 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> wrote:
> 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..
You could always get really malicious about it. I'm just waiting for the
opportunity to quote a figure in attoparsecs per microfortnight. It turns out
this is about 1.0043 inches per second, if I recall correctly. Just waiting.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> 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?
In general, this is just the energy density of fat. It doesn't mean that if you
run 35 miles or so, you will loose one pound of fat. Aside from hydration,
there are a bunch of other things going on. The relative proportion of
carbohydrate and fat stores that you burn changes with the type and duration of
the exercise, although it's all interconnected anyway. For the most part, you
burn mostly fat in your day-to-day activity, but once you start exercising, you
go through a number of different phases. I won't pretend to know all of the
details, but the point is that this figure doesn't really tell you much about
weight gain/loss.
In my own experience, I find that if I sit around all day, I don't really need
to eat much for a couple days, and if I run quite a bit, I get really hungry
for at least a couple days. So even if I burn an extra 3500 calories, it seems
that I tend to make up for that anyway.
If you systematically deprive yourself of a net 3500 calories over the course of
a week, you might find yourself a little more sluggish, lowering your metabolism
a bit, ultimately coming closer to breaking even anyway.
In short, put the computer to sleep, enjoy the outdoors when you can, and don't
worry much about 3500 this or 500 that. :-)
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-4-2009 5:09, triple_r wrote:
> Mike Raiford <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> wrote:
>> 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..
>
> You could always get really malicious about it. I'm just waiting for the
> opportunity to quote a figure in attoparsecs per microfortnight. It turns out
> this is about 1.0043 inches per second, if I recall correctly. Just waiting.
>
> - Ricky
>
1.2148 inch per second
see also:
http://catb.org/jargon/html/A/attoparsec.html
http://catb.org/jargon/html/M/microfortnight.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18.04.2009 05:40, triple_r nous fit lire :
> In short, put the computer to sleep,
No, launch a good rendering instead. That's what povray is made for: locking your
computer
so that you
> enjoy the outdoors when you can, and don't
> worry much about 3500 this or 500 that. :-)
>
> - Ricky
>
Now 3500 KCalories per day is a lot.
But the real energy should be in joules.
For me, it's about 10 mega joules a day.
8 is low, 12+ is for hard work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/men4060/Pages/beatthebulge.aspx
>
> "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?
A certain amount of body fat is water. When the fat is gained, the
extra water is retained as well. When the fat is burned off, the water
is released.
This is why fat has 9 calories per gram, but eating 3500 calories of fat
(which is less than 400 grams of fat) causes you to gain 500 grams of
weight. The 9 calories per gram figure reflects the actual energy in
the food.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 1.2148 inch per second
I get "1.00432766 inches per second"
http://www.google.com/search?q=attoparsec+per+1e-6+fortnight+in+inches+per+second&btnG=Search
(Huh. I guess microfortnight isn't a commonly accepted unit.)
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Le 18.04.2009 05:40, triple_r nous fit lire :
>
> > In short, put the computer to sleep,
>
> No, launch a good rendering instead. That's what povray is made for: locking your
computer
My most profound apologies. I stand corrected.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-4-2009 15:50, triple_r wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>
>> 1.2148 inch per second
>
> I get "1.00432766 inches per second"
Ouch. You are absolutely right. For some reason I forgot the
microforthnight per second factor. I'd like to blame that on it being
very late at night, being drunk, stoned, or ill, but none of these apply :(
>
http://www.google.com/search?q=attoparsec+per+1e-6+fortnight+in+inches+per+second&btnG=Search
>
> (Huh. I guess microfortnight isn't a commonly accepted unit.)
I wouldn't know why.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
