86 
MUSCULAR WORK 
into halves, we found that the average respiratory quotients for the 16 com- 
parable days from December 15 to January 19 were 0.84 before work, 0.84 
during work, and 0.77 after work, while for the 16 comparable days from 
January 24 to April 16 the quotients were 0.85 before work, 0.90 during work, 
and 0.78 after work. Apparently in the later experiments there was an in- 
crease in the respiratory quotient during the working period which was not 
observed in the earlier experiments, this probably being due to the fact that 
the ex cessive muscular work was performed in the last part of the research. 
INFLUENCE UPON THE RESPIRATORY QUOTIENT OP INCREASING AMOUNTS OF WORK. 
It is obvious from the foregoing that for a better understanding of these 
respiratory quotients, it is necessary to analyze the results obtained for the 
periods before work, during work, and after work. In some experiments 
external muscular work to the extent of over 150 calories was performed. 
Obviously during these experiments there must have been heavier and more 
prolonged drafts upon the storage of body-material than in experiments in 
Table 93. — Respiratory quotients in respiration experiments without food, with accumulated 
amounts of work on the bicycle ergometer. 
Lying 
During work accumulated to — 1 
Lying after work. 
Subject and date. 
before 
work. 
35 
cali 
50 
i. cala. c 
75 
als. 
100 
cals. 
125 
cals. 
15( 
cal 
■v During 
' first 
hour. 
During 
second 
hour. 
1911. 
E. P. C, Nov. 23 . . 
0.80 
0.9 
1 0.80 
0.74 
H. L. H., Nov. 21 . . 
.89 
1.0 
t ... C 
.99 
.77 
M. A. M., Dec. 15. . 
.80 
.8 
7 .81 
.80 
.82 
20.. 
.86 
.8 
5 .82 
.82 
.79 
21. . 
.86 
.85 
6.77 
.80 
6.78 
22. . 
.86 
.78 
.80 
.86 
1912. 
Jan. 1 . . 
.89 
.93 
.84 
2. . 
.87 
.83 
.85 
.82 
3. . 
.86 
.72 
.80 
6.81 
.76 
8.. 
.88 
.8 
3 '.'.'. 
.96 
.84 
9. . 
.88 
.82 
'.87 
.70 
'.75 
10. . 
.80 
.86 
.92 
.74 
.72 
12.. 
.85 
.91 
.88 
.73 
.73 
15. . 
.90 
.9 
3 '.'.'. 
.91 
.81 
.85 
16.. 
.85 
.8 
2 
'.84 
.78 
.79 
17.. 
.77 
.9 
2 
'.82 
.70 
.77 
18.. 
.77 
.7 
3 
.74 
.70 
.69 
19. . 
.77 
.7 
3 
.71 
.68 
.74 
24. . 
.87 
.86 
'.88 
.76 
25.. 
.80 
.94 
6.8 
9 .78 
'.78 
26.. 
.86 
.84 
.82 
.80 
.77 
31.. 
.93 
.94 
.86 
.82 
Feb. 1 . . 
.89 
.91 
.89 
.77 
2. . 
.83 
.86 
'.9 
3 .77 
»'.78 
7.. 
.84 
.88 
.9 
t .82 
8.. 
.81 
.86 
'.85 
.76 
9. . 
.79 
.79 
.84 
.75 
'.78 
14.. 
.87 
.90 
.95 
.78 
15.. 
.81 
.97 
.9 
3 .81 
16.. 
.87 
.90 
.9 
I .74 
»'.75 
Mar. 6 . . 
.89 
.93 
.95 
.74 
.76 
19.. 
.9 
1 .90 
.87 
25.. 
.91 
.96 
26.. 
'.89 
.93 
.94 
.88 
27.. 
.96 
.92 
28.. 
'.81 
.76 
29.. 
.79 
.89 
'.88 
.79 
Apr. 16 . . 
.89 
.90 
.96 
.72 
«'.S2 
1 The respiratory quotients were determined during the last part of the period in which the work specified was 
done. 
2 The respiratory quotient during the third hour lying after work was 0.80; during the fourth hour, 0.77; 
during the fifth hour, 0.80. 
8 The respiratory quotient during the third hour lying after work was 0.79. 
* The respiratory quotient during the third hour lying after work was 0.82; during the fourth hour, 0.79; 
during the fifth hour, 0.75; during the sixth hour, 0.81. 
