Thread So is this better or worse? Organic?

but if you wanna do the math rioght, 150 lbs a year is .41 lbs per day. 195 is .53 lbs a day. So it's really about a 25% increase, not your sensationalistic 100% increase.
 
maplesyrup said:
uh, .5 lbs a day is 3.5 lbs a week buddy, not 2 lbs
Click to expand...
Additive rounding errors. >.>

150/365 = .41
195/365 = .53

150/52 = 2.88
195/52 = 3.75

.41 lbs per day or 2.87 lbs per week, which is like two servings of 1.435 lbs or 22.96 ounces.

I hate math with numbers.
 
ZRH said:
.5lbs per day, or 2lbs per week so like so like two servings of 16 oz one day per week. 195 is 3.75lbs per week, so is almost a 100% increase.
Click to expand...

Yea, if you suck at math. Otherwise its more like a 40% increase.

a grass fed cow produced enough meat back then to feed about 5 people for a year at 138lbs. a feed lot cow produces enough meat to feed about 5 people for a year at 195lbs. Grass feds come in around 700lbs for slaughter, feedlots add another 400 in 4-5 months usually.
 
Really I think we should form a committee to decide what the most significant digit should be.

Interoffice Memorandum
Re: Your couch
Fuck it.
 
there was a news story this morning about growing beef in a petri dish using cow stem cells. it's going to cost over $300k and 6 months to make a burger but it's a start. :fly:
 
plot said:
Yea, find total consumption instead of focusing on one food group. Don't see alot of pictures of fat asses back in the day.
Click to expand...

wpEq7.jpg

Mercy me, you are powerful right.
 
Middle management was definitely more physically demanding back in those days. Must have been tough to ride around on a horse with a whip trying to keep people in line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back