6 ms·

Did anyone else find it bizarre that they quoted "grams of protein per ounce/cup" of food? America seems to have slowly adopted the metric system, but it's not

by brilee 9y ago

Did anyone else find it bizarre that they quoted "grams of protein per ounce/cup" of food? America seems to have slowly adopted the metric system, but it's not what I expected to look like...

jabretti 9y ago
I don't think it's so bad to mix metric and imperial units; I'm in favour of using whatever units keep the numbers readily comprehensible. Grams of protein per ounce of food seems like a good example of this.
analog31 9y ago
It does seem like an odd unit of measure, but might make sense in the following way: Most people don't know or care what a gram of protein looks like. What they might know is how much they're supposed to eat, in grams. And they know what a cup is. So they can do the mental math and estimate how many cups are needed to make up their daily requirement. More generally, and anecdotally, I had a health scare that resulted in going through a fairly standardized regimen including exercise and dietary advice. I received many pamphlets and handouts! There seems to be a substantial effort to convey health advice in a way that downplays or minimizes any kind of math. People just freeze up when they see math. This could give rise to an effort, from a public health perspective, to come up with units of measure that people can use without being put off by math.
joaomsa 9y ago
My guess it's a convenience compromise. Nutrition labels list macro nutrient amounts in metric, but packaging still has the product amount more prominently in imperial measurements.
careersuicide 9y ago
It makes sense to me: when measuring stuff like you would in a lab use metric, when measuring stuff like you would in a kitchen use imperial. I think it only seems weird because we rarely do both in the same sentence.
matthewaveryusa 9y ago
It could be becuase there's a rule of thumb that says you need a gram of protein for every 3 lbs you weigh (or 1g for 2lbs if you're trying to build mass.)
raarts 9y ago
Per cup is weird, especially to the rest of the world, but what really is maddening to me is the 'serving'. Every food app is riddled with nutrients 'per serving' . Completely ridiculous. Servings differ greatly between brands, packages, countries.
- geowwy 9y ago
  > Per cup is weird, especially to the rest of the world Cups are not weird, just just a pain in the arse because US cups are 240ml and metric cups are 250ml. If you're following a recipe that needs exact measurements it often trips you up.
  - tom_mellior 9y ago
    > Cups are not weird Yes they are. For example, the article talks about "dark leafy greens (about 5 grams per cup)". Is that cups of dark leafy greens before chopping them up or after? If you specified the amout per weight, it would not make a difference. If you specify them by volume, it does.
HarryHirsch 9y ago
It's traditional - European cookbooks tend to use measures of weight, American cookbooks have measures of volume instead. For the non-US-non-cooks: 1 cup = 240 ml ≈ 1/2 US pint
- throwaway0255 9y ago
  This drives me crazy. It’s ok if we’re talking about a liquid, I guess, but what is 1 cup of cheese? Or 1 cup of broccoli? 1 cup of walnuts? Using volume for those, the amount you’re actually using can vary by a factor of 10 depending on how granular it is, how finely chopped or shredded it is, or how it fell that day. I do everything in grams, but with some recipes and labels it’s just not possible to know how much of something it’s talking about. Which is unfortunate because that’s the entire purpose of a recipe or a label. Why can’t we stop this?
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    What's the void volume in a packing of spheres again? I seem to remember it's 74 %. You underestimate the weight by at most 25 %. Broccoli is really an edge case. The traditional measuring cup for the kitchen (looks like this: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Messbecher.jpg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Messbecher.jpg) has more typical ingredients: semolina, raisins, flour, pearl barley, pulses & so on.
  - kqr 9y ago
    > but what is 1 cup of cheese? Or 1 cup of broccoli? 1 cup of walnuts? ... depending on how granular it is, how finely chopped or shredded it is Well, the recipe should give you an indication of granularity, although you won't get an ASTM number. That said, for cooking you're supposed to eyeball it a bit and judge through experience. Rarely does a little too much broccoli kill. It sucks when it's a new dish or you are inexperienced -- but if you can't afford practise runs where the result is allowed to be sub-par, then it's probably a good idea to switch to a different source of recipes.
neutronicus 9y ago
Nutritional information here is always in grams, but recipes are almost uniformly in (cups / tablespoons / teaspoons).
walshemj 9y ago
grams per ounce is the really weird part

by brilee 9y ago

Did anyone else find it bizarre that they quoted "grams of protein per ounce/cup" of food? America seems to have slowly adopted the metric system, but it's not what I expected to look like...

jabretti 9y ago

I don't think it's so bad to mix metric and imperial units; I'm in favour of using whatever units keep the numbers readily comprehensible. Grams of protein per ounce of food seems like a good example of this.

analog31 9y ago

It does seem like an odd unit of measure, but might make sense in the following way: Most people don't know or care what a gram of protein looks like. What they might know is how much they're supposed to eat, in grams. And they know what a cup is. So they can do the mental math and estimate how many cups are needed to make up their daily requirement. More generally, and anecdotally, I had a health scare that resulted in going through a fairly standardized regimen including exercise and dietary advice. I received many pamphlets and handouts! There seems to be a substantial effort to convey health advice in a way that downplays or minimizes any kind of math. People just freeze up when they see math. This could give rise to an effort, from a public health perspective, to come up with units of measure that people can use without being put off by math.

joaomsa 9y ago

My guess it's a convenience compromise. Nutrition labels list macro nutrient amounts in metric, but packaging still has the product amount more prominently in imperial measurements.

careersuicide 9y ago

It makes sense to me: when measuring stuff like you would in a lab use metric, when measuring stuff like you would in a kitchen use imperial. I think it only seems weird because we rarely do both in the same sentence.

matthewaveryusa 9y ago

It could be becuase there's a rule of thumb that says you need a gram of protein for every 3 lbs you weigh (or 1g for 2lbs if you're trying to build mass.)

raarts 9y ago

Per cup is weird, especially to the rest of the world, but what really is maddening to me is the 'serving'. Every food app is riddled with nutrients 'per serving' . Completely ridiculous. Servings differ greatly between brands, packages, countries.

geowwy 9y ago
> Per cup is weird, especially to the rest of the world Cups are not weird, just just a pain in the arse because US cups are 240ml and metric cups are 250ml. If you're following a recipe that needs exact measurements it often trips you up.
- tom_mellior 9y ago
  > Cups are not weird Yes they are. For example, the article talks about "dark leafy greens (about 5 grams per cup)". Is that cups of dark leafy greens before chopping them up or after? If you specified the amout per weight, it would not make a difference. If you specify them by volume, it does.

HarryHirsch 9y ago

It's traditional - European cookbooks tend to use measures of weight, American cookbooks have measures of volume instead. For the non-US-non-cooks: 1 cup = 240 ml ≈ 1/2 US pint

throwaway0255 9y ago
This drives me crazy. It’s ok if we’re talking about a liquid, I guess, but what is 1 cup of cheese? Or 1 cup of broccoli? 1 cup of walnuts? Using volume for those, the amount you’re actually using can vary by a factor of 10 depending on how granular it is, how finely chopped or shredded it is, or how it fell that day. I do everything in grams, but with some recipes and labels it’s just not possible to know how much of something it’s talking about. Which is unfortunate because that’s the entire purpose of a recipe or a label. Why can’t we stop this?
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  What's the void volume in a packing of spheres again? I seem to remember it's 74 %. You underestimate the weight by at most 25 %. Broccoli is really an edge case. The traditional measuring cup for the kitchen (looks like this: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Messbecher.jpg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Messbecher.jpg) has more typical ingredients: semolina, raisins, flour, pearl barley, pulses & so on.
- kqr 9y ago
  > but what is 1 cup of cheese? Or 1 cup of broccoli? 1 cup of walnuts? ... depending on how granular it is, how finely chopped or shredded it is Well, the recipe should give you an indication of granularity, although you won't get an ASTM number. That said, for cooking you're supposed to eyeball it a bit and judge through experience. Rarely does a little too much broccoli kill. It sucks when it's a new dish or you are inexperienced -- but if you can't afford practise runs where the result is allowed to be sub-par, then it's probably a good idea to switch to a different source of recipes.

neutronicus 9y ago

Nutritional information here is always in grams, but recipes are almost uniformly in (cups / tablespoons / teaspoons).

walshemj 9y ago

grams per ounce is the really weird part