Comments on: “Farewell” to the Calorie? http://metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/calorie-farewell-20070307/ Commentary on the measurement muddle in the UK Fri, 18 May 2012 16:59:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Philip http://metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/calorie-farewell-20070307/comment-page-1/#comment-23962 Philip Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:53:09 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/15/calorie-farewell-20070307/#comment-23962 'By the end of 2009 Tesco will phase out the use of kilocalories (kcal) as part of the nutrition information provided on its own-label food products' Another year has gone by and Tesco still hasn't done it. ‘By the end of 2009 Tesco will phase out the use of kilocalories (kcal) as part of the nutrition information provided on its own-label food products’

Another year has gone by and Tesco still hasn’t done it.

]]> By: Jackthesmilingblack http://metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/calorie-farewell-20070307/comment-page-1/#comment-19913 Jackthesmilingblack Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:08:09 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/15/calorie-farewell-20070307/#comment-19913 Big picture time, Britisher pals. It's inefficient and potentially error inviting to use the metric and imperial measurement systems side by side. Literally the worst of all worlds. An improvement, albeit slight, would be to return to Imperial, but obviously too late for that. And keep in mind that the US version of Imperial (USCS) differs in some respects from the imperial system still used in UK. You really have got(ten) yourselves into an unholy mess. So when you do give it best and fly the coop, getting up to speed in metric will be part of your learning curve. Unless you make repressive countries like Liberia, Myanmar or the United States your host country. Big picture time, Britisher pals. It’s inefficient and potentially error inviting to use the metric and imperial measurement systems side by side. Literally the worst of all worlds. An improvement, albeit slight, would be to return to Imperial, but obviously too late for that. And keep in mind that the US version of Imperial (USCS) differs in some respects from the imperial system still used in UK. You really have got(ten) yourselves into an unholy mess.
So when you do give it best and fly the coop, getting up to speed in metric will be part of your learning curve. Unless you make repressive countries like Liberia, Myanmar or the United States your host country.

]]> By: Matthew http://metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/calorie-farewell-20070307/comment-page-1/#comment-19880 Matthew Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:12:51 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/15/calorie-farewell-20070307/#comment-19880 I am a science teacher and use SI units in calculations. The metric system makes it easier to calculate as it works in multiples of 10. However i do not understand the obsession with phasing out imperial. Imperial units sre the best to use when baking, measuring body weight and even hieght. This is for a variety of reasons. primarily they are easier to remember. ounces are just perfect and easier to double the recipe. 8oz of sgar 4oz of butter etc is far easiier than 250 grammes etc. It is alos far easier to visualisde the doubling up. For measuring height the feet define people into categories. Below 5'6" is short above 6" is tall. Try doing this in cm. Worst still try gauing someones weight in kilogrammes... yuk! And a pint.... do not get me started. There is a history here.. well a pint is just about the righ amount of beer to drink. Small enough to ensure it does not go to flat and large enough to avoid needless trips to the bar! You know where you are with imperial. Loosing it would leave is culturally the poorer and far the worse for ready reckning things. Unless you want to calculate F=ma or covert metres to nano metres strick with the imperial..its just easier to work with for the common man. But I suppose the internet geeks will be upset if as a nation we do not conform!! Any way signing off.. Matt Boutle 780Newtons, 195cm tall average speed 5metres per second and at the mment drinking a pint. The last bit is the only thing you will comprehend! I am a science teacher and use SI units in calculations. The metric system makes it easier to calculate as it works in multiples of 10.

However i do not understand the obsession with phasing out imperial. Imperial units sre the best to use when baking, measuring body weight and even hieght. This is for a variety of reasons. primarily they are easier to remember. ounces are just perfect and easier to double the recipe. 8oz of sgar 4oz of butter etc is far easiier than 250 grammes etc. It is alos far easier to visualisde the doubling up.

For measuring height the feet define people into categories. Below 5’6″ is short above 6″ is tall. Try doing this in cm. Worst still try gauing someones weight in kilogrammes… yuk!

And a pint…. do not get me started. There is a history here.. well a pint is just about the righ amount of beer to drink. Small enough to ensure it does not go to flat and large enough to avoid needless trips to the bar!

You know where you are with imperial. Loosing it would leave is culturally the poorer and far the worse for ready reckning things. Unless you want to calculate F=ma or covert metres to nano metres strick with the imperial..its just easier to work with for the common man. But I suppose the internet geeks will be upset if as a nation we do not conform!!

Any way signing off..

Matt Boutle 780Newtons, 195cm tall average speed 5metres per second and at the mment drinking a pint. The last bit is the only thing you will comprehend!

]]> By: Philip Bladon/ SI Metric-Matters http://metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/calorie-farewell-20070307/comment-page-1/#comment-17906 Philip Bladon/ SI Metric-Matters Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:42:28 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/15/calorie-farewell-20070307/#comment-17906 1. I recently visited the NHS website:- http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/homepage.aspx I used the search box on the home page and entered 'kilojoule' and 'kilojoules' and found there were NO results. Then I entered 'calorie', 'calories', and 'kilocalories' and these produced many references. The NHS should be using kilojoules. I’ve requested that a change be made and only the kilojoule (kJ) is used. 2. The British Nutrition Foundation has a good poster for schools ‘Energy Balance?’ This uses only kilojoules, please see link: http://www.nutrition.org.uk/upload/EN%20Poster%20Sept08.pdf Philip Bladon SI Metric-Matters www.simetricmatters.com 1. I recently visited the NHS website:-
http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/homepage.aspx

I used the search box on the home page and entered ‘kilojoule’ and ‘kilojoules’ and found there were NO results. Then I entered ‘calorie’, ‘calories’, and ‘kilocalories’ and these produced many references.

The NHS should be using kilojoules.

I’ve requested that a change be made and only the kilojoule (kJ) is used.

2. The British Nutrition Foundation has a good poster for schools ‘Energy Balance?’ This uses only kilojoules, please see link:
http://www.nutrition.org.uk/upload/EN%20Poster%20Sept08.pdf

Philip Bladon SI Metric-Matters
http://www.simetricmatters.com

]]> By: Peter Roberts http://metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/calorie-farewell-20070307/comment-page-1/#comment-8028 Peter Roberts Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:02:01 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/15/calorie-farewell-20070307/#comment-8028 This is ridiculous. I see no reason why both cannot co-exist. It may be easier to scientifically define the joule over the calorie but in what way does that matter to the average consumer? As long as they know that 4.2 joules is approximately 1 calorie I don't think they need to be able to define the two to over 100 decimal units or the number of photons of frequency, f, will be required to deliver that much energy. For the record, I use the joule everyday in calculations however when looking at the energy value of food I use the kcal almost exclusively. Oh, and for the user above who posted that the difference between a calorie and a kilocalorie is blurred. It is no different than the distinction between joules and kilojoules. Its just the kilo prefix. <em>[Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that.  It is very common to write "calorie" when the author means "kilocalorie".  It is further complicated by the distinction sometimes drawn between "calorie" (small c) and "Calorie" (capital c) - the latter in fact being a kilocalorie. - Ed]</em> Finally, the calorie is easier for your average person to use. I have no problems adding up numbers to the sum of 10,000 in my head, as would be required to calculate my maximum daily intake of food borne energy in kilojoules. However, your average consume would rather just have to add up to 2500 using kilocalories. <em>[Why?  10 MJ is a nice round number, easy to remember. - Ed]</em> Personally I'm happy having both units of energy printed on my food. <em> [But why have two different units to measure the same thing?- Ed]</em> This is ridiculous. I see no reason why both cannot co-exist. It may be easier to scientifically define the joule over the calorie but in what way does that matter to the average consumer? As long as they know that 4.2 joules is approximately 1 calorie I don’t think they need to be able to define the two to over 100 decimal units or the number of photons of frequency, f, will be required to deliver that much energy.

For the record, I use the joule everyday in calculations however when looking at the energy value of food I use the kcal almost exclusively.

Oh, and for the user above who posted that the difference between a calorie and a kilocalorie is blurred. It is no different than the distinction between joules and kilojoules. Its just the kilo prefix. [Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that.  It is very common to write "calorie" when the author means "kilocalorie".  It is further complicated by the distinction sometimes drawn between "calorie" (small c) and "Calorie" (capital c) - the latter in fact being a kilocalorie. - Ed]
Finally, the calorie is easier for your average person to use. I have no problems adding up numbers to the sum of 10,000 in my head, as would be required to calculate my maximum daily intake of food borne energy in kilojoules. However, your average consume would rather just have to add up to 2500 using kilocalories. [Why?  10 MJ is a nice round number, easy to remember. - Ed]
Personally I’m happy having both units of energy printed on my food.  [But why have two different units to measure the same thing?- Ed]

]]> By: David Stevenson http://metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/calorie-farewell-20070307/comment-page-1/#comment-5702 David Stevenson Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:38:40 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/15/calorie-farewell-20070307/#comment-5702 As long as both are displayed on packaging, what's the problem? It's not as if a standard package (in either Imperial or metric units) gives a nice round figure in either kcal or kJ. All the Weight Watchers(R) Points(R) calculations are done using kcal and I can't see what is basically an American company changing anything real soon. As long as both are displayed on packaging, what’s the problem? It’s not as if a standard package (in either Imperial or metric units) gives a nice round figure in either kcal or kJ. All the Weight Watchers(R) Points(R) calculations are done using kcal and I can’t see what is basically an American company changing anything real soon.

]]> By: dghffd http://metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/calorie-farewell-20070307/comment-page-1/#comment-1541 dghffd Tue, 29 May 2007 16:49:55 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/15/calorie-farewell-20070307/#comment-1541 In France we use both kcal and kJ. In France we use both kcal and kJ.

]]> By: Dave Brown http://metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/calorie-farewell-20070307/comment-page-1/#comment-682 Dave Brown Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:38:31 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/15/calorie-farewell-20070307/#comment-682 People use Calories simply because they are told about them on food packaging and by diet vendors. There is nothing special about Calories that make them easier or harder to use than joules. The fact is that they are obsolete because we measure energy in joules, so we ought to stop using them. Contrary to what several people have said, I don’t believe the Calorie is a metric unit. It is defined in terms of metric units (Celsius and kg), but it is not part of the SI. The yard and the pound are defined in terms of metric units too, but that does not make them metric. (1 yard = 0.9144 m and 1 pound = 0.45359237 kg by definition). People use Calories simply because they are told about them on food packaging and by diet vendors. There is nothing special about Calories that make them easier or harder to use than joules. The fact is that they are obsolete because we measure energy in joules, so we ought to stop using them.

Contrary to what several people have said, I don’t believe the Calorie is a metric unit. It is defined in terms of metric units (Celsius and kg), but it is not part of the SI. The yard and the pound are defined in terms of metric units too, but that does not make them metric. (1 yard = 0.9144 m and 1 pound = 0.45359237 kg by definition).

]]> By: Seares http://metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/calorie-farewell-20070307/comment-page-1/#comment-670 Seares Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:32:29 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/15/calorie-farewell-20070307/#comment-670 I'm not really worried about calories. I've been 172 cm and 67 kg since leaving school over 60 years ago. But I really don't like being called a weirdo for wanting to use a logical international system of measurement. Try calculating using 5 ft 7 3/4 inches and 10 stone(s) 7 pounds (lbs -from the French) 12 ounces (written oz for some reason) to see something REALLY weird! I’m not really worried about calories. I’ve been 172 cm and 67 kg since leaving school over 60 years ago. But I really don’t like being called a weirdo for wanting to use a logical international system of measurement. Try calculating using 5 ft 7 3/4 inches and 10 stone(s) 7 pounds (lbs -from the French) 12 ounces (written oz for some reason) to see something REALLY weird!

]]> By: Tabitha Jones http://metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/calorie-farewell-20070307/comment-page-1/#comment-658 Tabitha Jones Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:50:50 +0000 http://www.metricviews.org.uk/2007/03/15/calorie-farewell-20070307/#comment-658 If the calorie is metric, then why abolish it when so many people use it. We should be thinking of what the general population wants, not just a few people who say they use the joule. Also, knowing that I can have 2000/2500 Kcal per day (woman/man) means I can space out energy intake easier. E.g. a meal containing 500 Kcal is a quarter of the guideline. It is for the moment, the preferred unit for a majority of people. If the calorie is metric, then why abolish it when so many people use it. We should be thinking of what the general population wants, not just a few people who say they use the joule. Also, knowing that I can have 2000/2500 Kcal per day (woman/man) means I can space out energy intake easier. E.g. a meal containing 500 Kcal is a quarter of the guideline. It is for the moment, the preferred unit for a majority of people.

]]>