Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T20:48:35.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A family coefficient scale developed from the Australian nutrition survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

F. W. Clements
F. W. Clements
Affiliation:
From the Australian Institute of Anatomy, Canberra, A.C.T.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The existing scales of family consumption coefficients are reviewed and an attempt made to determine the sources from which they were developed. In the absence of definite information it was assumed that the majority of previous family coefficients were based upon the physiological requirements of the various age groups.

2. A family food budget survey recorded food purchased by the household. There was no guarantee that this food was eaten by the members of the house-hold in proportions similar to a scale of coefficients based upon physiological requirements.

3. Using the statistical material collected by the Commonwealth Advisory Council on Nutrition a scale of family coefficients based on calories “purchased” has been evolved by a form of statistical treatment which measured the additional food purchased for an additional person. This scale was:

This scale agrees more closely with that advanced by Lusk than any other.

4. Comparisons were drawn between the values obtained in this analysis and the physiological requirements of various age groups. It was found that for men and women and the older children the calories as purchased closely approximated to the physiological requirements, whilst for children of 2–3 years and under 2 years the former were considerably higher.

5. The protein purchased was within the range calculated to satisfy the physiological requirements.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 40 , Issue 6 , December 1940 , pp. 681 - 689
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1940

References

REFERENCES

Advisory Committee on Nutrition (1932). The Criticism and Improvement of Diets. Ministry of Health, H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Advisory Council on Nutrition (1938). Final Report. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
Atwater, W. O. (1895). Methods and results of investigations on the chemistry and economy of food. U.S. Dep. Agric., Office of Experimental Stations Bull. No. 21.Google Scholar
Burnet, E. & Aykroyd, W. R. (1935). Nutrition and Public Health Bull., Health Organization, League of Nations, p. 323.Google Scholar
Cathcart, E. P. & Murray, A. M. T. (1931). A study on nutrition. Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond., No. 151.Google Scholar
Food Committee of the Royal Society (1917). The Food Supply of the United Kingdom. Parliamentary White Paper, CD. 8241.Google Scholar
Food Supply of the United Kingdom (1918). An enquiry into special dietaries. Spec. Rep. Ser. med. Res. Coun., Lond., No. 13.Google Scholar
Health Organization of the League of Nations (1937). Report of the Intergovernmental Conference of Far-Eastern Countries on Rural Hygiene. Health Organization, League of Nations, p. 81.Google Scholar
Lusk, Graham (1923). The Fundamental Basis of Nutrition. Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Quart. Bull. Health Organization, League of Nations (1932), 1, 477.Google Scholar
Report of the Technical Commission on Nutrition on the Work of its Third Session (1938). Quart. Bull. Health Organization, League of Nations, 7,460.Google Scholar
Steibeling, H. K. & Phipard, E. F. (1939). Diets of families of employed wage earners and clerical workers in cities. U.S. Dep. Agric. Circular, No. 507.Google Scholar