SECT. I l] 



FAT METABOLISM 



1 165 



this can easily be done by calculating the mean daily decrement. 

 Such a curve is shown in Fig. 360, and on the same graph appears 



7«0- 



O Parke (yolk only) 



Q Drbge 



'd Mendel 8c Leavenworth 



© Pre'vosb ScMorln (1846) 



O Eaves 



® Idzumi 



® Sakurag'i 



e Murray (90°/ humidiby) 

 ® Murray (65% » ) 

 (3D TangI 8c v.Mibuch 

 • ILjin 



© Uebcrmann 

 ® Cahn 



•••A bheoreb'ical curve suggesbed 

 by Murray 



Fig- 359- 



a curve calculated by Murray from the carbon dioxide output, 

 assuming that this was derived entirely from fat oxidation. There is evi- 

 dently a discrepancy, for from 



E 

 p 

 400 -i 



® Taken from chemical analyses 

 O Calculated by H.A.Murray from] 



CO2 output assuming it all 



came from fab 



the 7th to the 14th day the fat 

 lost, as determined by the aver- 

 aged chemical analyses, is in 

 excess of that lost as determined 

 from the carbon dioxide output, 

 even supposing that all the car- 

 bon dioxide was derived from 

 fat, which is not true. The 

 figures of Bohr & Hasselbalch 

 for carbon dioxide output would 

 give an even worse divergence, 

 for during this particular period 

 they were lower than those of Murray. The explanation for this missing 



