Slashdot Mirror

If you look here: http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/activities/2.html, you will note that riding to work and back will likely only burn off 4/10 of the big mac you eat at lunch ;)

Here, at $4.00/gallon and 30 MPG, $10 will take you about 75 miles. An average banana will give you about 105 calories. For most people, biking burns about 34 calories/mile. So, one extra banana will take you about 3 miles (far short of the 75 miles driving). Of course if you're eating comfort food or taking in more calories than you need even when you're not burning them, biking makes great sense - Although, however practical, I'm not sure it's fair to factor in those excess calories into a theoretical price-per-mile analysis. But if you can bike that far on one extra banana, you must either be an exceptionally efficient biker or be losing a lot of weight.

Maybe things are different in your area - US$10 to drive 25 miles round trip seems obscene by my standards. I commute a very hilly ~20 miles round trip for about US$2.35. But, as always, YMMV.

Well:

From this graph, the price of corn in 2004 peaked at approximately $3.35/bushel. The latest price of corn on there was approximately $4.30/bushel.

From this site, the approximate weight of one bushel of corn is 56 lbs. According to Google that's 25'401 grams.

If you cut all of the kernels off of the cob, boil them, and eat them without salt or any other seasonings, according to this chart, it will contain 66 calories per 82 grams.

This means one bushel contains approximately 20'445 calories.

According to this list, a 190 lb person running at 10mph (6 minute mile) will burn 1380 calories.

So, you'll get 14.8 miles worth of calories out of one bushel of corn.

So, in 2004 you'd be paying $0.226 per mile. Today you'd be paying $0.291 per mile. That's an increase of about 22.3%.

An increase from $75 (GURPS 4e, 2004) to $105 (D&D 4e, 2008) is 28.6%.

So given the questionable sources, estimations, etc I've used, I'd say that those numbers are close enough to conclude that the cost of the books has approximately followed the market.

ND

That's just nonsense unless you are eating cookies the size of dinner plates.

A medium chocolate chip cookie has around 60 calories:
http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item.php?ite m_id=18164&size=2

A 150lb person will burn that off jogging for 8 minutes.
See http://www.caloriesperhour.com/ and try with your own weight and the activity of your choice.

I don't at all disagree with posters below that detail the other benefits of exercise, but I can't let the "exercising enough is impossible" argument slide.

Google gave me this.

Check the lowest post on the page.

Also this one, mostly for the comments.

Looks like it's saying that it could have either. Probably in case HFCS is cheaper in a given month than sugar, so they can switch back and forth as necessary, or because some of their plants use cans from one source but may have different sweeteners.

The only difference I noticed in sugar-sweetened Dr. Pepper is that the aftertaste is much sweeter, rather than just flattening out to a blah, vaguely smoky flavor. Nice, but not a huge thing.

Gatorade has quite a lot of calories

http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/88302.h tml

Even when compared to Beagles...

http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/8231.ht ml

maybe?

Everyone knows that energy is calculated in BigMacs (229 of delicious kcal). That explosion was mere 17,743 BigMacs.

A big mac has 576 calories. So you're looking at more like 7054 big macs in this explosion.

Regular Coffee
vs.
Caramel Macchiato!
Ouch!

Big Mac: 576 (292 from fat)

Subway Sandwiches:230-370 calories (30-55 from fat)

Quite a few subway sandwiches have fewer calories total than a Big Mac has in fat, although the Big Mac is lower in sodium, and higher in protein.

Of course, you have to stick with the 6-inch sandwich, and not get mayo or cheese on it.

I'm afraid if you do the calculations there are not enough calories in the 6L of Coke to actually propel your body that far. Humans, while being truely amazing machines, are not terribly energy effcient from what I understand.

Let's see Calories in Coke seems to be about 440 calories per liter. That'd be 2640 calories in 6 liters.
At a moderate pace, you spend about
560 calories per hour bicycling at 13 mph. So that's about 3770 calories.

So, about 8.5 liters of Coke. Probably not as far off as you'd think.

Yes I know this was a joke, but I've seen many posts saying that bicycles are great machines and forget that thier source of propulsion is probably not as effcient as a gasoline engine.

That's very much a half-truth. The human body, and all living things, really, are very efficient energy-wise.
It isn't that efficient when you look at the 'big picture', e.g. we don't manage to absorb all the energy in the food we consume (which might actually be a good thing, given what people eat nowadays). Also, we're not terrifically great at turning that energy into mechanical work.

So, by analogy to an automobile, we have a leaky gas tank and a crappy transmission and tires, but the actual engine is very efficient. Because we don't do combustion. We use miniature fuel cells called mitochondriae in our cells to do the work.

But besides that.. you're forgetting that unlike combustion engines, our fuel is renewable (if anything is).

The Nutrition Facts of TANG. So glad to hear it's still available.