that the tinner's dietary, which cost 26 cents per day, was in any way preferable to that of the teacher's family which cost 18 cents per day. On the contrary, the latter was the more rational and substantial. The difference in cost was due largely to the character and to some extent to the greater amount of food purchased. The tinner pur- chased 1.29 times as much edible nutrients as the teacher ; but only consumed 1.15 times as much. The discrepancy between cost, amount purchased, and consumption was due to two causes, which are without doubt the two principal errors iu general household economy in America. The first was the purchase of nutrients in their more expensive forms. The second was the undue proportion of waste of materials which were in themselves edible. The final table, which summarizes the amounts of animal and vegetable foods respectively purchased, wasted, and eaten brings out this latter fact with great distinctness. In the teach- er's family 9G.1 per cent of all food purchased was actually eaten and only 3.9 per cent wasted. In the tinner's family, only 85.G of the pur- chased food was eaten and 14.4 per cent wasted. Without detracting from the attractiveness or value of the daily food in any way, there was opportunity in the latter case for economy in two Avays, viz, in purchas- ing the food and in avoiding wastes. The dietary of the teacher's family constitutes an exceptionally good example of intelligent and economical management, securing at the same time excellent living. The tinner's dietary was in no way an exception, but is probably quite typical of the manner of living of the great majority of wage earners of the better class. COMMENTS ON THE DIETARY STUDIES AT PURDUE UNIVERSITY. By \V. O. Atwateu and ('has. D. Woods. Iii the preceding pages Professor Stone has reported the results of two interesting dietary studies, one of the family of a professional man (teacher in a college), the other of a mechanic's family. Both families were selected as being more or less typical of the classes which they represent. It will be interesting to compare the results of these studies with others obtained elsewhere and with the so-called " dietary standards." STANDARDS FOR DIETARIES. The most satisfactory standards for dietaries must be based upon the quantities of nutrients best suited to the nutrition of a particular individual or class. This, which may be called the physiological stand- ard, can be found only in the observed facts of normal metabolism, and would take into consideration only what is best adapted to the actual demand for nutriment. The most economical standard would take into account not only the actual demands of the body for nourishment, but the kinds of food available and their pecuniary cost. Unfortunately, the data now at hand are too few and too incomplete to make accurate estimates of the physiological demands of people of different classes, and on this account the so-called dietary standards arc for the most part based upon the observed facts of food consumption. The stand- ards which have been suggested by one of the writers, 1 and which are given below, are based upon the assumptions that the body requires for its nourishment enough of protein to replace all of the nitrogenous substances consumed in the body and enough of energy to supply the demand for heat and work. They differ somewhat from the standards proposed by Voit and others in Europe twenty or more years ago, partly because more recent research in the science of nutrition has brought new information, but chiefly because the results of studies of American dietaries have been taken into account in making the estimates. 1 American and European Dietaries and Dietary Standards, by W. 0. Atwater, Connecticut Storrs Station Report, 1891. See also U. S. Dept. A.gr., Office of Experi- ment Stations Bui. 21, p. 206 et seq. 23 24 Standards for daily dietaries. Protein. Fuel value. Nutritive ratio. M:i n wit lion t muscular work Grams. 100 112 125 Calories. 2, 700 3,000 3,500 1-5 6 Man with light muscular work 1:5.5 1:5.8 III the discussion which follows, these standards are to be understood to represent simply tentative estimates of the protein and energy required. Later research may be expected to furnish data for the revision of these figures, and they are in no sense to be considered as exact or final. DIETARIES OF MECHANICS 7 FAMILIES. In the table which follows are given the condensed results of several dietary studies of mechanics' families in Connecticut, 1 one in Tennessee, 2 and one in Indiana, reported in previous pages. Dietaries of mechanics' families in Connecticut, Indiana, and Tennessee. Per man per day. Nutritive ratio. Protein. Fat. Carbohy- drates'. Fuel value. MECHANICS' FAMILIES IN CONNECTICUT. Dietary with minimum protein, food purchased.. . Dietary with maximum protein, food purchased . . Dietary with minimum energy, food purchased.. . Dietary with maximum energy, food purchased. . . Grams. 100 126 111 126 Grains. 159 188 144 188 Grams. 427 426 377 426 Calories. 3,640 4.010 3,335 4.010 1:7.9 1:6.8 1:6.3 1:6.8 Average 7 dietaries : Food purchased — 69 45 150 8 22 414 1,770 1,950 Total 114 7 107 158 12 146 436 13 423 3,720 195 3,525 1 : 7. 1:7.0 MECHANIC'S FAMILY IN INDIANA. Food purchased : 62 44 143 14 14 461 1,640 2,200 Total 106 1G 90 63 56 157 23 134 475 67 408 3.840 555 3,285 1:8.9 1:8.9 MECHANIC'S FAMILY IN TENNESSEE. Food purchased: 214 10 15 440 2,310 •J. 125 Total 119 9 110 224 14 210 455 43 412 4,435 345 4 r 090 1:8.1 Waste, total 1:8. 1 mechanics' families. Average of all (9) of above : Food purchased — 68 46 157 8 20 423 1,820 2, 000 Total 114 9 105 165 13 443 23 420 3,820 250 3,570 1:7.2 1:7.3 1 Connecticut Storrs Station Reports, 1891-1895. 2 U. S. Dept. Agr., Office of Experiment Stations Bui. 29. 25 The figures of the above tables are more concisely com pa red in the following: Protein, fuel value, and nutritive ratio of dietaries of mechanics' families in Connecticut, Tennessee, and Indiana. Number of fam- ilies. Protein. Fuel value. Nutritive ratio. Food eaton : 7 1 1 9 Crams. 107 90 110 105 112 125 Calories. 3, 525 3, 285 4, 090 3,570 3,000 3,500 1-7 1:8.9 1-8 1 All 1-7 3 1:5 5 1:5 8 It will be observed that all of the above dietaries have nutritive ratios much larger than the standards. Viewed from this point, the dietaries are deficient in protein. With the exception of the Tennessee family, the fuel values agree quite closely with the standards. The large nutritive ratio of the Indiana dietary is due chiefly to the use of lard and butter in relatively large amounts; in Tennessee the family used large quantities of lard, fat pork, and bacon. To the fatness of meats, the abundance and comparative cheapness of sugar, starches, and pork, and the common use of "sweets" of all kinds the large nutri- tive ratio of American dietaries is chiefly to be attributed. DIETARIES OF FAMILIES OF PROFESSIONAL MEN. In the table which follows are given the condensed results of several dietaries of professional men in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois. The studies in Connecticut were reported by the writers ; l the study in Pennsylvania was made by Prof. Belle Bevier, of the Pennsylvania Woman's College, at Pittsburg, in cooperation with this Department; the studies in Illinois were made in Evanston and Chi- cago in cooperation with the Hull House for this Department by Miss C. L. Hunt, and the one in Indiana is that reported in previous pages. The results of the studies in Pennsylvania and Illinois have not yet been published. 1 Connecticut Storrs Station Reports, 1891-1895. 26 DietarUx of families of professional men (chiefly college professors) in Connecticut, Penn- sylvania, Indiana, and Illinois. Per man per day. Nutritive ratio. Protein. 1 Fat. Carbohy- drates*. Fu. 1 value. raovnsioKAL imr's kamii.ii- cticut. Dietary with liiininuini protein, food porohaood... Dietary with maximum protein, food purchased... Dietary with minimom energy, foed poreheoed Dietary with maximum energy, food purchased. . 91 120 118 120 L20 147 103 147 Grams. 483 440 430 440 Calories. 3.660 3.660 1:8.4 1:6.4 1:5.6 1:6.4 Average 7 dietary studies of 4 families: Food purchased— 66 43 114 15 23 415 1. 425 Vegetable Total Waste, total 109 4 105 129 6 123 4 « 3 435 3,450 3.365 1:6.7 1-6. 8 PROFESSIONAL MANS FAMILY IN PENNSYLVANIA. Food purchased : 54 67 168 8 16 507 1.850 2. 425 Total 121 114 176 11 1C5 523 17 506 4.275 200 4. 075 1:7.6 Waste, total 1:7.7 PROFESSIONAL MAN*S FAMILY IN INDIANA. Food purchased : 75 36 106 4 32 317 1.425 1.4*5 Vegetable Total Waste, total Food eaten, total 111 5 106 110 8 102 349 9 340 2.910 130 2,780 1:5.4 PROFESSIONAL MEN S FAMILIES IN ILLINOIS. Dietary with minimum protein, food purchased . Dietary with maximum protein, food purchased. Dietary with minimum energy, food purchased . Dietary with maximum energy, food purchased. Average 3 dietaries: Food purchased — Animal Vegetable 92 123 92 SI Total No estimation of vraste made. PROFESSIONAL MEN'S FAMILIES. Average of all (9) of above : Food purchased— Animal Vegetable Total Waste, total 1 Food eaten, total 112 103 300 2.565 1:5.8 359 3. 260 1 : 5. 5 103 300 2.5€5 1:5.8 120 627 4. 085 1:9.3 25 1,410 !. 404 1,895 . 3,305 1:6.8 1 Average 6 dietaries. 27 The figures of the above table are more concisely stand in the following: Protein, fuel mine, and nutritive ratio of dietaries of families of professional men in Con- necticnt. I'ennsi/lvania, Indiana, and Illinois. Food eaten : Connecticut Pennsylvania Indiana Illinois ' A vera^e of all Standard for man without muscular work Standard for man with light muscular work 1 Food purchased. It will be observed that the protein is fairly in accord with the stand- ard in all of the instances except in the case of the Pennsylvania dietary. The fuel value of food eaten is much larger than the standard except in the case of the Indiana dietary. This dietary in fuel value, nutritive ratio, and protein is very nearly that suggested in the stand- ard for a man without muscular work. The nutritive ratio is larger than the standard in all of the dietaries except that of the Indiana family, and is particularly so in that of the Pennsylvania family. It is very interesting to observe that so far as the average figures are concerned the dietaries of these professional men accord very nearly with the figures found for mechanics. As the following table indicates, the chief difference is found in the slightly smaller fuel value and nutri- tive ratio of the diet of the professional men: Comjnirison of food eaten in dietaries of families of mechanic* and ofprofeasiondl men. Mechanics Professional men Xuniber of families. Per man per day, Protein. Grams. 105 104 Fuel value. Calories. 3,570 3,315 Nutritive ratio. 1:7.3 1:6.8 If the average eating habits of the families thus stated are taken as representing the average of families of their classes, it is evident that the so-called standards above referred to and the actual practice of well-to-do people in this country are not in accord. It would, however, be going too far to assume that the results of these few studies accu- rately represent the general practice. In order to find what the latter is, a large amount of investigation is necessary. At the same time the dietary studies of well-to-do people thus far made in the United States show, as a whole, a relatively large consumption of the fuel ingredients of food, fat, starch, and sugar, and wide nutritive ratio. 28 This subject has been discussed in another place. 1 It will suffice here to say that, in the opinion of the writers, the difference between the standards ordinarily adopted by physiologists and chemists and the averages of the dietary studies made in the United States, in respect to the relatively large amounts of fuel ingredients and the wider nutritive ratios of the latter, are to be explained by a simple but important fact, namely, that foods containing fat, starch, and sugar are so abundant and so agreeable to the palate. 1 I r. S. Dept. Agr., Office of Experiment Stations Bui. 21, pp. 206-214. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA niiiiiiiiiiii 3 1262 08927 7775