134 
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. [Sess„ 
Efficiency of the Diets. 
The dietary results are recorded in the following table (compare with 
table on p. 123): — 
First Study. 
Second Study. 
Per man per day. 
Per man per day. 
Protein 
in 
Grams. 
Fat in 
Energy 
in 
Calories. 
Family 
Protein 
in 
Grams. 
Fat in 
Energy 
in 
Calories. 
Family 
Grams. 
Income. 
Grams. 
Income. 
Income unchanged : 
s. 
d. 
s. 
d. 
M. 63 
96-2 
94-1 
3378-6 
23 
0 
98-5 
77-1 
3116 
23 
0 
M. 62 
83T 
86-2 
2674 
25 
0 
86-6 
79-3 
3087-6 
25 
0 
S. 84 . 
86 
93 
2836 
27 
0 
77-5 
63-8 
2530 
30 
0 
N. 31 . 
128-9 
128'2 
4174 
36 
0 
103 
67-8 
3112 
39 
0 
H. 47 
88-9 
67-2 
3003 
22 
0 
85 
62-3 
2714 
23 
5 
N. 151 
92-8 
107-5 
3120-7 
30 
0 
108-6 
84 
3136 
29 
9 
96-0 
96-0 
3197-7 
27 
2 
93-2 
72-4 
2949-3 
28 
4 
Income increased : — 
s. 
d. 
s. 
d. 
M. 112 
88 
97-5 
3317-7 
30 
0 
105-9 
98-1 
3476 
55 
6 
H. 38 
80-7 
80 
2691 
40 
0 
114-2 
77-7 
3314 
40 
0 
M. 65 
75*5 
70-9 
2491 
30 
0 
91-1 
68-2 
2844 
71 
0 
N. 150 
148-4 
105-3 
3568 
25 
0 
138-6 
112-8 
3690 
35 
6 
98-1 
88-4 
3017 
31 
3 
112-4 
89'2 
3331 
50 
6 
It will be seen that the families whose incomes had appreciably 
increased had a more generous diet. H. 38, as above stated, comes under 
this category. 
As might be expected from the rise in the cost of food, those families 
whose incomes were practically unchanged had less generous diets than 
when first studied. 
The average energy value had fallen very slightly, but the average 
protein content had increased a little ; only five, instead of eight of these 
families as at the first study, having had less than lOOg. per man per day. 
Food Purchased per Penny. 
All but two of these families were previously studied in 1915. The 
average value received by the ten families was 365 Calories per Id. at 
the first study, and 273 in February 1917. This represents a fall of 
