Fewer 'carbs'

[ESquared]

The word carbohydrate functions in English as a substance like fat or water or sugar. Thus one must use units with numeric values to describe an amount of that substance: five grams of carbohydrate, not five carbohydrates. This latter construction seems to imply five carbohydrates of different molecular structure and does not state the amount or quantity of any.

Thus I take exception to the popular notation I've lately seen such as "only 5 carbs per serving!" I dare say that the food so advertised may consist of exactly five different molecules deserving the name carbohydrate, but I find it unlikely and object that it certainly does not clearly state the intended meaning.

I hereby propose that all persons everywhere immediately apply this correction to their writing and speech, and henceforth render their advertising and other blips in the form "only 5 carb grams per serving!" or "only 5g carb per serving!"

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

P.S. This situation reminds me of the imaginary doughnut shop which advertises "fat free" doughnuts not because their product contains no fat but because they simply do not charge for the fat contained therein.

-------------------------------------
• Every joy is beyond all others. The fruit we are eating is always the best fruit of all.
• It is waking that understands sleep and not sleep that understands waking. There is an ignorance of evil that comes from being young: there is a darker ignorance that comes from doing it, as men by sleeping lose the k

 

[sleipnir214]

As I understand it, there are some diets which allow you to eat a certain number of units of various types of basic foodstuffs, such as carbs, fats, protein, etc. Any particular item one might eat at a meal would be listed in the diet instructions as a multiple of various numbers of these basic foodstuffs. For example, a baked potato with sour cream might take up 6 carb units and 1 fat unit.

Richard Simmons' "Deal-a-meal" is one I recall.

In the context of those diet systems, "5 carbs per serving" might mean something. I don't know how universal such diets are.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[ESquared]

sleipnir214,

But in your own post you called them carb units and not actual "carbs," whatever those are. But I do see your point.

In common usage, however, when a carb is intending to refer to 1 gram of carbohydrate, the plural is incorrect.

 

[TTF]

I can have 1 to many carbs per day as long as carbohydrates weight will not exceed 23 gramms. As simple as that!

So to shorten the sentense it'll be "Mu carbs shouldn't be more then 23" the same as ppl for people and LOL for you know what LOL

 

[ESquared]

TTF, you're committing the exact error I pointed out.

 

[TTF]

So I am wrong, big deal:-D

 

[ESquared]

 

[LesleyW]

I disagree with ESquared here and think that TTF is cleverly showing correct usage.

"I can have 1 to many carbs" ....> I can eat as many different types of carbohydrates

"as long as carbohydrates weight will not exceed 23 gramms"
..> as long as the total weight of all those carbs is not more than 23 grams.

or! I can eat 23g of any type of carb.

 

[TTF]

So I am rehabilitated...E!squared!!! What do you say to that?

LesleyW, thanks!!!

 

[ESquared]

LesleyW,

It's not correct. His shortened version doesn't have the same meaning because it switches the referent of the number 23.

"as long as carbohydrates weight will not exceed 23 gramms"

23 here refers to grams.

"Mu carbs shouldn't be more then 23"

23 here refers to carbs. But he's not talking about 23 different carbohydrates. He's talking about 23 grams of carbohydrate. The error is still there.

If I go eat a 100 grams of pure sucrose, I've only eaten one carbohydrate. But I have eaten 100 grams of carbohydrate.

You actually had correct usage in your own sentence: "I can eat 23g of any type of carb." Carb... not carbs.

 

[tsdragon]

First of all, thanks for the invite to join.

Now, I wholeheartedly agree with Esquared. This is a classic example of what I call adspeak. The advertising industry has a habit of taking perfectly good vocabulary and grammer and totally *&!@#$ it up to make it sound cute or clever. In the process I believe that they intentionally obfuscate things, so that their claims can mean whatever they want them to mean. When a product makes claims about "carbs" you really don't even know for certain that they are even referring to carbohydrates. "Carb-free" could mean that the product contains no carburetors! (They were called carbs first!) Or their particular use of carb could mean "carbon", or "carboxyl acid" or anything else. While people may think they know what "carbs" means, they really don't. They're making an unwarranted assumption.

(Don't get me started on how the advertising industry makes you think they're saying something they're not. I've collected around a hundred different examples of various ways they do that just from TV and newspaper ads. I'm thinking of writing a book on "adspeak".)

Tracy Dryden

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[ESquared]

How about "no fat?" Did you know this means less than half a gram of fat per serving? What do you think the ramifications are if each serving is less than half a gram (as in the non-stick cooking sprays)? It means that the product can be entirely fat with one ingredient, fat, but still be labeled no fat.

P.S. pssst... Tracy... grammar

 

[tsdragon]

Tracy Dryden

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[LesleyW]

OOoh I was just referring the the first part of TTF's message... I didn't know what "mu" meant so just ignored that bit

 

[asrisk]

It means that the product can be entirely fat with one ingredient, fat, but still be labeled no fat.

Like the Peperami sticks with a list of ingredients as long as your arm, followed by the claim "Not less than 100% meat"!

[disclaimer] Not examined one for a while, so this might have changed [/disclaimer]



-------
[sup]I am not responsible for any "Sponsored Links" which may appear in my messages.[/sup]

 

[ESquared]

A bottle of juice from Safeway said "Contains 100% juice."

But it didn't mean that ALL the contents of the bottle were 100% juice, just that the kind of juice used (as merely one of the several ingredients) was "100% juice." This really annoys me... I detest the methods of advertisers and the media.

 

[TTF]

Book on "adspeak"? I can contribute, I speak ad or odd?
I'll buy it:-D
Shouldn't it be oddspeak? :-D

People! There is so much info and so much to say by too many - why are you surprised?
American English still being critisized by Brits and fare from their point of view, but does American English care?

So as long we understand each other - berry the hatch:-D

 

[ESquared]

TTF,

Do you know that your own writing at times could attract criticism?

 

[tsdragon]

Adspeak isn't odd, it is actually for the most part very clever. I think they pay people large sums of money to sit around and figure out how to mislead and misinform people.

They play around a great deal with semantics, sentence structure, word meanings, and that sort of thing. Their primary goal appears to be to make you think they are saying one thing (i.e. "This bottle contains nothing but pure fruit juice." when what they are actually saying is something entirely different (i.e. "This bottle contains mostly water. Only a small fraction of the contents is fruit juice. However that small fraction is 100% fruit juice.&quot.

It's probably a total waste of time, but I think people should be educated to recognize this sort of disinformation (what I call "adspeak&quot. However, enough people may be interested to make a book about it a good seller. Now I just have to find more good examples, and the time to write a book. Nothing to it!


Tracy Dryden

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[tgreer]

Then we have "spin". I don't have the details (I think it was an NPR story), but it was in regard to a political consultant who is very highly paid. He coins phrases for politicians that sway public opinion on hot issues. Examples of his work are "death tax", which sounds awful, to replace "estate tax", which sounds almost pleasant. No one wants a "death tax", which is precisely the desired end. Another is "global climate change" to soften and deflect "global warming".

Now (in the immortal words of John Cleese) for something completely different: I referred to "an NPR" story above. The article is "an", not "a", because the letter "N" is pronounced with a leading vowel sound. Correct, or incorrect?



Thomas D. Greer

http://www.tgreer.com

Providing PostScript & PDF
Training, Development & Consulting