[bearforcenine]

While you may be offended by it, this article didn't invent that ratio. It's been around for years, as far as I can tell. I'm not certain where it came from, but it's pretty normal to use grams per pound when discussing protein intake in the US.

[dragonwriter]

It's normal because macronutrient content is usually reported in grams, and people tend to track their own weight in US customary units; grams per pound is the measure which respects the existing conventions in both relevant domains.

[Jedd]

I appreciate the article didn't invent this ratio -- though this doesn't excuse the behaviour. Everyone, whenever they communicate, has the opportunity to improve things.

I'd argue it would be better described as 1 gram protein to 500gm (half a kilo) of body mass. That's actually a ratio, in the sense it can then be written simply as 1:500.

You could translate that to US imperial as the ratio 0.032:16 -- assuming ounces all the way down, of course. Convenient!

Microbloits to the parsec, football fields to the ocean, grams to the pound -- these are all just whacky to most people.

[tinym]

People here know offhand what they weigh in pounds, and the packaging on food lists macronutrient content in grams. The article could've listed g/kg as well, but for a US audience g/lb isn't particularly wacky.