← Back to context

Comment by hdjjhhvvhga

3 years ago

> the sum of calories burned by all exercise was about 160 000

I believe you meant kilocalories

In the context of nutrition the word calories always means dietary calories, so the kilo- prefix is redundant unless discussing physics, or commenting on HN...Ooooh, ok.

  • The practice of indicating kcals as "Calories" always seemed to be an American thing to me. I don't know how widespread this is outside the US but there are plenty of countries that use "kcal" in nutritional tables and such. People will still colloquially confuse calories and kilocalories a lot but that's largely due to bad translations (similar to mistranslating short billions).

    • In Poland you write "100 kcal" but say "100 kalorii" unless it's in scientific context.

    • People everywhere mix those 2 regularly and nobody is confused. You don't say you go out for a run to burn some kilo calories and so on. Sometimes places like HN are needlessly pedantic

      1 reply →

Can you show me a representative sample of places where English speakers refer to [unit of energy] burned by exercise and mean anything else other than kilocalories while saying anything else other than calories?

No, you can't, you're showing hypercorrection and lack of fluency.

  • Actually, I noticed it because the OP wrote kcal in one place and calories in another and since they were using large units I had to read the sentence twice to make sure they meant the same thing. I don't have a problem with the fact that we have a unit that means something in one context and 1000xsomething in another as long we're consistent in naming (only calories or only kcal in the context of diet). And of course I didn't mean to be mean (no pun intended) to the OP - being consistent is good but this is such a minor thing that we could safely ignore and it won't affect our lives at all - now I even feel sorry I paid attention to that.