16 Fisher— The Bfect of Viet on Endurance. 



1076. Tlius tlu- strengtli of the men remained nearly stationary 

 throujrhout the experiment. Tlie greatest losses were those of B., E. 

 and R., whose records fell respectively from 989 to 846, 1250 to 

 1090, and 1443 to 1205. 



The loss of strength, like the loss of weight, seems most probably 

 exi)lainabk' by the overstudy of the men. This cause was certainly act- 

 ively lit work, and would apply in the case of all of the club with possi- 

 bly two exceptions. Overstudy applied conspicuously to B. and R,, 

 l)Oth of whom not only overworked during the entire period of the 

 experiment, but had, just before coming to the last test, been through 

 the most exhausting and sleep-robbing week of all. There seems, 

 therefore, little reason to ascribe any part of the slight losses of 

 strength to the dietetic experiment itself. 



This opinion is confirmed by two facts : One is that the man who 

 was least affected dietetically by the experiment was E., one of 

 the three largest losers of strength, while the men who were most 

 affected dietetically were P. and W., neither of whom lost strength 

 perceptibly, in spite of P.'s severe overwork and loss of weight. The 

 other fact is that in Professor Chittenden's experiment, which dietet- 

 ically was very similar, the subjects, who w'ere soldiers and athletes 

 and not subject to pressure of work of any kind, showed large gains 

 in strength. From these two facts we may infer that, so far as the 

 diet is concerned, the effect would be to increase rather than to 

 decrease strength. 



Changes in Physical Endurance. 



It is fortunate that the strength of the men remained so nearl}^ 

 stationary ; for it demonstrates the more clearly that the inci'ease 

 in endurance which will be shown below was an increase in endur- 

 ance per se, and not in any degree due to an increase in strength. 

 Strength and endurance are entirely distinct and should be separately 

 measured. The strength of a muscle is measured by the utmost force 

 which it can exert 07ice ; its endurance, by the number of times it 

 can repeat a given exertion well within its strength. 



After much consideration and consultation it was decided not to. 

 place reliance on the ordinary ergographs as a means of measuring 

 endurance.' Instead, seven simple gymnastic tests of physical endur- 



^ The reasons, in brief, were (1) because these ergographs are adapted to testing 

 only a few unimportant, and for the most part unused, muscles ; (3) because, in 

 operating these devices, the subjects do not simulate real work, since the mus- 



