# Why are grams so small? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 6, 2008, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436 "2008-11-06T12:06:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/41 "2008-11-06T16:34:26Z")
For what it’s worth, in my lab, I almost never get to use anything in gram amounts. It’s always milligrams or even micrograms. Actually, nanograms, too, but we don’t directly weigh DNA. Anyway, grams aren’t tiny for everyone. For some of us, they’re HUGE. ---
**Author:** ![Lionne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Lionne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lionne)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/42 "2008-11-06T17:27:02Z")
Cause they shrink as they get older…all the better to hug their grandchildren. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/43 "2008-11-06T20:50:37Z")
Who cares about the base units and prefixes? The whole point of SI units is to be convertible. Just because the kilogram is defined in terms of something doesn’t necessarily make it some type of magical thing. There’s no sense to saying something is a base unit or not when using SI measurements. Speaking grammatically, I’d still dare to call the gram the base unit in the respect that it forms the root word for all of the other gram-based measurements. It absolutely doesn’t matter that the definition isn’t the base word. It just doesn’t matter, which is what makes it beautiful. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/44 "2008-11-06T21:09:44Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Well Australia at the moment, but the EU, South Am and Africa are the same: the standard unit is the gram. [Here](http://www.amigofoods.com/brazilianfood.html) is some fairly typical Brazilian food for example, and [here](http://www.amigofoods.com/brazilianfood.html) are some German. As you can see, aside from a couple of “jumbo” items that happen to weigh exactly 1kg, it is all sold by the gram. Nope. there are no prices by the gram there. Sorry. All the prices there are by the unit (bottle, box, whatever) and the weight is expressed in grams because it is under 1 Kg. As you would expect. Now sow me some photos of fruit, vegetables, etc sold in bulk and priced by the gram. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you could name some of these countries where the typical unit for food and produce is the kilo, because I’ve never heard of them. Bonus points if you can produce some evidence for this claim. I find it extraordinary that there is a country that actually sells Cornflakes, for example in boxes of 0.2 kg rather than 200grams. Or staples in boxes of 0.05kg. It will be interesting to see boxes a labelled that way rather than in grams as I’ve seen everywhere else. Again, the price is for the unit, it is not sold in bulk. Show me where potatoes or tomatos are sold in bulk by the gram. what country is that? ---
**Author:** ![UncleRojelio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unclerojelio/32/3160_2.png) [@UncleRojelio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleRojelio)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/45 "2008-11-06T21:14:08Z")
> [@Canadjun](#): > > Probably because a metric tonne is not that far off an “ordinary” ton (not sure what the adjective should be). A metric tonne is about 2,200 pounds; a ton is 2,000 pounds. So, if you talk about a metric tonne and somebody is thinking of an “ordinary” ton they won’t be that far off. Yeah but why do we need two names for the same thing? I’d go with ‘Megagram’ because you can infer just from the prefix what it represents. A body would have to look up ‘tonne’ to know that it is 1000kg. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/46 "2008-11-06T21:33:07Z")
> [@Balthisar](#): > > Who cares about the base units and prefixes? The whole point of SI units is to be convertible. Just because the kilogram is defined in terms of something doesn’t necessarily make it some type of magical thing. There’s no sense to saying something is a base unit or not when using SI measurements. If you are creating a system of units from scratch, something has to be the base unit for mass, length, time, etc., or nobody knows what you are talking about. This is like the old Bill Cosby routine: God: Noah, I want you to build an Ark. Noah: Right! [pause] …What’s an Ark? God: Get some wood and build it 300 cubits by 80 cubits by 40 cubits. Noah: Right! [pause] …What’s a cubit? 🙂 Once you have your base units, you can start making derived units, such as units for force, pressure, etc. But you have to start somewhere. So anyway, the base units are important, and it does make sense that the SI system has them. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/47 "2008-11-06T21:52:29Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > The point about metric is that it makes sense. It’s not designed to compete measure for measure with imperial, it’s supposed to replace illogical disconnected nonsense with logical easy-to-grasp mathematics. No, it doesn’t make sense, it’s just decimalized. Decimilization is good, making up silly measurements just because the old measurements were foisted upon the masses by the Nobility is what’s silly. If the Metric system made sense, there’d be no reason for work arounds like the Hectare\* and the Metric Tonne. Sure, it was time for a decimalization, but the Meter is just almost a yard, and the Liter is just about a quart, etc. Note that a gram no longer = a cc of water. "_Originally, units for volume and mass were directly related to each other, with mass defined in terms of a volume of water. Even though that definition is no longer used, the relation is quite close at room temperature and nearly exact at 4 °C. So as a practical matter, one can fill a container with water and weigh it to get the volume."_ They also tried to change the calendar, but we have ignored that. :[French Republican calendar - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar) - wiki "\*Its base unit, the are, was defined by older forms of the metric system, but is no longer part of the modern metric system. The Comité International des Poids et Mesures classifies the hectare as a unit that is accepted for use with SI.[\*1] ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/48 "2008-11-06T21:57:51Z")
You obviously don’t know what a gram of good hashish costs around here 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/49 "2008-11-06T22:04:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > If the Metric system made sense, there’d be no reason for work arounds like the Hectare\* and the Metric Tonne. The hectare and the metric ton are only workarounds in terms of terminology and convenient sizes of units. The hectare is useful for measuring parcels of land, because you need something between the square metre and the square kilometre – otherwise, you get too many zeroes when you say, “The block of land is about 700,000 square metres.” It’s easier to say 70 hectares. And you could say “megagram”, but the metric ton is very close indeed to the old imperial ton, so people just say “ton”. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/50 "2008-11-06T22:05:33Z")
Personally, I think we should go to the MTS system: Meters, tons, seconds. That way, all of the base units are unprefixed, and as a bonus, we get to keep the density of water at 1. Kilograms and grams would of course be replaced with millitons and microtons. ---
**Author:** ![Aspidistra](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspidistra/32/3894_2.png) [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/51 "2008-11-06T23:04:47Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > Asked and specifically answered, boss. Go back to my post #15 for details. You are certainly trending closest to a helpful answer. But there’s still something about their thought processes in creating the name “gramme” in the first place that makes me go “huh?”, and Wiki doesn’t help. Consider the timeline from my wiki cite: 1793: The metric mass unit is created, and given the name “grave”. 1795: Another mass-unit name is created, the “gramme” or “gravet” and defined as the weight of a cc of water. The intention of this newly named unit appears to be to take over from the “grave”, which has been deemed unfashionably-named. 17??: A grave-weight (not gramme-weight) lump of metal is created to use as a standard. This seems to indicate that they already considered the gramme, which they’d only just created, to be not a particularly useful size for practical purposes. 1799: The name “grave” is finally dropped, and the “gramme-based” system of weights becomes the standard. But because they already know, right from the get-go, that a gramme is not really big enough to be the basis of a standard, they use the kilogram, a thousand times as big, as the basis. So - go back to 1795. There’s an entire Royal Commission working on the new system of weights and measures that they’re devising. They already know roughly the size of the weight they want to use as the basis of their measurements - it’s grave-sized. They don’t like the word “grave” so they invent a new word to replace it with - but instead of just replacing the word “grave” with “gramme” they define the new gramme as this tiny weight, a thousandth the size of a grave, and then never use it, but use the unit 1000 times bigger for all practical purposes. Moreover, at the exact same time (1795) that they were defining the basic weight unit, the gramme, as a cubic centimetre of water they were defining the basic volume unit, the litre, as a cubic **decimetre** of liquid. Centimetres for one, decimetres for another - this is bizarrely inconsistent, is it not? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/52 "2008-11-06T23:08:01Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Moreover, at the exact same time (1795) that they were defining the basic weight unit, the gramme, as a cubic centimetre of water they were defining the basic volume unit, the litre, as a cubic **decimetre** of liquid. Centimetres for one, decimetres for another - this is bizarrely inconsistent, is it not? These are the same dudes that were cutting the heads off some of greatest scientists in the world, can we expect consistency since we are missing sanity? ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/53 "2008-11-07T00:14:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, it doesn’t make sense, it’s just decimalized. But that’s what I mean. Imperial is using base 12, 32, 8, 3, and probably 57 for all I know. It’s ridiculously convoluted. Metric uses base 10 exclusively. And that’s sensible. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/54 "2008-11-07T00:45:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Moreover, at the exact same time (1795) that they were defining the basic weight unit, the gramme, as a cubic centimetre of water they were defining the basic volume unit, the litre, as a cubic decimetre of liquid. Centimetres for one, decimetres for another - this is bizarrely inconsistent, is it not? And of course, the mass of a liter of water is … a kilogram. Yeah, I think you’re right that they could have just renamed the Grave as the Gramme in 1795, much as centigrade became Celsius. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/55 "2008-11-07T00:53:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Imperial is using base 12, 32, 8, 3, and probably 57 for all I know. It’s ridiculously convoluted. I don’t know of anything with 57 in it, but the standard conversion factors do include every number from 1 to 12, every even number up to 24, and (of all things) 231. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/56 "2008-11-07T07:10:12Z")
I think the OP has a valid question. For the purposes of measuring everyday substances, particularly food, a gram is inordinately small in a way that litres and meters aren’t. As noted, a liter of beer is a nice round for two people, and a square meter is something you can use to compare the sizes of rooms. With the gram we can’t really say that, except to note that grams are useful for weighing small amounts of valuable materials. And 200 years ago, money itself was expected to consist of actual gold and silver, and it wasn’t at all unusual to weigh a coin to confirm its content. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/57 "2008-11-07T09:23:26Z")
I dunno - some of that is down to familiarity. I work in metric for all my recipes now and I find ounces and cups annoyingly coarse. ---
**Author:** ![placebo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@placebo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/placebo)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/58 "2008-11-07T09:26:05Z")
[This](http://www.bipm.org/en/si/history-si/name_kg.html) looks like the closest thing to an official answer you are likely to get. ---
**Author:** ![Alive\_At\_Both\_Ends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/73ab20/32.png) [@Alive\_At\_Both\_Ends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alive_At_Both_Ends)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/59 "2008-11-07T12:34:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I don’t know of anything with 57 in it, but the standard conversion factors do include every number from 1 to 12, every even number up to 24, and (of all things) 231. Which unit is 1/231 of which other unit? (It’s a pity the “inch-mile” isn’t a standard unit of area: there’s exactly 99 of them in an acre. Likewise half a perch is 99 inches. We need more almost-but-not-quite decimalised units. :D) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436/60 "2008-11-07T14:00:54Z")
> [@Aspidistra](#): > > Yeah, but people use feet more often than yards, don’t they? At this point in time I’d guess people use yards more often than feet. Yards are an accepted measurement in several sporting leagues and are crucial in marine navigation. At sea yards, nautical miles and knots are far more useful than meters and kilometers when doing quick calculations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-grams-so-small/471436.md?page=4)