Page 1 of 4

1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:02 am UTC
by thunk
Image

alt-text: The key is portion control, which is why I've switched to eating smaller cans of frosting instead of full bottles.

I remember helping my teacher demonstrate something similar in elementary school. However, I got the units on the labels wrong and ended up with about 2.5 times as much sugar as there actually was.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:00 am UTC
by groman
Is that four gallons of crushed up skittles or the way skittles naturally pack together?

Desperately need answer fast...


Thank you in advance,

Me.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:12 am UTC
by Khrushy
Dear Randall,

Please also include measurements in Metric. Ducking off to another tab to google "20 fluid oz in mls" kind of ruins the flow of the strip.
(even in the mouseover text would be fine - I checked that first)

Love,
Every country that's not America.

(I mean, I know you know that we all use metric, it's just really awkward to look at the strip and not know if "bottle" means 600mls, 1.25L or 2L)

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:14 am UTC
by rhomboidal
Asphyxiating on frosting sounds like the funnest awfullest way to die.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:27 am UTC
by Flotter
Khrushy wrote:Dear Randall,

Please also include measurements in Metric. Ducking off to another tab to google "20 fluid oz in mls" kind of ruins the flow of the strip.
(even in the mouseover text would be fine - I checked that first)

Love,
Every country that's not America.

(I mean, I know you know that we all use metric, it's just really awkward to look at the strip and not know if "bottle" means 600mls, 1.25L or 2L)

I had to look it up, but 20 fluid ounce (US) equals 591.47 millilitres.

That means that if a 20 fl oz bottle contains 3 cadbury eggs, one 500 ml bottle contains 5 kinder surprise eggs.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:02 am UTC
by thevicente
I've said it before and I'll say it again:


thevicente wrote:This comic, annoying me for using degress F so soon after #1394 using inches, gave me an idea.

Randall could make versions in both imperial and metric and use ip-geo thing to serve the "correct" units for everyone.

Doesn't see too difficult considering the programatic things he made in the past.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:10 am UTC
by gothick
Given that we get feet and gallons as well as fluid ounces, I was assuming the units were deliberate trolling! I was sort of expecting the title text to mention furlongs or cubits.

I'm guessing us metric people can't buy a 591.47ml bottle—is the nearest we've got the 500ml bottles? Or does that even vary among metric countries?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:33 am UTC
by FOARP
What I'm getting from this, is, instead of all that crappy fizzy soda I could be feasting on Cadbury's Cream Eggs (those are a thing in the US as well?) and Skittles.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:55 am UTC
by karhell
Flotter wrote:I had to look it up, but 20 fluid ounce (US) equals 591.47 millilitres.
How much is that in cubic giraffes ?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:24 am UTC
by speising
gothick wrote:Given that we get feet and gallons as well as fluid ounces, I was assuming the units were deliberate trolling! I was sort of expecting the title text to mention furlongs or cubits.

I'm guessing us metric people can't buy a 591.47ml bottle—is the nearest we've got the 500ml bottles? Or does that even vary among metric countries?

i'd guess it varies, certainly across the globe, but even the EU had relaxed its regulations for standardized sizes some time ago.
anyway, in my country, we have the usual fizzy drinks in:
0,33l Dose
0,33l Glasflasche
0,5l PET-Flasche
1,0l PET-Flasche
1,5l PET-Flasche
2,0l PET-Flasche

so, 2 * 0,33l would be nearer :)

ps: it's an endless source of confusion that the US(?) calls those drinks "soda", as a soda is just bubbly water for us. Which bugs me every time the characters in dubbed tv series say the get a mineral water, while they grab a can of coke. (some translators are high school drop outs, i guess)

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:09 am UTC
by GlassHouses
gothick wrote:I'm guessing us metric people can't buy a 591.47ml bottle—is the nearest we've got the 500ml bottles? Or does that even vary among metric countries?


I remember once having a 59 cl bottle of beer in a highway rest stop in Switzerland. It was a Swiss brand, not an American or British import.

I remember thinking that was an unusual size — certainly one I wasn't used to seeing in the Netherlands or Germany. (I also remember thinking that nobody should drink that much beer and then get back behind the wheel. (I wasn't driving. :D))

That was in 1984, though. Do they still use imperial-derived sizes anywhere in mainland Europe?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:22 am UTC
by orthogon
I have some issues with this one. The first row is the most shocking result - I've heard statements like it before, but it's still a striking comparison because I'm sure people don't typically think of drinking a can or bottle of drink in the same way that they think of eating a chocolate bar.

The other rows are just an application of the principle that multiplying a number by an integer greater than one gives you a number that's several times bigger than the original number. It's a shoddy journalistic/political technique, seen for example when a newspaper claims that the BBC pays some celebrity too much and illustrates it by saying how much they earn over five years, or when a politician announces extra funding and quotes the total over three years.

In the case of the comic, everybody has a pretty clear idea of what quantity of food or drink they would typically consume in a session, but most people probably can't easily visualise what they'd eat in a week, six months or three years.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:05 am UTC
by markfiend
gothick wrote:I'm guessing us metric people can't buy a 591.47ml bottle—is the nearest we've got the 500ml bottles? Or does that even vary among metric countries?

600ml bottles aren't uncommon; generally they're marketed alongside 500ml bottles with conspicuous "20% extra FREE!" signage.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:19 am UTC
by chrisjwmartin
That amount of Skittles in six months seems pretty reasonable. And I *know* I could make my way through a candy counter over the course of three years.

This just seems like one of those dumb, innumerate comments where something that's spread over a large amount is presented in comparison with something else that is presented as if it's compressed into a small amount.

"Oh me yarm did u kno tht if evry person in th world gave me a penny i wud hv seventy million dollars? they wudnt even notice it bt id b rly happy so lk it shd happen"
"hey i heared tht u spend three yrs of ur life on th toilet ewww thts gross who wnts 2 spend three yrs on a toilet lol"
"ewww drinking a soda a day for three yrs is lk totes the same as eating a 20-ft candy counter bt lk ud get rly sick if u did tht lol"

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:26 am UTC
by Soupspoon
My main problem with "how much sugar is in the pop* you drink" thing is that I much prefer the taste of aspartame and sucralose in my fizzy drinks (Coke Zero, Pepsi Max, etc, more so than the 'mere' Diet versions, for some reason, so it must be the mix ratios) which means I'm still drinking unhealthily (or at least injuriously, what with the acidity), but it isn't a sugar intake... I may in fact be very low on refined sugar intake, depending on where else they hide it in prepared foods...


* - "Soda", but in the local vernacular.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:24 pm UTC
by ggh
I remember when I was a little girl, the lady next door used to invite me over to look at her parakeet, and would give me a mug of white sugar with a spoon. It was awesome.

Gee, I wonder what's the best way to illustrate how much sugar is in a mug of sugar....

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:54 pm UTC
by speising
ggh wrote:I remember when I was a little girl, the lady next door used to invite me over to look at her parakeet, and would give me a mug of white sugar with a spoon. It was awesome.

Gee, I wonder what's the best way to illustrate how much sugar is in a mug of sugar....

Was she a dentist, per chance?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:13 pm UTC
by somitomi
ggh wrote:I remember when I was a little girl, the lady next door used to invite me over to look at her parakeet, and would give me a mug of white sugar with a spoon. It was awesome.

Gee, I wonder what's the best way to illustrate how much sugar is in a mug of sugar....

How about bottles of soda?
speising wrote:i'd guess it varies, certainly across the globe, but even the EU had relaxed its regulations for standardized sizes some time ago.
anyway, in my country, we have the usual fizzy drinks in:
0,33l Dose
0,33l Glasflasche
0,5l PET-Flasche
1,0l PET-Flasche
1,5l PET-Flasche
2,0l PET-Flasche

so, 2 * 0,33l would be nearer :)

I don't know if it's just here, but you know which cola started selling 1.25 l and 1.75 l bottles a while ago. What's particularly odd about the latter was the ads going "now there's family sized cola" as if 1) large bottles of soda were a new thing and 2) the large bottle hadn't been 2 liters since time immemorial.
Khrushy wrote: (I mean, I know you know that we all use metric, it's just really awkward to look at the strip and not know if "bottle" means 600mls, 1.25L or 2L)

I was quite taken aback upon learning that things like "cup" and "tablespoon" are an actual defined unit of volume, and not some vaguely defined quantity like "to taste".

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:23 pm UTC
by Flumble
Those skittles sound doable in half a year. And not just doable but tasty as well. I should probably call the dentist and get a bunch of insulin shots before starting the challenge.

speising wrote:ps: it's an endless source of confusion that the US(?) calls those drinks "soda", as a soda is just bubbly water for us. Which bugs me every time the characters in dubbed tv series say the get a mineral water, while they grab a can of coke. (some translators are high school drop outs, i guess)

I could care less about translators being high/secondary school drop outs and not knowing anything about math or biology, but as a translator at least you must know how to translate. It's their job for crying out loud!

Flotter wrote:I had to look it up, but 20 fluid ounce (US) equals 591.47 millilitres.

That means that if a 20 fl oz bottle contains 3 cadbury eggs, one 500 ml bottle contains 5 kinder surprise eggs.

Thanks for the conversion!
Too bad a can of fizzy drink doesn't have 2 surprises inside. :( (or 3 surprises in a small bottle for that matter, because the parts won't fit through the small hole in a can)

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 1:42 pm UTC
by ggh
speising wrote:
ggh wrote:I remember when I was a little girl, the lady next door used to invite me over to look at her parakeet, and would give me a mug of white sugar with a spoon. It was awesome.

Gee, I wonder what's the best way to illustrate how much sugar is in a mug of sugar....

Was she a dentist, per chance?
She was from The Old Country. She also treated us neighbourhood kids to her soup, which had a layer - somewhere between a cm and an inch - of congealed fat floating on top. We were less keen on that. A shame really - that, combined with the mugs of sugar, probably would have converted nicely into Cadbury eggs.

She was a really sweet (no pun intended) lady though. I hope she never knew that we'd dump her soup in the bushes.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:21 pm UTC
by orthogon
Oh, and in the UK we call them "Cadbury's creme eggs". "Cream" is pronounced like "cream". The"creme" is central to the egg, both literally and figuratively.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:36 pm UTC
by Showsni
orthogon wrote:Oh, and in the UK we call them "Cadbury's creme eggs". "Cream" is pronounced like "cream". The"creme" is central to the egg, both literally and figuratively.


And people will tell you Cadbury's hasn't been the same since it was bought by Kraft.

I also came to the forum because I was confused about the bottle's size; partly because ounces are a unit of weight (or is that mass?), and I'd expect a volume to be listed in fluid ounces instead. Is it an American shortcut to call fl oz as just oz? And are they different to British fl oz?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:38 pm UTC
by ucim
orthogon wrote:The other rows are just an application of the principle that multiplying a number by an integer greater than one gives you a number that's several times bigger than the original number. It's a shoddy journalistic/political technique...
No, it has its uses. People don't think much of a $99/month cable bill, but when confronted with the fact that they spend over a thousand dollars a year for television, it puts things in perspective. Ditto when buying a cheap (film - remember that?) camera, it's useful to remember the total cost of the film and processing that's going to run through it a little bit at a time. Makes it easier to stomach the higher cost of a higher quality camera.

I do agree that the rest of the strip is just the same joke repeated though.

Jose

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:41 pm UTC
by da Doctah
somitomi wrote:I was quite taken aback upon learning that things like "cup" and "tablespoon" are an actual defined unit of volume, and not some vaguely defined quantity like "to taste".


Turnabout being the better part of valor, or however that goes, we were just as surprised to find anything other than drugs measured in cc's or grams.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:46 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
Showsni wrote:I also came to the forum because I was confused about the bottle's size; partly because ounces are a unit of weight (or is that mass?), and I'd expect a volume to be listed in fluid ounces instead. Is it an American shortcut to call fl oz as just oz? And are they different to British fl oz?
Looks like there is a slight US/Imperial difference as there is for most of these units.

But yes, "ounce" is commonly used in either case in the US, and context determines whether the weight or the volume is meant. Drinks and other liquids and chemical goods and so on are referred to as having sizes in "ounces" even though the packaging will necessarily specify fluid ounces somewhere.

There really isn't any overlap between fluid ounces and ounces in the sense of 1/16 of a pound. The latter is used for dry goods and meat and things, and it's rarely important to compare a quantity of milk with a quantity of meat in the supermarket.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:00 pm UTC
by Keyman
Showsni wrote:
orthogon wrote:Oh, and in the UK we call them "Cadbury's creme eggs". "Cream" is pronounced like "cream". The"creme" is central to the egg, both literally and figuratively.


And people will tell you Cadbury's hasn't been the same since it was bought by Kraft.

More than that, in the US it's NOT Cadbury chocolate. It's CadburyTM owned by Hershey, and made with their own formula. Hershey bought the US Candy operations from Cadbury Schweppes in 1988. Since then, unlike Cadbury (UK), where the first ingredient is milk, the first one in CadburyTMis (altogether now children)...sugar!

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:24 pm UTC
by Stargazer71
thevicente wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again:


thevicente wrote:This comic, annoying me for using degress F so soon after #1394 using inches, gave me an idea.

Randall could make versions in both imperial and metric and use ip-geo thing to serve the "correct" units for everyone.

Doesn't see too difficult considering the programatic things he made in the past.


Considering he measures height using giraffes (https://what-if.xkcd.com/44/) and launch vehicle capacities in horses (https://xkcd.com/1461/), I doubt the idea of using fluid ounces for a comic read globally is going to bother him that much.

In all seriousness though, that'd be a lot of work, and *nobody* would notice that he had taken the time to do it.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 4:28 pm UTC
by chrisjwmartin
ucim wrote:No, it has its uses.

It sure does. I asked my wife how much would be reasonable to pay per week for a new gaming rig over the course of four years. She answered £50 per week (only £7 per day - bargain!), which of course is about £10,000 over four years, and so she then couldn't complain when I bought a £3,000 machine with a four year warranty.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:25 pm UTC
by vjg
I have to believe that if it's sugar in your system that you're after, you'll get it faster via the soda than the candy bar.

When I was in third grade and stayed home alone after school, I'd come home every day, pour a 1/4 cup (59 ml) of sugar onto a saucer, and then lap it up as my afternoon snack while watching Lost in Space. I figured only an IV would be faster.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:29 pm UTC
by Zinho
speising wrote:. . . in my country, we have the usual fizzy drinks in:
<sizes>
do you have 3l bottles there, or that a US-only thing?

speising wrote:ps: it's an endless source of confusion that the US(?) calls those drinks "soda", as a soda is just bubbly water for us. Which bugs me every time the characters in dubbed tv series say the get a mineral water, while they grab a can of coke. (some translators are high school drop outs, i guess)
You've been insulated from the greater insanity, which is calling all such drinks "coke"; we don't tend to export that cultural experience, since it doesn't exist in California. The phenomenon is highly regional, and there have been efforts to define the geographic boundaries of the various usages. There's even a webpage!

Since I'm getting out in the weeds on this anyhow, can any of the "pop" drinkers in the audience comment on whether their idea of "pop" also includes harder carbonated beverages such as beer? I've heard my friends from Milwaukee call beer "barley pop", and I'm not sure if they're joking or if that's really the same category in their minds...

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:37 pm UTC
by Netreker0
ucim wrote:
orthogon wrote:The other rows are just an application of the principle that multiplying a number by an integer greater than one gives you a number that's several times bigger than the original number. It's a shoddy journalistic/political technique...
No, it has its uses. People don't think much of a $99/month cable bill, but when confronted with the fact that they spend over a thousand dollars a year for television, it puts things in perspective. Ditto when buying a cheap (film - remember that?) camera, it's useful to remember the total cost of the film and processing that's going to run through it a little bit at a time. Makes it easier to stomach the higher cost of a higher quality camera.


Also, with respect to some things, people understand things much better in terms of years than days (though I don't consider food consumption one of those things.) When it comes to money in particular, people who are budgeting/working for the first time don't tend to think about what they spend on a fancy sugary coffee drink every day in terms of what they make that day, but they generally have an idea of their yearly pay. So doing the math for them tends to wake a lot of people up to the proportionate cost of their daily habit, or at the very least reminds them of the power of multiplication and perhaps convinces them of the benefits of making some habits less habitual.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:43 pm UTC
by Netreker0
Stargazer71 wrote:Considering he measures height using giraffes (https://what-if.xkcd.com/44/) and launch vehicle capacities in horses (https://xkcd.com/1461/), I doubt the idea of using fluid ounces for a comic read globally is going to bother him that much.

In all seriousness though, that'd be a lot of work, and *nobody* would notice that he had taken the time to do it.


I disagree. Someone, somewhere would make some offhand comment that mentions the specific unit. Someone will correct him in a tone that someone else considers offensively pedantic, and then we'll have about twelve pages of arguing that somehow turned political around page three. Once that dies down, someone will notice what Randall did and point out that both original posters were in fact correct, at which point someone else will complain about Randall pandering to the backwards foreigners who use weird units and we'll another dozen pages of political infighting.

For the record, people who measure height in giraffes are elitist liberal anti-Americans who want us to abandon our ways and submit to the dictates of some international government. Real Americans measure height in grizzly bears.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 5:53 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
Zinho wrote:You've been insulated from the greater insanity, which is calling all such drinks "coke"; we don't tend to export that cultural experience, since it doesn't exist in California. The phenomenon is highly regional, and there have been efforts to define the geographic boundaries of the various usages. There's even a webpage!

Since Coca Cola came out with those new "Freestyle" soda fountains that can serve a myriad of different combinations of sodas and extra flavors, including a bunch of different fruit-flavored Coke besides the common Cherry Coke, I've wondered if there are now problems in the south when someone means to order, say, a Sunkist or Crush or some other orange soda, but gets an orange Coke because they asked for an "orange coke" and now that's actually a thing.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:01 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
Zinho wrote:Since I'm getting out in the weeds on this anyhow, can any of the "pop" drinkers in the audience comment on whether their idea of "pop" also includes harder carbonated beverages such as beer? I've heard my friends from Milwaukee call beer "barley pop", and I'm not sure if they're joking or if that's really the same category in their minds...

Here in the UK, mid-north (but even that fact is highly arguable), you'd normally go no further than shandy under the Venn/Euler diagram of "things that are pop", you'd definitely include (non-alcoholic) ginger beer and I suppose you'd find those being descriptivist about 'alcopops', unless they were also keen an keeping 'energy drinks' out of the zone.

But, with irony, both water ("council pop") and any othe liquid sustenance could be knowingly misreferenced as 'pop'...Especially any weak/unsufficiently palatable lager that escapes the "horse piss" derogatry soubriquette, especially in the land where warm bitter (not "bitter lemon") is more likely one's typical "pint of best". The likes of J2O (a brand, but "something J2O-like" is often an acceptable answer when I get asked to fetch one but this establishment stocks only other-brand versions) tend to escape the term 'pop', in favour of the misnomered "juice" term, but sitting in a glass it might be mistaken for 'pop', or a cocktail if anyone's added anything more fancy than some ice to the glass...

Anything squirted out of a carbonation mixer tap (whether Coke or Pepsi-based in brand coverage, c.f. Fanta/Tango as the "orangade" option) that doesn't get further mixed beyond said tap are solidly "pops", though...

(I know of one place with an advanced "soda fountain" formulator, with the option of creating "apple-flavoured Dr Pepper Zero" or "lemon and orange Sprite"... probably. I tend, to stick with one of the vanilla (but not vanilla-flavoured!) Zero options, because experiments with making Cherry Coke in a low-sugar version, or adding pear flavouring into one of the 'classics' never seems to work out right. Could be the delivery system. Maybe it needs a little extra tuning...)

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:02 pm UTC
by speising
Zinho wrote:
speising wrote:. . . in my country, we have the usual fizzy drinks in:
<sizes>
do you have 3l bottles there, or that a US-only thing?

My list was a quote from our official bottler of everything from the CC company, so i guess that's complete.
I wouldn't really know, since i prefer my sugar in more solid form.
Zinho wrote:Since I'm getting out in the weeds on this anyhow, can any of the "pop" drinkers in the audience comment on whether their idea of "pop" also includes harder carbonated beverages such as beer? I've heard my friends from Milwaukee call beer "barley pop", and I'm not sure if they're joking or if that's really the same category in their minds...

I know our youth likes to drink "alco pops", basically sodas with vodka, since they make drunk but taste like a "lemonade" (to use another contented designation :)), not that disgusting alcohol.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:30 pm UTC
by Moo
I don't think the point is just to shock you with the amount of sugar, but with the fact that you're drinking that much sugar ON TOP OF whatever sugar you're eating for sweets and treats. That you're supposed to drink for quenching your thirst, not consume the equivalent of a giant candy at the same time.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 6:33 pm UTC
by Justin Lardinois
groman wrote:Is that four gallons of crushed up skittles or the way skittles naturally pack together?

Desperately need answer fast...


Thank you in advance,

Me.


I would guess crushed, because that's easier to calculate. But let's find out.

Randall's example soda is Coca-Cola, which has 65g of sugar in a 20oz bottle. Assuming 30 day months, that's 3600g of sugar if you drink one per day for six months.

Original Skittles have 42g of sugar for a 56.7g serving (wtf). According to the answer key to some random physics class homework that I found online, the density of a single Skittle is 0.794g/ml. 1 gallon is about 3785.41ml.

Therefore a gallon of crushed Skittles weighs approximately 0.794g/ml * 3785.41 ml/gal, or about 3005.62g. Multiply it by four and you have 12022.46g. Multiply that by the sugar in Skittles ratio, 42/56.7, and you get 8905.53g of sugar.

That's way off from the amount of sugar in the soda, so Randall must've calculated the amount of sugar in a gallon of whole Skittles. Or he messed up a calculation. Or I did.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:01 pm UTC
by Quizatzhaderac
Soupspoon wrote:Here in the UK...pop.... 'alcopops' ... "council pop"... 'pop'... 'pop'... 'pop'.... "pops"...
That reminds me, is that show "Top of the pops" still on?

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:05 pm UTC
by Keyman
Zinho wrote:Since I'm getting out in the weeds on this anyhow, can any of the "pop" drinkers in the audience comment on whether their idea of "pop" also includes harder carbonated beverages such as beer? I've heard my friends from Milwaukee call beer "barley pop", and I'm not sure if they're joking or if that's really the same category in their minds...
They are joking. If 'Sconnies know anything, they know alcohol.

I was raised a "pop" guy (in the "Duck, duck, grey duck" state next door), but spent several years out east, and "soda" does still/again occasionally creep back into conversation.

Re: 1793: "Soda Sugar Comparisons"

Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2017 7:09 pm UTC
by lyagooshka
So, the point here is that:
1) a 20 oz soda contains less than 1/2 your daily carb intake and about 1/3 your daily water intake -or-
2) that if you drank 3 year's worth of soda in a day you might feel sick -or-
3) sensationalizing things is a great way to cover up lack of any ability to logically think?
:?