NUTRITIVE INGREDIENTS AND VALUES OF THE FOOD WE EAT. 675 



garded as a fair one for this purpose. The fa- 

 miliar fact that neither lean meat nor a very 

 starchy food, as potatoes, is by itself proper for 

 food, hut that each supplements the other and 

 the two make an appropriate mixture, is an il- 

 lustration of this principle. The nutritive ratio 

 of the meat is too small protein is in excess ; 

 that of the potato is too large protein is defi- 

 cient. The two together in proper proportions 

 give the proper nutritive ratio. 



Vegetable Foods. The vegetable foods are 

 in general more concentrated that is, they 

 have less waste, less water, and more dry sub- 

 stance, actual nutrient than the animal foods. 

 On the other hand, the dry substance is less 

 valuable, weight for -weight, than that of 

 animal food, partly because it has less pro- 

 tein and consists largely of carbohydrates, 

 and partly for other reasons, as is explained 

 beyond. 



Nutritive Valuations. From the figures in 

 the table it seems that, while " medium beef " 

 contains 72 per cent, of water, milk contains 

 87 per cent. Roughly speaking, beefsteak is 

 about three fourths and milk seven eighths 

 water. A pound of beefsteak would thus con- 

 tain four ounces of solids, and, if we assume a 

 pint of milk to weigh a pound, a quart would 

 contain four ounces of solids also ; that is, a 

 pound of steak and a quart of milk contain 

 about the same weight of actual nutrients. 

 But we know that for ordinary use the pound 

 of beefsteak is worth more for food than the 

 quart of milk. The reason is simple. The 

 solids of the lean steak are nearly all albumi- 

 noid, while those of milk consist largely of fats 

 and of milk-sugar, a carbohydrate. 



The figures in the last column are intended 

 to show how the foods compare in nutritive 

 value, "medium beef" being taken as the 

 standard. They are computed as ascribing 

 certain values to the albuminoids and fats, 

 and taking the sum in each case for the value 

 of that particular food. The ratio here adopt- 

 ed, which assumes one pound of albuminoids 

 to be equal to three pounds of fats and five of 

 carbohydrates, is now a current one in Germa- 

 ny. These estimates for animal foods are based 

 upon German market prices, beef and pork 

 being taken as standards. The estimates for 

 vegetable foods are in like manner based upon 

 the composition and costs of rye-flour and pota- 

 toes. The details of the method, by which these 

 estimates are reached would hardly be in place 

 here. Suffice it to say that the valuations are 

 found to accord fairly well with the actual 

 relative costs of the nutrients in the plain, sub- 

 stantial foods, whose prices seem to be regulat- 

 ed, not by their flavor nor by the influence of 

 the selective tastes of the wealthy, but by their 

 actual efficacy for supplying the wants of the 

 people the efficacy which is tested by aver- 

 age experience, and formulated, in so far as it is 

 formulated at all, by the relative prices which 

 are paid by those classes of the community 

 who can not afford luxuries, but must buy what 



will give them the best sustenance for their 

 money. 



Dr. Konig, who is, as much as any one, an 

 authority upon these matters in Germany, as- 

 cribes the following valuations to protein, fate, 

 and carbohydrates (non - nitrogenous extrac- 

 tives) of animal and vegetable foods, in marks 

 per kilogramme. It will be remembered that 

 the kilogramme is not far from 2*2 pounds, 

 and the mark about twenty-five cents: 



Thus it seems that, in the German markets, 

 the same nutrients cost not far from five times 

 as much in animal as in vegetable foods. Prob- 

 ably the ratio would be about the same in our 

 own markets. While these data accord with 

 general experience in showing that vegetable 

 foods are much cheaper than animal, it is hardly 

 right to infer that, for actual use, the disparity 

 is as great as above indicated. A discussion of 

 this question would be out of place here. It 

 is worth noting, however, that, in general, the 

 animal foods are the more digestible, that most 

 men crave them, that even the poor will pay 

 for them, and that, as is shown by the general 

 use and the efficacy of meat broths and meat 

 extracts, there seerns to be something in the 

 peculiar constituents of meats which supplies a 

 want that vegetable foods do not wholly meet. 



It should be especially observed that the 

 valuations of animal foods in the table are as 

 referred to " medium beef, " while those of 

 vegetable foods are as compared with fine 

 wheat-flour. 



General Considerations affecting the Nutri- 

 tive Values. Three things should be said with 

 reference to the table: 1. The figures represent 

 general averages. Sometimes different samples 

 of the same kind of flesh will show widely vary- 

 ing percentages of constituents. This is particu- 

 larly true of the fats, and to a less degree of 

 the water. Vegetable foods are of more con- 

 stant composition than animal foods. 2. The 

 figures for some of the kinds of food are based 

 upon few analyses. More are needed to show 

 the actual range of variation and the averages. 

 8. The nutritive valuations are of necessity 

 crude, and to be relied upon rather as approxi- 

 mations than as accurate quantitative state- 

 ments. Much more chemical and physiological 

 investigation is needed to make our knowl- 

 edge of these as complete and satisfactory as it 

 should be. Of these considerations, perhaps 

 the digestibility of the different foods is as im- 

 portant as any. 



Digestibility of Foods. The question of the 

 digestibility of foods is very complex and diffi- 

 cult of solution. The data at present at hand 

 are at best meager and ill defined. This is espe- 

 cially true as regards the ease or difficulty of di- 

 gestion of different foods. The actual amounts 

 digested and assimilated are capable of more 



