mmol?

The atomic weight of a chemical in grams is one mole. One millimole (mmol) is one thousandth of a mole.

They're likely refering to concentration in mmol/Liter, since mmols itself doesn't tell you that much.

biochemical engineer wrote:

They're likely refering to concentration in mmol/Liter, since mmols itself doesn't tell you that much.

Yes, that's the usual ratio, but not the question that was asked.

It's the blood lactate concentration expressed in mmol/L of blood (usually called 'mmol' for short). Lactate threshold is around a blood lactate of 3-4.5 mmol, although this could be higher for an individual depending on their sport (~hockey players, mid-distance runners). You should check out Marius Bakken's website:

http://www.mariusbakken.com/index.php?parent=13&groupid=16

You would need a lactate monitor, lancets (I recommend spring loaded), and test strips, which can all be a bit pricey. But if you're a tech geek, go for it!

mol is mesure for quantity. It is a special number of molecules or atoms or other relevant units. The number is equal to the number of atoms in 12 g of Carbon(12), the Avogadro number, 6.023*10^23. Named after the italian chemist Amedo Avogadro (1776-1856)

From the second post it sound like it is a weight mesure, but it is not. But it would not matter much. The point here is that mmol/liter is a concentration, it could of course also have been g/Liter with only other figures. Instead of writing 0.004 m/L it is practical to write 4 mmol/L

From Norway wrote:

mol is mesure for quantity. It is a special number of molecules or atoms or other relevant units. The number is equal to the number of atoms in 12 g of Carbon(12), the Avogadro number, 6.023*10^23. Named after the italian chemist Amedo Avogadro (1776-1856)

From the second post it sound like it is a weight mesure, but it is not. But it would not matter much. The point here is that mmol/liter is a concentration, it could of course also have been g/Liter with only other figures. Instead of writing 0.004 m/L it is practical to write 4 mmol/L

Not quite. Avogadros number is a measurement of quantity, moles are a measurement of weight. The 2nd poster had it right. Avogadro's number only tells the number of atoms in one mole. Had it been agreed that atomic equivilancies should be expressed in stone, pounds or any other unit, Avogadro's number would be different.

Mol is the measure of atomic weight in grams (mass). It is a measurement of weight. 4 mmol/liter is a concentration measurement of 4 grams of lactate in 1 liter of whole blood.

Are you frickin serious? mol is a measure of quantity, not weight...the atomic weight of a chemical is how many grams a mol of the chemical weighs...therefore it is a quantity. What quantity you ask? A mol of something consists of 6.023x10^23 of it. 6.023x10^23 is the number avogadro found.

Distance runners have resting plasma lactate levels of 1 mmol. Total blood lactate levels can be almost double this figure, but measurements almost always refer to plasma lactate.

Lactate is always produced, even when you are asleep. A good distance runner can also run at a steady pace of six minutes per mile with just 1 mmol of lactate. A marathon is run at about 2 mmols, a half marathon at about 4 mmols.

anonymous wrote:

Are you frickin serious? mol is a measure of quantity, not weight...the atomic weight of a chemical is how many grams a mol of the chemical weighs...therefore it is a quantity. What quantity you ask? A mol of something consists of 6.023x10^23 of it. 6.023x10^23 is the number avogadro found.

Yes I'm serious. You've got it backwards. One mole of any element is always the same quantity = 6.023x10^23

Grams is a unit measure of weight, not number. Had the scientific community agreed that the unit of comparison was ounces instead of grams Avogadros number would be very different wouldn't it?

One mole always has the same number of atoms as defined by Avogadros number. One mole of iron and 1 mile of titanium have exactly the same number of atoms but weigh different.

Chem man wrote:Grams is a unit measure of weight, not number.

You're not really a chemist, are you?

Any real chemist would show more care in describing units of mass (not weight). No serious chemist would call a gram a unit measure of weight.

Chem man wrote:

anonymous wrote:

Are you frickin serious? mol is a measure of quantity, not weight...the atomic weight of a chemical is how many grams a mol of the chemical weighs...therefore it is a quantity. What quantity you ask? A mol of something consists of 6.023x10^23 of it. 6.023x10^23 is the number avogadro found.

Yes I'm serious. You've got it backwards. One mole of any element is always the same quantity = 6.023x10^23

Grams is a unit measure of weight, not number. Had the scientific community agreed that the unit of comparison was ounces instead of grams Avogadros number would be very different wouldn't it?

One mole always has the same number of atoms as defined by Avogadros number. One mole of iron and 1 mile of titanium have exactly the same number of atoms but weigh different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass

If the scientific community agreed that the units of comparison was ounces, mol was still be the same. Avogadros number is just a constant.

If "one mole of iron and 1 mile of titanium have exactly the same number of atoms but weigh different" How is a mol a measure of weight? every mol weighs different for each compound.

I'm sorry I can't really see your logic in this.

(unit)

"The mole (symbol: mol) is the SI base unit that measures an amount of substance. "