Consultation on units of measurement

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bruce Stephens

Well-Known Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 1
I've sent back my thoughts to their consultation. It's a terrible idea.
I'm over 50 and have only been taught and learned metric. I have no clue about imperial measures, with the exception of pints for beer and miles per hour. The thought that I'll have to learn how many gallons are in a hogshead or whatever, gives me no joy whatsoever.
 
I still ask for a pound of mince in the butchers, because all my recipes are in pounds and ounces, and I can only visualise portion sizes in ounces. My butcher nods and smiles, and weighs out 454g for me. I weigh all my food for carb counting purposes in grammes though, that’s why dual fuel weighing scales were invented, wasn’t it?
 
I agree @Robin.

For me the preference is mostly pragmatic.

A bit like 70mg/dl being the hypo limit in the US, and 4mmol/L in the UK.

But those are not the same! We don’t want to be faffing about with 3.8888888889mmol/L though do we?!

I’ll often estimate in imperial (“he was about 6ft and 12 stone”), but for precision I’d always go metric I think.
 
Windy said:
It's a terrible idea.
Click to expand...
It is a terrible idea (pretty much whatever the idea actually is, which isn't yet clear). And presumably won't happen (I'm sure there'll be some token changes (like the crown symbols on pint glasses) but nothing of substance). On the other hand I thought Brexit was a terrible idea that surely won't happen.
 
I use both. So many of my family recipes were told to me in ounces eg cake recipes, that I automatically think in ounces most of the time when cooking. I find it easier to remember a single digit ounce eg 6 or 8 rather than a larger number of grams. I find myself checking and re-checking - “Wait! Was it 135g or 165g….or maybe it was 145g??”

I always say my weight in stones and pounds too because I find that easier to visualise, and my height in inches.

Although metric was introduced decades ago, shops were allowed to sell goods in imperial for ages afterwards. I remember the law coming in that said they couldn’t any longer. So I often heard people asking for a quarter of ham or whatever.

I do use metric for my carb calculations though, and I measure in metric. Which reminds me of a story my dad told me that happened to him soon after metrication. He’d gone into a hardware shop to buy a length of wire and asked for it in yards. The very keen shopkeeper told him they’d gone metric, so my dad carefully converted the yards into metres and asked for 3.7 metres - whereupon the shopkeeper told him that they only sold it to the nearest foot :rofl:
 
I obviously use metric for carb counting but I was brought up to think in imperial in everything else, so that is still how I see the world, although I have a good general idea of what the metric equivalents are for most things, so I see it a bit like being bilingual, but my native tongue is imperial and I think in that form.
I have every confidence that I could adjust to carb counting in imperial given time, but I am not sure that I would need to as I know the carb content of most foods (near enough) in grams and that won't change just because the values were somehow displayed in imperial. To be honest I don't really carb count much anyway, firstly because I eat low carb so most meals are just 2 or 3 units of insulin rather than worrying about totting stuff up, unless I eat out which is a rarity and I wouldn't be weighing stuff then anyway, just eyeballing it. And secondly I use my Libre to sugar surf rather than worry too much about carbs in general. I bolus a reasonable guess for meals and then adjust later with corrections or small carb snacks according to my Libre trends. For me this way of managing my diabetes by nudging my levels up or down a bit as needed is less mentally taxing than having to calculate carbs .... and protein for me with being low carb.... and because the protein releases slowly or a fatty or high fibre meal releases later, it allows me to just respond rather than try to calculate.

Overall I would therefore be happy to go back to imperial but I appreciate that the majority of people have been brought up with metric and would have difficulty reverting to imperial, so I would not be overly upset either way.
 
As one of the few on here who could happily operate in imperial units I think it is a stupid idea to consider re introducing them. The last thing we need is endless arguments over whether five and a quarter yards should be referred to as a rod or a pole or a perch.
 
The idea of metric is that it all works in base 10. With ounces you are in base 16, with pounds weight base 14, pence in a shilling is base 12, pounds are base 20, feet are base 3 v yards.

I was taught to use all those measures, adding them, subtracting them, dividing and multiplying them all the time remembering the base of each number, though it was never taught as such. Just remembering the rote - “16 ounces in a pound, 14 pounds in a stone….”.

Half the population or more will not be able to work out Imperial measures, at least not in calculations. I can still do it, but grams, kilos, litres are a sight easier to work with, as are 100p per £.

And running in both systems will cost business a fortune. That hasn’t been considered by the idiot in No. 10.
 
Last edited:
So bringing back Imperial units is fair enough, but really they should bring back the actual Empire. (j/k)
 
mikeyB said:
The idea of metric is that it all works in base 10. With ounces you are in base 16, with pounds weight base 14, pence in a shilling is base 12, pounds are base 20, feet are base 3 v yards.

I was taught to use all those measures, adding them, subtracting them, dividing and multiplying them all the time remembering the base of each number, though it was never taught as such. Just remembering the rote - “16 ounces in a pound, 14 pounds in a stone….”.

Half the population or more will not be able to work out Imperial measures, at least not in calculations. I can still do it, but grams, kilos, litres are a sight easier to work with, as are 100p per £.

And running in both systems will cost business a fortune. That hasn’t been considered by the idiot in No. 10.
Click to expand...
To be pedantic, they all work in base 10, i.e. use single digits from zero to 9. The problem is that they do not respect that base when relating different measures of the same thing, be it length, area or weight. This was mostly because the measures referred to practicalities rather than the ease with which you can work out how much carbohydrate there is in an apple.

The most wonderful example can be seen in ascribing areas to parcels of land. These are based on the pole (5 and a quarter yards) which legend would have it came from the length of a whip used by ox cart drivers. 4 poles make a chain which was a convenient measure for surveyors and incidentally a perfect length for a cricket pitch. 10 chains make a furlong (thats metric) and was a useful measure for laying out plots when common land was allocated in strips for peasants to grow their food. Make those strips a chain wide and you have an acre, and there are 640 of them in a square mile. Easy peasy and perfectly obvious.

Bring back the bushel and the firkin I say.
 
Horses are still measured in hands AFAIK. What's a hand in mm, and how do the people actually designing and building the puissance fences relate to that? (let alone the spectators)
 
trophywench said:
Horses are still measured in hands AFAIK. What's a hand in mm, and how do the people actually designing and building the puissance fences relate to that? (let alone the spectators)
Click to expand...
Yep, we still pat-a-cake our way up to the horse's withers.
Jumping competitions tend to give the max height allowed in centimetres, but I bet you anything the commentator in the puissance still says 'And the wall now stands at a massive 7ft 2 which you would only want to tackle on a 16 + hands horse'

I still remember being able to buy 5 yards of 90cm wide curtain fabric.
 
Last edited:
Yep I still remember that too - though most 'good' curtain material was 45ins not 36 ! Dress material was 36 .........
 
Docb said:
But I bet you calculate the carbs in grams! 🙂
Click to expand...

Not wrong there mate, was first
taught about carbohydrate exchanges when first diagnosed, grams came about much later mainly due to basal/bolus & more precise carb counting techniques & skills.
 
Carb exchanges all = 10g and might be termed a carb portion or ration or exchange. Why the hell in Coventry they were termed LINES I have never yet fathomed out.
 
Windy said:
I've sent back my thoughts to their consultation. It's a terrible idea.
I'm over 50 and have only been taught and learned metric. I have no clue about imperial measures, with the exception of pints for beer and miles per hour. The thought that I'll have to learn how many gallons are in a hogshead or whatever, gives me no joy whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Your last sentence caused me to guffaw with laughter. The brewing and distillery industries are the exception to the metric system. Beer is still supplied to pubs in either full barrels (36 gallons = 324 pints = 184 litres)) or firkins (ie quarter of a barrel capacity). You have to purchase half a litre though rather than a pint. I presume but don't know whether the pub optic is still one sixth of a gill, which is actually 23.7ml - or whether these days they're 25ml - if so I haven't personally found that the extra 1.3mls of gin make a noticeable difference to how many singles (or indeed doubles) I can drink before falling over!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top