London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

London County Council 1910

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London County Council]

This page requires JavaScript

128
Annual Report of the London County Council, 1910.

The following figures show, in round numbers, the average results obtained from the boys in some 28 schools:—

Age.Grams per cm.Age.Grams per cm.
718011220
819012230
920013250
1020514260

These numbers are a little lower than those obtained from the boys in the Council's secondary schools
and trade schools given in last year's report (p.31), but they closely approximate to the figures given
for urban elementary school children in Germany and Switzerland. The variation between heaviest
and lightest in each group ranges from 80 to 200 grams, but generally a deficit of 50 grams from the
average merits individual enquiry.

The actual average values tor the age groups generally examined may be compared with averages from the 1883 report of the Anthropometric Committee:—

Grams per centimetre of stature.
Boys.Girls.
Age812812
London average189230187232
Anthropometric Committee average195236190230

This figure was applied as a test to a random selection of nutrition estimates taken from the medical
record cards of children of the twelve vear old group with results showing that a definite relation
existed between the nutrition and the weight for a given stature.

The following table shows the weight in grams per centimetre of stature in nutrition groups:—

Nutrition Estimate.1234
Boys253252222204
Girls284249226210

A method of evaluation used on the Continent is a nutritional index derived from the percentage
relation between the cube root of the weight in kilograms and the stature in centimetres.
Index = 100 3/weight
stature

The average value of this index is said at all ordinary school ages (8-14) to be between 2.3 and 2.4 and to be independent of racial influences. Tested on a random sample of cards the following figures are obtained:—

Index.Actual number.Percentage.
1.930.2
2.080.6
2.1282.1
2.223517.2
2.366748.7
2.438227.9
2.5433.1
2.620.1
1,368

Adopting 2.3 as the mean value, the percentages above and below are 31.1 and 20.1 respectively, whereas
the grouping of the same children on the threefold nutrition estimate were, good 29, moderate 45 and
poor 26 per cent., a fairly similar result. Direct comparisons with the threefold nutrition estimate,
however, showed that the index, though in the mass comparable with the ocular impression, differed
in regard to individuals though a fairly high degree of correlation certainly exists. Percentage distribution
of index for each estimate value:—
Nutrition estimate. 1 2 3
Index 1.9 — — 2
2.0 — — 1.3
2.1 .7 .4 6.1
2.2 10.7 27.7 35.1
2.3 50.7 52.5 47.2
2.4 33.2 18.7 10.1
2.5 4.7 .4 —
2.6— .4 —