Why is this unit of measurement so wrongly interchangeable in food articles. Why cant nutritionists agree on a single messurement and stick with it. Dont they realise there is a 1000 difference between the 2 units.
Actually we should all be using (kilo/mega) joules. But if people are too lazy to say “kilo” then obviously that’s not going to happen any time soon.
Because it doesn’t create any issues or confusion to 99% of all people. They understand what is meant.
Nutritionists define it when they use it. Popular articles use the popular definitions.
They are not “wrongly” interchangeable.
1 kilocarorie = 1 Calorie = 1000 calories.
Though to be fair to the OP, it’s normally not capitalized in food articles. But in the context of diet and nutrition, I cannot think of a time when I was confused about calories vs kilocalories.
Forum rules prohibit me from expressing my true disdain for this nonsense.
Capitalization doesn’t convey meaning. It’s just decoration. And there’s also this little thing called the spoken word.
Except that in writing, it sure does sometimes. You and I may not like it, but it sure as hell makes a difference. Look up “capitonym.”
There’s a huge difference between 1 Mm and 1 mm. Six orders of magnitude difference, in fact.
Nine orders of magnitude.
Right, because distances are not only listed in megameters, but those are shortened to Mm.
A better example would be polish and Polish. But that’s still not a valid example, it’s just two words that are written the same and it just happens to be that one word is for a thing that’s capitalized and one isn’t, it’s not the capital that makes it two different words.
It’s kilocalories. Period. No shortcuts.
Yes but in person if the context was not very clear, no one would say “one m m” in the spoken sense if they wanted that to be understood as 1 mega metre. They would obviously say “1 mega metre” or an equivalent.
‘Calorie’ equaling 1kcal and ‘calorie’ equaling 1 calorie is patently a ridiculous convention.
Well, not really. The large calorie, or Calorie, is the original calorie and what was used for food scientists from the beginning. Use joules if you want an agreed-upon SI unit for energy. Or, you know, take context into account.
Just because there’s a long history of doing something idiotic is no reason to keep doing it.
Of course it’s idiotic, it’s science. Why do you think fundamentalists have such a hard time with science?
However, the fact that scientists (the people who use it) don’t seem to have a problem with the convention or its application would seem to suggest that it really isn’t that confusing if you pay attention.
Why is the original definition the “idiotic” one? Look, the convention among food scientists started with them using calorie in that manner. Then, over a half century later, a different definition became the one more in use among the rest of the scientific communities, before being scrapped for the SI unit of joules. There’s thermal calories and nutritional calories, just like there’s fluid ounces (which also differ whether they’re Imperial or US fluid ounces), troy ounces, avoirdupois ounces, etc. Use joules/kilojoules if you really want to use a standardized unit. When dealing with food energy, it’s never ambiguous to me when someone uses the term “calories” what they mean.
No matter which one is first, the fact that there are two units three orders of magnitude apart whose names differ only in capitalization is certainly idiotic.
They also differ by context. You do not need to capitalize for me to what you’re talking about 99% of the time. Just like if I’m discussing precious metals, I don’t need to know that it’s troy ounces being discussed.
Very well put.
And that is exactly why we have SI units.