POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Body math Server Time
9 Oct 2024 08:25:39 EDT (-0400)
  Body math (Message 11 to 20 of 28)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 8 Messages >>>
From: Mike Raiford
Subject: Re: Body math
Date: 17 Apr 2009 13:00:59
Message: <49e8b5cb$1@news.povray.org>
Invisible wrote:

> "You need to burn 3,500 caleries to loose 500g of body fat."
> 
> Um... really? I would have thought that the amount of energy you need to 
> burn would be related to the amount of energy you consume in the first 
> place... no?

Keep in mind the "Calories" they talk about are actually Kilocalories. 
so 3,500 * 1,000 or 3,500,000 ...


Post a reply to this message

From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: Body math
Date: 17 Apr 2009 13:03:08
Message: <49e8b64c$1@news.povray.org>
Mike Raiford wrote:

> Keep in mind the "Calories" they talk about are actually Kilocalories. 
> so 3,500 * 1,000 or 3,500,000 ...

Is "calorie" actually an unambiguously defined unit? I was under the 
impression that there are several slightly varying definitions for it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Body math
Date: 17 Apr 2009 13:25:08
Message: <49e8bb74@news.povray.org>
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Is "calorie" actually an unambiguously defined unit?

  No, it's just that Americans, once again, cannot use the same units of
measurement as Europeans. Thus what's "kilocalorie" here is "calorie"
there, just for the sake of creating confusion.

  (I wonder what "kilocalorie" means in the US. Is it the same as a
megacalorie here?)

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Body math
Date: 17 Apr 2009 13:41:33
Message: <difhu4linurvp6bvoug83m1qimg68cfset@4ax.com>
On 17 Apr 2009 13:25:08 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Is "calorie" actually an unambiguously defined unit?
>
>  No, it's just that Americans, once again, cannot use the same units of
>measurement as Europeans. Thus what's "kilocalorie" here is "calorie"
>there, just for the sake of creating confusion.
>

When talking about food we, in the UK, use calorie for Kilocalorie as well. When
talking about heat energy, those of us of a certain age, use Therm or BTU. :P



>  (I wonder what "kilocalorie" means in the US. Is it the same as a
>megacalorie here?)

Meow LOL ;) 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: andrel
Subject: Re: Body math
Date: 17 Apr 2009 15:50:52
Message: <49E8DD9C.40208@hotmail.com>
On 17-4-2009 12:49, Invisible wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> "You need to burn 3,500 caleries to loose 500g of body fat."
>>>
>>> Um... really? I would have thought that the amount of energy you need 
>>> to burn would be related to the amount of energy you consume in the 
>>> first place... no?
>>
>> I don't think so, burning 3500 calories is burning 3500 calories, 
>> which apparently will make you lose 500g of fat.  Whether you then 
>> immediately consume 3500 calories and put it back on is another matter 
>> :-)
> 
> LOL! WTF?
> 
> That's pretty special, right there. And you're telling me you engineer 
> stuff for a living? ;-)
> 
> That's almost as broken as the logic in Braniac's weight experiment. 
> They got a girl, weighed her, and then made her eat a quarter pounder. 
> Afterwards, she was less than a quarter of a pound heavier. This is 
> because of "the energy used by eating the burger". And not because, say, 
> 1/4 lb is THE UNCOOKED WEIGHT OF THE BURGER or anything like that... :-P

That refers to a very classical experiment where someone measure his 
weight while sitting on a platform for some time and became lighter all 
the time. That was the first time they got a clue that perhaps we are 
breathing out CO2 and that takes some weight. I can not find a reference 
unfortunately.


Post a reply to this message

From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: Body math
Date: 17 Apr 2009 17:30:15
Message: <49e8f4e7$1@news.povray.org>
>> That's almost as broken as the logic in Braniac's weight experiment. 
>> They got a girl, weighed her, and then made her eat a quarter pounder. 
>> Afterwards, she was less than a quarter of a pound heavier. This is 
>> because of "the energy used by eating the burger". And not because, 
>> say, 1/4 lb is THE UNCOOKED WEIGHT OF THE BURGER or anything like 
>> that... :-P
> 
> That refers to a very classical experiment where someone measure his 
> weight while sitting on a platform for some time and became lighter all 
> the time. That was the first time they got a clue that perhaps we are 
> breathing out CO2 and that takes some weight. I can not find a reference 
> unfortunately.

It strikes me that this would take a really, *really* long time to 
happen though.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*


Post a reply to this message

From: andrel
Subject: Re: Body math
Date: 17 Apr 2009 17:56:32
Message: <49E8FB10.9080402@hotmail.com>
On 17-4-2009 23:30, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> That's almost as broken as the logic in Braniac's weight experiment. 
>>> They got a girl, weighed her, and then made her eat a quarter 
>>> pounder. Afterwards, she was less than a quarter of a pound heavier. 
>>> This is because of "the energy used by eating the burger". And not 
>>> because, say, 1/4 lb is THE UNCOOKED WEIGHT OF THE BURGER or anything 
>>> like that... :-P
>>
>> That refers to a very classical experiment where someone measure his 
>> weight while sitting on a platform for some time and became lighter 
>> all the time. That was the first time they got a clue that perhaps we 
>> are breathing out CO2 and that takes some weight. I can not find a 
>> reference unfortunately.
> 
> It strikes me that this would take a really, *really* long time to 
> happen though.
> 
He sat there, I think, for a couple of days, it was noticeable much 
sooner. The platform and the food (and the toilet, these were other 
days) were on one arm of a scale and counterweights on the other.


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Body math
Date: 17 Apr 2009 18:34:23
Message: <49e903ef$1@news.povray.org>
scott wrote:
> I doubt you can actually buy a weighing machine with enough accuracy for 
> that. 

I'm sure you can. I've even seen a calorimeter the size of a room that could 
measure (for example) the number of calories it took to stand up from being 
seated in a chair. (Measuring the heat change in the room, basically.)

It wouldn't be cheap, but i'm sure there are scales that will measure a ton 
of something to the gram. It's not hard to do, just expensive.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Body math
Date: 17 Apr 2009 18:38:35
Message: <49e904eb@news.povray.org>
Warp wrote:
>   No, it's just that Americans, once again, cannot use the same units of
> measurement as Europeans. Thus what's "kilocalorie" here is "calorie"
> there, just for the sake of creating confusion.

My understanding is that a Calorie is one thousand calories.  I.e., that 
technically the capitalization of the word makes a difference. Stupid.

The calorie is a metric unit, IIRC, raising one gram of water one degree C.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!


Post a reply to this message

From: Mike Raiford
Subject: Re: Body math
Date: 17 Apr 2009 22:24:04
Message: <49e939c4$1@news.povray.org>
Warp wrote:

>   No, it's just that Americans, once again, cannot use the same units of
> measurement as Europeans. Thus what's "kilocalorie" here is "calorie"
> there, just for the sake of creating confusion.
> 
>   (I wonder what "kilocalorie" means in the US. Is it the same as a
> megacalorie here?)

They tried to switch us to metric. We kept our confusing customary 
measurements, because why on earth would I want to measure out 14.8ml of 
sugar...?

(I'm being facetious...)

My dad got all agitated when I was describing the size of something in 
mm instead of inches... The item was only about 1 or 2 mm in length. He 
couldn't handle mm. Well, err... less than 1/16 of an inch, I suppose..


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 8 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.