I II I I I I Hts—3 ImN KID—‘00 THE EFFECT OF TEXTURE ON THE PRESCHOOL CHILD‘S \1’ 1.le CNESS TO EAT COOKED VEGETABLES Thesss [or the Dag‘rec of M. S. EIizabeih B. Tracy 1937 THE EFFECT OF TEXTURE ON THE PRESCHOOL CHILD'S WILLINGNESS TO EAT COOKED VEGETABLES. *I‘Qfi. “iii By Elizabeth Bradley Tracy Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Food & Nutrition Division of Home Economics Michigan State College June 1957 1H 513:3 i 10 E) {‘39 .‘ ?‘ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Marie Dye, who acted as adviser throughout this study; to Miss Mary Lewis, under whose supervision this study was conducted; and to Miss Catherine Miller for her cooperation in the nursery school experiment. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O LISTOFCHARTS................. Chapter I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . Review of the Literature. . . . . . . . Physiological Reasons for Failure to Eat . O O O O O O O O O O C O O Psychological Reasons for Failure to Eat O O o o o o o o o o o O O 0 II. Method of Studying the Eating Habits of Children . o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Review of Literature . . . . . . . Plan of Present Study . .. . . . III. The Findings of the Present Study . . . Effects of Texture and Flavor. . . Evaluation of Eating Habits. . . . The Effects of Social Contacts . . Each Child's Eating Behavior . . . IV. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 0 O O 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 iii Page iv vi LIST OF TABLES. Table Page 1. Average Percentage Concentration of the Group FCrEaChTeXtureoooooooooooocoo 27 II. Average Percentage Concentration of the Group For EaCh Vegetable 0 o o o o o o o o o o o oo 28 III. The Eating Habits of the Group Classified According to Lewis' Four-Point Scale . . . .. 30 IV. A Study of the Influence of Social Contacts On the Eating Concentration of Several Children 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 00 51 V. Charles' Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the GrOUP Average 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 34 VI. Jimmy's Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the Group Average 0 O O 0 0 O o o o o o o o o O O 57 VII. Kenney's Average Percentage Concentration For ' Vegetable and Texture Compared with the GFOUP Average 9 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 58 VIII. Tom's Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the Group Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 IX. Jo Ann's Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the Group Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 X. Bingy's Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the Group.Average o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 43 XI. Peter's Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the Group Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘44 XII. Susan's Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the Group Average 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 46 XIII. Anne's Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the Group Average 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 47 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table I Page XIV. Dales' Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the Group Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 XV. Gerry's Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the Group Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 XVI. Sister's Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the GroupAverageooOOOOoooooooooo 51. XVII. John's Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the GroupAveI‘age.....o.......... 52 XVIII. Angela's Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the GroupAverageoooooooooooooooo 54 XIX. Harry's Average Percentage Concentration For Vegetable and Texture Compared with the GroupAverage................ 55 XX. Average Percentage Concentration of All Children for Each Vegetable and Texture . . . 66 XXI. Percentage Concentration of Each Child For Each Vegetable and Texture . . . . . . .. . . 67 XXII. Appraisal of Each Child's Eating Concentration According to Lewis' Four-Point Scale . .. . . 68 XXIII. Daily Fluctuation in Percentage Concentration Of EaCh Child O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 69 XXIV. Total Time Spent by Each Child on Each Vegetable Versus Actual Eating Time . . . . . 7O LIST OF CHARTS. Chart Page I. Daily Fluctuations in the Eating Patterns of Charles, Jimmy, and Kenney .. . . . . . . . . 56 II. Daily Fluctuations in the Eating Patterns of Tom, Jo Ann, and Bingy . . . . . . . . . . .. 40 III. Daily Fluctuations in the Eating Patterns of Peter, Susan, and Anne . . . . . . . . . . .. 45 IV. Daily Fluctuations in the Eating Patterns of Dale, Gerry, and Sister . . . . . . . . . . . 49 V. Daily Fluctuations in the eating Patterns of JOhn, Angela, and Harry 0 o o o o o o o o o o 53. vi THE EFFECT OF TEXTURE ON THE PRESCHOOL CHILD'S WILLINGNESS TO EAT COOKED VEGETABLES. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. Purpose of the Study. It is often more difficult to get children to eat cooked vegetables willingly than to eat fruit, cereals or other foods. It has long been the contention of the writer and of many who work with children that some of this unwillingness is due to the texture of the cooked food. Therefore, this study was undertaken to ascertain, if possible, whether children actually do prefer certain textures in their foods, which they accept most readily, and some of the reasons for their preferences. It was also thought desirable to study, at the same time, the effect of the social group on the child's con- centration at mealtime. If one social grouping stimulates a child to accelerate his eating or another group interests him in such a way that he lingers longer at his meal, the knowledge of this influence and the use of such knowledge might enable us to help the child regulate his eating habits so that more favorable results could be obtained. There are many factors besides texture and social influ- ence which affect the child's speed of eating, but only these two factors were chosen for this study. That these factors are not common to this small group of children alone but to children in general is well brought out in the literature on the subject. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. There are numerous reasons for a child's refusal of food. The literature groups these reasons under two main headings: physiological and psychological. Under physio- logical are given such causes as imprOper feeding, fatigue, hygienic factors, physical defects, and peculiarities of motility or secretion. These will be taken up first, fol- lowed by a discussion of the psychological reasons, which include conditions of bad training, poor management, and emotional factors. The value of hunger and appetite will be discussed, as well as the findings in the literature relative to the prevalence and significance of lack of appetite. Physiological Reasons for Failure to Eat. Of all the physiological reasons that are given, it is the consensus of opinion of authors that the most important is imprOper feeding. This involves too frequent feedings, the giving of unsuitable foods, excessive milk drinking, or diets poorly prOportioned in one or more of the food ele- ments, especially diets too high in fat or too low in vitamin B content. In feeding a child, a prOper balance must be maintained, not only in the food elements themselves, but in the time interval in which they are administered. If a child is fed too frequently, he naturally will not be hungry at each mealtime. The stomach needs a certain amount of time after digestion is completed in which to produce a feeling of emptiness or hunger for the next meal. Griffith (16) says: "Loss of appetite is often a prayer on the part of the stomach to be given a period of rest." Sauer (40), von Hofe (47), and Clarke (10), in studying anorexia in early childhood, all-advise against the prac- tice of giving milk between meals because it lessens the appetite for the next meal. Not only should the meals be preperly spaced, but they should be served regularly on an unvarying schedule, in accordance with the best ideas of child management. There are many foods that are unsuitable for children because they impair the appetite for those foods which are considered necessary body builders. Highly seasoned, rich, or strongly flavored foods should be eliminated, according to Kerley (25,24), in favor of plain, simple, easily diges- ted foods, which are the only appetite stimuli a child needs. This idea is strengthened by the work of Davis (12) with newly weaned infants. She allowed her subjects to select their own foods from a large variety of natural un-mixed and un-seasoned foodstuffs. Nothing was said or done in any way to influence a child to take a food or to leave it alone. The infants responded in a normal fashion, attacked their food eagerly, ate enormously large amounts in a business-like manner, and stOpped with an air of finality when they were through. Artificial flavorings were not necessary when the psychological setting was ideal; hunger was the only factor prompting the child to eat. Kerley (21,25), Sauer (40), and von Hofe (47) give excessive milk drinking or milk taken at the beginning of the meal as a cause for refusal of other foods by many children. The refusal might be based on the satiety value of the milk itself, or on the high fat content. Too high a percentage of milk fat, cream or butter is given by Xerley (25) as a reduction factor in the child's appetite for other foods. For most efficient results, the fat and carbohydrate content of the diet must be prcportioned in such a way that these elements burn together and the fat digestion is not stOpped at an incomplete stage due to exhaustion of the supply of carbohydrate. Studies by Miller and Rehfuss (27) show that sugars and candies have a definite affect on digestion. Soft, rich candies and sweets have a depressing effect on the appetite for other foods. Sucking on stick candy was shown to have little effect on gastric secretion, since it introduces very little sugar into the stomach. Chocolate, on the other hand, sti- mulates gastric secretion. Von Hofe (47), Kerley (23,24), and Roberts (57) also cite too many sweets as a cause of poor appetite. Vitamin B is now recognized for its beneficial effect on appetite. Osborne and Mendel (35), working with rats, demonstrate an increasing need of vitamin B with growth. On a constant composition diet, when quantitative adjustment of small items such as vitamin B is not made, gain in weight ceases; when vitamin B is added, weight again increases. Ross and Summerfeldt (39) find that the addition of B to the diets of orphanage children increases their weight 1.6 times the expected gain in a six-month period. Daniels and Byfield (11), Chaney (9), Newell and Miller (51), in studying the diets of underweight children, show that orange juice as a supplementary food promotes gain in weight, due possibly to its high vitamin B content. Children may refuse foods because they are timid about trying new textures. Von Hofe (47), Baker (1), and Neff (50) found that children kept too long on a milk diet have difficulty in becoming accustomed to solid foods, and give evidence of lack of appetite because they cannot or will not masticate solid food. In such instances the child may be forced to take food into his mouth, but he cannot always be induced to swallow. He may regurgitate any he has swallowed, spit the food out, or simply store it in his cheek, squirrel fashion. It has frequently been observed that a child will separate the food he dislikes from a mixture in his mouth and store this in his cheek, swallowing the rest. A child sometimes goes home from nursery school at suppertime still carrying in this way part of the lunch that has been stored all during the nap. Poor health habits may have just as undesirable ef- fects on appetite as imprOper habits of feeding. The child who is fatigued from over-activity or insufficient rest will have very little desire for food, according to Ramsay (35). Roberts (57) has this to say: “Activity is a normal attribute of childhood, and is essential to the child's develOpment. Exercise of the right kind and in preper amounts sti- mulates the appetite, promotes sound sleep and good digestion, improves the size and tone of the muscles, and is in general conducive to good health and nutrition. But, carried to excess, it becomes a harmful rather than a beneficial factor. There are two chief ways in which this unfavorable effect may be produced. All exercise is per- formed at the expense of the energy of foods. If the caloric intake equals the outgo in energy, the balance is maintained; but if the expenditure through activity is not replaced by food, the body tissues are oxidized to make up the deficit with a resulting loss of weight. When children are ex- cessively active it is difficult for them to eat enough to keep up with the outgo and to provide for growth, unless a high calorie diet of small bulk is provided. So long as the intake does compensate for the outgo, however, exer- cise cannot be judged harmful by this one criterion alone. But the factor of fatigue must also be considered. Physiologists have shown that when a muscle is exercised too long or too hard without intervals of rest, there is an accumulation of fatigue toxins in the blood, which may circulate to all parts of the body, there to have a depressing effect on nerves, glands, muscles, and the various bodily functions. Unless such fatigue is followed by an adequate period of recuperation, the effects be— come cumulative and a condition of chronic fatigue follows. Loss of appetite, inabi- lity to sleep, and a hyper-irritable nervous system are the usual accompaniments in children, and from these malnutrition results." ’ On the other hand, a child may become fatigued because he is not eating enough food to furnish the energy needed for bodily activities. Thom (44), Roberts (57), and Kerley (25,24) support this statement. Every activity in which the child indulges, every movement he makes, requires energy which can come from but two sources -- the food eaten or the body itself. If the child is so tired that he lacks interest in his food, he may need to be put to bed for a period of rest and relaxa- tion before food is given him. His small appetite at this time is probably a provision of nature to prevent overtaxing an already tired digestive system. Insufficient fresh air and out-of-doors activity have a deleterious effect on appetite. Roberts (57), quoted below, expresses the belief that "sunshine, fresh air, and wholesome, happy play, no less than food and sleep, are ab- solute necessities for sound development, and a child who is deprived of his full re- quirement of them cannot be expected to be normal any more than can a house plant grown in the dark. It is not easy to explain just how indoor housing of children acts to undermine their nutrition and general health. It has been scientifically shown that bad indoor air does not produce its depressing effects, as was once thought, either by its excess of carbon dioxide or by its lack of oxygen. The lack of physical well-being which results from bad indoor air is due to its being too warm, too dry or too still, or to a combination of all three causes. Whatever the mechanism by which these factors produce their results, the ef- fects are obvious even to the most un- observant. Lack of appetite, finickiness, pallor , and pther physical signs of poor nutrition are characteristic of the housed child." According to Hobhouse (l7) and Baker (1), constipation, with a slowing down of the movement of food through the stomach and intestines, produces a sluggish feeling which has an undesirable effect on appetite. This might well be caused by an irregular schedule, which in itself is a reason for some children's lack of interest in food. The body acts best when it has definitely established hours for eating, sleeping and evacuation. It is generally agreed by Emerson(l4), Kerley(22,25,24), Clarke(10), Baker (1), and Roberts (57) that nasopharyngeal defects, eSpecially abnormal tonsils or adenoids, are common causes of lack of appetite in children. The effects of these may be manifested in two ways: the diseased organs may become enlarged and act as mechanical hindrances to the passage of food and air, making it difficult or impossible for the child to swallow. The toxic products from the diseased organs may circulate throughout the entire body, resulting in a diminished bodily resistance, lack of appetite, and generally lowered state of health and nutrition. Removal of such physical defects usually leads to an improved physical condi- tion in general. It is a well recognized fact that children‘s appetites improve after removal of abnormal tonsils or ade- noids, or both. However, one hundred percent improvement should not be expected on the basis of the removal of only one factor. Usually many psychological factors have been employed by the parents in their desire to induce the child to eat in spite of the physical handicap, and the former must be removed before the child comes to accept his food on the basis of normal hunger and appetite alone. The literature lists other physical defects such as bad teeth, heart disease, tuberculosis, infective diseases, and hookworm, all of which have adverse effects on general health and appetite. Kerley (22,25) attributes some few cases of poor appetite to lowered gastric acidity. His study of the rate and amount of secretion of gastric juice in 125 children with normal and poor appetites shows the poor appetite group to have only 75% as much total acid and 50% as much free HCL acid as the normal appetite group. The records of these cases show no other physical reasons for failure to respond to treatment. Usually any program directed toward dietary and hygienic improvement has favorable effects upon appetite. Many of the reasons why a child may fail to have a good appetite, and be hungry at mealtime have been discussed at some length, but little has been said about what is meant by "hunger" or "appetite." Common usage gives the two terms the same meaning as to quality, with a difference only in intensity: mild hunger is usually called ”appetite", and strong appetite, Ihunger“. Authors, however, differentiate on the basis of quality. They define hunger as primarily an unpleasant and painful sensation -- a feeling of tension, pressure, or pain in the stomach, caused by muscular contras- tions, more or less intermittent. Appetite, they say, is essentially pleasant in character and without definite perio- dicity. Hunger is referred to the stomach, while the appetite complex is referred to the mouth and throat. Appetite is caused, according to Carlson (7), either by the immediate taste and smell of palatable food or is induced by memory processes of such taste and smell sensations. The feeling of hunger is caused by definite muscular contractions. Appetite is probably the factor of greater importance with adults who are not active enough to digest one meal in time to create a feeling of hunger for the next. Children, according to Kerley (22), experience greater hunger than adults, due to increased activity and greater secretion of gastric juice which shortens the period of digestion and hastens the emptying of the stomach. - 11 - A normal flow of gastric juice is essential for the digestion of food. For years, Pavlov's view was generally accepted, namely, that appetite is the best stimulus to the abundant secretion of gastric juice. However, Carlson (8) demonstrates that there is a continuous secretion of gastric juice, and that in a hungry person, sight, smell, and thought of food has little influence on this continuous secretion. Even chewing on substances not related to food does not cause secretion of gastric juice. The all-important factor for appetite secretion is the tasting or chewing of palatable food. The chief biological significance of hunger and appetite for digestion lies in the fact that these symptons are an indication that the gastro-intestinal tract is in a proper motor and secretory condition to handle ingested food. Carlson (7), gives an interesting summary of established points of interest on appetite: l. 5. 4. 5. seeing, smelling, tasting or food induces gastric secretion provided a state of hunger and appetite exists; therefore, it is a conditioned reflex. mere chewing of substances other than food does not cause the sacretion of gastric juice. the rate of secretion varies directly with the palatability of the food and the degree of hunger and appetite. the quality of the appetite gastric juice depends on the rate of secretion and is independent of the nature of the foodl the appetite secretion can be removed without interfering with digestion, so it may not be necessary, but is at least a factor for safety. That problems of nutrition and sepecially anorexia, or lack of appetite, abound in the preschool years, is evidenced by the numerous articles on the subject in both medical and polular literature. This condition is a familiar symptom among children brought to physicians, who consider it most serious. To quote from one author, Kerley (21): "In the growing child ample feeding is ab- solutely necessary. When there is habitual lack of ap- petite the entire life may be unfavorably influenced and the condition is abnormal." Candidates for advanced degrees at the University of Chicago carried out a series of studies on the prevalence and significance of non-hunger among preschool children. Barker (5) studied twelve children for three months and found only one child normally hungry for his meals. Maclay (26) studied the eating habits of one hundred children by the questionnaire method, and found only sixty percent with good appetites -- forty percent were definitely non-hungry. Moseley (29), studying one hundred children in city homes, found sixty-six percent non-hungry; and Johnston (20), studying fifty children in country homes, found twenty- six percent non-hungry and twelve percent indifferent. These studies indicate that lack of appetite is more prevalent among city children of the well-to-do class, where the children are petted, over-indulged, and over-cared-for; among only children who are receiving all of the mother's and perhaps the grandmother's attention; and among spoiled Ionly boys" or "only girls“ in a family of several children of the opposite sex. These are all emotional factors and it seems well to review the literature on the psychological reasons for a child's refusal of food or lack of appetite. Psychological Reasons For Failure To Eat. The underlying psychological cause of most bad food habits is bad training, which may take the form of example, attitude, or attention. Children tend to imitate their elders and often will refuse a food because they have seen a favorite parent refuse that same food. Porter (54) and Neff (50) cite poor example as a psychological cause of poor appetite; Baker (1) and Schmidt (41,42) give good example as a means of encouraging a child's appetite. Low expectation frequently leads a child to refuse food. Cameron (4) writes that children sense what is expected of them, and an attitude of doubt or uncertainty on the part of the parents is felt by the child and is reflected in the quantity of food he takes. Oversolicitude, involving too-constant attention or too much control, devebps negativism in a child, in the cpinion of Cameron (4,5), Schmidt (42), Neff (50, and Huenekens (19). If he is allowed to be the star actor in a mealtime drama, he will continue to refuse food in order to keep attention centered upon himself. Feeding him after he is old enough to feed himself, and talking about his eating habits in his presence are cited as bad psychological techniques. One author, Thom (44), gives neglect due to mother's absence as an emotional reason for a child's failure to eat. Hand in hand with bad training goes poor management of the mealtime procedure. Rand,Sweeney and Vincent (56) advise that authority be vested in one or two persons who agree in policy, so that a unified and consistent plan be followed. Some of the authors think there is a high perb centage of refusals of food among children who are governed by more than two adults, 1.9., by parents and grandparents. Regarding the carrying out of disciplinary measures, Huenekens (19), Cameron (4), and Thom (44) agree that ex- cessive authority from the governing body is as bad as authority from several sources. It develops a spirit of rebellion in the child. They also affirm that weak autho- rity is probably worse than no authority at all, for it promotes in the child a feeling of its own power over adults and teaches him that orders are to be obeyed only when con- venient. An attitude of firmness must be adOpted and carried out on all occasions. More often than parents realize, a child's appetite is dulled by emotional factors. Unhappiness and worry on the part of a child, nagging by the parents, are listed in the literature by Cameron (5) and Neff (50). Threats and punishments, state Cameron (5), Baker (1), and Thom (44), upset a child and cause him to lose interest in his food or take an undesirable attitude toward his meals. Just as pleasant associations stimulate the child to eat, so unpleasant ones may condition him against food, according to Schmidt (42). Scenes at mealtime, Cameron (4,5) says, or conversations about subjects which the child dislikes or fears are examples of unpleasant associ- ations having harmful effects on appetite. Thus it may be concluded from a review of the litera- ture that a child may refuse food for certain well-founded physiological or psychological reasons. The physiological reasons include imprOper feeding, fatigue, hygienic factors, physical defects and peculiarities of motility or secretion. The psychological causes include conditions of bad training, poor management and unpleasant emotional conditions. The following study concentrates on the child's attitude toward one particular article of diet, namely, vegetables. It is the aim of nutritionists to have all children learn to like a variety of vegetables and eat them willingly, since this food group has a prominent place in the ideal diet for growth and deveIOpment, due to its high mineral and vitamin content. With this in mind, an attempt was made to determine the effect of texture on the preschool child's willingness to eat cooked vegetables. CHAPTER II. METHOD OF STUDYING THE EATING HABITS OF CHILDREN. Review of Literature. Several studies have been done on the eating habits of preschool children. These will be reviewed for method and for findings. Tupper (46) made a study of children four to five years of age in order to investigate the value of a definite type of training designed to improve concentra- tion at meals as well as food intake of preschool children. To measure her subjects' concentration during the lunch period, she used a modification of the profile method, which showed when the children were in or out of attention. Because she was testing the value of a definite training system, the trainer held conferences every day before lunch, to discuss with the children their past performances and enlist their participation in setting a new standard for the next meal. Ball (2) used a variation of Tupper's profile method to compare the concentration at meals and the food intake of a small group of children under home versus nursery school conditions. She concluded that both concentration and food intake were improved by controlled eating conditions such as were to be found in the nursery school situation. There appeared, from her finding, to be little difference in the concentration of children during meals, whether seated in groups or at separate tables, though when seated separately less prodding and urging was necessary to keep their attention - 17 - centered on the business of eating. Lewis (25) studied the daily variation in food consump- tion and eating habits of three preschool children,who lived at the University of Chicago Nursery SchooL.for fourteen con- secutive days. She studied the total calories consumed by the individual children in relation to the total time at meals, and the variations in the behavior of the children from meal to meal in a given day, and from day to day through- out the period. According to the findings, a child with a concentration of 85% or above was considered an ''excellent" “eater; a "good" eater ranged from 65% to 85%; a ”fair“ eater would be one between 50% and 65%, and anything below 50% was considered "poor." Lewis found that her subjects spent, on the average, 75% of the total mealtime at the business of eating. She found no definite correlation between the amount of food eaten and either the duration of the meal or the per- centage concentration. Nordholm (51) studied the effects of a monotonous diet over a period of six weeks on the eating habits of two pre- school children. With one exception, her records show the children's concentration at meals to be within the range of 65 to 100% -- in other words, practically all their eating could be classified as "excellent" or "good." Nordholm defined “percentage concentration" as that portion of the time the child spent in actual eating, plus serving of the food. Van Alstyne (47) reported an interesting study on the play behavior and choice of play materials of pre- school children. The technique used by this writer is the basis for the method used in the present study. Van Alstyne's records were in the form of profile sheets on which straight lines recorded the child's attention to various play materials, while blank spaces indicated that he was ''out of attention." To quote from this study: "The observer had a large watch with easily observed minute markings. She observed the minute at which a child started to play with a material, noted the symbol for that point, went down the list of children whom she was ob— serving,doing the same thing for all, and returned to the top of the column by the time the minute was up, drawing the line under the symbol to the extent of one minute if the child was still playing with the material; then she again observed him, starting a new symbol if he had changed his occupation during that time. By constantly going down the list every minute, an observer was able to record the child's choice of play materials within the limits of accuracy of one minute. This degree of accuracy has been the limit which other workers in this field have also considered sufficient -- Cushing, Bott, and Herring and Koch. This method therefore allowed a distraction of the child's attention from the play material for 1 minute with- out showing a break in the line of the record. This minute for distraction was intentionally discounted when it was ob- served.’ Plan of Present Study. This study of the effect of texture on the preschool child's willigness to eat cooked vegetables was carried out under the controlled conditions of the nursery school Operated in connection with the Home Economics Division of Michigan State College. Daily records were kept for a period of ten consecutive nursery school weeks, with the exception of two enforced interruptions. Sixteen children, nine boys and seven girls, were enrolled in the nursery school. It was decided to use all the children as subjects and to discard the data for those who were not in attendance regularly enough to contribute records of value. All the children were between two and five years of age at the beginning of the study. Gerry, the youngest, was two years and two months, while Susan, the oldest, was four years and eleven months. The following table gives the age and sex distribution of the children: BOYS GIRLS Gerry 2 years, 2 months. Angela 2 years, 8 months. Xenney 2 “ 8 “ Dale 5 " 5 “ Charles 2 ' ll ' Sister 5 ” 8 " Jimmy 5 " 1 " Marilyn 4 " 1 " Peter 5 ' 4 ' Anne 4 " 5 " Harry 5 ' ll ” Jo Ann 4 " 5 " Tom 5 " ll ” Susan 4 " 11 " Bingy 4 ' 2 ” John 4 fl 5 " Six vegetables were selected for this study; beets, carrots, peas, lima beans, turnips, and rutabaga. There were several reasons for this selection -- the study was carried on during the months of February, March, and April, when the supply of fresh vegetables on the market was limuted; most children under ordinary home conditions are familiar with the first three vegetables named, and many children are not so familiar with the last three, thus an Opportunity was afforded to compare the children's reactions to familiar and strange flavors. The beets, peas and lima beans were canned brands of the best quality. Previous to this experiment, lima beans had been used only three times during the year, and then only in the form of an esca110ped dish with toma- toes, so that the flavor of lima beans alone was practically new to the children. Turnips and rutabaga had not been served to the children previous to the beginning of this experiment. It was decided, wherever possible, to use four textures: mashed, pureed or riced, diced, and large pieces which the child would have to cut. The pureed and riced vegetables were so nearly of the same consistency that it was thought best to eliminate the bother and waste involved in sieving and use only riced vegetables. In order to keep the flavor of each vegetable uniform for each texture, the vegetables were always out in the same sized pieces and cooked in a constant amount of boiling water for the same length of time. The temperature of the water for cooking was kept at boiling \ throughout the cooking period of sixteen minutes. These factors were established in a trial period prior to the beginning of the actual eXperiment. The same amount of salt was always used. After the vegetable was cooked in this form, it was drained and mashed, riced or diced, according to the texture being tested that day. When it was thus prepared in the desired fashion, butter was added for flavoring -- one level table- spoon was allowed for every six servings. I The vegetable being tested was always included in the menu when the day's lunch was being planned, but for the purposes of this study it was served alone at the beginning of the meal, on a small colored plate. It was the custom in this nursery school to eat everything on one's plate be- fore the next part of the meal was served; so it was under- stood by the children when they became accustomed to this change in routine during a two-week practice period, that all the vegetalbe must be eaten before the dinner prOper would be served. The vegetable was placed before each child simultaneously and a stop-watch started. The child could then finish at his own rate ofspeed, without direction or stimulation from those in charge. In the case ofthree of the younger children, some help had to be given with the mechanics of eating, but this was noted on the records. In the preliminary trials, it was found that 45 and even 40 grams of the vegetable lessened the child's appetite for the rest of his meal. Thirty grams proved to be an accept- able portion for the purposes of this eXperiment. Every child was given the same amount, since this was an acceptable portion, similar in size to the servings the children were accustomed to eating. Three factors were chosen as criteria for measuring the child's acceptance of the vegetable: (l) the total length of time required to eat the vegetable. (2) any verbal comments the children might make. (5) the percentage concentration while eating. The method of recording which was finally devised for this study of eating behavior was primarily that reported by Van Alstyne (47). A large, ruled sheet of paper, marked 'off in half-minute intervals as indicated in the following chart, was used. With one exception, the vegetable was either all eaten by the end of the ten-minute period or was not touched at all. In this one case, the total time was 11% minutes; the percentage concentration was figured on the basis of the total time,since this was the method used in computing the other percentage figures. DAILY RECORD SHEET. Vegetable: Rutabaga. Texture: Mashed. Date: February 14, 1957. ATTENTION TIME ot 0 x'- In Attention o - Out of Attenti n s - Vegetable Completed The decision as to the child's state of attention was necessarily purely objective. If he was noticeably chewing food or in the act of carrying food to his mouth, he was considered “in attention." Swallowing could not be detected and was therefore not credited as part of eating. The check was recorded only for that fraction of the 30-second interval in which the child was observed. He might have been "in attention" during the remainder of an interval for which he was marked "out", or vice versa. In this manner, any error in the results is due to understatement rather than exag- geration. Twenty possible checks on each child for the al- loted ten-minute picture would tend to give average results as accurate as those that Van Alstyne and other workers con- sidered acceptable. Due to the conditions under which the study was made, there was no check on the Judgment of the observer as to whether the child was in or out of attention. Only one as- sistant was available. The best method of recording that could be devised under these circumstances was to have the assis- tant do the checking as the author named the half-minute in- tervals and the children who were out of attention during that interval. In this way one person's gaze could easily move around the room in one 50-second interval, while the recorder's gaze remained on the profile chart. Since the number of children was small, the records for the ten-week period were not of the type that might permit of statistical treatment. The findings are therefore offered tentatively, as indications of certain trends rather than as conclusive evidence of the effect of texture on the child's willingness to eat cooked vege— tables. I ‘ From the studies reviewed in this chapter it would seem reasonable to expect a child to spend, on the average, from 65 to 75% of the total mealtime at the business of eating. The literature shows that a child's eating pattern may vary from meal to meal and from day to day. Each of the authors reviewed in the section uses some variation of the profile method of recording in studying the eating habits of children. In the present study concerned with the child‘s reactions toward cooked vegetables an objective decision as to eating behavior was made every thirty seconds for a duration of ten minutes, giving a possible twenty checks for the total period. The following chapter will be devoted to an analysis of these records and to a presentation of the findings of the study. CHAPTER III. THE FINDINGS OF THE PRESENT STUDY. In analysing the findings from the present study of the effect of texture on the preschool child's willingness to eat cooked vegetables, the reactions of the group as a whole are given for each vegetable and each texture, as well as the percentage concentration of each child, based on his own total eating time. Graphs representing the daily fluctuations in each child's eating pattern are given, followed by an appraisal of the individual's eating habits. Since this study is purely objective, only the most apparent reasons for extremes in the pattern are given, such as the removal of abnormal tonsils and adenoids or chronic colds, which obviously might be responsible fbr a change in the eating pattern. The findings are all given in the form of arithmetic ave- rages for two reasons: these data are not of the type that permit of statistical treatment; the most reliable criterion for measure ing the child's acceptance of the vegetable or texture was found to be a percentage factor'based on the length of time it took him to complete the vegetable. compared with his actual eating time. No child ever had a second serving of the vegetable, and verbal comments were rarely made. Only three remarks were overheard throughout the eXperiment. During the preliminary period the same vegetable was used every day for a week, with variations only in texture. According to Nordholm's work on the effect of a monotonous diet on appetite, this repetition should have had * Example: Time to complete vegetable - 6; actual eating time - 5; ‘nnnnnJ-nnn nnnnan'fnni'fian ._ and - no effect. Nevertheless, on the third consecutive day, when beets were served, John ate his portion very hurriedly with a disgusted look on his face, remarking, “Aw: we had beets again yesterday.” On the fourth day that turnips were served, Susan sat in her locker taking off her snowsuit, apparently thinking of the lunch, for she remarked, "I Just hope we don't have those yellow things for lunch again today.” Oneother incident clearly showed the unreliability of children's remarks. Toward the end of the experiment Susan asked what vegetable was being served that day. Turnips were on the menu. "I like turnips," Susan said. "Will you eat all your turnips as soon as they are served to you?" "Oh, year Susan replied; "because I like turnips so much, and I think I'll be the first one finished today.” Susan's percentage concentration that day was 11.5 -- the second lowest figure on her daily chart: As a result of these remarks, it was decided that the best method by which to Judge the child's willingness to eat the vegetable was by a comparison of the total time spent on that vegetable with the time actually spent in eating.it; in other words, his percentage concentration. Findings for the Group as a Whole. The differences in the average percentage concentration of the group for each texture are small, varying only 11.7%. This is contrary to one of the ideas underlying this study, namely, ‘that children are more willing to eat textures which entail little chewing, that is, pureed or mashed, rather than diced or large pieces. On the other hand, many children object to soft foods. The data recorded below give lowest concentration figures for the pureed vegetables (59.5%) and highest figures for the large pieces.(7l.2%). The pureed and mashed textures are similar in consistency, as are the diced and large pieces. The average concentrations for these two groups of textures vary only .9% and .5% reSpectively; the difference of 11.5% between the two groups puts the figures in the “fair“ and "good" groups on the four-point scale. TABLE I. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION OF THE GROUP FOR EACH TEXTURE. Texture Total Percentage Number Average Cone. of Group For: Concentration of cases Each TegtureI All Textures, Pureed 6956.5 117 . 59.5 Mashed 10530.2 168 61.4 Diced 10598.5 147 70.7 Large 5485.5 77 71.2 Pieces _ Total: 55160.5 509 65.5 Vegetables in the order of the preferences of these child- ren, based on the average concentrations for the group, are: beets, carrots, peas, lima beans, rutabaga, and turnips, as is indicated in Table II. TABLE II. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION OF THE GROUP FOR EACH VEGETABLE. Vege- Total Percen- Number of Average Cone. of Group For: table tage Concentration gas es Each Veg. Mg; Bests 6765.6 95 ~ 72.7 Carrots 7201.9 102 70.6 Peas 4598.7 66 66.6 Lima Beans 4550.2 74 61.5 Rutabaga 4975.0 85 59.9 Turnips 526649 91 Slgg Total: 55158.5 509 65.1 The first three vegetables are more commonly used and have flavors with which most children are familiar. Lima beans, rutabaga and turnips have more pronounced flavors, with which these children were not so familiar. The flavors the child is accustomed to eating in vegetables seem, according to these fin- dings, to be the ones which he accepts most readily. There is a concentration difference of 14.8% between beets and turnips; The range of 57.9% to 72.7% is considered between "good'I and 'fair' eating, according to Lewis' scale. The Effect of Social Contacts on the Eating Concentration of Several Children. The records of several children were analysed to determine the effect cg social contacts on a child's eating concentration at mealtime. The children were seated in the same groups for repeated servings of a certain vegetable-texture combination. The examplaagiven in Table IV of the concentrations of a "fair" eater, when seated with a "good" or "excellent" eater, show little consistency. When seated with the same child to eat the same vegetable prepared in the same form, one child's con- centration varies from O to 100%. There seems to be no under» lying pattern characterizing the daily eating behavior.of these children. Possibly a child's eating habits are influenced by factors other than social contact, texture of food, or flavor. His general physical condition, degree of fatigue, amount of out-door activity, degree of hunger, state of emotional tension, or personal fondness for food may be other factors which affect the child's appetite, and consequently, his willingness to pay attention to business of eating. TABLE III. A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL CONTACTS ON THE EATING CONCENTRATION OF SEVERAL CHILDREN. Texture and Vegetab;§_ Subject Peter Tom Sister nne Turnips-Pureed 27.8 77.8 100.0 40.0 Turnips-Diced 50.0 42.9 Turnips-Large Pieces 42.9 85.5 Rutabaga~Mashed 100.0 53.6 00.0 80.0 Rutabaga-Diced 41.7 50.0 Rutabaga-Large Pieces 66.7 77.5 Lima Beans-Whole 60.0 100.0 62.5 100.0 —I__ John Jo Ann Lima Beans-Whole 100.0 20.0 Peas-Mashed Beets-Mashed Turnips-Pureed Turnips-Large Pieces Carrots-Diced __ 100.0 40.0 100.0 70.0 100.0 75.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 58.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 56.0 In general, the eating habits of this group of children are good. One child, or 6.6% of the group, is definitely a 'poor' eater; 55.5% are “fair" eaters, 46.6% rank as "good“, and 15.5% have “excellent“ eating habits. The total percentage concentrations of each child, given below, are taken from Table XXI. TABLE IV.. THE EATING HABITS OF THE GROUP CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO LEWIS' FOURpPOINT SCALE. 0.50% 50-65% 65-85% 85-100% Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration, Susan 59.5 Charles 50.1 Jo Ann 66.2 Kenney 89.4 Harry 52.7 Angela 67.4 John 91.1 Dale 55.4 Jimmy 67.5 Peter 57.6 Sister 68.6 Bingy 58.8 Gerry 68.8 Tom 75.? Anne 85.3 A DISCUSSION OF EACH CHILD'S EATING BEHAVIOR. Charles According to the four-point scale, Charles is a "fair" eater, by a very slight margin. His eating pattern shows a good degree of consistency. Although his average concentra- tion at mealtime is below the average for all children in this study, it is good for this particular child. He is one of the youngest in the group, and when this study was begun he had not yet develOped the muscular coordination which most children his age have attained. He needed help in spooning his vegetables several times -- a fact which might affect his percentage con- centration, since there was a possibility that he might finish eating his vegetable more quickly if he were physically able to handle it, or he might have been given help at a time when he would not have been eating voluntarily. His average percentage concentration for each vegetable-texture combination is given below. His average concentration for all vegetables and for all textures, taken from Table XXI, is compared with the average concentration of this group. TABLE V. CHARLES. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. Vegetable i5232ge CEHZTeFor Textures Vegetable Pureed Mashed Diced Lg.Pieces Beets 72.7 56.2 51.6 55.0 55.9 45.0 Carrots 70.6 57.4 70.8 65.2 58.5 65.7 Peas 66.6 65.6 46.9 80.0 65.9 Lima Beans 61.5 46.1 52.5 47.9 65.0 Turnips 57.9 44.9 65.9 27.5 21.5 25.0 Rutabaga 59.9 52.5 ,57.1 _4§,2 65.g__ 81.8 Charles' Avg. Conc. for Tex: 48.6 44.5 55.4 56.5 Group Avg. Gone. for Texture:59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 Charles is apparently less willing to eat beets, turnips or lima beans than he is to eat rutabaga, carrots or peas. His pre- ferences as indicated by these figures are for diced and large CHAPTER III. THE FINDINGS OF THE PRESENT STUDY. In analyzing the findings from the present study of the effect of texture on the preschool child's willingness to eat cooked vegetables, the reactions of the group as a whole are given for each vegetable and each texture, as well .ea the precentage concentration of each child, based on his own total eating time. Graphs representing the daily fluctua- tions in each child's eating pattern are given, followed by an appraisal of the individual's eating habits. Since this study is purely objective, only the most apparent reasons for extremes in the pattern are given, such as the removal of ab- normal tonails and adenoids or chronic colds, which obviously might be reSponsible for changes in the eating pattern. The findings are all given in the form of arithmetic ave- rages for two reasons: these data are not of the type that per- mit of statistical treatment; the most reliable criterion for measuring the child's acceptance of the vegetable or texture was found to be a percentage factor based on the length of time it took him to complete the vegetable compared with his actual eating time. No child ever had a second serving of the vege- table, and verbal comments were rarely made. Only three remarks were overheard throughout the experiment. During the preliminary period the same vegetable was used every day for a week, with variations only in texture. According to Nordholm's work on the large pieces are also similar, and are more firm in texture; the concentratiors for these two forms of wegetables (71.2% for large pieces, 70.7% for diced), vary only .5%. TABLE I. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION OF THE GROUP FOR.BACH TEXTURE. Texture Number of Cases gAvegage Concentration Pureed 117 ' 59. 5 Mashed 168 61. 4 Diced 147 70.7 Large Pieces 77 71a2 Average For All Textures -------- 65.5 There is a difference of l0% between the two groups, which implies that the eating habits of these children are “good" when fed "firm" textured vegetables, and only “fair" when fed vegetables in “soft" forms. This is contrary to one of 'the ideas prompting this study, namely, that children seem to appear willing to eat textures which entail little chewing, ‘bhat is, pureed or mashed, rather than diced or large pieces. (3n the other hand, it is known that many children object to soft foods. These findings indicate that part of the diffi- culty in feeding children vegetables might be overcome by changing the texture from a soft form to one that is more ac- ‘3G313table to the child. It is quite possible, therefore, that some of the problems encountered in getting children to eat vegetables may be due to the form in which they are given rather than any prejudice against this class of food. As shown in Table II this order of preference for vege- tables among these children, as Judged by the average con- centrations of the group, is: beets, carrots, peas, lima beans, rutabagas and turnips. TABLE II. AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION OF THE GROUP FOR EACH VEGETABLE.* Vegetable Number of Cases querage Concentration Beets 95 72.7 Carrots 102 70.6 Peas 66 66.6 Lima Beans 74 61.5 Rutabaga 85 59.9 Turnips 4%; 57.9 Average For All Vegetables ------------ 65.1 The first three vegetables listed are more commonly used and have flavors with which most children are familiar; the more ready acceptance of this group may also be due, in part, to the sweet flavors Of these vegetables. Lima beans might ordinarly be thought of as a strong-flavored vegetable, but * For All Textures. those used in this experiment were tender baby limas of excellent quality, and were fairly sweet in flavor -— a fact which might account for this vegetable's being fourth in order of preference. Rutabagas and turnips have more pronounced flavors, and are strong rather than sweet. These are the fifth and sixth choices in this study. The last three vegetables listed are ones which these children are not accustomed to eating, so that the flavor may have influenced their reaction toward them. There is a concentration dif- ference Of 14.8% between the first and sixth choices. The difference in concentration between the well-liked group (beets, carrots, peas) and the less well-liked group ( lima beans, rutabagas, turnips) is 10.2%. This difference is sige nificant enough to indicate that the eating habits of these children are "good" when a familiar vegetable or one with a sweet flavor is served, and are only "fair" when the vegetable offered is one which they are not so accustomed to eating or which has a strong flavor. The difference suggests that greater success in feeding children vegetables might be attained if the <>nes offered are mild and sweet in flavor, rather than strong or :foreign to the child's daily eating habits. Evaluation of Eating Habits. In general, the eating habits Of this group of children are ' "800d" when rated according to the four-point scale used by Lewis and other workers in this field. This classification ranks as "excellent“ eaters children who apply themselves tO their eating from 85 to 100 percent of the time at meals. Children whose attention is on eating from 65 to 85% of the total time rate as “good" eaters, while those who spend from 50 to 65% of the total time rate as 'fair'. The concentration is less than 50% of the total time for children who are condidered "peor' eaters. The average percentage concentrations of each child in the present study are classified below according to this four-point scale.(Figures from Table XXII)? TABLE III. THE EATING HABITS OF THE GROUP CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO LEWIS' FOURPPOINT SCALE. Poor'Eater Fair Eater Good Eater Excellent Eater o - 50% 50 - 65% 65 - 95% 85 - 1007. Qogcegtration Concentration Concentration Concentration Susan 59.5 Charles 50.1 Jo Ann 66.2 Kenney 89.4 Harry 52.7 Angela 67.4 John 91.1 Dale 55.4 Jimmy 67.5 Peter 57.6 Sister 68.6 Bingy 58.8 Gerry 68.8 Tom 75.7 Anne 85.2 Although the number Of children in this study is small, the above picture suggests that the group is representative of preschool children in general. The distribution is what might be expected in any normal frequency curve, namely, rela- tively few cases in the extremes of the classification and the maJority of cases grouped about a central or average pcint. * Appendix. Since this is the picture here, the findings from this study might be considered as fairly typical, on the whole, of the eating habits of most normal preschool children. TABLE IV. A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL CONTACTS ON THE EATING CONCENTRATION OF SEVERAL CHILDREN. "Fair" “Good" "Good" "Good" Vegetable and Texture Trial Eater Eater ‘Eater' Eater Peter' Tom Sister .Anne Turnips-Pureed 1 27.8 77.8 - - 2 100.0 40.0 - - Turnips-Diced 1 50.0 42.9 - - Turnips-Large Pieces 2 42.9 85.5 - - Rutabaga-Mashed 1 100.0 - 52.5 - - 2 00.0 - 80.0 - Rutabaga-Diced 1 41.7 50.0 - - Rutabaga-Large Pieces 2 66.7 77.5 - - Lima Beans-Whole 1 60.0 - - 100.0 Table IV (con't.) "Excellent" "Good" Egggggple and Texture Trial__, Eater Eater John JO Ann Lima Beans-Whole 1 100.0 20.0 2 86.0 100.0 Peas-Mashed 1 100.0 100.0 2 100.0 40.0 Beets-Mashed 1 100.0 70.0 2 100.0 75.0 Turnips-nursed 1 100.0 50.0 Turnips-Large Pieces 2 10000 58.0 Carrots-Diced 1 100.0 100.0 2 100.0 56.0 The Effects of Social Contacts. The records Of several children were analyzed to determine the effects of sOcial contacts on a child's eating concentration at mealtime. The children were seated in the same groups for repeated servings of a certain vegetable. The texture of the vegetable was held constant. The examples given in Table IV Of the concentrations of a "good" eater when seated with a "fair" or "excellent" eater, show little consistency. On the average, Peter was a "fair" eater, although his daily habits showed considerable fluctuation. Tom wangenerally a"good" eater, with some daily variation in his habits. When pureed turnips were served to these two children, seated together, the concentration of Peter, the "fair" eater was 27.8% on one occa- sion when Tom, the "good" eater attended to the business Of eating 77.8% of the time. On another occasion, Peter, the "fair" eater had a concentration of 100% while Tom, the "good" eater, concentrated only 40% Of the time. For a different vegetable-texture combination (whole lima beans) Peter concen- trated so and 52.5% of his time in two trials, while Anne, usually a I‘good" eater, had 100% or perfect concentration. Apparently, the presence at the table of a child with different eating habits is not the influencing factor in determining a child's eating concentration. Another case might be cited which bears out this generalization. John, who is an "excel- lent" eater, sat with JO Ann, a "good" eater, for two trials on mashed peas. His concentration was 100% each time, while JO Ann applied herself to eating 100% of the time on one occasion but only 40% on the second trial. The figures from these trials studied for the effect of social contacts do not seem to indicate a positive effect Of one child's average or daily eating habits on the eating concentration Of another child. When texture, vegetable and one social factor are held constant, a child's behavior at mealtime seems to vary greatly. The findings from this study concerning social influence on eating habits are borne out by Ball, who found that the child's eating pattern was not influenced by sitting at a table with other children as Opposed to being seated at a table by himself. Possibly there are other factors than these which have an effect on his appli- cation to the business of eating. The literature suggests general physical condition, degree of fatigue, amount of out- door activity, degree of hunger, state of emotional tension or personal fondness for foods as factors which affect a child's willingness to concentrate his attention on the act Of eating. Each Child's Eating Behavior. Charles, ’ According to the fourbpoint scale, (Table XXII), Charles is a “fair“ eater by a very slight margin. Although his average concentration at mealtime is below the average for all children, in this study, it is good for this particular child. He is one of the youngest in the group, and when this study was begun he had not yet developed the muscular coordination which most children his age have attained. Several times he needed help in Spooning his vegetables -- a fact which might affect his percentage concentration, since there was a possibility that he might have finished eating his vege- table more quickly had he been physically able to handle the task. On the other hand, he might have been given help at a time when he would not have been eating voluntarily. His average concentration for each vegetable-texture combina- tion is given below. His average concentration for all vegetables and for all textures, taken from Table XXI, is compared with the average concentration of this group. TABLE V. « CHARLES' AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR . VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE C MPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. ‘ Group Charles' Textures Largg— Vegetable Average Average Pureed Mashed Diced Zggecea Beets 72.7 56.2 51.6 55.0 55.9 45.0 Carrots 70.6 57.4 70.8 65.2 58.5 65.7 Peas 66.6 65.6. 46.9- 80.0 65.9 - Lima Beans 61.5 46.1 52.5 47.9 65.0 - Turnips 57.9 44.9 65.9 27.5 21.5 25.0 _‘3gtabaga__ 59.9 52.5 5Zgl. _45.2 65%;. 81.8 Charles' Average — - -50.1 48.6 44.5 55.4 56.5 Group Average-65.5 ------- 59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 Charles is apparently less willing to eat beets, turnips or lima beans than he is to eat rutabaga, carrots or peas. His preferences as indicated by these figures are for diced and large pieced vegetables rather than for the pureed or mashed textures. There is no apparent physical reason for Charles' having any appetite defects. The concentration percentages of this study are all calculated from the child's own total eating time rather than on any period of time set by the writer. Since Charles' figures are fairly consistent, it may be concluded that his average concentration for eating vegetables is "fair." Jimmy. Jimmy shows considerable fluctuation in his eating pat- tern. Like Charles, he sometimes had tO be helped with the mechanics of the process. That this factor may have some effect upon his percentage figures might be indicated by the general trend of his graph. His social and play behavior were solitary at the beginning of the study, and at the con- clusion of it, they had become group activities. Maturation undoubtedly has a subtle effect upon some children's willing- ness to eat or apparent interest in eating. 5...... d"... 21.... ./ J MI" " 0" fl..- III I .fll J A. Dal/q HUG/dd C/tar/II , IIIIICI‘CCCI ICC. ICIIIC . III“ III. I ICCI C ‘C ' C IICIIIIII CII IICCICIC l‘i“ I u . III... II. 3 o I q II no _ .. st I. I... III.* I 0 II I I I I I I.rI I I r on I II I I I. I. I I— l I. _. n— __ IL I I0 . g I I I I o I I .1. II. “IIIIOIowa II. I. III I. I I II I I I I CCIVII I I I. I 0...?— IIIOIII I .. IIII IIITII h I I . I I .II I . I _HII I I .5 ”.I I._II I owe I H. I I .. . I . .r. I I r . _ II I v I I .0 Cor — _ III I I .~ .I. .0 *- III I I — _. II I I I I .I. 0 n I ”ftiw. CI'C.IC.II| ICIII III I IIIIIIIICIIIIIIIIC . l I ICIIIIC II. YII II ICICPI I.I I . l I II. 9 I... .I\ II 9.. . . u I I I u. . I . r I a. II" I I I III I II I I III A I. I .I I I I II I I c I o I II 60. II o I I II . I I I. . _ . I .0! I. II _... . I 0 II III .-I.I IIII .I‘ C I * IIr I I I. II III III .I I I II. II I II I I I I __ I I I III .I III .II _ I i I II II II I I I . II I I I I .I II I . I I I I - I. I I I I 1.. I; .. 1 II I a II .. 1.2I I I I.I I v. 0 . I. I O. O ’ -CI 4 III.- ..II ..l.¢ III-V. LI III-C. . .0 III .1? .lCC I.Il.v w‘Cl CII IICI. .IIIIC C I. IIC ‘ . .I . I. I . . _.I I. . rI . —4 I I Y I .0 I IIII — II ._I. II- I I I o I co. I III I. I .II I I II M II. I .Ib..I OI.I. I . I. J I I . .. I I..I.I. III . _ I . I.II I . IIIIII I II II .I I .I ..IIII 0009*. .I YII-III OIOIII 0 III III IdIIIIIOIf’J‘rCIO4 II? .I. . .. o . . I 0.... I I I. 71.; I- I. . I". . 1...».i . I. .. III III ”III — . III I. 1.00.. '0 & or II I” 1 I A I * III .000 I . . I“ I I . FACII IIIIOI. I. .0 .II _I I: I .I... 00090.... . I. .. I... ..v III IIIIII Io. I-‘II II rIIICCIIIIIII . IICCCICIII.. . r1 1 . I III.-.C II I I 0+ .— I “u"... ..._ r .991 - I I... 1.. I . . III I . I.I.-..I . I» Ir. __I.II r ._I Irr Il.n1.foIII.I.I u.. .I a I. III! I IHI I, III... ._ . I I I rCIII..II ‘4‘ I IIIII_III r I ¢ .0 f I i I _. I I. . _ . I ._ I I- II. ..I...I O. I. v. .I n I _ I fl -r I I.- I.II I. III 9.3.011. I. III. I..II¢.I'I....IO_IO III Ircor III I I . .I I V I is.-. I .w.. i... . .I I .I. .. I “O _. I .I I woouu II. __ I... r I I .w woo-a ._I r- _ . _ . . I. o... I . .. v . . fee. ..I .I I~. .Iaow . ~ -I ! ._I. Ii_ III .‘ t I- I IIIA III Q II ._._ ., y .C CO] lCCC-l I.- C lIICIIn- C..CI .IICII OJI 'lC .II'ICCIOICICI I_IOCI.O.OI .DICI. AC.OI.III'II.‘IIQI.OCI .1. n = % II 1] .II .. u I 4 I . ._ rrt.1_. .I . . I.O.~I ‘ . I. . .I I . 10 I I" II II. ...I I. I. I +I. onurn. 1.6II .. ... I. 7 I _II I . II I I}... II .I II I I I IIrII In. I .II..II I I .I. . I I. I “0!... K 6 II I» I III I... _. I _.II I» III II. I I I... III. III I'Iu'bo. . OIIIOCO.-V4 III-.I I IICA*&V.CJ II 14 -._ I. I II. n . . 1 u Iv ._ I I II.I.Io ._It A I. I .II. A I I .I I III... III III 1. |I-..9...I,. — I I_— I . I. I II I .. .oI_III II II. I I I _I I .I: . .I u_ _.II_ 9... .IIIII .I I ll IC’ .0 .9. will- CICC fi‘I'C JrCICIJwIC." IICIII QICCICI ICI III! I. . .-I.:IOII ._.Ir.. .II I . I i... .1... J I I. I II. .IIVII- _I II I II. 00...... I) . ..L.I III I IIIII.I Iv . III _ v-.-. 1.. II I 7.1.II _ I IIrI I. H II .I .I I OFIII‘»L II II I.I.rv O. DION .II I ‘00 I I I _ I 0 ._ VII OI. II I I ..II( I I III I II II I. .I I a . u. I I...“ .... __ I.-, j. .I I I- I II . .9 I . .c I I.HI ” I I.I v C. - ‘. ICI-'.CC.C'ICICI vIII IIIICII I I- .l._ CI. ..III I o. .J Y}... II . c ._I . . ._v .I . _ _ a ’I I" I .9 I. III to. I I1 .0 :- 9 . i.. I .I......_I II.I.. I_I _ I ” I .I _ I‘I-I "III”..-I I ..__ Ifm w r I l I1-II.I.4 11.: 9.9 I .I. I I .. II I / I. .II... ,I I. __ I I.. . III. I II II .I III III II I I ¢IIII I IIdI .. a -. .I I. III III ¢ITI_ _II I I ‘ _ .vo II . .Ih- I. _II .~ I I. n.1'. I.w III Ill! I1 I. III C'OLfilIICCII I— I I. _I . . I t .6. I .4 III I4III I. I.) I b . I I as“ 0.1 OI-.. I v «II w .1. III I . I II IIOIWOI .I I 9 ._ II t i .I _ I O... rOI... -I I IIIIIF “I I IV II I 0.0.. v.7 J ,I 1 II. I II .0410 I v. 7.099 I I I / I I Iv oilowf II n -. IIfiII .I... :.I III.I! . FII I I *. III II I II - . 0.0.. I. x I CI 0 0 IIII — I I .II 0.9I ‘0 II I V . '. I IH C . "CI C. 0.. ” II V CICIIC I CLfi‘CCC.C.C TIIIICC. .IAI TI. v I I I r. [0 > 49 . .I..I «I.m_I.II <4 4 4 «A .. II II “I I- 7 . 4 4d 411i» .. . I . II I ~ .,. I I 4 4 1 VIC .vCC'IOII. C I O. r .I I W VL+A,I:.YIIII,II III I . on «#LI.I.I9 IIIIII —. o I, I AfiWf 9 oil YIOI II 'II — A I I ... I 47.. 61950.... .III I .In I— I. 0.1CI OIICC 4 1i1 _ C..- . I . . I hive. I4tiimv YCIHIH.<.IOIr.- .._ r J I I * . I . .44.?0; v.rL.IIIIII . .II I. . A. r ILA—i II >I II.I_&I 4 . . .I c .6 *1) .10... IIII_, . Ii I'OI*IOIO VI.» A. V3096 IOII ‘0 9-7.! I A .A.) "u III III a.” o .I .IIIOII 3 I . a .fi‘Q.WM.-I . _ __I,_.I I I . 0 Q..L. W .Ir * I I .I .I . . ,.4_.I I .IIIIIIII I4 I... . _ _ I. I o I. I _.+.II re I o I— _ I I I I I III! —III I I I1 I1I O .ICI C.C IIII IIICCIIIO. I O.I.C IIIIIICI I o . u I I I III I _. I IIIII III m. Ir». I .o .. , I — . _ . — I o . I. I u ,.I I II4_I.. o-.. I I I ... I . . I. I . I III II I I o I II .I I I n.. . I I .I . I I .Iba. .~ .1 I. d. a . I 0.1 I. IIIII. I .. . III-III. IO. IIIII IIIIICI 00. fr I. 40 I .IIICIE I I. . I . ’ ".. . oI I c a. I.IIIII I. II... I .I . I .I a... . _.I III .. .~.. .. . .— . .. I I . . I I I I_I+ I I. III. .II m I _ _IIII.I III I .II. . II. . I I _ .I .I-I I.II III * I I. I .I ...IIO I... II I. III.~III:_.+I III I. r ..... .— . .I, I .. . .. ._ - I . II. II III I III I ..II .IcI I ICICO ICC-CCCOVCICI. 5.4-I756 IO. “9'0 '57., 'CIC'CII'O .Y.I-C.I ICC-CICA . ICCITC CICCICCIIOCI.ICIC.C.CI..ICIC'I CC..C.ICO. v CCC'I I 1|IIIOII . I .I a ...u AIIII I Ia ... I I I .I _._I_ I III. I _I. I I ..II.II .— I I I . II I III ~ II I . II . I.II - _I. III IPII. I II I II II I 1 I. ...I II N I 4. . II. I v Ina II“ III - II II I CIII __I0 I «OIII 9I_I .I w I I I II o . I. ..— I . I I I I . I..I “.1. II I .._II a I ._ _ III. III- III. III I 'IIVIHIHIOIAOI II I ~ v 0.0.. II IIIII IOIIII I.o:I 0... CC C. IIOO I61 IOOC'ICIO FICOI‘I I OI WOIOI III. I. II II I. . I m I.I I .I I II __ . 0...... _. .. I _I II_I . I II.. . — —.. .IIII. .I. I I I II I. 1 I It .IIIII II I. I _IIII II .. I . .-.II ._ . _ —. .I .. I on I... _ I .-II.. II c I I.Ie II. Inc. II. .I c I . w .I .. ... 1 I I I..II¢ bro. I I b» . 7 7' Ir, ‘7'".ICIIIIICI - I I ll ICC-Ill..-" /ao .----- 10 it — 70 I. a 46 5‘ r- 10 I II a u ’0 b )5 ‘0 .9 46 .5 In . la a ..._. In 7; .- " 15 X 0 (9 44 J: .l -I-h I J ._., J! habit“ by The H. Ooh C... Coin-bu. Club. No. 3006. Zaire/t: , (49¢. TABLE VI. JIMMY'S AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLES AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. ' Group Jimmy‘s' Textures Large Eegetgble Average Average Pureed. Mashed Diced .Pieceg Beets 72.7 60.7 50.0 48.3 65.1 100.0 Carrots 70.6 76.4 70.9 75.0 71.5 90.0 Peas 66.6 74.2 75.5 80.0 69.5 - Lima Beans 61.5 67.0 63.5 67.7 70.0 - Turnips 57.9 51.0 50.0 25.0 61.9 35.3 Rutabaga 59.9 74.0 77.2 60.6 82L9 100,0 Jimmy's Average - - - - 67.5 65.1 59.7 70.1 85.6 Group Average -65.5- ------ 59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 These figures show a tendency for Jimmy to have certain preferences for texture as well as for vegetable. The averages for turnips indicate that he is less willing to eat that vege- table than he is to eat any of the others. His other concen- tration figures do not vary appreciably from one another. His averages for carrots, peas, lima beans, turnips and rutabaga are all higher than the group averages for these vegetables, whereas his average is 12% below the group average for the vegetable of greatest group preference, namely, beets. His concentration varies 25% for the four textures; his preference for texture apparently coincides with the group preferences for firmetextured vegetables. Kennex. Kenney is a robust, active child, with a normally healthy appetite for all foods. He is definitely an "excellent" eater and a consistently rapid one. From a survey of his percentage concentrations, there is no question about his partiality for vegetable or texture; he seems to accept the flavors of most vegetables readily andlns willingness to eat different textures does not have an extreme effect on his general eating pattern. TABLE VII. KENNEY'S AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLES AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. ¥ :4.. Vegetable verage Xvera8 e Pureed Magfiéaurfiiced ngggs Beets 72.7 97.6 - 100.0 98.9 100.0 Carrot: 70.6 92.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 75.0 Peas 66.6 58.3 75.0 - 75.0 - Lima Beans 61.5 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 - Turnips 57.9 74.6 - 56.7 100.0 100.0 Butabaga 59.9 93.9 - 85.7 100.0’ - Kenney's Average - - - -89.4 87.5 88.4 95.6 85.0 Group Average-65.5 - ----- - 59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 :— In only one instance does Kenney's average concentration fall below that of the group -- this is in thecase of peas. His records show a consistent and definite unwillingness to eat this one vegetable. He has fairly low figures for turnips and rutabaga, but his records are not numerous enough to give general averages for these vegetables. From the trends indicated by these figures, it might be concluded that if Kenney has any preferences in regard to eating vegetables, they are for flavor rather than for texture. 19g; Tom's concentration was more consistent at the begin- ning of the study than during the latter half, when his eating behavior was consistent only in the degree and general pattern of the fluctuations. (See Chart 1.). This child shows definite preferences for flavor in foods, liking beets, lima beans and peas and definitely dieliking turnips, as evidenced by his percentage concentration figures. His pained facial eXpression when he is eating turnips indicates a strong feeling against this particular flavor. His concentrations for beets, carrots, peas and lima beans are well above the group average for these vegetables. The findings for texture indicate a slight preference for the firmer forms, but there is little variation in his concentration for any of the textures tested. Tom's eating habits as a whole are good. Z! \ /q“mv _ 4O _ .34ny Hue/0J6”: i; I“: 157/07 3/: ma 9" 75"", 0‘ In” and .3 my y. Ilogy.7ry»»au#aldvapuuuunszawy la: “3* &‘ ~57 lo /I a hub” ‘51 The H. Cole OIL. Coll-Ml. 0M0. No. ”0 G. _ __,_.—A._. Av TABLE VIII. TOM'S AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLES AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. —‘* Group Tom's :Textures Large Vegetable Average Average Pureed Mashed Diced Pieces Beets’ 72.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Carrots 70.6 77.2 65.4 71.8 100.0 71.4 Peas 66.6 80.9 68.8 80.0 93.8 - Lima Beans 61.5 82.0 85.7 79.2 81.3 - Turnips 57.9 54.0 58.9 48.5 44.2 45.5 Rutabaga 59.9 52.9 66.5 64.4 55.0- 77.5 Tom's Average - - ~ - - 75.7 76.9 75.0 79.1 79.6 Group Average ~65.5 ------- 59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 Jo Ann. Jo Ann's general eating habits are "good", but the fluc- tuations in her pattern, shown in Chart 1, are wide and un- predictable. There seems to be no physical or emotional reasons for this child's eating behavior. She is simply in- terested in everything going on around her and is easily distracted. Her percent of concentration for the business of eating averages 66.2. TABLE IX. J0 ANN'S AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. m T Eroup Jo Ann's Textures Large Vegetable Average Average Pureed. Mashed Diced Pieces Beets 72.7 64.7 20.0 81.7 75.0 51.4 Carrots 70.6 75.9 - 76.7 77.8 65.9 Peas ’ 66.6 74.4 53.3 70.0 100.0 - Lima_Beans 61.5 59.5 60.0 58.4 60.0 - . Turnips 57.9 52.4 56.5 51.5 60.0 - Rutabaga 59.9 68.2 74.2 70.7 55.2 78.9 Jo Ann's Average - - - 66.2 56.4 69.7 72.0 55.6 Group Average-65.5 ------- 59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 The best figures in Jo Ann's table are for diced vegetables. In this case, the "diced“ vegetables were peas which were served whole and classified as diced. This same texture classification was used for lima beans and again Jo Ann's best figures for this vegetable were in the whole-bean form. Her average concentra- tion for “diced" texture was better than for any other texture. Her preference seems to be greater than the average of the group for mashed and diced vegetables and much lower than the group average for large pieces. Jo Ann's tendency seems to be to accept peas, carrots, rutabaga and beets more willingly than she accept: lima beans or turnips.. Bingy. Bingy seems, from the figures, to dislike pureed and mashed vegetables and prefer diced and large pieces. His figures for the first two textures are consistently below the average for the group for these textures; his concentrations are above the group averages for the last two textures named. Bingy's concentrationsfor lima beans, peas, rutabaga and tur-. nips are lower than the average for this study. He apparently likes beets and carrots better than the average child in this group. TABLE x.' BINGYB AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. H Group Bingy's Textures Large Vegetable Average Average Pureed Mashed Diced Pieces Beets 72.7 74.5 - 57.4 87.5 100.0 Carrots 70.6 74.8 75.0 64.5 92.9 100.0 Peas 66.6 55.4 21.5 - 57.1 - Lima Beans 61.5 50.6 5i.5 00.0 45.0 - Turnips 57.9 57.8 - 48.0 76.7 40.0 Rutabaga 59.9 66.1 - 75.0 57.1 - Bingy's Average 4 - - 58.8 42.7 47.9 71.8 80.0 Group Average-65.5 - -'- a - - -59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 _.._._. The fairly extreme fluctuations in Bingy's eating behavior are pictured in Chart I. His records are limited because he did not attend nursery school during the Spring term. Peter. Peter is, on the average, a "fair" eater. His eating pattern shows extreme fluctuations from day to day. His daily concentrations show very little consistency, whether based on vegetable or texture. His average eating habits do not vary greatly insofar as texture is concerned; his acceptanCe of all texturesis poorer than the average for this group. TABLE XI. PETERFS AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP.AVERAGE. _r_, :2;Group Peter's Textures Lara:= Vegetable Average .Ayerage Pureed Mashed Diced .Pieceg Beets 72.7 68.9 66.7 78.5 66.6 58.4 Carrots 70.6 65.9 58.4 80.4 50.0 25.0 Peas 66.6 71.5 54.4 60.0 100.0 - Lima Beans 61.5 58.5 00.0 35.0 61.3 -. Turnips 57.9 55.9 65.9 00.0 58.5 00.0 Rutabaga 59.9 49.7 55.0 45.1 45;9 66:7 Peter's Average - - - 57.6 55.0 51.1 65.7 55.8 Group Average-65.5 ------- 59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 ‘ The average percentages above indicate a definite dislike for the last three vegetables, and a greater preference for peas, beets and carrots. Several factors are thought to influence this child's eating behavior. He breathes through his mouth most of the time, and often has the blank facial eXpression so frequently observed in peOple with enlarged adenoids. Do [/91 flacr‘am‘lb’u in “#4 [3/15, Pol: nu a/ PM, sauna and 144m. / .u 4 re 7 r1 an [lflllf‘fil’fib pauzmzzur «“694 ll! bbttsua! at /u i WWI- on. r. .—.0 "—— HI— 0..- .. “-0- ---0 I. IOIU-II— o -‘——d - —u~ d A " ~-—~4 *0 I ‘ o ‘-‘ ' I ‘ 4 - ‘- yo ya - c -o 4.. '0 ._' '- o - so 0 , . o ' - II c you-0" c o - o~‘-.-» I990-'O--COO.C a u 1.4— . .91: ct! o‘co“~r.uo~ -o-'-ovoo~- o - - I - o I n O 4' one who n...‘ - .019ortqo..oc v .9 bl . I no. -' .9 < 0" o. ~0v" ‘1. 'I‘. '00! ' .- I no - | ‘-—- . -. on. 1. I.+l.-‘.‘ n. a o - | I. e u 1 7" O o" ne'oo-O '0, ‘ 0 '0 .n- c l -I a. . —aoO-u -o-v-o - (qua-Gout .1—o=tw—OO-“ =§1 oc-r— o Q-oon- no. rOIQCOIO- n—o-gc—-’.o-v0.—u.ou-.—.1.-co0.01.49. . I. — r _.-1-o.¢ - o 4 o . i a I - c1-=-“—-{-- .‘Q—cc O ‘-| u ' cw . I I v-I '0’ 6" -¢. 3" o. -. --oo- 0" v-o -'I -oc.5——o— A4001. 0 ’ 'u' l o 7.. o-- o o I '4 I ['0-4 0 ul- ' o .0 Cine 0. OI‘OL—o—v—o-‘ou o a l 00". on. O I 0'... I l— *U 0—*-- n ‘- O » _-__ ,:‘ I -. . '»‘C-0 1 ' 0.11 . I 3.1. 0 O 0 Q k FID——-I-.-Im d—on' .7 Y C-f-o-‘u-‘owrr-Om-o-q-ooé—n ' “7"“?1— “hm-.tI—I-o-tw‘ I —. ~f‘-._ o I. o q—a n: xi], 4 --I 0': t... I »~ , .5 I- o n - h—Q o ‘ a 0' o I------. o‘odco ‘-b --'k ' I. no' — 0. you c ' - I . o— '4‘. q ID—H o o 1 —0000 -: on 9 loo 0 q t n. . u u 0. Ir. I 'O“"‘I. T. I a. n | o to. —' c c I I 01 ’ ‘..-.—_..- Coco-1‘..— .I O h'. I-—y——+‘o..—Q —. o-O-o_l,-t- '1... .... or pro-,- o-o-‘a-ot Q-oo- I'.. . 1 o. _ -' 09- '- o. '4 v "nool‘ obt'.-r<,c I 9 on u... .50.! o tq-~'— . agotqcu o... u q q. 5,. ._. .§ a A o. g u n . c-‘J: Quin 0" c.0006 v- 'cqu- 0.5 pt 0. vlv. OOIO-‘b c 1’ u '. o l-t--o~=-or-1£- - I I' —u 0—1' «0 -~I- vv-Q 0' —o..L'Il-$ +1. on 1.19%.] o‘.-. - 1 ~ 0 O ._ A i in _ Publbbd by The H. Cole 00.. 001mm. Ohb. No. 8006. law”: 23’ law”; a- / 46y Susan. 46 - Susan's average percentage concentration shows her to be unquestionably a "poor" eater. “good" class if she ate steadily. However, she would be in a Her actual eating time is always brief, according to the daily records; the rest of the time is observedly spent in dreaming and in social conver- sation. Physically, this child is in excellent condition, weighing almost a pound per inch of height, a physical propor- tion which nutritionists consider desirable for preschool child- ren. which might be clasafied as dreamy and imaginative. TABLE XII. Her eating behavior is much like her play activities, SUSAN'S AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. Group Susan's Textures ‘ Large Vegetable Average Average Pureed Mashed Diced Pieces Beets 72.7 59.2 40.0 69.5 85.5 64.5 Carrots 70.6 42.6 48.6 56.7 51.7 55.0 Peas 66.6 24.5 41.7 21.6 24.0 ”- Lima Beans 61.5 50.1 64.5 52.9 41.6 - Turnips 57.9 27.4 18.5 18.1 59.8 - Rutabaga 59.9 26.5 26.8 25.4 l7;5 46.2 Susan's Average - - - 59.5 57.5 51.4 45.0 52.5 Group Average-65.5 - ----- - 59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 Susan's records show a preference for flavor in beets and the texture of large pieces. Other than this, her percentage concentrations are all very low. Anne, Anne is a "good" eater with an average concentration of 85.2”. Her eating chart shows some fluctuations, but the general trend marks her as an attentive eater. While the study was in progress, she had several absences due to colds which might in some measure account for the fluctuations. Her records do not furnish enough cases to show definite pre- ferences for flavors or textures, but they tend to favor beets, carrots and lima beans over the other vegetables, and mashed and diced textures rather than pureed or large pieces. - TABLE XIII. ANNE'S AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLES AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. Group Anne's Textures Large t ble ver e vera e Pureed M shed Diced Pieces Beets 72.7 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 Carrots 70.6 88.9 - 100.0 100.0 66.6 Peas 66.6 65.0 50.0 - 80.0 - Lima Beans 61.5 86.6 66.7 100.0 100.0 - Turnips 57.9 71.7 - 80.0 85.5 40.0 Rutabaga, 59.9 65.6 - - 65.6 - Anne's Average - - - - 85.2 61.1 95.0 90.0 68.9 Group Average-65.5 - - - - 1 - - 59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 0n the whole, Anne seems willing to eat whatever food is served without being unduly influenced by flavor or texture. Her records are limited because she was not in school Spring term. 31119.- Dale is a "fair" eater. Her lowest figures for turnips and rutabaga are in accord with those for the group as a whole. Her lowest preference is for the mashed texture, according to these records. TABLE XIV. DALE'S AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. ___ Group Dale's Textures Large Vegetable Average Average .Pureed Mashed Diced .Pieces Beets 72.7 60.6 41.5 55.5 82.9 50.0 Carrots 70.6 56.5 62.5 70.9 10.0 66.7 Peas 66.6 75.0 - 70.0 80.6 - Lima Beans 61.5 64.8 60.0 59.5 80.0 - Turnips 57.9 45.4 - 11.1 56.7 60.0 Rutabaga 59.9 46.9 42,9 55.5 50.0 75-0 Dale's Average - - - - 55.4 54.2 47.8 57.4 50.; Group Average-65.5 ------- 59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 _—‘ The daily fluctuations in her eating behavior and poor con- centration shown on the graph in Chart I might be partially due to nasopharyngeal difficulties. The child's tonsils have been re- moved three times, and her adenoids twice, yet she is repeatedly ' absent because of bad head colds. In appearance, she is a sturdy, chubby individual, but the records show her eating habits to be only fair. She finds many excuses to leave the table during lunch, and in general does not appear interested in food. /e72w/e aXo/ Dai/q Hyatt/argon: a}: fit 54x5, raft/w: ,1 /0o 44 fa -H “oi-.cOOICOOI, r A 1_JL_L .Da/c, Gerry 444’ 5; tr. A 1 A .— 1‘. O O O c I O , z a 4 e" 7 I 7 f. I! [guards/7.011017 «Utmyxgssdzyya-Jaixawébw 1 —“‘-—" I‘— Hd—‘I ‘ . _ A ., 9 0. Doc-I... o. . 0 o-Owteco-OI‘ ‘ I no 0 o o . o o A l."..|4 I o O I .0001..-‘ -o-oo-oo.--——u-h coo-.000. u .-... ..... be ”Nb” by he H. Cole 0... Col-NI. Club. No. 8000. X, Jiwzc: .3 Livy. Gerry. Gerry is the youngest child in this study. 50 Like Charles, he sometimes had to be given assistance with his spoon. "good” eater. As far as these records are concerned, he is a Three times during this study, when his eating concentration was low, he was put to bed before he had finished his lunch. On one occasion, he was too tired to eat; on the other two days he did not seem hungry enough to be interested in food, Judging by the number of times he found an excuse to leave the table. He is a highly stimulated, extremely active child, whose physical condition is clearly reflected in his eating behavior. TABLE XV. GERRI'S AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. Group Gerry's Textures Large Vegetable Average Average Pureed _Mashed Diced Pieces Beets 72.7 62.4 66.7 70.8 55.0 75.0 Carrots 70.6 64.7 87.5 75.6 62.5 80.6 Peas 66.6 88.8 ~ 91.7 100.0 74.6 - Lima Beans 61.5 62.4 44.5 75.4 66.6 - Turnips 57.9 60.8 48.8 - 62.5 - Rutabaga 59.9 60.6 70.0 44.0 62.5 .. 21.4__ Gerry's Average - ~ - 68.8 69.2 72.5 59.8 77.8 Group Average-65.5 - - - - - - ~59.5 61.4 70;7 71.2 The general upward trend of Gerry's graph is similar to Jimmy's. Gerry's percentage figures, shown above, indicate a liking for the flavor of peas and carrots, and the textures of the large pieces and pureed vegetables. Sister. Sister's concentration is good but fluctuates rather widely from her 68.6% average. There are wide variations in her acceptance of textures, while her figures indicate die- like for the flavors of peas and lima beans. TABLE XVI. SISTER'S AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. —’ .— Group Sister's Textures Large Vegetable _Average Average Pureed. flashed Diced Pieces Beets 72.7 78.2 60.0 100.0 95.8 75.0 Carrots 70.6 66.1 87.5 50.0 41.9 87.5 Peas 66.6 56.6 50.0 65.5 58.5 - Lima Beans 61.5 60.1 46.5 70.6 66.6 - Turnips 57.9 70.5 62.5 72.1 100.0 50.0 Rutabaga 59.9 6817 50.8 _§§;5 8Q;Q 100.9 Sister's Average - - 68.6 58.4 72.5 75.1 55.1 Group Average-65.6 ------ ’ 59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 * I “ In general, Sister is a slow eater, averaging about fifty minutes for her total lumch period. This slowness is characterb istic of the child; every movement she makes is very deliberate. Sister is the one child in this group who sometimes shows selective eating by storing in her check some food she dislikes. 49.44.. John is definitely and regularly an "excellent“ eater. Even when his eating pattern (Chart V) drops to 50%, his concentration is comparatively far above the average child's, for this percentage is based on his own total eating time which never exceeded two minutes for any vegetable served. Therefore, every second John was out of attention caused an extreme fluctuation in his graph, because his total eating time was always s>much less than the total time of most of the .other children. The large break in John's graph is due to absence because of a tonsillectomy. The tonsils were not n0ti- ceably enlarged or diseased, but were removed on the advice of a physician. Neither the presence or removal of them seemed to affect John's eating pattern. TABLE XVII. JOHN'S AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. mi Group ‘gfiJohn's Textures Large Vegetable «Average .Average Pureed Mashed Diced Pieces Beets 72.7 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 Carrots’ 70.6 92.9 75.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Peas 66.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - ldma Beans 61.5 80.6 100.0 58.4 85.5 - Turnips 57.9 92.9 100.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 Batabaga 59,9 86.1 100.0 72.2 100.0‘ 100.0 John's Average - - - 91.1 92.9 84.5 96.7 100.0 Group Average-65.5 ----- 59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 m oi/y ”ac/0453’» I}: fit -5//h7 RIF: r»: I I John , 1409‘ /4 on! lyorry. I t3 0'6 7V9~fllz holofihbpaza A' yr ”waxwrxts maul A 1 1'1 1 L A A A A A A L L A L A A A A AAnA‘qA A‘IA."AIA A A A A A A ”LA v. vr T~ ‘ 7 h v, 1 f L--..o.... corset—.-- .... . ... 1 . -1. .. .-... . . ..4.- .... .... ..-.7 -o~—4 n»... 000‘ ....4 ....0.-..4 ....A. .. -..-0.».. ....... 1.. .. ..I ........ . .. ... ...-. ... ... .1.. .... no—o—o 44-‘4.<1. Au. .... --.4‘4-..- . .1,-.. .1...- t .. .' ..1 ... . . . . .. ... .. .1 .,.A .-... ...,J.... 7.. .... ...-4-... /001.--«--—. ..—.41——-—.-..4-.--.,- .. , ..-.-vA :44 :4 .... 4 ¢: _ v A L‘ # ......... ...,..... . 1. .. .' .... ......1. . ......... .... ... .. .g.... .1. . ....... ... . 1 1. l. ....T .1... . ... . ......... o....£.~nr. 4... 1... ...-1.... .,,.I,.-‘_ -....-... -~--o .- . .. .1. ... o 4' 1. .1 . 3.... . ....l-.... .... ... ...'. .4 ........- <.,.. . A. . . ' 1 -.. 1 1 . .. .. .... . ....,.... ....I.... .. ... .‘ ...1.... q. 1 +—~——- r 1 1 ..1.... .... , ... .. ..11 .1 ,.... -.-..... . 1.....[.1.... . .... . ...... 1.1. , . .1 .. 1. 1 1.... ..... ... ,. .. .-...h, ...... . ..... i I. Y‘ 1 .. 1.. ‘.... ........ 1, .4 ...e ...-‘..ov4 h L.“ bfmfl" -4--- ’. -.. ‘0' ~*- - 7v - v —‘ ~ . ~ - . . - Q - - -. —- - - A Y 44 V ...... .. . , 1, .1 , . , .1.. ...I.... ....1.... .'.... -..-_g.... . . . . |1. d ,. , 1 .- . .... .... ...42.... .. I. >-o....... .... .I . , i. 1 ‘ ... -.. ...,. ...‘.... -- .,-.-o1 ....1... .1 . . .. 1.-.. .....1.... .1 75 1 1 . 1 ... ..... .. 1.. 1 1 I . ..{ ......... ...... ...» -- .... ...-...... .. .....I... . ( , 1 .. . ....;.-~. -y+.4...—.. ....}.... ..... ... ..<.. .. . , . . .... . .-‘.... ~,+—‘—<~o?—oc .-.. ...-- .1 , , ,, . ...-... .-..4L ...; ....I...-, ...-.---....-- . -.. ....-..-..--. A- ‘ . ---.. -$- - 1 . l .1 .~ ...1....» ..a: 2.44. ....l.... . .. .1 1 . ..,... .... ....1.... ,._J.. ...—..- ..... ... . ... '. . 1 1 1 .. . ...- ........9 ..a. .4497 . ..‘.,.. - . q 1 A .«.. . ..c.... A..4 .... ...-oo.-. § —' ...W.._..._..__... Y i . , . 1 . 1,. . .1 .-..f.... ...,.... .,., ‘. . ., ...»! .... .. .V..-.A ... ..... ....v... ._ ... , 1 3 ;. 1 .... ....1.... ....,..~.- -..1--1.. .. 1 ' 1 . . .... .... . q... A....g. .. ...a. ... 9‘ .......... W1.1. ....1 ”--...1..*_._'._._._._.___._._._......-4..._.-..._..2 . ., . 1. .1 - I 1 1 i- .... .... .... .4 . ....-..a .... . 1 0.. 1 1 1 . . ] ...... ....I... ...1.... ...A1pe.«.v .- .... 1. 1 .. ’ ’ ' .. ... ......... ...1.... ...- ...-.J ...1........ .. .1 . 1 1. t .... ..4.*.... ....1. .. ...... ...4. a! ‘ 1 A 1 r 1 fl ....... .1. .1 1 . 1 I .1 . ....;.-... ....‘.._1 .. . .4.-1 .. . .... -- 1 . . I 1 ..‘ .... ...._,...-.. ....I ... ... .... . .... ...... .. .1 .1 . .. 1 1 1 ... ...r...- .... 1.. -... .... 1 .. - ... .1. . . 1 . .1 .. .. .. ,..,, ...-71».... .... Aq-s- b rfiH—fi-_¢ -‘_ . . . - . - . . - - . ... . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . .._. ...—1 .3 . .. . ... . . .1 l , 1: 1 . . ...-1... ....Q .-.. <1-v 4‘..{ .'. .. ..I .. . .1. l ,. .... ,....-- . .....t.... .... ;...1 ....... o .. .... . -|. .. ., 0 .... .-.- .... .... .... .».41~cov ...-1. «o . - 1 .- . . L .. . .-.. ... .22. .... ....4qooo 1v 1‘ __- Y ‘ .. .... .. . . . . 1 1 .... .... . . . .. .... ..-. .... .-...... . . ...i . 1 I ~1 1 .... I‘VQ ..4. .... ... Iloolok'd ..'.... . .. . ._ . - 1 1.1.. . .... -~-. .-.~ to»- .... 40“ W's—4a --.-..... .. . ‘. .. . I . ...¢ ..- .... ... ..., 4... 4.“- o+oo< a W-v+---v- , 4,k.--r.,-. .- -¢ —- "—-l—‘*- - — -. _,. e 4 c h- - 4 ~ - - - + - Y . .. -.-.- .. . . .. .. . 1 .1 - .... .....l.-.. .... .... .... .... . -.....‘.. 1, 1.. . 1 . . .. .1. .V.. ..4 .- .. ..oof .44. 93-04 '90» . ...... .. 1. ., . .1. . .1 1. | .... ....A..... .....4...1 .... 049—04 -..A....‘....q '...,.. ... . .1 . . A». 1-400 .601 u~~5 A‘s- co-o—‘A A ? é . ....A... ' .. ... . ....1 .. . . .... ...-. .... *1"* .+-, .....-..... . .11.. . . ... 3.... ..1.1<..< .444 ..4. n4». .4ouj ......1. ‘H .., ..... . .. ...- ..LL ....L. «......«4- . ... ... ...... ... i.... -... .... ...}..-o.4.¢.—.—--4—aao MM-4-....L-.--H.. .-.--. A, 1, >o¢v.'~--- ‘-.vut- -- dco—rv —44~A.a .1...1,. .A.o HtJe-neoL4 Lq-ooo-.. .. .....- .1... . . --v-.-+.-§» . noonbov ' #in v.-.» 4—........ ... ..... ... 1 .;.A.. ....... -... v-o—e—o wok-44.— 0~~< v->ro-< -oo§< .... .......1 .. .... - 1., .... .... .. . .... .... ..1'4c4qo- ... ..... 1 ...1.. . 1 .... .4... .4 . . L .... o.-q¢ Ho-o— . ...-... ...... .. . ... A.. ....1.... a. . p'or “"Y‘ ¢H+4 v -~'-ooO-o - -~ y-cco-e a—ooA - .1 .4. are. -H~J L-r~.44 -ik..._c_..o< ..— .— ..-A V ‘Y . - . . t . . . . . . . t . A .71 . . . - o 4 . ‘ o 4 A > . v-oe t—e A} 9 9—60- . ... .. ..-oo.-. .t- ’4’. n... ~ .1 ,, . ...: .1 «woo—$44 ........ . -.c.... ... o --.. t 4. . .-.--. .14... «~44 ......... ...1 ... .. .. . ...o . ’4 Got .-.< «.4: 5.0.4- o-Q - -1- ». 4.... .... 1.. .7... -v~-r--¢y ....l... . ..o.. . .. . ..n. - '.-. «.4 ....- ""1[_‘ . .-~~ .... -|- >- -- I -<-o Q0¢>“>o -o.¢ ....a+‘o—.eo4 ........ . - - .. l 1... Jo. .....4. ... yr¢< —¢0—4—0'—1 5: 4 .--..,.--.1. . ‘ 9 o 9 A . 0 - - . - . - 1 - - . . o 4 4 ¢ . . - 4 e. b 4 o o A A M». Q rO—OO‘V- ~vH+ ....f... .1.... . J cyc- .... ..., r9 V4 07 ‘ ; Y 1. 1 ..1.... .. . .... .r.. ...J» .. alto-v40 4044 44o§< 1 I .1 .. .1 I ... .... 0'4. .... to—o .o—I --o-o-o—1 - 1 --o--- -' e.... -..4 —,.4—4 .. 01.440 .....4 .4..{ . ‘-1-~ t .... -..r ...1. .... ..746» o-‘O so... “% -...--4<»--+.4 Y Y ‘ ~ ~ - 1 .-o& ao—‘o-s 41.4: ..AA. .74-. oloetcss. ....ono. - .... . 1, l l .... 909-04o-O 9 0—0-4‘ 4.5. ...o ocq—v- 1.4.7.4.... . ..1. . ... 1 ? ... .ti. ..I—a 40¢- 97... .434 9?):— & .....- .- ....... .. g halo bie>o—<‘5~04.440 FQ4A .47.; 590‘. ....... , . ..-.. 1.... ... .. ..... . . ... ... ..... .... ...-o .... ..4-. .... ...... .4... .4 1..-....... ....1.... 1......-. . ... ... a ... . .2.... ...- ,,,.,,-.. .... ..-. ...A ...- 4-5 .» . . ._ . > < . . 6 . . . . . . 1 . I : - v . . 1 . . . 1 . . . . . 1 o . . . . . . . .4. q . . AVA- - . . o . . . c . C b .4. . a c o L A «H +o—o0»;+—¢~‘Aa 1 ‘ ‘ ‘ -........ ...-y.... ... 1... 1 A >.... ..e.. ,.,,, .... .... 4, ........1& .... 0.... ....1‘. .. A... ...-. .-... V... ... .. ...,.... .....i'... ....1.... .... 1.1. ,..1.... 41.. .1 ....1. .. ...1. ....1 . ... ..... .....-..... ...- 4. [A 1 " Y 1 v 1 v e-.4..--.- ._..... .... .... ... a.e.» ..... ... 47.4- .4 ,,,,,,,. . ....1.. ...! .. .... ... . ..... ..... 4.1.t. 1—4..9.-—..1....7,.. ...,.... .... ‘9'. O—-“>O-‘ .... .... .. ..... ....A.. ...A . ... 4.2. o;4~. .... .... co a WW» Wfiq...- }-.--- tow—y ’ _ a- . -.. . . - - . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . ,- - .-— 4 Y ' o f" 1‘“. . v o o . . . , ... ..e--Jp... .... ..-.. ...o . . . .oeeu cat‘?‘ 4'4“! ‘40: ..., v —~—< ~4>< ...- ...-e 1...... .t. ....-4»..¢ «‘44-. .44 «..- o-n ._.-.'.-.. -... .... ...... . . nbc‘, nA-J ¢~ALAV..;0 cawo c. A v Y 1 I .........- ....I.... ....1..1 . ...4. .,,.. ...1... .-.. .. r. ~44 o .5 - . . . . <1 . . - . . A . . . . . oro~v~ o v 6.9 4 o q . 4901 n 04 c .7. 4.... A... ....i.,.. A-....... . ,,?,+, o+#4 fL—4a 9434—1940- +0 ...—.1.... ..o. .... ...... .» . : 440$ ..4—4 .44‘. ..411...,.‘ .. /my~—.+.-" 4&44-1 Hut—o 0+. - Jy—s‘hfia 0 +4. W4” +_.. ._ A L ‘ ‘ ,.-,..,.‘,.,. ...-+...- ... 1-..‘ . .1... corn. ...~ .{‘_._A oo-t. .4 4 o+q7»¢-.A. >-..o..»« 04: .4... O'T‘ bse¢> ore-.140072 .44. .o .4....... ....q.... .... .... -..f. ...: ..4. 04-4. 40>. .. ...-...1.. ...1 ... ....I. .1 . -v.. yo..L—.4.. A... ..A» a. as A . v 1 1 ...-.v-o.‘i4......-.. ...4fy.-1 .... e -. .A.. .. ... .. . ...v .—.4 ...—q .. ~ ....4.... .....As—u. ..n Y.... . .... o‘.4[§900‘000‘ I o. 0‘.- aoo'i5504 ...-1... cQoo'nuo. o-Q‘oO'oA. ova-40.40 . ..-. .494 7‘0004400 9-04 .000 ... '1‘. cove -.A .. ..... ..o..,..nL-....-.A. 4.. 1. ... '.... .1 .... ..I.... .... . h + ‘0 y—oo—o-O‘O—OH1 . Oi-Mow-h fl ?-o—oo1o—o——o—6--o—o—4 . Y . -~oo.¢oo¢ -Ofi‘.a¢o¢ .. . o w you. a c..' . f A 0 too; 4'40 4-v9 ~49. ... o 0.0. ... .... . ‘ q o t - ..icooo soc. 49.0 .40: .... 0.0004.- -..40 ~- a p w-Oo..vot .0001-qo, .-. ... 04-0. . .4... .. l 4 A w r v .. ‘.0 Q. < 4 9 00 a ...-lo»... .oo- ..qn . .- can octo'vv'o .9 o .... .4. 444 0.4 o 0 v A o» u...s09.o4 act. :0 ~~~~boobu «4‘0. .09 t-v-~ ...-'4. . to. A I A .. -b~I o 0.. a-.. ...4 v.. .v....4.. ...... .. ...... 6-4-449- ...-‘9400 I .340 t ......§++,. 4-... 44.4 0.. A... A‘... An. 0...: o .9 L. A'- + 4‘ fl Y ¢-—0-‘ : Loon-«on—wo-o—o—Qo-q Q . .A. 4 .4... o¢$<<>t4$o 0.. 4‘. Adv. 'OvAOooov 0<006 0‘. ....q «v Q o 4.. . ...—1444+ .... .... ..., -... . . .. .... o... .... .... 0 4 6c. <~co¢o+¢v~4 >404 ¢v<§ v... ’00 ,.,.. -.... o—Ov- 44<¢ -2... - 0- O 0 9.-. -..»-r‘aaLo—fi ...—o .... ...- o... .94. .J.. .44 a... o-.<4¢-o A A A A L v ‘7 . w r ....o.... ....... ....Qeowl 4J6—o—LL4—a-o—4-eoo 4-4. too, ‘44. 00+. ..oo 444-09 ‘-~ .... “‘v o.o"..4¢ ...,qoo. .5444... 11.44.. .1..}‘QA1¢OO~O .54. .4. ..4. ...- .. .¢.. 1;... .4». ... in... . ...-A ...oq...o 2‘00 o-an 2+0» .45. .94. . . .0. vovo .4-41... ... ... 4.0.0449- - I. l- 04 0‘0-- .44— ¢~4o 0.4-. H. ..4. ... .... .090 .... -.v- A .-. --.—04y—oo-o-—4 A hfi_._v A -A+ V wH-u‘u—on-‘d AA'....- ~94} 4.. ...: A. 4.0.1.4 .YoIo-p do... -... 4.-.»-.92 q . o o .046 .4... ..oo’...«. a». 0. . 5...... .4. .4.. 4.54 .... .s-e .¢b~ 0V1 <> o—-oo1.¢.1.9q¢,+d, .- .... s.,.1..04 ...AQo-a-4 OvOIOA' ..-...A .A 1*.— 9 .Lot- .oo- 0 OQOVOIJp—QCQO .0- «a... 000" o+4q?9.—¢Ar. . .-b. 044 .49. ‘-‘9-.6ooolo¢oc .. .§-.-— ....I.... ...»..... ...... . ...g-oO-oct hwbottvvo t o-Q ‘< 0004— 50 u o9..§.944 .44 050—0 ...; --¢' ovscfQOac ..oo‘ooo. con .50. . 00.... ..-.- o .O.' -.. .>.¢:ooa 0“ sotojAouo—{op c ‘40.... o. $0.. .004 0.49 O-vQ 00V.Oabh 0.00-... 0,000.5. ...-0990' - v-)‘ ..4 -.--Q ... . -c -. 4 ..£ 4+4 4%.; 44 o..o6..4. ... ... ....J-t. -... .... ...—4f.... ......4.. ....y.... .....- bP—o—oocon-c O-o—OO‘O-o—o—Q‘ ...—o. Y L% v-7“-1—oo—o—oo-o—o-o r—o-o—o—o Ho-oqo—oooq—o---1H—HW--Hq—o+moqo—b—Q—o-e—o—o—o-¢q—-—o--Q—o-.-_ no.0.-. ....0.... a..¢.... oyso1¢§n {La to o... ..-..09- ....Ioo.~ o¢~p1~o¢. ....1.... o. v 4190 . o. .... ..... 41 p.—.-o—¢ooo-A suit... 0 09.0—10.6. 4... >9. 4 4.0.0.4 to. 490‘~‘ . .0 -b- 0-04,. ‘0 noo¢ 49‘¢-—‘§Ql ‘- o. 09?. 99—94 —-O~‘—-‘ . .-.1..... ....ng.... .......4. .14..§.... ...1.... ....*.... - o g.... . ..a..-.1......... oO-vr . .044, .o .94-1oq4 .0 00:44. . o. '00 «9.. 494- 9.... 49n§00¢41o..1004>Iltoo..¢oa. .0... ~$oloooo ~...:o-‘— ...-etuq ...1.. -. o 90‘ con nboOC-940d o oo-o—o—H-o-4o—o—o—.+ “41*61gyhvnt‘1u—rafio—QH—o—o p—o—ooo—Q L : ..«eQ—o" A V. ...; A 6 ...—..—.—....-... . ........ .... .-.. .... .... .....n-.. ....J..'_.. .-. -... 4*... o... .+.¢ .. . o...—..+. ~ ... -¢9 P4.-.'...-g..-.l. 0 ...-.4945 .... o .4 .4.. c¢.». q.-o<'o.. —._.... ...... ....l. 4. 4ch -05-. ...- ....1‘...‘ +p-v—v oco.§o.-o rvy-o—qu.- co. |.-. . ‘00.... ..4-144-. .J—Qt aq-o—o —ocv.I-o.o 414.14—.-- . . .0-5449voc 40¢; ocoo1ro—4—o-qc—1 W o-o. --¢ F.T‘r_4»*¢—o s..-f:o- 4.4.4.»..- A. .p.... 544—6 h¢+—o ..4. 4-45 —>—+~Q—o .4444 -. .A-oJ‘4 +4” 5+ ' 6-9.. ....hwfiAo.‘ QJ—H --0090<-9<$— . i 1 _i_ . . Publhhcd b! The 1 Col. 00.. Col-lab“. Ohb. No. 8006. law/rd e lacy. Contrary to the trend of children in general, John does not like yellow vegetables or soft consistencies. He has frequently voiced a dislike for squash and sweet potatoes, which were not used in this experiment, but which are yellow in color and mealy in texture. John's lowest concentration in this study is for mashed lima beans, which are an example of such a texture. However, his concentration another day for pureed lima beans is 100%, indicating the influence of factors other than texture and personal liking on a child's willingness to eat vegetables. n e1 Angela shows the most extreme fluctuation at the begin- ning of the study. Her physical condition at that time was not good, and she was kept out of school to rest in prepara- tion for a tonsillectomy. Since removal of the tonsils, her general spirits are better, she is more active in her play activities, and the level of her eating pattern shows a rise. TABLE XVIII. ANGELA'S AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. Group Angela's Textures Large Vegetable Average Average Pureed Mashed Diced Pieces__ Beets 78.7 78.1 83.3 87.5 - 63.6 Carrots 70.6 84.0 66.7 76.7 - 100.0 Peas 66.6 ‘68.0 - 66.4 71.4 - Lima Beans 61.5 53.8 ,50.0 57.5 50.0 - Turnips 57.9 72.4 66.3 42.9 86.6 100.0 Rutabaga 59.9 55.2 67.5 00.0 49.5 84,2___ ......1. 1...... z - 67-4 -§§.2 §?-? 52.2 21-1 Her percentage concentrations are similar to those of the group as a whole -- lower for soft textures, and higher for the firmer diced and large piece forms. Harri. Harry's records are limited because of his many ab- sences and his failure to return to school after the spring vacation. The records are used because they cover half the experimental period, and are typical of the fluctuations found in so many children's eating habits. Harry's concen- tration varies from114% to 86% for one texture, showing little consistency. His average eating concentration is "fair" -- 52.7%. TABLE XIX. HARRI'S AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION FOR VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE COMPARED WITH THE GROUP AVERAGE. Group Harry's Textures Large t b e v e Aver e ureed v sh d Di e Beets 72.7 16.7 - - - 16.7 Carrots 70.6 - 55.9 85.7 15.4 66.6 — Peas - 66.6 14.4 14.4 - - - Lima Beans 61.5 56.7 42.5 60.0 69.2 - Turnips 57.9 81.9 - 66.6 100.0 100.0 Rutabaga 59.9 - - - - - Harry's Average - - 52.7 39.9 ‘ 47.5 75.2 45.7 Group Average-65.5 ------ 59.5 61.4 70.7 71.2 a“ .. 56. .. From an intensive study of the individual eating practices of the group, it can be seen that fluctuations in the concentration from day to day appear to be a normal part of the eating pattern of preschool children. There is no way of predicting from one day to the next whether even a healthy child will attend to the business of eating. How- ever, records taken over a long period of time will give a basis for Judging whether, in general, a child is an "excel- 1ent*, "good", "fair", or "poor" eater. CHAPTER IV. SUMHARI AND CONCLUSIONS. Summary. This problem was undertaken in order to study the effect of texture on the preschool child's willingness to eat cooked vegetables. Six vegetables were used, namely, beets, carrots, peas, lima beans, rutabagas and turnips; each vegetable was prepared so as to give four textures: pureed, mashed, diced and large pieces which the child would have to cut. The profile method was the technique adopted for recording each child's eating habits; the thirty-second interval was used to record his attention to the eating of the vegetable. This method was similar to the methods used by Tupper, Lewis, and Ball in studying the eating habits of children. It was also used by Van Alstyne in studying the play behavior and choice of play materials of preschool children. In the present study, a two weeks' preliminary trial period was carried on in connection with the regular nursery school lunch. During this period, the method used in recording the data for the present study was worked out to suit the condi- tions under which the experiment was to be conducted. The subjects used for this study were the fifteen children who are regularly enrolled in the nursery school. The actual experiment covered a period of 44 days, during much time 509 profile records were taken. Any verbal comments made by the children were studied. The time actually spent by each child in eating was studied in relation to the total time he took to complete the vegetable. Using percentage concentration for all vegetables and all textures as a measure of the child's application to the business of eating, it was found that 13.5% of the group could be clasSified as "excellent" eaters, 46.6% as "good" eaters, 33.3% as "fair" eaters, and only 6.6% as “poor“. In other words, the concentration for 60% of the group ranged between 65-100 percent. This would classify their eating habits as "good" so far as their attitude toward vegetables is concerned. The average percentage concentration of the group for texture ranged from 59.5% for pureed vegetables to 71.2% for vegetables served in large pieces. The average of all sub- Jects for all textures was 65.3%. This would designate their eating practices as "good" so far as their attitude toward the texture of the vegetables is concerned. The order of preference of the group for texture, as ex- pressed by percentage concentration, was: large pieces, diced, mashed, and pureed. The concentrations for large pieces and diced varied only .5%; the concentrations for mashed and pureed varied only .9%. Between these two groups of firm and soft textures, there was a concentration difference of 10%, which would classify the eating habits of these children in regard to vegetables as "good" for large pieces and diced (firm tex- tures) and "fair" for mashed and pureed (soft textures). The effect of texture on a child's acceptance of vegetables bears further investigation; since this study indicates that by changing the texture of a vegetable a child's attitude toward eating it may be raised from "fair" to "good". Hence, it seems evident that part of the difficulty in feeding children vegetables might be due to the texture as well as to the flavor of the vegetable. I The average concentration of the group for vegetables was 72.7% for beets, 70.6% for carrots, 66.6% for peas, 61.5% for lima beans, 59.5% for rutabagas, and 57.9% for turnips. A In relation to flavor, these children preferred those flavors which were sweet and mild and with which they were most familian namely, beets, carrots and peas. Their average concentration for this group of vegetables was almost 70%. The average for lima beans, rutabagas and turnips, vegetables which are stronger in flavor and which these children had not been accustomed to eating, was 60%. The difference of 10% classified the behavior of the subjects of this study as "good,“ when eating vegetables which had mild flavors which they were-familiar with, and “fair" when eating vegetables which had stronger flavors or flavors which they were not so accustomed to being served. The flavor, then, might have some influencecan the readiness with which a child accepts vegetables. The effect of social contacts on a child's application to eating was studied. It was found that the concentration of these children was apparently uninfluenced by the seating com- binations at the tables. It would seem, then, that putting a "poor" eater at the same table with a "good" eater would have little influence on his attention to his meal. This is in accord with the findings of Ball, whose study showed that there was no apparent difference in the eating concentration of children whether seated alone or in groups. A study was made of the daily fluctuations in each child's eating pattern throughout the period. A child's eating habits vary from day to day, but over a long period of time his average concentrations indicate whether he is, in general, an "excellent", "good", "fair", or "poor" eater. Conclusions. The following conclusions may be derived from the present study: 1. Texture and flavor undoubtedly have some influence on a child's willingness to eat cooked vegetables. 2. The findings suggest that children prefer firm textures, such as large pieces or diced, as cp- posed to soft textures, such as mashed or pureed; 5. Children prefer flavors which are mild and sweet and with which they are familiar, such as the flavors of beets, carrots, and peas. 4. Personal likes and dislikes play some part in de- termining a child's eating pattern from day to day. - 51 - 5. The presence cf other children at the table during mealtime apparently has little effect upon a child's application to the business of eating. 6. A child's eating pattern fluctuates from day to day, but over a long period of time his averages indicate whether he is, in general, an "excellent”, ”good”, "fair”, or "poor" eaters. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. 11. 12. 13. Baker,E.D. Ball , £1vo Barker, M.E. Cameron, H.C. Cameron, H.C. Carlson, A.J. Carlson, A.J. Carlson, A.J. Chaney, BIOS. Clarke, T.W. Daniela , .AoLo and Byfield, A.H. Davis, C.M. DaV18 , C.M. BIBLIOGRAPHY Parenthood and Child Nurture; The Macmillan Co., 1922. Eating Habits of Preschool Children Under Home and Nursery School Conditions; Malter's Thesis, Department of Home Economics, Univerb sity of Chicago, 1930. A Study of the Group Lunch as a Means of Solving Some Problems in Feeding the Preschool Child; Master‘s Thesis, Department of Home Economics, University of Chicago, 1934. Want of Appetite and Refusal of Food in Child, hood; Guy's Hospital Reports, 73:12, 1913. The Nervous Child; London and New York, 02ford University Press, 1929. Secretion of Gastric Juice in Health and Di- sease; Physiological Review, 1923. The Control of Hunger in Health and Disease; University of Chicago Press, 1916. New Aspects of the Significance of Hunger and Appetite Gastric Juice in Practical Medicine; Interstate Med. Jour., 24:448, 1917. A Comparison of the Value of Milk and Oranges as Supplementary Lunch for Underweight Child- ren; Amer. Jour. Dis. Child., 263337, 1923. Anorexia in Children; N.Y.S. Journal of Medi- cine, 24:329, 1924. Antineuritic and Growth Stimulating PrOperties of Orange Juice; Amer. Jour. Dis. Child., 19:349, 1920. Self Selection of Diet by Newly Weaned Infants; Amer. Jour. Dis. Child., 36:351, 1928. A Practical Application of Some Lessons of the Self-Selection of Didt Study to the Feeding of Children in Hospitals; Ibid. 46:743, 1933. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 30. 21. 22. 35. 34. 25. 26. Bibliography (continued) Emerson, W.R.P. Gillett, L.H. Griffith, J.P.C. Hobhouse, N. Holt, L.E. Huenekins, E.J. Johnston, F.A. Kerley, C.G. Kerley, C.G. Kerley, C.G. Kerley, C.G. Lewis, M. Maclay, E.R. Nutrition and Growth In Children; New York and London; D. Appleton & Co., 1920. Nutrition Service In The Field; White House Conference On Child Health And Protection, The Century Co., 1932. Care of The Baby; Philadelphia and London; W. B. Saunders Co., 1913. The Treatment of Anorexia In Children; Lancet 1:503, 1925. Food, Health and Growth of Children; New York: The Macmillan Co., 1922. The Preschool Child; Jour. Amer. Med. Assn., 85:481, 1925. A Study of The Reaction.To Food of Country Children of Preschool Age and Factors In- fluencing It; Master's Thesis, Department oszome Economics, University of Chicago, 19 6. Short Talks With Young Mothers On The Management of Infants And Young Children; New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1926. The Practice of Pediatrics; Philadelphia and London: W.B.Saunders Co., 1915. Apparent And Real Appetite Defects In The Young; Med. Clin. of N. Amer., 1:507, 1917. Malnutrition In Children of The Well-To-Do; Southern Med. Jour., 14:685, 1921. Variation In Caloric Intake And Eating Habits of Preschool Children; Master's Thesis, Department of Home Ecnomics, Uni- versity of Chicago, 1931. A Study of The Prevalence And Lack of Appetite In 100 Preschool Children;‘Master' s Thesis, Department of Home Economics, Uni- versity of Chicago, 1924. Bibliography (continued) 27. Miller, R.J. Gastric Heeponse to Foods XIII: The In! and fluence of Sugars and Candies on Gastric Rehfuss, M.E. Secretion; Amer. Jour. Phys., 53:65, 1920. 28. Morse, J.L. Diseases of Nutrition and Infant Feeding; and New York: The Macmillan Company, 1920. Talbot, F.B. 29. Moseley, M.R. Reactions to Food of Children of Preschool Age with Special Consideration of Manage- ment as a Conditioning Factor; Master's Thesis, Department of Home Economics, Uni- versity of Chicago, 1925. 30. Neff, F.C. ”Edward Never Eats That"; Hygeia, 2:514, 1924. 31. Newell, E.W. Effect of Adding Orange Juice to the Diets and of Underweight Children; Jour; Home Ec., Miller, R.J. 15:421, 1923. 32. Nordholm, P. L.The Effect of a Monotonous Diet on the Eating Habits of Preschool Children; Master's Thesis, Department of Home Economics, Michigan State College, June 1932. 33. Osborne and Physiological Effects of Diet Unusually Rich Mendel in Protein or Inorganic Salts; J. Bio. Chem, 71:317-50, 1927. 34. Porter, L. Some of the Behavior Abnormalities of Childy ren; Their Genesis and Management; Arch. of Pediatrics, 42:1, 1925. 35. Ramsay, R.E. Under-rested Child; Arch. of Pediatrics, 42: 816, 1925. 36. Rand, Sweeney Growth and Deve10pment of the PreschoOl Child; and Vincent W.B.Saunders Co., 1934. 37. Roberts, L.J. Nutrition Work with Children; University of Chicago Press, 1935. 38. Roberts, L.J. Teaching Children to Like Wholesome Foods; Hygeia, 2:135, 1924. 39. Ross, J.R. Value of Increased Supply of Vitamin B and Iron and in the Diet of Children; Amer. Jour. Dis. Child., Summerfeld’o ”P049 1185,1955. 40. 41. 42. 43. 47. Sauer, L.W. and Minsk’ LQDQ' Schmidt, 0.12. SChHlidt, CoRo Spears, M.E. Thom. D.A. Tupper, H.B. Van Alstyne, von Hofe,F.H. Bibliography (continued) Gastric Findings In Children With Anorexia; Jour. Amer. Med. Assn., 79:184-6, 1922. The Psychology of Child Nutrition; Jour. Home Ec., 17:260, 1925. The Psychology of Child Nutrition; Master's Thesis, University of Missouri, 1924. Castro-Intestinal Studies As An Aid In The Treatment of Undernourished Children of . Preschool Age; Atlantic Med. Jour., 26:69, 1925. Does Your Child Fuss About His Food7; Leaflet I, Nat. Com. Mental Hygiene, 1924. The Effect of Systematic Training Upon Food Intake and Concentration During Feeding of Preschool Children; Master's Thesis, Depart- ment of Education, University of Chicago, 1929. Play Behavior and Choice of Play Materials of Preschool Children; University of Chicago, Press, 1932. Anorexia In Early Childhood; Jour. Med. Soc. of New Jersey, 21:55, 1924. APPENDIX _ 66 - TABLELXX AVERAGE PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION OF ALL CHILDREN FOR EACH VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE l ° 8 o r: :0 O H as 0 <1: “ ‘* s5 5 55 5 s5 5 o o . $043 to <3 5044 m 4. 1109—: an ‘H 504-103 00 «H on «H ‘39” 3s 8 o3 3s 8 .3 3s 8 o3 3s5 8 .35 ° sfi .38 88. 8 88. 88. 8 88. 88 8 88 888 8 888 8 88 888 -P 4: 1P .9 3 522 ‘5 28)"? 535 '5 88388 582 “a 88.2 52s: “a 28m 552’ 88’... p mam <03 mpm 4mm web 400 mpw «on a mo ¢ma e an H > as a >4 5H H >H 95 H bg 0 b +2 Hop. <1) 9. :1. H02 0:4 D. 3 Hon 0 9.. Q r-HD a) g. H H 9. a) ado .0 5;: «So .0 23.x: ~60 .0 5;: «$0.: .0 .3303 «6 as :31: 8 88 8 88 88 8 88 88 82.8 58 8 28 8 8 28 > 90 2 OH 90 a am 90 2 am so 2 0H 9 9 6H CARROTS 1555.9 22 72.2 2125.6 32 66.4 1759.4 25 71.6 1695.0 ’22 77.2 102 7201.9 70.6 BEETS 559.6 10 55.9 2647.1 36 73.5 2035.6 26 75.3 1523,3 21 72.5 93 6765.6 72.7 PEAS 1255.1 23 54.7 1512.5 21 72.4 1627.5 22 74.0 ——- -— - 66 4395.7 66.6 LIMA BEANS 1420.3 25 56.5 1417.7 24 59.1 1712.2 25 65.5 -—- -— -—- 74 4550.2 61.5 TURNIPS 1027.4 15 57.1 925.7 23 40.2 1933.3 27 71.6 1350.5 23 50.0 91 5266.9 57.9 RUTABAGA 1102.2 19 55.0 1691.3 31 54.6 1300.0 22 59.1 551.5 11 50.1 53 4975.0 59.9 Total @565 -— ~117 —————— 10320.2 165-~-—--10395.3 147 ————— 5453.3— 77. - —— — - — ————..._..——.__.._ Group Average All vegetables Each Texture ------ 59.5 ————————— 61.4- ————————— 70.7 —————— — 71.2 ___________ -67... 8'6 $8HA .8. TABLE XXI. “44:23 ('3 gym 5 5 . s E». 5.3 e PERCENTAGE CONCENTRATION OF EACH CB'ILD FOR EACH VEGETABLE AND TEXTURE 8:; ' m 3 ...:fi 2’. 8 8 8.2: . 8. 888 8 A. _. 88588 88 3885 neg; BEETS CARROTS PEAS LIMA BEANS TURNIPS RUTABAGA 7,3 8 g 1; g :38 f, 3 => 5.. W “*- . +2 c: 0 50K +7 'd Cir-4H TQEP M D L P ii D L P M L P M L P M (D L P M I) L gsggg g 5855 Charles r31.6 50.0 45.0 45.0 41.7 40.0 50.0 71.4 43.5 50.0 50.0 00.0 00.0 60.0 77.5 00.0 3,3 25.0 42.9 42.9 60.0 51.5 —- 25.0 26.7 - 100.0 38.: 66.6 60.0 50.0 50.0 77.5 65.0 55.7 66.0 50.0 54.5 22.9 55.6 31.4 35.7 66.7 - 2205'3 4" 5°°1 __ 30.0 __ ._ __ - . __ __, __ __ __ __ __ __ 5,11 .. __ .......... . ..... Jimmy 50.0 50.0 91.7 100.0 41.7 62.5 42.9 50.0 73.3 50.0 50.0 54.5 44.5 40.0 50.0 00.0 66.6 33.3 44.4 42,9 50.0 100.0 4 - 22.0 35.5 --— 100.0 5%.; 100.0 100.0 .- 50.0 55.9 72.1 90.9 100.0 - 50.0 57.1 100.0 100.0 33.3 55.7 - 9835-3 2 57.5 _ .0 __ __ _ . 1 _ __ _ ; _ _ __ _, _ __ _ _ _ __ - .7 ._ ._ . . . ._ ...... . ......... Kenney "" 100.0 10000 100.0 10 00 100.0 100.0 75.0 5000 "" 75.0 100.0 - 100.0 - 40.0 100.0 100.0 "— Ego? 100.0 '— -. 100.0 55.7 - -— 100.0 100.0 -— 100.0 - —- -— -— ._ -— -— 33.3 100.0 -— -— —- - 211”“? 2“ 39-4 - 100,0 - ... _ — — — -- - - — .- —- -- -— —- -— —— —- -— — . .................. Tom 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 60.0 50.0 100.0 71.4 75.0 100.0 57.5 100.0 .0 62.5 . 66.6 45.5 45.5 56.3 57.5 60.0 .3 — 108.3 100.0 100.0 66.7 62.5 100.0 — 62.5 60.0 100.0 71.4 53.3 100.6 43.3 30.0 42.9 53.3 66.7 4g.4 50.0 7Z— 3252-8 “3 75.7 - J . ... _ ._ _ ._ ... .. - ._ _ _ ... ._ ._ _. .. -. — _5 .3 — — . .. ................... Jo Ann 20.0 75.0 100.0 5. -— 100.0 55.5 62.5 56.4 100.0 100.0 60.0 41.5 100.0 0.0 1.3 60.0 55.7 573‘ .0 0.0 5.9 — 70.0 50.0 24.4 ~— 58.0 100.0 69.2 50.0 40.0 100.0 60.0 75.0 20.0 22.5 3-— —— -’ 30.0 4;.1 36.3 7- 2645.8 40 66.2 -- 100.0 —-~ ~ - ,0 -— - - — - -— -‘ - - -~ - "" 90.0 "‘ " . ...... L ................ Bingy - 5.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 71T4“55.7 100.0 26.3 - 57 1 20.0 00.0 40.0 2 .4 ,3 40.0 -— 7 .0 .1 - - 40.? 75.0 - 100.0 16.7 100.0 —- 16.7 -— - 42.9 - 50 0 - 62.6 136.0 —— —+ , E. SZ- *- 1685.3 28 58.8 _—;~ 57, . -— - -— - —- —- - — — - —- — - - - —- “'7 “ —‘ " ......................... Peter 66.7 100.0 66.6 50.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 23.1 60.0 100.0 00.0 00.0 60.0 27.5 00.0 66.6 00.0 10.0 00.0 .0 66.7 —~ 77.5 66.6 66.7 66.7 55.7.100.0 50.0 55.7 60.0 100.0 - 70.0 62.5 100.0 00.0 50.0 42.9 100.0 38.4 1.7 —- 2475.3 43 57.6 -‘ 57. - - —' '- __ - - i - - — - - - -— - - -* ..o - - .............. . .......... Susan 40.0 10.0 66.6 100.0 22.2 00.0 20.0 60.0 50.02 25.0 35.0 64.3 52.9 25.6 25.0 -15.1 22.0 30.0 25.6 20.0 15.0 46.2 ‘— 71.4 100.0 25.6 75.0 46°C 53.3 50.0 33.3 15.2 1.3 —- -— 54.5 11.5 - 5 .5 -— 25.0 30.5 20.0 - 1570.3 1'0 39-3 -- 5 , - ~— -- , -— - - - - — '- ‘7 "' "' “ "' '" — _ " . ......................... Anne —— 100.0 100.0 100.0 —— 100.0 100.0 66.6 50.0 -— 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -—- 50.0 100.0 40.0 - - 63.6 - -— -- 100.0 — - - —- - -— — --— 33.3 -— 100.0 - -— 66.6 — - - -- 5899...}? ..... 9:3... Dale 41.3 40.0 50.0 50.0 62.5 60.0 10.0 66.6 -— 70.0 50.0 60.0 33.3 50.0 - .0 60.0 60.0 42.9 00.0 50.0 75.0 1607.3 29 55.4 —- 66.6 55.7 ‘— -— 51.5 e~ 66.7 -—- - - - 55.7 - _- 22.2 53.3“_gj.1 - 66.6 '5 .J‘ ------------------------ . Gerry 66.7 25.0 60.0 50.0 75.057.5 100.0 53.3 53.3 100.0 71.4 55.6 6.7 66.6 37.5 - 62.5 3.3 60.0 41.7 50.0 71.4 -— 57.5 10.0 100.0 100.0 33.3 25.0 77.5 100.0 100.0 77.5 33.3 100.0 —- 60.0 -— - -— 50.0 46.2 75.0 - 2533'” 38 70-5 __ 100.0 __ _ _ 100.0 __ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ . ....... 4 . o o . o ......... 0 Sister 60.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 75.0 50.0 43.5 57 5 50.0 76.9 70.0 20.0 64.3 66.6 50.0 69.2 100.0 50.0 30.5 50.0 50.0 100.0 2539.3 37 53,5 —- 100.0 57.5 109.0 100.0 -—7 40.0 - 50.0 50.0 42.9 ,2.9 76.9 -— 75.0 75.0 100.0 2.9 ‘-' 52.6 '-* -' ....................... . Harry _ ... ._ 15.7 55.7 15.4 5.6 — 3.3 _ _ 2151.3 60.0 gofg — 66 6 100.0 75.0 _ : : : 735.0 14 52.7 Angela 53.3 57,5 - 63.6 66.7 70.0 -— 100.0 -l- 72.7 71:4 50:0 42.3 5010 45.0 42.9 55.7 100.0 75.0 00.0 44.4 54.2 g 5’, """ .4 ' . \ : j; :- :_ _-_ 831:3 _-__- 10040 - 60_._o : __ 72;] : 579 : 51.5 58.3 60_._o 22.}, 58:5 3 f 213... .33 ..... €37. ..... . John ' - 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 10010 100.0 10010 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 66.6 100.0 '50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 66:6 100.0 100.0 3371.3 37 91.1 "- 100.0 100.0 '- 100.0 10 .0 100.0 -— -— 100.0 ._ - ,100 0 66.7 -7: 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 75.0 - -— - 100.o -— —- - - -— — -- _ 5— ~— -— - - — —- —— —— — 75.0 - — . ........................ Texture; P - Pureed D - Diced W - Whole. classified as diced TOTAL 33318-0 509 , M ... Mashed L - Large Pieces AVERAGE 65-5 u o o v t o A \ 0 § 0 v u u I \ v 0 6 o I 1 I 0 p 9 I I v Q o u I I O Q P b v i b O 1 I U 0 . ' . s D U D C D \ 2 .4 9 6 O 7 O 2 1 1 1 0 2 7 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 9 3 2 2 7 5 O 4 4 O 2 O 3 1 6 G 1 1 1 1 1 1 T O 1 9 6 6 0 8 2 0 7 0 5 7 3 1 1 1 l 1 9 0 2 6 7 O 3 6 2 7 9 7 14 5 O P 1 1 1 2 st__T_.___G__.G____G_.P____G_G__E___G__E__ a %§FG.GE.E._FF_FF_F_.FP_PP_F_F_FG_G___PF_E._ mMPPFPFEE__EPFGPEG__PPEPP.__PGPP_GF__PFGWGG m MPPP_PE____FG_FE____PE_PP___P_GF_P___GG_E__ C S m LPF_EP_E__PG_F._PF.PP_P__P_FFG__FPG_EF_EE_ 8 m m5?P_FG_EE_PP_F._FE.GF_PF_EGFEF__EEE_EE_EE. n m MEPF_PF_PP_GP.P._PG_PP_P1_G_PP___GGG_P__FE_ _ w TPfiF_r_.___GP_FF.___PE.PP___ _PF_PG__PE_E__ m L o . B .%% MwDFG.PE_E__FE_EP_PF.FF_PF_EEG_G._G_FGF__GE_ Mng 1 m kflPE_PE__._GG_PG.P__PG. __E_PEPE_FGF.PG_FG_ .1.. 0055 % mPPG_TG_E__EG_FF_PP_P__ ..EPF_TP.FPFPF__EE_ 568 C A L t .I M % .... ... H mm"! T __ __ rrde m M_ PFG_TE_G._EE_EE_F__EE.PP_G_G_GG_GP G EG. mamm s . PF E .m m ”EEG.GG____EF_EP._..FF.PP_..G_EE_GF._GF_ E. .n.. T , m TPPPF_G_.FE_GF:FF.PP_PE_FP_F___GE_FFPP___E._ PFGE G W. 0. n T 1 0 M 1?F_GE.G__G_.fiG.E__iF_FF_G_GGGG_E_..EE_E__ m . a W WDFF_PE.TE_EE_FE.EE_EP.PG_E_P;EP.PPF.___EE_ w 0 n m mMTPFFEGEE.GF.EGFGP_GE_PPPE.FGEPEF_F.GG.EE. w n m TPPE.PE_E__FG_ FE_FG_PG___F_GE_GEE.G_. F. w H C A m E C e F .1 O LP__E__ __EE.fP_E__FG_EP_E.F.jE_EFP_F_.E__ dd P L eede M sDPP_EP_ E.EE_EF.EG_GG_GE_EEGGFP_EE.____EE_ mmwm M RHFPP PF EEEEEGGEGPFEGFPGFE_PFPEEEE_.E._EEE PMDL we : _. __ _ ___ C_._F___G__:_ .... .A :PP..F___ E P___ G. P_ P. . PMDL 800.8 1 rn _ bmto a n1 .. 1.01.8.3 my 8.49.03 H eEn A :20 t .....-midb X . — mam haw Y n r h .. Y B Y L164...“ m. e m a M w e e r t r e n 130.3 m m m n t 8 n l r s r 8 h :wem i e 0 0 i e u m a % i a m h mmfi J K T J B P S D S H :5.“ : ~69 _. TABLE )Dflfll. DAILY FLUCTUATION IN PERCENTAGE AOONGENTRATION OF EACH CHILD —_“t:”::ff'"t?::322:fjt:g___‘_ :w :1'7 - ~ - —-_5_ _ fi_ --' - — w 1 ~— ~ 1.- — g; — — ~ —- 53$ 9 =3 a *3 5‘ =5 “I a 9‘ “‘ "a a Q Q 9 B E: ‘3‘ n p‘ A :3 a 2 a 2 n. a a p. a p. a: :I :3 A a. a A a. m a .3 Subject (:70; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' i . ' I t ' . I ' ' ' ' ' i ' ' ' ' ' ' ‘ ' AVERAGE fy'nc: e-u E—4 E—4 a ..2 ..a A m A a. In m o In In I1. .3 O O a. o O a m a: O m a: n. t—« n. B a. A n: m m a: O m 0 a: a _ Charles 42.9 u2.9 00.0 54.5 25.0 60.0 00.0 00.0 25.0 65.0 43.3 -—— 30.0 66.6 35.0 26.7 50.0 66.6 41.7 50.0 50.0 71.n no.0 53.3 50.0 60.0 36.4 n2.9 35.7 30.0 77.3 30.0 50.0 77.3 35.7 57.1 45.0 31.3 66.7 60.0 31.6 100.0 81.8 55.6 50.1 Jimmy 42.9 57.1 00.0 50.0 33.3 30.0 140.5 54.5 35.0 2.1 ——- -—- 60.0100.0 91.7 33.5 50.01oo.o 41.7 LI2.9 73.3 30.0 62.5 66.6 50.0 30.0 37.5 IILIJI 53.3 30.0 50.0 30.0 -— 33.9 90.9 35.7100.0 100.0 35.7 100.0 50.0 100.0100.o 100.0 67.5 Kenney 35.7 100.0 40.0 33.3 100.0 —— —— —— 100.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 35.7 75.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -— -— —- -— ¥— - —— - —- -“ -— ‘7 -“ '7“ ‘“ "‘ "’ “ 89-1+ Tom 37.5 42.9 66.6 30.0 55.5 62.5 75.0 100.0 100.0 71.4 75.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.5 100.0 60.0 100.0 ‘62.5 —— - #5.5 100.0 60.0 30.0 56.3 #7.n 100.0 77.3 60.0 40.0 100.0 33.3 53.3 100.0 66.7 50.0 71.” 100.0 66.7 77.3 83.3 75.7 Jo Ann 75.0 —— 31.3 —- —- 100.0 51.3 60.0 70.0 60.0 56.4 53.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 20.0 —— 55.6 50.0 62,5 100.0 60.0 75.0 50.0 30.0 53.3 A7.1 100.0 50.0 50.0 62.5 100.0 75.0 90.0 un.u 90.0 56.3 69.2 20.0 100.0 73.9 53.3 66.2 Bingy 75.0 100.0 29.3 66.6 40.0 30.0 00.0 20.0 30.0 n2.9 26.3 100.0 57.1 100.0 100.0 75.0 57.1 50.0 50.0 35.7 16.7 100.0 71.4 53.3 75.0 57.1 -— —— —- '—— —— —— —- - - - -— - *7 ‘7 ‘7 "‘ " “ 58-8 Peter 00.0 50.0 00.0 00-0 00.0 60.0 00.0 00-0 77.8 - 23.1 50-0 57-1 00-0 66.6 66?6 100.0 62.5 50-0 100.0 85.7 100.0 -——- 66.6 100.0 50.0 75.0 10.0 29.5 60.0 27.3 60.0 100.0 100.0 70.0 100.0 66.7 100.0 41.7 50.0 66.7 66.7 66.7 #2.9 57.6 Susan —- 54.5 18.1 - -— 28-6 - - 71.“ 64.3 50.0 100.0 57.1 83.3 66.6 100.0 35.0 54.5 22-2 20-0 33.3 60.0 00.0 25.0 10.0 15.0 no.0 23.6 20.0 25.0 25.0 13.2 11.5 13.0 52.9 30.3 23.6 25.0 20.0 50.0 40.0 75.0 46.2 30.0 39.3 Anne —— 66.6 -— 30.0 40.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -—- 33.3 50.0 100.0 5- 100.0 100.0 100.0 30.0 100.0 -—~ -—- —5 66.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 63.6 -— 5— —- —— - -— —- —— —— —— -—- —— -' - -— -*- - -— 33.2 Dale 00.0 53.3 00.0 22.2 60.0 30.0 33.3 60.0 -— —— - 50.0 66.6 10.0 30.0 35.7 30.0 ... ... —- -— 66.6 60.0 60.0 30.0 50.0 31.3 n2.9 66.6 70.0 ——- '- -— -- 3537 -~ ._ —- - 66.? 41.3 62.5 75.0 57-1 55-4 Gerry -— -— —- —— —— 66.6 #6.7 55.6 37.5 33.3 33.3 50.0 100.0 25.0 60.0 10.0 71.3 '*F- 75.0 100.0 100.0 33.3 87.5 62.5 25.0 50.0 33.3 60.0 #1.? 100.0 37.5 100.0 60.0 77.3 100.0 36.2 100.0 30.0 75.0 77.3 66.7 100.0 71.# 33.3 70.6 Sister 30.0 100.0 69.2 75.0 50.0 -— 65.3 50.0 100.0 #2.9 50.0 50.0 100.0 40.0 100.0 37.5 70.0 66.6 75.0 43.3 50.0 - —— 100.0 —- ~—- -—~ -—— -—- 76.9 50.0 50.0 75.0 42.9 76.9 52.6 100.0 30.3 30.0 37.5 60.0 100.0 100.0 “2.9 68.6 John 66.6 100.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 66.6 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 —- —— 66.7 75.0 -—- - -— -* -' 100.0 100-0 100.0 91-1 Angela 00.0 37.5 42.9 -— 100.0 50.0 32.3 50.0 - —— —— —— —— —— —— —— - -—— —+ -—- -— 100.0 70.0 35.7 37.5 nu.n 33.3 75.0 57.1 72.7 55.0 60.0 37.5 71.4 72.7 66.7 63,6 60.0 53.5 100.0 83.3 66.7 84.2 58-3 67.3 Harry —- 100.0 -—- 66.6 75.0 53.3 60.0 .60.0 - 25.0 13.3 16.7 —- -— - —~ - 30.0 35.7 66.6 15.h- ~— -— -— -—- ~—- —— __. —— .—— —— -—— -—— ——- —— . —— ... -*— -— -—- -" -* -* -- 52-7 Vegetable: B ~ Beets Texture: P - Pureed C ~ Carrots M - Mashed P - Peas ' D - Diced L — Lima Beans L - Large Pieces R — Rutabaga W - Whole Classified as T - Turnips large pieces. _ ... 1 . . m s .m. .w 19 g _ 1&2 1927. _ 6.4 37 . .86 .32 55 a 32%.... undo e s c .H I. m 1 1 ...... . . O a .1 M 2 e 1 d ,.. _ m o a A I a Mama). 1&2 x 31%.». 6......»2 _ 73. O3 _ KHZ .31% 3. 1. _ 11 611”. mu 1mm.” 1 ... o ...1.. ...... ... ...... . r... .. w .. mlo 22 22 . .11 11 _ 1......21 2...”...2 _ 2.1%. 22 .22 _ .11 M13 _. . 1 ._ . . L W _[m I m $0.3 71h“ . Rafi. 7. 1. _ 32 $.21 _ Loan. %.3 .53 . .t _ 3.92 I 1 _ 2 w ... A I o 53 .44 . 75 Qua. _ 21 8.4 _ ......w.5 amen». 411...». . I _ 33 mmm .. . P M D .72 253.3 . 52.22. .633... _ 12.2.32 _..23 f... 1 . . .212 5 . .. T m I m 81%,. 2 2 . 32 51%. _ 11 6......2 _ . _ .322 1%2 _ _ . 53 m .T K A I m MM». 55 _ 1. 1. 9.4 _ fl2 3 72 _ . 3. 3. #55 _ _ fig. ..m . S” I .m 7.4 1.1%!) _ 61.1”. alum. _ 22 %2 _ _ Q23 “dds _ ’21.”.2 6....4. 8 . m a _ 8 :IA 76 “$5 _ 65 .43 _ 51.1». #1.“? . 3.223 22 “$25 _ 111121 4&4 kmm . .. . . a n a. . m r t 1 1.. 2 1421.2 1.21.2 . 1571.2 BIm 3 M24 . $715. 32 . 11 ....111 _ _ _1 2” .73 ... ..32 mmm _ _ , l.i---1--.If--l| ll! .1 . I. n a . . _ 12.1.2 ., R m I .H. .42 _ “#121 41%,. _ 22 F/uya _ . __21 T3 _ d _ 412A LT a I m 7.12». 7.12.». . 12211... $22 . .2121.2 H2 . . 125%,. 63 . 11 .53 w . _ 1 mtg. %3. 42 _ um3. 63 _ 9.92 82 . . 83 5.22 _ 11.M.n...2 “mamame. A . . a I m 71%. 7.....32 . 3. 3. 22 _ 53 6......2 . 5d». 123. 15.5 . .. . 5.4 B0 P .2. A I a I m 7 .../.24 _ .3. $4 _ 2502. M2 . 6.4 61192 . . 215.12 7.4 mm 2. a! m I m 7 $.22 _ 8%. 612». _ M1 72 . 432.}? 2. _1_ . . _ 2.....M212 V2 a I 0 H4 411.». P 1%.22 $.22 _ 2......12 52 . dam... M4 . . . _ 3.94.2 m 1212 12 .1212 M n m M6 M8 53 9M2 4222 63 M1 $1.». M5 M5 . . 11 94 G W... a I m 8.4 8.4 11 22 .43 2......12 22 M1 11 52 41 _ . 1.212 4.12». A E ”M A I a IP24 1.11.25 11 121.42. 53 1.0.4 32 Mme... . . 53 41%,. 11 _ . . 4&3 U T m a I 0 M4 .4126. 11 _ 22 3. 2. _ M0 . _ 53 411*”. _ _ . . 511”. S . U m A I 0 up? 54 2...”...2 _ 4122 22 1_ 1. 2.1. Eel 32 332 _ _ _ . 1.21.: E 1.2 m A ... m 73 8.4 22 M5 M3 22 .un2 MO _ . 42 mafia.» 3 _ _ _ X V {III 0 x. 1212 1212 ..l E W n I 0 7d». 73 11 M2. 1...».3 33 M2 _ _ 11 8119/. M23 11 _ w w E _ T M m I 0 61%,. 692 11 flan». _ 51.1.22 21 92 _ _ 2...”...2 21k. 1..».3 11.2 _ . D L m B I A 6.4 $224.2 11 55 51 63 41%.... 4123 11 . _ H23 3.2 11 _ m 2-2636323332227122 $222533 5.2 _ ...... Y 7 _ _ m A I m ...».22 $2. fi3 22 9M». .43 32 22 11 12.».3 M1 44% _ 11 _ E w A I m MM». 615.22 33 11 32 32 11 922 53 2. 2. _ _ . _ m ..... . . M n I o ...”.121 11 11 1.212 . . 11 MO 3%.». . __ M1 6.....1.2 52 _ _ . . L A M. 2 I m 03 2.1. ... ._ .2 66 1%.2 7.4 12.222 _ 6.4 1. 1. 33 . . . _ T 1 ,, . II.-. if- . ii: 2 A I m _ _ 1.1. 11 6111». 1.1. 11.2 11 11 21 11.2 11.2 61 _ _ _ m I a 8% _ 21 21......2 SM». .052. Amer? M5 11.2 . . .332 M5 .52 . . . m I A Mnma. 7a”. 1.212 .9392 53 73 . 7M5. 31 _ %1. ”I. 61.32 1. _ _ a I m Mu». M12». flaw/1.2 22 512». 52 um3. 3. 2. . _ 412». MM»... _ 22 _ m .... A 10 16 . 33 53 O2 00 _ 1.1. $4.3. %2_ .42 53 22 63 1 1 . 1 1 I . .1212 d». a A n0 n5 . .43 R5 F20 n0 _ 22 31 73 7%.. M6 21 U a» I A $2 52 _ 4%. 11 52 53 72 11 @222 E21 . 612». Ian/.1 5.92 .H I _H. 611...... 62 11 dance ._ 52 M0 . 126.1 Mafia . 21 21k». 11 22 a I .A. 1%.3 .42 H.197? 51.”...2 _ Eel M0 _ 12.1.1222 M31 . 2...”...2 ......121 1.12 _ 3 a I .A. 00 00 meal M23 81%,. 8. 2. 00 ....fil _ 00 . g . 11 73 1 1 1 . 1.. a .... .H. 73 7.4 1.212 73 _ 11 63 1%.3 32 1.54 _ 22 11 . nu”. m I m 73 73 122323 41...». 6M2 6%,. 60 . _ 60 _ £122 _ . H21 60 . 3.3.1232 . S I e v. n r a , ...... v. m m a m. m e e w. ...... w. n a. a m n m n t m n 1.12 r .m m .m 8 2 2 n... % .... m .... s m n .... s ... .. m r I ll! 7‘ I i- I blow IflW‘1lobh\r¢Ip, 71.1.03- I . .. .r VJ ...“. RIES \ M'11111111111T1111111511‘flfii5‘““