Let us now turn our attention for a moment to the group of university athletes, remembering that these men had been in training for many months, and some of them for several years, prior to the commencement of the trial with a reduced proteid intake. In the words of the director of the gymnasium, “These eight men were in constant practice and in the pink of condition; they were in ‘training form’ when they began the changed diet.” Some of them had gained marked distinction for their athletic work; one during the early months of the test won the Collegiate and All-around Inter-collegiate Championship of America. Compare now the strength tests of these men as taken at the beginning and end of the five months’ experiment, during which they reduced their daily intake of proteid food more than fifty per cent: TOTAL STRENGTH +----------------+----------+----------+ | | January. | June. | +----------------+----------+----------+ | G. W. Anderson | 4913 | 5722 | | W. L. Anderson | 6016 | 9472 | | Bellis | 5993 | 8165 | | Callahan | 2154 | 3983 | | Donahue | 4584 | 5917 | | Jacobus | 4548 | 5667 | | Schenker | 5728 | 7135 | | Stapleton | 5351 | 6833 | +----------------+----------+----------+ It is to be observed that the majority of these trained men showed at the first trial in January a total strength test approximately equal to that of the soldier detail at the close of their experiment. This by no means implies that the latter men owed their gain in strength wholly to the systematic training they had undergone, but it is certainly plausible to assume that in a measure this was the case. In any event, it is plain that the long-continued low proteid diet of the soldiers had not interfered with a progressive muscular development, and the attainment of a high degree of muscular strength. The noticeable feature in the figures obtained with the athletes, however, is the striking difference between the January and June results. Every man, without exception, showed a decided gain in his muscular power as measured by the strength tests. This improvement, to be sure, was not so marked as with the soldiers; a fact to be expected, since with these men the element of training and the acquisition of proficiency in athletic work could have played no part in the observed gain. Further, most of the tests indicated that the gain was progressive, each month showing an improvement, in harmony with the growing effect of the diminished proteid intake. With these subjects, the only tangible change in their mode of life which could in any sense be considered as responsible for their gain in strength was the change in diet. Consequently, it seems perfectly justifiable to conclude that the observations presented afford reasonable proof of the beneficial effects of a lowered proteid intake upon the muscular strength of man.