eftychia: Me in kilt and poofy shirt, facing away, playing acoustic guitar behind head (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] eftychia at 05:37am on 2004-03-27

The headache isn't completely gone, but drugs helped a lot. It got to the "so much pain I think I'm going to throw up" stage before I realized I needed to give in and take the damned drugs, so it was an uncomfortable wait for them to take effect. Midrin would have been better than codeine (and I would be asleep now), but obtaining Midrin requires having access to a doctor for a prescription. I would have preferred to use the correct tool, but without health insurance I'll go with the nearest thing I can get.

Another language nit: I heard an advert for some snack/diet/energy bar that included the line, "Only one net carb!"

One what? First, is there some subtractive phenomenon here so that the snack has more gross carbs than net carbs? Although I've heard that the "negative Calories" thing is largely a bogon, I could see using "It takes this many calories to chew something with this texture" as an excuse to report "net Calories" different from the total caloric content, but how do you subtract carbohydrates? Are they in the form of VOCs (volatile organic compounds) which are technically present in the package but evaporate between the time the wrapper is opened and the time the food reaches your mouth? Or are they looking at how the particular carbohydrates in question are metabolized? "By the time you've finished digesting this, the carbs have been converted to energy and fat by your body."

Secondly, ah, units please? Maybe the preceeding paragraph is irrelevant because they really did mean "one carbohydrate" -- i.e. whatever the quantity, only one substance in the carbohydrate category is present. But assuming they're not being that sneaky, my guess is that they meant one gram of carbohydrates -- but they didn't say that, so it could just as easily be one ounce, or one millislug (ew ew ew, metric prefix on an English unit, but I wasn't sure how else to scale that unit to a reasonable size), or even one cubic inch, as long as it's "one" of something.

So in the end, I've got an idea of what they might have meant, but they actually said nothing (or at least nothing meaningful). My guess of what they probably meant could be way off, and if I complained they could simply say, "Well we didn't say that."

Sorry; I'm too out of it to write something deep, too tired to do more important tasks, and too cranky to be cute, so I'm falling back on nitpicky language/science peeves. But as long as I'm playing that game: how many of y'all recognize the unit "slug" and know what it is? It's not a commonly used one, but it seems my friends include a disproportionately high number of people likely to know it.

Finally, I figured I'd have a shot at a meme swiped from [livejournal.com profile] ame_chan, the "mix CD" meme.

The instructions: "On the whole 'Ten Things In A Box' meme theme - if you had to give someone a burned CD with no more than, say, 16 songs on it, that you felt described who you are (or at least certain facets of yourself) what would those songs be?" (I'm going to include instrumentals as well as songs. And, as anyone who's seen my answers to anything like this in the past expects, I'm going to repeat ame_chan's caveat: "Well, for today, anyhow :-) these things have a way of shifting over time.")

  1. The Dufay Collective, the ubiquitous saltarello
  2. The Doors, "Riders on the Storm"
  3. Jethro Tull, "Bouree" (or possibly a recording of Bach's version)
  4. The Beatles, "In My Life"
  5. Jimmy Buffet, "Treat Her Like a Lady"
  6. myself, "All Come Free"
  7. The Homespun Ceilidh Band, "Edna Michael's Waltz" (written by Mike Stoddard)
  8. Jimmy Buffet, "He Went to Paris"
  9. Frank Zappa, "Camarillo Brillo"
  10. Tom Lehrer, "The Masochism Tango"
  11. Klaatu, "Howl at the Moon"
  12. 10cc, "The Things We Do for Love"
  13. Molly Hatchet, "Fall of the Peacemaker"
  14. Nazareth, "Love Hurts"
  15. Aerosmith, "Dream On"
  16. Focus, "Hocus Pocus"

Wow, it feels strange to only have one Beatles tune on there, and no Kinks or Heather Alexander. I had to bump a couple of tunes off to make room for more important ones I thought of later, and I'm not entirely certain this is the order I'd put them in (part of the problem is that I've got four tunes that each want to be either first or last, and deciding which two to use was tough; and some of the transitions are perhaps a little odd). And without "Tiger", "Dum Dum Diddle" (both by ABBA), and "Goo Goo Muck" (The Cramps), important parts of me are completely unrepresented. But I ran out of room. One CD just isn't enough.

There are 30 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] bikerwalla.livejournal.com at 04:43am on 2004-03-27
Sugar alcohols are carbohydrates in the classical sense, and the body can and does metabolize them, but they don't raise your glycemic level significantly, and they don't get converted to fat. So in the new lo-carb diet plans, they don't 'count' as carbs.

Either they mean 'grams' or 'exchanges'. Unknown, captain.
 
posted by [identity profile] noblessa.livejournal.com at 07:29am on 2004-03-27
It's a carb, but isn't digestible (IIRC). Anyway, they don't count, either. "Net Carbs" is a LC "trigger phrase" - it means "Grams of Carbs - Fiber - Sugar Alchohols", and its the part that gets counted towards your "total intake". Staying "under 20 Grams of carbs" isn't actually "grams of carbs", its "grams of Net Carbs".
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 12:27pm on 2004-03-27
Huh. So "net carbs" is meaningful after all (though according to [livejournal.com profile] ambar potentially misleading for some subset of the population). What I thought was marketing-misspeak turns out to be jargon. Okay, I guess I have to retract that portion of the rant. Thanks for the clue.
 
posted by [identity profile] juuro.livejournal.com at 12:09pm on 2004-03-27
"Exchanges"? That's a new term for me. Care to elucidate?
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 12:35pm on 2004-03-27
I remember that my father used to talk about "exchanges" in the context of a diabetes-control diet (though as I understand it, the same approach and terminology is used in other diets as well).

My fuzzy recollection is that it's sort of a "you can eat this many items from column A, this many from column B, this many from column C, but you can trade two from column C for one of column B..." thing. So a hamburger on a bun would be something like one "meat exchange" and one "bread exchange", and the fries (or chips), being high in starch, would be another "bread exchange". Instead of knowing the exact quantities of fat/protein/starch/sugar in each dish, you have a "table of equivalences". And what combination of exhanges you aim for in a day depends on the reason for your diet.

Wow, I remember a lot less of that than I thought I did.
 
posted by [identity profile] juuro.livejournal.com at 12:49pm on 2004-03-27
So, to use the term "exchange" as a unit, there needs must be some commonly known, accepted, and accredited table of equivalences. Otherwise I could claim any equivalence to be true -- and looking at the output of food scientists over the last four decades, have support for my claims.
 
posted by [identity profile] blumindy.livejournal.com at 05:08am on 2004-03-27
While I'm technically not on any diet, I do have trouble with carbs, especially refined ones and wheat-based ones (they increase my pain.)
I eat the bars available as low-carb and probably what you were hearing advertised. They generally mean grams of carbohydrate....not millislugs.

Laughed so loud at that, I woke up Micah and caused Hannah to roll over. Oops.
 

BTW

posted by [identity profile] blumindy.livejournal.com at 05:18am on 2004-03-27
How about converting those slugs to Newtons for us?
(I agree with the "ew" on mixing English and metric. Kind of like adding -aholic or -gate as suffixes to words.....)

Or turn the slugs into Escargot D'Glenn....you might as well make some sort of use of them......(garlic and bitter chocolate and a touch of tarragon?)

Hmmm, vapor units.......maybe we could relate that as a measure of fibro-fog!

PS Not *FIG* Newtons!
Oh, no! You've started me on a Silly Day!
 
posted by [identity profile] juuro.livejournal.com at 12:06pm on 2004-03-27
Is slug not just pounds-force?
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 12:13pm on 2004-03-27
Pounds are properly force, but just as kilograms can be used as a unit of force (it annoys me, but apparently it's considered correct to use kg to mean 9.8 N), pounds get sloppily used for mass as well.

Correctly, the slug, not the pound, is the unit of mass in the fps system. It's the amount of mass which one pound of force will accelerate at one foot per second per second.
 
posted by [identity profile] juuro.livejournal.com at 12:40pm on 2004-03-27
Ah. that way round. Thank you.
 
posted by [identity profile] blumindy.livejournal.com at 12:40pm on 2004-03-27
No, they are are a gravitational mass unit of acceleration in the foot-pounds-second realm (I think.)

I think the acceleration = one pound/sec^2
Application of a pound of force gives 1 slug or the equivalent of 32 pounds of mass per second^2.

My memory for this stuff isn't what it used to be.
 
posted by [identity profile] juuro.livejournal.com at 12:46pm on 2004-03-27
Uff. Acceleration conventionally is [unit of length] / [unit of time squared]. There's one problem. The other is that I can't readily see where the 32 comes from.

(I could say something about a system of units where there are multiples of 12, 16, 8, 4, 3, and things that are not multiples but something elses, but those are units of currency, not units of physics, and I shall leave the whole imperial measurement system alone just remarking that the imperial and colonial pound and pint are not the same just to confuse us modern metric morons.)
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 01:08pm on 2004-03-27
g = 32 feet per second per second. So it's a natural number to reach for when trying to remember relationships between units of mass and units of weight, if one's used the system long enough to remember g in it.

As for the rest of your comment, there are several reasons I strongly prefer the metric system if I'm going to need to do any calculations.

It's not just the dozens and sixteens; it's also the downright wonky constants you wind up with as a result. In mks some textbooks even round g off to 10 for end-of-chapter problems, and the only pain-in-the-butt conversion constant I remember having to deal with was when converting Joules to calories. (Unless I'm forgetting something involving coulombs.) Despite having been raised in fps and living in a culture that continues to use it most of the time, I really don't want to do any math or science in fps. Meters, kilograms, Newtons, Kelvins, and liters for me, thank you very much.

(Though there is something to be said for the number of convenient factors that go into Babylonian base-60 measurement systems, as well...)

(Doh! Okay, I do remember one other oddball constant: liters/mole @ STP. But ISTR that being easy to remember because it was the same digits as the altitude of geosynchronous orbit with a different exponent, right? And then there's G and Avogadro's number, but those aren't everyday outside-the-lab numbers the way that some of the others are.)
 
posted by [identity profile] juuro.livejournal.com at 01:20pm on 2004-03-27
...that being easy to remember because it was the same digits as the altitude of geosynchronous orbit ...

That's serious indication of geekery there! And yes, I think the two mantissae are close.

For some reason, Avogadro is rather close to the top of the random-access heap for me. I wonder why... There was a time when I was doing ions as function of current, but that's long ago, I can't seem to recall having used it for anything in a long time.

Boltzmann is something I use all the time, and it is a stand-alone value for me. Probably someone might derive it from the first principles; not me, though.
 
posted by [identity profile] juuro.livejournal.com at 01:26pm on 2004-03-27
And isn't Joules to calories related by the heat capacity of water? That, of course, anyone will remember.
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 12:10pm on 2004-03-27
"How about converting those slugs to Newtons for us?"

No, I don't think I shall. But I might convert them to grams, and convert pounds to Newtons.

Feh. The Unix 'units' command wants to treat pounds as mass instead of weight. :-P Fortunately I can force it to behave.

[1] saltmine 50 > units
you have: slug
you want: kg
        * 1.459390e+01
        / 6.852177e-02
you have: lb-force
you want: newton
        * 4.448222e+00
        / 2.248089e-01
you have: ^D
[1] saltmine 51 >


"Or turn the slugs into Escargot D'Glenn"

Bleah. Even when I ate meat, I did not consume anything from phylum Mollusca.

"Hmmm, vapor units.......maybe we could relate that as a measure of fibro-fog!"

State level of alertness / mental "presence" as a partial-pressure?

"PS Not *FIG* Newtons!"

Helluva lot better than escargots!

(Is a fig Newton the force required to accelerate a fig at one meter per second per second?)
"Oh, no! You've started me on a Silly Day!"

Can we plot that on an o-sillyscope?
 
posted by [identity profile] blumindy.livejournal.com at 12:46pm on 2004-03-27
*Snerk*
Well, you know I don't eat Mollusca either. Nor Crustacea, nor Cephlopoda......you have to love the kashruth rules :-) But I do prepare all that stuff for others.

"Hmmm, vapor units.......maybe we could relate that as a measure of fibro-fog!"

State level of alertness / mental "presence" as a partial-pressure?
*Works for me!*

The problem with the edible Newtons is my fingers' reaction to the wheat. Otherwise, I'd much rather eat them than any shelly-thing!

Wiggling all over the O-Silly-scope! Thanks!!
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 01:14pm on 2004-03-27
Yah, I know, http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/ ;-)
 
posted by [identity profile] blumindy.livejournal.com at 02:29pm on 2004-03-27
Yes, I've seen this site.
L-edMAO.
Those who espouse the belief in the "literal-word-of-God" bible and adherence to it kill me. They don't follow any of the admittedly-massive number of rules except for the ones that meet their pre-set agenda. 'sigh'

I had fibroid trouble this week and a woman attributed it (and the bad behavior of the ex) to Satan. Mentioning the Bat Mitzvah shut her up quick. She's the one who sent out the district-wide email exhorting all employees to see The Passion.....

(Please, please, please...get me out of this alternative universe! 0
 
posted by [identity profile] juuro.livejournal.com at 02:45pm on 2004-03-27
Massive number? 613 by some authority, although there seems to be some disagreement on the exact contents of those 613 items.
 
posted by [identity profile] juuro.livejournal.com at 02:47pm on 2004-03-27
1. "O-sillyscope"... ... aaa... aaa.. AAAGH!

2. The Western society ignores a nubmer of valuable sources of protein and other nutirents.
 
posted by [identity profile] ambar.livejournal.com at 07:57am on 2004-03-27
Well, on carb-counting diets like Atkins, one is allowed to subtract the fiber carbs from the total, since fiber is by definition indigestible. That's no big deal.

However, most of that energy-bar crap is playing a different game, where they subtract the carbs from sugar alcohols used as sweeteners, supposedly because "most" people don't absorb those alcohols. Well, some do, which makes for a guaranteed stall if you think you're eating 2 grams of carbs and you're actually getting 15 or 20 from a single bar.

Low carb diets worked better before low carb products were so prevalent.
 
posted by [identity profile] juuro.livejournal.com at 12:08pm on 2004-03-27
Yes, but how do you count carbs? What is "one carb"?

I can understand "one apple", or "one grain", or "one gram", or "one ounce". But "one carb" makes quite as much sense as "one water". Is that one glass, one bottle, and if bottle, what size bottle? Or a gallon?
 
posted by [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com at 12:22pm on 2004-03-27
According to [livejournal.com profile] noblessa, above, "one carb" is "one gram of carbs" ... but the phrasing grates on me like felted-steel-wool panties for exactly the reason you gave, even if it does turn out to be a "term of art" intelligible to carb-counting dieters. Ugh.
 
posted by [identity profile] lilkender.livejournal.com at 01:27pm on 2004-03-27
Me too, me too. At least now we know what they're talking about.
 
posted by [identity profile] ambar.livejournal.com at 11:12pm on 2004-03-27
"One carb" is shorthand for "one gram of carbohydrate". There ya go.
 
posted by [identity profile] juuro.livejournal.com at 11:28pm on 2004-03-27
Thank you.

Now, if I'm "counting carbs", how do I deal with fractions? I can have one spoon, two spoons, three spoons -- they are countable. I can have 1 gram, 1.1 grams, 1.4 grams, 1.6 grams, 1.71432 grams (where there's a ridiculous number of significant digits). Are all these "one carb" under the counting of grams paradigm?

I can count enumberable things, such as one person, two persons, three persons, four.
 
posted by [identity profile] ambar.livejournal.com at 11:41pm on 2004-03-27
Round to the number of significant figures you find applicable. Or try Weight Watchers, which has some sort of point system.

Testily yours,

Ambar
 
posted by [identity profile] juuro.livejournal.com at 11:45pm on 2004-03-27
I don't need to try WW. I don't mind my current shape and weight.

I just happen to be a cranky old pedant.

Links

January

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31