scott wrote:
>> As I say, a "1/4 burger" only weighs 1/4 lb BEFORE you cook it. Also, 
>> she didn't just eat the burger; it was in a bun.
> 
> I assumed they would actually weigh the food just before it was eaten 
> rather than rely on the name...

Why would they do that? This is Braniac! If it says 1/4 lb on the box, 
it must be 1/4 lb, right? :-D

>> But sure, knowing Braniac, I doubt the highest standards of scientific 
>> measurement were employed. ;-)
> 
> I doubt you can actually buy a weighing machine with enough accuracy for 
> that.  The most expensive medical one I could find that went up to 100 
> kg only offered an accuracy of 150 g, which is pretty useless when the 
> burger weighs less than that.  I just don't think a machine that can 
> weigh up to 100 kg is practically possible with an accuracy of 1 g, the 
> tolerances involved in manufacturing and calibration would be insane!

You're probably right about that...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> 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

What's wrong?

A calorie is a unit of chemical energy.  Whether the assertion makes sense
depends on the energy density of body fat.  The value is pretty close to what
I've heard before.   He's even got the psychology right-- when I've all of a
sudden started up a major exercise program, I'm sure the first week I've
consumed many more calories than I was the week prior.

Post a reply to this message

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

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

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

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

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

>> 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

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

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