Individual articles of food may be given "score values" or "composite valuations " in a similar manner. Thus if 100 Calories be given a value of 40 on the scale of 100, and such quantities of protein, phosphorus, calcium and iron as should accompany 100 Calories in an adequate economical diet be given a value of 15 each, the score for almonds might be ascertained as follows:

To every 100 Calories of almonds there are 3.23 grams of protein, 0.071 gram of phosphorus, 0.039 gram of calcium, and 0.0006 gram of iron. If we accept the allowance* of 75 grams of protein, 1.44 grams of phosphorus, 0.68 gram of calcium, and 15 milligrams of iron per man per day, then to every 100 Calories of the 3000 ordinarily taken as the requirement of a man at ordinary labor, there should be 2.5 grams of protein, 0.048 gram of phosphorus, 0.023 gram of calcium, and 0.0005 gram of iron. Then to every 100 Calories of almonds there is 1.3 (3.23 divided by 2.5) times the amount of protein required to "balance" the energy value; 1.48 times the amount of phosphorus, 1.61 times the amount of calcium, and 1.2 times the amount of iron. Scoring these as indicated above, we have the score value for almonds as follows:

* See page 383.

Since a pound of almonds contains 16.14 100-Calorie portions, then a pound of almonds has a score value of 2000 (123.9 multiplied by 16.14). The following table gives the score value of common typical foods:

Approximate Score Value (Composite Valuation) Per Pound Of Some Common Typical Foods As Purchased

*The two sets of arbitrary score values correspond to the two systems of "weights" or "points" explained above. The score value will vary slightly with the data of the particular analysis and should perhaps be expressed only in round numbers.

Approximate Score Value (Composite Valuation) Per Pound Of Some Common Typical Foods As Purchased - Continued

By dividing the "Score Value" of a pound of any food by the price in cents per pound one finds the number of score units or points of food value obtained for each cent, and a comparison of different foods on this basis gives some indication of their relative economy, if the limitations of such comparisons are held strictly in mind. Among these limitations may be mentioned (1) the fact already noted that such valuations necessarily involve the arbitrary assignment of weights to the different factors or phases of food value so that facts and assumptions are inseparably combined in the final results notwithstanding the numerical form in which these are expressed; (2) the further tacit assumption that a given amount of protein, of phosphorus, of calcium, or of iron is of the same value in whatever food found, which is certainly not true in detail and may be very far from true in many cases; (3) that any such attempt to reduce the values of different types of food to a single basis for comparison necessarily tends to obscure those differences of composition and character between the different types of food, which must be kept in mind in order that one may give each type of food its proper place and thus secure a well-balanced dietary.

* With shell.

Let us return then to the consideration of the average data of the 92 dietaries as given in the table on page 391.

The average food value of these 92 dietaries calculated per man per day was as follows:

Energy........2928 Calories.

Protein........101 Grams.

Calcium........0.72 Gram (1.01 Grams CaO).

Phosphorus.......1.52 Grams (3.48 Grams P2O5).

Iron.........0.0166 Gram.

Comparing these averages with the amounts actually required for normal nutrition (page 383) it will be seen that the freely chosen dietaries contained a liberal surplus of protein and a fair supply of phosphorus and iron but scarcely more than is actually necessary of calories or of calcium. Correspondingly we find that the number of individual family dietaries actually deficient in calcium and in total food value (calories) is high enough to cause serious concern, while the cases of deficiency of phosphorus or iron were considerably less frequent and there were few if any cases showing an actual deficiency of protein.

This suggests that there would be true economy in a somewhat different distribution of expenditure by which less should be spent for expensive high protein food, unless it is also rich in calcium or furnishes a high energy value in proportion to its cost, while more prominence should be given to those foods which are rich in calcium or are advantageous sources of energy without being conspicuously poor in phosphorus and iron. In general this would "mean somewhat less meat and somewhat more of milk and vegetables, of the cheaper sorts of fruit, and of bread or other grain products in the diet.

Breadstuffs and other staple grain products always give a high energy return as compared with their cost, and usually also a high return in protein and ash constituents, the latter, however, depending largely upon whether "whole grain" or highly milled products are used. In general the more economical the dietary must be the higher should be the proportion of expenditure for bread (or other grain products) and the more restricted the dietary the more desirable it becomes to use "whole grain" rather than highly milled products.

Meats give usually, as compared with their cost, a fair return in protein, phosphorus, and iron, a low return in energy, and an extremely low return in calcium. Milk, on the other hand, is very rich in calcium and furnishes in proportion to its cost more energy and phosphorus than does meat of average fatness, and proteins and iron of at least equal value if not of equal amount. Milk also excels other foods in respect to the advantageous quantitative relationships of its ash constituents and is probably the best possible source of the growth-promoting substances needed by all young mammals. The well-known dietary rule of "a quart of milk a day for every child," already amply justified by practical results, has received additional support from several angles through the recent advances in our knowledge of the chemistry of nutrition.

Armsby estimates that of the energy value of grain about 18 per cent is recovered for human consumption in milk and only about 3.5 per cent in beef.

While milk is somewhat poor in iron, that which it contains is exceptionally efficient in nutrition. Moreover, the supply of this element may readily be safeguarded either by the use of whole grain products or by increasing the proportion of fruits and vegetables in the diet. It will be recalled from what has been said in earlier chapters that an abundance of fruits and vegetables in the diet is also advantageous in other important ways. Vegetables and some fruits, economically selected, bring a good return in nutrients for the money expended and their liberal use adds greatly to both the attractiveness and the wholesome-ness of the diet.