relatively too little protein and too much fat, starch, and sugar. In other words, it is relatively deficient in the materials which make muscle and bone and contains a relative excess of the fuel ingredients. This is due partly to our large consumption of sugar and partly to our use of such large quantities of fat meats.

Overeating—Injury to Health.—But the most remarkable thing about our food consumption is the quantity. The American dietaries examined in this inquiry were of people living at the time in Massachusetts and Connecticut, though many came from other parts of the country. It would be wrong to take their eating habits as an exact measure of those of people throughout the United States. For that matter, a great deal of careful observation will be needed to show precisely what and how much is used by persons of different classes in different regions. Just this kind of study in different parts of the country is greatly needed. But such facts as I have been able to gather seem to imply that the figures obtained indicate in a general way the character of our food consumption. Of the over 50 dietaries of reasonably well-to-do people thus far examined the smallest is that of a mechanic's family. In this the potential energy per man per day was about 3,000 calories. The next smallest was that of the family of a chemist who had been studying the subject and had learned something of the excessive amounts of food which many people with light muscular labor consume. This dietary supplied 3,200 calories of energy per man a day. The largest was that of brickmakers at very severe work in Massachusetts. They lived in a boarding house managed by their employers, who had evidently found that men at hard muscular work out of doors needed ample nourishment to do the largest amount of work. The food supplied 8,850 calories per day.

Voit's standard for a laboring man at moderate work, which is based upon the observation of the food of wage workers, who are counted in Germany as well paid and well fed, allows 118 grammes of protein and 3,055 calories of energy. The standards proposed by myself, in which the studies of American dietaries have been taken into account, allow 125 grammes of protein and 3,500 calories of energy for a man at moderately hard muscular work. The dietaries of Massachusetts and Connecticut factory operatives, day laborers and mechanics at moderate work averaged about 125 grammes of protein and 4,500 calories of energy. For a man at "severe" work, Voit's standard calls for 145 grammes of protein and 3,370 calories of energy.

The Massachusetts and Connecticut mechanics at "hard" and "severe" work had from 180 to 520 grammes of protein and from 5,000 to 7,800 calories of potential energy, and in one case they rose to the 8,500 just quoted. In the dietary standards proposed by myself it did not seem to me permissible to assign less than 4,000 calories to that for a working man at "hard," and 5,700 for a man at "severe" work.1

Now it is not easy to see why these men required so much more than was sufficient to nourish abundantly men of like occupation, but unlike temptation to overeating, in Europe. Difference in climate cannot account for it. We are a little more given to muscular exercise here, which is very well for us, but it cannot justify our eating so much.... I think the answer to this question is found in the conditions in which we live. Food is plenty. Holding to a tradition which had its origin where food was less abundant, that the natural instinct is the measure of what we should eat, we follow the dictates of the palate. Living in the midst of abundance, our diet has not been regulated by the restraints which obtain with the great majority of the people of the Old World, where food is dear and incomes are small.

Indeed, the very progress which we are making in our civilization brings with it increased temptation to overeating. The four quarters of the earth are ransacked to supply us with the things which will most tempt our appetites, and the utmost effort of cooks and housewives is used in the same direction. It is all the more fitting, therefore, that information as to our excesses and the ways of avoiding them should come at the same time.

How much harm is done to health by our one-sided and excessive diet no one can say. Physicians tell us that it is very great. Of the vice of overeating, Sir Henry Thompson, a noted English physician and authority on the subject, says:

"I have come to the conclusion that more than half the disease which embitters the middle and latter part of life is due to avoidable errors in diet, ... and that more mischief in the form of actual disease, of impaired vigor, and of shortened life accrues to civilized man ... in England and throughout central Europe from erroneous habits of eating than from the habitual use of alcoholic drink, considerable as I know that evil to be."

This is in the fullest accord with the opinions of physicians and hygienists who have given the most attention to the subject, and these opinions are exactly parallel with the statistics here cited.

Waste of Food in American Households.—The direct waste of food occurs in two ways, in eating more than is needed and in throwing away valuable material in the form of kitchen and table refuse. That which is thrown away does no harm to health, and in so far as part of it may be fed to animals or otherwise utilized, it is not an absolute loss. That which we consume in excess of our need of nourishment is worse than wasted, because of the injury it does to health. A few instances taken from the investigations mentioned above will help to illustrate the waste of food.

One of the dietaries examined by the Massachusetts Labor Bureau was that of a machinist in Boston, who earned $3.25 per day. In food purchased the dietary furnished 182 grammes of protein and 5,640 calories of energy per man per day, at a cost of 47 cents. One-half the meats, fish, lard, milk, butter, cheese, eggs, sugar, and molasses would have been represented by 57 grammes of protein, 1,650 calories, and 19 cents. If these had been subtracted, the record would have stood at 125 grammes, 3,990 calories, and 28 cents. This family might have dispensed with one-half of all their meats, fish, eggs, dairy products, and sugar, saved 40 per cent. of the whole cost of their food, and still have had all the protein and much more energy than is called for by a standard which is supposed to be decidedly liberal.

In the instance just cited no attempt was made to learn how much of the food purchased was actually consumed and how much was rejected. In some of the dietaries published by the Massachusetts bureau such estimates were made. That of a students' club in a New England college will serve as an example.

The young men of the club, some 25 in number, were mostly from the Northern and Eastern States, and coming from the class of families whose sons go to college, it seems fair to assume that their habits of eating formed at home would not differ materially from those of the more intelligent classes of people in that part of the country. While the diet of the club was substantial and wholesome, it was plain, as was, indeed, necessary, because several of the members were dependent upon their own exertions and the majority had rather limited means. Though fond of athletic sports they could hardly be credited with as much muscular exercise as the average "laboring man at moderate work." The matron, a very intelligent, capable New England woman, had been selected because of her especial fitness for the care of such an establishment. The steward who purchased the food was a member of the club, and had been chosen as a man of business capacity. He thought that very little of the food was left unconsumed. "All of the meat and other available food that was not actually served to the men