170 
Miscellanea 
The second question considered was whether the diets contained a sufi&cient supply of 
protein. Previous work indicates that this is probably something aliove 110 grms. per man 
per diem. It was shown that in families with regular incomes of ()\-er aOs. a week the 
average jjrotein intake was above 110 grms., and that in families with regular incomes and 
in those with irregular incomes of under 20s. a week the average protein intake was under 
110 grms. This conclusion has not been refuted. 
Accepting our premises, the final conclusion was (p. 27) "that while the labouring classes 
with a regular income of over 20s. a week generally manage to secure a diet approaching the 
proper standard for active life, those with a smaller income and those with an irregular 
income entirely fail to get a supply of food sufficient for the proper development and growth 
of the body and for the maintenance of the capacity for active work." 
The main points proposed for the study were thus elucidated. 
The part of the Report to which Professor Pearson specially directs his criticism is not 
the main problem, but that dealt with on jjp. 30 and 31 — The Physique of Children in 
Relationship to Diet, a subject taken up at the suggestion of Dr Chalmers. Professor Pearson, 
having declared the data totally insufficient, jjroceeds to apply his statistical methods not to 
refute Miss Lindsay's conclusion, but to demolish other conclusions upon the relationship of 
physique to income which were never deduced by us. 
The very guarded conclusion in the Eeport was ; "These show very markedly the relation- 
ship between the physique and the food. When the weight is much below the average for that 
age almost toithout exception the diet is inadequate." 
Weights alone were considered. Thirty-six children, boys and girls, were dealt with. As 
the relationship of weight to income was not under consideration, they were classified not 
according to the income but according to the energy value of the family diet. Hence 
Professor Pearson's remarks upon this point are quite beside the mark. 
I give below, in a re-arranged form, the Table from Apjjendix IV. The individuals are 
placed in two groups according to the energy value of their diets, with, opposite each child, 
the average weight for the age, taken from the Report of the Anthropometric Committee 
puljlished in the Transactions of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 
1883, and with the difference between the weight of the child and the average weight. The 
differences between groujjs 1 and 2 are sufficiently marked and warrant the conclusion as 
stated above. 
That is, of the children in families the diets of which yielded more than 3000 Calories per 
man per day : 
10 were above the standard or not more than 5 lbs. below it, 
8 were more than 5 lbs. below it, 
while of the children in families in which the diet yielded less than 3000 Calories 
3 were above the standard or not more than 5 lbs. below it, 
15 were more than 5 lbs. below it. 
It must be remembered that the 'standard' is for the children of all classes and not for 
those of the jjoorer classes. 
The fact that the average age of the children in the second group was about If years 
greater than that of the children in the first group does not account for the marked 
difference. 
The last question which J\liss Lindsay had to consider was, how the necessary supply of 
energy and of protein might be supplied without increased expenditure, and she was right in 
stating that these can be more cheaply purchased in vegetable than in animal foods. She 
