294 
NOTES AND ABSTEACTS IN CPIEMISTEY AND PHAEMACY. 
of food should bear a relation to the amount of muscular work performed. 
This theory, namely, that mechanical work, i. e. muscular exertion, is depen¬ 
dent on the destruction of muscular tissue, has been supported by Ranke, 
Playfair, Draper, and others; and, as we have already stated, it has been 
generally taught up to the present time. ISTevertheless it has not escaped 
challenge. Immediately after its promulgation Dr. J. E. Mayer wrote, “ A 
muscle is only an apparatus by means of which the transformation of force 
is effected, hut it is not the material by the chemical change of luhich mecha¬ 
nical work is produced.” This assertion he supported by several cogent ar¬ 
guments. Other physiologists also expressed similar opinions. Messrs. 
Lawes and Gilbert advocated a like view, basing their opinions on their own 
elaborate and carefully-executed experiments on the feeding of cattle. The 
experiments of Messrs. Dick and Wislicenus and of Dr. Drankland, to 
which we have already referred however, furnish results which are entirely 
subversive to the doctrine which has hitherto prevailed, and are almost con¬ 
clusive in favour of the view expressed by Mayer. Messrs. Dick and Wis¬ 
licenus, during the autumn of last year, undertook the ascent of the Daulhorn, 
one of the peaks of the Swiss Alps, near the lake of Brienz, in the Bernese 
Oberland. This ascent represented a measurable amount of mechanical work, 
i. e. the raising their own weights from the base to the summit. Dor some 
hours before commencing, aod during the experiment, they consumed no ni¬ 
trogenous food whatever. As it has been well ascertained that all the nitro¬ 
gen passes out of the body in the state of urea, they were enabled, by collect¬ 
ing the urine they passed, to ascertain accurately the quantity of nitrogen 
excreted, and consequently the amount of muscle oxidized during the journey. 
It only remained to determine whether the amount of force they exerted in 
the ascent was greater than could possibly be generated by the quantity ot 
muscle oxidized during the same time. If it was, then it would necessarily 
follow that the power of the muscle was not derived exclusively from the 
oxidation of their owm substance. 
The calorimetrical determination of the actual energy evolved by the com¬ 
bustion of muscle and of urea in oxygen have been made by Dr. Drankland, 
and the results show that the amount of muscle destroyed by the former 
gentlemen during their ascent would not account for one-half of the force re¬ 
quired to lift them to the summit of the mountain. Taking the average of 
the two experiments, and making several necessaiy allowances. Dr. Drank¬ 
land calculates that scarcely one-fifth of the actual energy required for the 
work performed could be obtained from the amoimt of muscle consumed. 
Examining a number of previous experiments of a like kind. Dr. Drank¬ 
land finds them all confirmatory of the same thing. Thus, he gives a sum¬ 
mary of three sets of experiments made by Dr. E. Smith, by the Rev. Dr. 
Haughton, and by Playfair, in which in each case the force expended is in 
excess of that derivable from the muscle oxidized. 
The following are the conclusions deduced by Dr. Drankland from his 
experiments:— 
“1. The muscle is a machine for the conversion of potential energy into 
mechanical force. 
“ 2. The mechanical force of the muscles is derived chiefly, if not entirely 
from the oxidation of matters contained in the blood, and not from the oxi¬ 
dation of the muscles themselves. 
“3. In man, the chief materials used for the production of muscular power 
are non-nitrogenous ; but nitrogenous matters can also be em]3loyed for the 
same purpose, and hence the greatly-increased evolution of nitrogen under 
the influence of a flesh diet, even with no greater muscular exertion. 
“ 4. Like every other part of the body, the muscles are constantly being 
