grams

The thing is that 50 grams of sugar is just really, really low...

Presuming human equivalence to mice - A 185 pound person would need to ingest about 168 grams of piracetam as compared to around 10 grams of caffeine.

A teaspoon is basically 5ml, which is around 5 grams.

Every piece of food has nutritional information at the back, with columns for 100 grams and one serving.

First I was on strict diet, less than 10 grams a day sugar first two weeks, then restrict to less than 20 grams and gradually increase...

Why on Earth is nobody trying to market medium-to-high-end phones that weigh less than 100 grams?

Using 100 grams would actually be a reasonable idea, but is not what you actually said in your prior messages.

A 12 ounce can of coke has 39 grams of sugar, or 7-10 times what the human body considers normal.

Most Americans have experience measuring foodstuffs with teaspoons, not with scales, and even if they did, it wouldn't be in grams.

Yes it will,if you do 5 grams a day - which is a ridiculous amount.

That's about 3.5 grams of zinc-air goo per night, ignoring packaging, blower loss, etc.

Again, for many Americans, using grams is introducing additional units of measurement.

Google n-grams says it's used with a frequency about 2-3% that of "frigid."

Purchasing habits will slowly change from the "let's pick up a couple grams" mentality to the, "Uh-oh, better add an ounce of kush to the weekend to-do list" mentality.

And considering this line in the article: With McChicken patties weighing 63 grams and having a better quality of chicken than McNuggets (a meat score of "C-" compared to "D-", according to Calorie Count), I can't imagine why anyone would want to eat something with a "meat score" of D-.

Its the Waltons and Kochs, not the Carmacks and Grams.