MEMOIRS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 



2(55 



Table 15. — Expt run: nts with E. 0. — Gains and lossi s of body proli in andfai with and without alcohol — Continued. 



"Nos. 13 and 14 averaged as one experiment. 



In the less directly comparable experiments Nos. 13 and 14 are grouped together as one. 

 since the average quantities of protein and energy are the same as in No. 7. The details, how- 

 ever, show that while the quantities of energy in the rations were the same iu both, No. 13 had 

 11* » and No. 14 only 89 grams of protein. Nevertheless the results as regards gain or loss of 

 body material were almost identical. In each there was a loss of 12 grams of protein and in 

 No. 13 there was a gain of 27 grams and in No. 14 a gain of 24 grams of fat. The experiments 

 were 4o days apart. We lay especial stress upon this circumstance, because it illustrates the 

 futility of drawing final conclusions from a single experiment. In each of these cases the 

 metabolism experiment was preceded by a period of 4 days with similar diet while the subject 

 was outside the calorimeter, but in neither case was nitrogen equilibrium obtained. Neither one 

 of these experiments, therefore, could be taken as a basis for conclusion as to the quantity of 

 protein required for either nitrogen equilibrium or constant elimination of nitrogen. A special 

 reason for citing them here with No. 7 is that they were made with the same subject as the other 

 experiments of the table. 



The chief reliance is to be placed upon the more directly comparable experiments. In those 

 in which the subject was at rest, the alcohol ration furnished 2 grams more protein and 16 less 

 calories of energy per day than the nonalcohol ration. There was a larger loss of protein by 1.8 

 grams and a larger gain of fat by 3 grams with the alcohol. These differences are all very small, 

 but in so far as they go they imply that the alcohol was somewhat less efficient as a protector of 

 protein than the fats and carbohydrates which it replaced. In the work experiments the alcohol 

 ration supplied 3 grams more of protein and 104 calories more of energy than the other. With 

 both there was a loss of protein, the amount being 3 grains per day without and 1 gram per day 

 with alcohol; but since the alcohol ration furnished 3 grams of protein more than the other, 

 there remains a deficit of 1 gram of protein per day against the alcohol ration as compared with 

 that without alcohol, and that notwithstanding the larger fuel value of the diet. Here again the 

 alcohol ration is slightly inferior in protein protecting power. 



Taking the rest and work experiments together, the alcohol rations, with an average of 3 

 grams of protein and i J 4 calories of energy per day more than the nonalcohol ration, show a 

 greater loss of protein by 0.6 gram per day. On the other hand there is a slightly larger 

 average gain of fat with the alcohol. 



If we reckon the less comparable experiments in the general average, we have 111 grams of 

 protein with alcohol as against 109 grams without it. while the quantities of energy are the same 

 in both rations. The average loss of protein i- 0.4 gram greater and the gain of tat 5.6 grams 

 less with the alcohol: but of course much less stress is to be laid upon the less comparable 

 experiments. 



On the whole it is clear that in these experiments with this subject the alcohol was not as effi- 

 cient as isodynamic quantities of fats and carbohydrates in protecting protein. Notwithstanding 



