Brilliant observation in Reader's Digest

Options
atypicalsmith
atypicalsmith Posts: 2,742 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Page 50: "Drinking 16 ounces of water can translate to about one pound of weight."

Replies

  • katkins3
    katkins3 Posts: 1,360 Member
    Options
    A direct quote from Captain Obvious!
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    Which is why it is best to weigh in the morning, because that gives the excess water time to exit the system.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    Options
    Well, in fairness to the editors at Reader's Digest, fluid ounces are a measure of volume, not weight. If you drank 16 ounces of gasoline, it would be less than a pound.
  • bpetrosky
    bpetrosky Posts: 3,911 Member
    Options
    Yes, it should be obvious. Considering the intended audience of the average Reader's Digest reader, the concept of Conservation of Mass might not be all that obvious.

    They could have completed the circuit by stating that 16 oz of urine (urinating, not drinking, Bear Gryllis) can translate to losing one pound of weight. Maybe some lightbulbs would go off with that added info.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Options
    Many years ago when I was going to Weight Watchers the leader had one of the members drink a 16 oz bottle of water during the meeting and weighed her at the end. Sure enough she was up a pound. Not a surprise to anyone, but the point that she was trying to illustrate was that the scale is not the be-all and end-all and demonstrate how easy it is to fluctuate.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Well, in fairness to the editors at Reader's Digest, fluid ounces are a measure of volume, not weight. If you drank 16 ounces of gasoline, it would be less than a pound.

    Except for water, which is the only substance with a specific gravity of 1.

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    Options
    earlnabby wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Well, in fairness to the editors at Reader's Digest, fluid ounces are a measure of volume, not weight. If you drank 16 ounces of gasoline, it would be less than a pound.

    Except for water, which is the only substance with a specific gravity of 1.
    No, it's still a measure of volume.

    In the specific case of water the measurements give the same result, but I doubt OP was giving Reader's Digest a hard time because of the specific gravity of water.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Well, in fairness to the editors at Reader's Digest, fluid ounces are a measure of volume, not weight. If you drank 16 ounces of gasoline, it would be less than a pound.

    Except for water, which is the only substance with a specific gravity of 1.
    No, it's still a measure of volume.

    In the specific case of water the measurements give the same result, but I doubt OP was giving Reader's Digest a hard time because of the specific gravity of water.

    Depends on whether you are referring to fluid oz or oz by weight. In the case of water, it is exactly the same unless you are in the UK where a fluid ounce is actually 1.04 ounces by weight (because a UK fluid ounce has more volume than a US fluid ounce).

    Yes, I know why the OP is giving Reader's Digest a hard time.

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    Options
    Typically fluids are referenced using fluid ounces, that is, by volume rather than weight.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Typically fluids are referenced using fluid ounces, that is, by volume rather than weight.

    I know that. The whole point of the RD article and subsequent comments is that, in the case of water (and only water), they are the same digits: 16 fluid =16 weight. I do find their use of the word "about" to be rather funny.

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    Options
    earlnabby wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Typically fluids are referenced using fluid ounces, that is, by volume rather than weight.

    I know that. The whole point of the RD article and subsequent comments is that, in the case of water (and only water), they are the same digits: 16 fluid =16 weight.
    Right. I don't know that a lot of people know that, which is why I made my original post in this thread. I don't know that it's worth mocking RD too hard on this one because even though 16 fluid ounces of water weighs 16 ounces, that's a specific characteristic of water and the definitions involved. Milk is denser than water, for example, so even before your body had a chance to absorb the calories, 16 ounces of milk would affect your weight differently than 16 ounces of water.

  • atypicalsmith
    atypicalsmith Posts: 2,742 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Typically fluids are referenced using fluid ounces, that is, by volume rather than weight.

    I know that. The whole point of the RD article and subsequent comments is that, in the case of water (and only water), they are the same digits: 16 fluid =16 weight.
    Right. I don't know that a lot of people know that, which is why I made my original post in this thread. I don't know that it's worth mocking RD too hard on this one because even though 16 fluid ounces of water weighs 16 ounces, that's a specific characteristic of water and the definitions involved. Milk is denser than water, for example, so even before your body had a chance to absorb the calories, 16 ounces of milk would affect your weight differently than 16 ounces of water.

    It didn't say anything about milk.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,658 Member
    Options
    atypicalsmith wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    earlnabby wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Typically fluids are referenced using fluid ounces, that is, by volume rather than weight.

    I know that. The whole point of the RD article and subsequent comments is that, in the case of water (and only water), they are the same digits: 16 fluid =16 weight.
    Right. I don't know that a lot of people know that, which is why I made my original post in this thread. I don't know that it's worth mocking RD too hard on this one because even though 16 fluid ounces of water weighs 16 ounces, that's a specific characteristic of water and the definitions involved. Milk is denser than water, for example, so even before your body had a chance to absorb the calories, 16 ounces of milk would affect your weight differently than 16 ounces of water.

    It didn't say anything about milk.
    I didn't say it did. Maybe not everyone, or everyone who reads RD, knows that a fluid ounce of water weighs the same as a scale ounce of water. Not all liquids work like that.

  • missiontofitness
    missiontofitness Posts: 4,074 Member
    Options
    Mind blown. Stop the presses, Reader's Digest has solved the world's mysteries about water weight gain!
  • Virkati
    Virkati Posts: 679 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    Honestly, I didn't know that milk weighs more than water. I DID know water is ounce for ounce on the scale though.

    *Science clearly wasn't my interest in school! I'm much more interested now, but there are so many things I simply didn't know because I was too busy not paying attention*

Categories