THE CC DIET: LET'S KEEP IT SIMPLE

Or if you are French

In the last post I took my first foray into using the decimal point, saying walking will consume energy that "can range from 2.2Cs per mile for a 7 stone person to 6.7Cs per mile for a 21 stone person." 

But I went on to say "As it's only approximate, I work on 4Cs per mile for me."  Only a few miles and one C or two out and it really doesn't matter.

Some product will have the precise number of kJ marked on them.  It could be 1763kJ (18Cs) or 2345kJ (23Cs).  That's accurate enough when the target is 60Cs or more.

But often a guess has to be made.  I'm not going to weigh each individual piece of fruit and deduct the weight of its stone.  Let's keep it simple.

A nectarine can be about 2.3Cs net of its stone.  But I say it's 2Cs.  Eat two, as often I do, and I have a choice.  Either say the pair are 4Cs, or realise that 2x2.3 is 4.6 so call it 5Cs.  Frankly it doesn't matter.  Up to you.  Other situations will tend to compensate.

When rounding to start with is not accurate enough

The difference with cycling is that it is easy to cycle 7, 10, 15 miles or more.  Multiply a figure to the nearest C per mile and the total arguably gets too vague.  Let's say for your weight it's 2.3Cs per mile.  After only 7 miles that's 16.1, rounded to 16.  But round to 2 and do 7 miles and that is only 14.  When a greater distance is covered the difference gets bigger, and then significant.

Another example is skimmed milk, just under 1.5Cs per 100g.  320g, as is common on my breakfast cereal, is 4.8Cs, rounded to  5.  Not 320g x 1C per 100g, which would be 3, or x2C which would be 6.

So if you are multiplying a Cs number by a large number, such as miles cycling, it's worth using a decimal place.  But round the result to the nearest C.  Keep the total tally simple.