55 



These comparisons afford an interesting illustration of the value of 

 a knowledg-e of the relation between the cost and the actual nutritive 

 value of food. This may be especially emphasized by a comparison 

 of the average of the results for the Harvard students with those for 

 the student at Wesleyan boarding himself. The latter had a clear 

 idea of the nutritive value of different food materials and made his 

 purchases accordingly. The cost of his diet was only about five-sixths 

 of the average for the Harvard students, yet he obtained about seven- 

 tenths more protein and a third more energy than they. 



Some part of the larger average cost of the diet of the Harvard stu- 

 dents is, of course, due to the operating expenses of the boarding club, 

 which the Wesleyan student did not have to meet. The latter bought 

 mostly food ready to eat and prepared his own meals. But even 

 assuming that the difference was wholly due to such causes, the Wes- 

 leyan student could have obtained a diet equivalent in nutritive value 

 to that of the average for the Harvard students for about 25 cents 



per day. 



A comparison with other results given in the table is also interest- 

 ing. In the studies with the three students boarding at the Wesleyan 

 commons the diet ranged from 82 to 126 grams of digestible protein, 

 and from 2,924 to 4,188 calories of energy, the average being 101 

 grams and 3,368 calories, which was appreciably larger than the 

 average consumption for the Harvard students. This was true also 

 in the case of the average of the results of 15 studies made with col- 

 lege boarding clubs in different parts of the country. 



The above summary of the results of the studies at Randall Hall 

 very plainly shows the wide difference in cost and nutritive value of 

 the diet selected by the different students. The largest sum per man 

 per day was that for Student G— namely, 62.7 cents— and the diet also 

 supplied the largest amount of protein and energy; the smallest cost 

 was that for Student K, and likewise the quantity of protein and energy 

 in the diet was smaller than in that of any of the other subjects. 

 On the other hand, the latter student, for a little less than one-third 

 the cost, obtained very nearly one-half as much protein and consider- 

 ably more than half as much energy as the former. 



Subject F spent 2 cents per day more than Subject A for a diet 

 practically the same in nutritive value. Subject A spent 5 cents per 

 day less than subject H for a diet furnishing more protein and energy 

 than that of the latter. Subject E spent only 0.4 cent more than 

 Subject D, yet he obtained more energy and very much more protein 

 in his diet than the latter: in fact Subject D spent more than twice as 

 much as Subject K, who spent the least of all for food, yet he obtained 

 only a little over a sixth more protein and a third more energy. It is 

 evident from such comparisons that some of the students could have 

 obtained considerably more actual nourishment than they did for the 



