The old, now out-of-print USDA Handbook 8 was essentially all metric. (It gave metric equivalents for teaspoons, tablespoons, etc.) My wife was trained for and became a Registered Dietition. Her food science courses, dietetics courses, and so forth were all metric. Not SI, mind you, because at that time kcal were more widely used. Today, the prevalence in her Journal of the American Dietitics Association (JADA) is for kJ and MJ, though one still often sees kcal.
Jim Jim Elwell wrote: > > Great site to find the nutritional content of food (kJ, protein, fat, > carbs, etc.): > > http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl > > The default is to always give info on a 100 g "edible portion." You can add > columns appropriate to the food (e.g., for "scallion" you might pick "1 > medium" in addition to 100 g). > > It is hardly all-metric (a medium scallion is specified as 4-1/8" long), > but apparently built around the fundamental portion of 100 grams. > > I also noticed in the March/April 2003 issue of WeightWatchers magazine, in > an advertisement for free range buffalo meat (www.purenaturemeats.com), in > a nutrition table comparing buffalo, beef, pork and chicken, portion sizes > are listed as "compared in 100 gram portions (about 3.25 oz)". > > Perhaps this "100 g edible portion" will start becoming more of a > "standard" in the world of nutrition, supplanting ounces. > > Jim Elwell, CAMS > Electrical Engineer > Industrial manufacturing manager > Salt Lake City, Utah, USA > www.qsicorp.com -- Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!" James R. Frysinger, LCAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/ 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charleston, SC 29407 phone: 843.225.6789
