What are your favorite "zero" calorie foods?
Options
Replies
-
I'm with you on tea. Sometimes water can just be so boring...0
-
Let go, let go... Like a deep breath of fresh air, a long drink of cool water...
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you;
the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach you;
and the fish of the sea will declare to you."0 -
That said If anyone finds a Zero Calorie Pizza that tastes exactly like a Pizza Hut Pan Pizza let me know.
I took the train to Louisiana to meet up with a great voodoo priestess who gave me a grisgris bag that you just wave over pizza and--BAM!--no more calories. Sadly, I have to sacrifice a goat every time and well--do you have any idea what a goat costs these days? Neither do I, but the local petting zoo has been getting real suspicious about how many have "jumped the fence" in the past few months...
0 -
Salt! I'm in love with salt.0
-
Like I said previously this is more an observation than a study. Its just not broad enough.ceoverturf wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research thisAlatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research this and come back
please enlighten us as to how a food would contain negative calories..?
A food doesn't contain negative calories... a particular food may contain say 20 calories as an example ... the body has to break this down using energy... this may take 25 calories of energy to do so.... is that simple enough or perhaps a picture is needed...
You may want to do some more research, starting with the link that peachycarol posted.
How interesting..... What a broad selection of the population for coming to these obviously conclusive results.. A whole 15 females all with certain height and weight parameters. I mean this must be fact. ha ha ha. To come to any sort of conclusion in any study on the way we as humans burn calories then surely a large spectrum of people must be tested ?? Would you not agree ?? Do think that I that that I would burn of 100g of celery at the same rate as someone half my size ??? Clearly not. This 'study' is simply an observation on a select group. Do you seriously think this is undeniable and conclusive evidence ??
Not really worth funding a study for this. I am surprised that somebody actually paid for the one that peachycarol linked. Let's say you find some outlier subset of the population that has negative 1 calorie response to eating a pound of celery. How would that knowledge be beneficial at all?
It's just not not in depth enough to settle the argument. ..granted all food has calories. .that's a given.. the question is does it take more to burn than it provides .... as we are all different you just can't give a substantial enough answer.
Well so far the studies posted are 1 against; 0 for.
And yet, you still haven't provided anything of the contrary but continue to tell the majority to do more research. So yes, while it may not be the best study or observation, it is still more than anything else i have seen that isnt someones blog.
Honestly, i am all for more information so if you have it i would love to see it. If its solid, i may reconsider my position.0 -
roselemonade wrote: »Oh I suddenly remembered these cashew cookies I bought on discount at the supermarket which I thought were high in calories and to my shock horror it was only 35 cal each, very dense (feels like you're eating a very calorific high fat biscuit but without the side effect, the morish effect and the cal) and nice and buttery/crumbly.
Those sound really good, though something tells me they're not available in the US. I like ginger thins a lot (from Ikea, because I do all my grocery shopping at the furniture store) which are 28 calories, though they're very thin (who would guess?) and not that satisfying.
@roselemonade, usually its the other way around for me!
When I lived in the US I was gobsmacked at the variety of brands and goods you guys have access to! Its good and bad in a way I guess, less brands mean less to indulge but in a way its good that you are more empowered to make healthy choices! 
Ooh, ginger thins from IKEA? I'll defo check them out! Maybe because of its low cal you can even add some strawberries or a 'light' sweet spread on it.
I just checked the brand it's an Aussie brand "Ital Classic European Hazelnut Fiorentini" and by the looks of it I haven't been able to find it much at my local supermarket recently so I'm guessing you may be able to find it online...Though its probably not worth it haha.
0 -
One of my three Genie wishes is to have pizza not only have no calories, but instead each slice burn 400 calories. Go for a run....nah, I'll eat two slices of pizza and boom....800 calories burned. Sadly, I still have found no Genie in a bottle.
Could you ask your Genie to do the same for fried chicken? But, for balance, have him/her double the calories of ice cream and cheesecake. We do need calories to stay alive, after all.0 -
Firstly I'm not preaching as your are clearly insinuating. Secondly I am big enough and stupid enough to admit when im in the wrong. The study posted above is not substantial and anyone reading it should not take it as gospel as there are clearly not enough elements of reasearch to it.... however having looked into it further It would seem I am wrong. .hands up. Every day is a school day . Thanks for the argument I enjoyed it
Like I said previously this is more an observation than a study. Its just not broad enough.ceoverturf wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research thisAlatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research this and come back
please enlighten us as to how a food would contain negative calories..?
A food doesn't contain negative calories... a particular food may contain say 20 calories as an example ... the body has to break this down using energy... this may take 25 calories of energy to do so.... is that simple enough or perhaps a picture is needed...
You may want to do some more research, starting with the link that peachycarol posted.
How interesting..... What a broad selection of the population for coming to these obviously conclusive results.. A whole 15 females all with certain height and weight parameters. I mean this must be fact. ha ha ha. To come to any sort of conclusion in any study on the way we as humans burn calories then surely a large spectrum of people must be tested ?? Would you not agree ?? Do think that I that that I would burn of 100g of celery at the same rate as someone half my size ??? Clearly not. This 'study' is simply an observation on a select group. Do you seriously think this is undeniable and conclusive evidence ??
Not really worth funding a study for this. I am surprised that somebody actually paid for the one that peachycarol linked. Let's say you find some outlier subset of the population that has negative 1 calorie response to eating a pound of celery. How would that knowledge be beneficial at all?
It's just not not in depth enough to settle the argument. ..granted all food has calories. .that's a given.. the question is does it take more to burn than it provides .... as we are all different you just can't give a substantial enough answer.
Well so far the studies posted are 1 against; 0 for.
And yet, you still haven't provided anything of the contrary but continue to tell the majority to do more research. So yes, while it may not be the best study or observation, it is still more than anything else i have seen that isnt someones blog.
Honestly, i am all for more information so if you have it i would love to see it. If its solid, i may reconsider my position.0 -
Pickles!!! And Coke Zero - preferably from a fountain.0
-
Firstly I'm not preaching as your are clearly insinuating. Secondly I am big enough and stupid enough to admit when im in the wrong. The study posted above is not substantial and anyone reading it should not take it as gospel as there are clearly not enough elements of reasearch to it.... however having looked into it further It would seem I am wrong. .hands up. Every day is a school day . Thanks for the argument I enjoyed it
Like I said previously this is more an observation than a study. Its just not broad enough.ceoverturf wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research thisAlatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research this and come back
please enlighten us as to how a food would contain negative calories..?
A food doesn't contain negative calories... a particular food may contain say 20 calories as an example ... the body has to break this down using energy... this may take 25 calories of energy to do so.... is that simple enough or perhaps a picture is needed...
You may want to do some more research, starting with the link that peachycarol posted.
How interesting..... What a broad selection of the population for coming to these obviously conclusive results.. A whole 15 females all with certain height and weight parameters. I mean this must be fact. ha ha ha. To come to any sort of conclusion in any study on the way we as humans burn calories then surely a large spectrum of people must be tested ?? Would you not agree ?? Do think that I that that I would burn of 100g of celery at the same rate as someone half my size ??? Clearly not. This 'study' is simply an observation on a select group. Do you seriously think this is undeniable and conclusive evidence ??
Not really worth funding a study for this. I am surprised that somebody actually paid for the one that peachycarol linked. Let's say you find some outlier subset of the population that has negative 1 calorie response to eating a pound of celery. How would that knowledge be beneficial at all?
It's just not not in depth enough to settle the argument. ..granted all food has calories. .that's a given.. the question is does it take more to burn than it provides .... as we are all different you just can't give a substantial enough answer.
Well so far the studies posted are 1 against; 0 for.
And yet, you still haven't provided anything of the contrary but continue to tell the majority to do more research. So yes, while it may not be the best study or observation, it is still more than anything else i have seen that isnt someones blog.
Honestly, i am all for more information so if you have it i would love to see it. If its solid, i may reconsider my position.
You are right in that there are no hard studies that debunk the negative calorie argument. However, there are no hard studies in favor of it either.
At least @PeachyCarol posted a clinical study of some sort. You provided nothing.0 -
lilaclovebird wrote: »
Firstly I'm not preaching as your are clearly insinuating. Secondly I am big enough and stupid enough to admit when im in the wrong. The study posted above is not substantial and anyone reading it should not take it as gospel as there are clearly not enough elements of reasearch to it.... however having looked into it further It would seem I am wrong. .hands up. Every day is a school day . Thanks for the argument I enjoyed it
Like I said previously this is more an observation than a study. Its just not broad enough.ceoverturf wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research thisAlatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research this and come back
please enlighten us as to how a food would contain negative calories..?
A food doesn't contain negative calories... a particular food may contain say 20 calories as an example ... the body has to break this down using energy... this may take 25 calories of energy to do so.... is that simple enough or perhaps a picture is needed...
You may want to do some more research, starting with the link that peachycarol posted.
How interesting..... What a broad selection of the population for coming to these obviously conclusive results.. A whole 15 females all with certain height and weight parameters. I mean this must be fact. ha ha ha. To come to any sort of conclusion in any study on the way we as humans burn calories then surely a large spectrum of people must be tested ?? Would you not agree ?? Do think that I that that I would burn of 100g of celery at the same rate as someone half my size ??? Clearly not. This 'study' is simply an observation on a select group. Do you seriously think this is undeniable and conclusive evidence ??
Not really worth funding a study for this. I am surprised that somebody actually paid for the one that peachycarol linked. Let's say you find some outlier subset of the population that has negative 1 calorie response to eating a pound of celery. How would that knowledge be beneficial at all?
It's just not not in depth enough to settle the argument. ..granted all food has calories. .that's a given.. the question is does it take more to burn than it provides .... as we are all different you just can't give a substantial enough answer.
Well so far the studies posted are 1 against; 0 for.
And yet, you still haven't provided anything of the contrary but continue to tell the majority to do more research. So yes, while it may not be the best study or observation, it is still more than anything else i have seen that isnt someones blog.
Honestly, i am all for more information so if you have it i would love to see it. If its solid, i may reconsider my position.
You are right in that there are no hard studies that debunk the negative calorie argument. However, there are no hard studies in favor of it either.
At least @PeachyCarol posted a clinical study of some sort. You provided nothing.
Really, the list of zero calorie foods doesn't need a study, it's just illogical. I kinda get where people would latch onto the celery argument, but most of the other foods don't withstand the vaguest amount of critical consideration.0 -
mumblemagic wrote: »If you leave chocolate on a high shelf the calories fall out. So chocolate
Also, if you break a cookie in half, the calories fall out. So cookies.
0 -
Pickles. Cucumber w/lime & Tajín seasoning or salt. 40 calorie soup. I did this thread once before. lol.0
-
Diet soda is a guilty pleasure ( I know it's appetite increaser but I manage to control it). Ultra low calorie pleasures I love that take almost as many calories to digest as they provide include Watermelon (mostly water), cucumbers (also mostly water), carrots, celery, onions, garlic, homemade vinaigrette on greens, tomatoes, and an endless list of herbs and spices. Oh and dry white popcorn sprinkled with Cajun spices or chili powder (I like spice). I sometimes dip my veggies in salsa which is a lot more low calorie than most veggie dips or dressings. I find a little spice or seasoning is way better alternative than other high flavor foods like butter, bacon, anything deep fried, or food plastered with corn syrup.0
-
lilaclovebird wrote: »
Firstly I'm not preaching as your are clearly insinuating. Secondly I am big enough and stupid enough to admit when im in the wrong. The study posted above is not substantial and anyone reading it should not take it as gospel as there are clearly not enough elements of reasearch to it.... however having looked into it further It would seem I am wrong. .hands up. Every day is a school day . Thanks for the argument I enjoyed it
Like I said previously this is more an observation than a study. Its just not broad enough.ceoverturf wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research thisAlatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research this and come back
please enlighten us as to how a food would contain negative calories..?
A food doesn't contain negative calories... a particular food may contain say 20 calories as an example ... the body has to break this down using energy... this may take 25 calories of energy to do so.... is that simple enough or perhaps a picture is needed...
You may want to do some more research, starting with the link that peachycarol posted.
How interesting..... What a broad selection of the population for coming to these obviously conclusive results.. A whole 15 females all with certain height and weight parameters. I mean this must be fact. ha ha ha. To come to any sort of conclusion in any study on the way we as humans burn calories then surely a large spectrum of people must be tested ?? Would you not agree ?? Do think that I that that I would burn of 100g of celery at the same rate as someone half my size ??? Clearly not. This 'study' is simply an observation on a select group. Do you seriously think this is undeniable and conclusive evidence ??
Not really worth funding a study for this. I am surprised that somebody actually paid for the one that peachycarol linked. Let's say you find some outlier subset of the population that has negative 1 calorie response to eating a pound of celery. How would that knowledge be beneficial at all?
It's just not not in depth enough to settle the argument. ..granted all food has calories. .that's a given.. the question is does it take more to burn than it provides .... as we are all different you just can't give a substantial enough answer.
Well so far the studies posted are 1 against; 0 for.
And yet, you still haven't provided anything of the contrary but continue to tell the majority to do more research. So yes, while it may not be the best study or observation, it is still more than anything else i have seen that isnt someones blog.
Honestly, i am all for more information so if you have it i would love to see it. If its solid, i may reconsider my position.
You are right in that there are no hard studies that debunk the negative calorie argument. However, there are no hard studies in favor of it either.
At least @PeachyCarol posted a clinical study of some sort. You provided nothing.
And you have provided ...what exactly.... ??? You have jumped on someone else train with no opinions for yourself , other than to 'debunk'as ypu like to say ...other people's opinions.0 -
Salsa.
Like you know the dips you can buy for crisps ( or as american say) chips?
It's basically just tomatoes and spice and you're looking at 30/40 cal per 100g, you can get mild/hot and the difference it makes to vegetables and chicken is insane, gives it an amazing taste.. coming from someone who used to eat bland food salsa is a life saver.
Extra light mayo at 70 cal per 100g is pretty good, only need 10g serving at a time.. umm also for using spaghetti bolegnese instead of using dolmio premade sauce I just throw in a tin of chopped tomatoes which is like 100cal for 400g, tastes alot more flavourful.
Maybe they're not 0 cal alright fair enough but they're just small in calorie density and they don't half make a difference.0 -
Definitely water. Love my water. On rare occasion I will opt a Diet Mountain Dew. I do have daily cup of joe, tho.0
-
lilaclovebird wrote: »
Firstly I'm not preaching as your are clearly insinuating. Secondly I am big enough and stupid enough to admit when im in the wrong. The study posted above is not substantial and anyone reading it should not take it as gospel as there are clearly not enough elements of reasearch to it.... however having looked into it further It would seem I am wrong. .hands up. Every day is a school day . Thanks for the argument I enjoyed it
Like I said previously this is more an observation than a study. Its just not broad enough.ceoverturf wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research thisAlatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research this and come back
please enlighten us as to how a food would contain negative calories..?
A food doesn't contain negative calories... a particular food may contain say 20 calories as an example ... the body has to break this down using energy... this may take 25 calories of energy to do so.... is that simple enough or perhaps a picture is needed...
You may want to do some more research, starting with the link that peachycarol posted.
How interesting..... What a broad selection of the population for coming to these obviously conclusive results.. A whole 15 females all with certain height and weight parameters. I mean this must be fact. ha ha ha. To come to any sort of conclusion in any study on the way we as humans burn calories then surely a large spectrum of people must be tested ?? Would you not agree ?? Do think that I that that I would burn of 100g of celery at the same rate as someone half my size ??? Clearly not. This 'study' is simply an observation on a select group. Do you seriously think this is undeniable and conclusive evidence ??
Not really worth funding a study for this. I am surprised that somebody actually paid for the one that peachycarol linked. Let's say you find some outlier subset of the population that has negative 1 calorie response to eating a pound of celery. How would that knowledge be beneficial at all?
It's just not not in depth enough to settle the argument. ..granted all food has calories. .that's a given.. the question is does it take more to burn than it provides .... as we are all different you just can't give a substantial enough answer.
Well so far the studies posted are 1 against; 0 for.
And yet, you still haven't provided anything of the contrary but continue to tell the majority to do more research. So yes, while it may not be the best study or observation, it is still more than anything else i have seen that isnt someones blog.
Honestly, i am all for more information so if you have it i would love to see it. If its solid, i may reconsider my position.
You are right in that there are no hard studies that debunk the negative calorie argument. However, there are no hard studies in favor of it either.
At least @PeachyCarol posted a clinical study of some sort. You provided nothing.
And you have provided ...what exactly.... ??? You have jumped on someone else train with no opinions for yourself , other than to 'debunk'as ypu like to say ...other people's opinions.
I'm sorry, but you can't have an 'opinion' that there are negative calorie foods. There's opinion and there is fact. When you have an 'opinion' about a fact which is contrary to that fact, that's not an opinion, that's just being wrong.0 -
Firstly I'm not preaching as your are clearly insinuating. Secondly I am big enough and stupid enough to admit when im in the wrong. The study posted above is not substantial and anyone reading it should not take it as gospel as there are clearly not enough elements of reasearch to it.... however having looked into it further It would seem I am wrong. .hands up. Every day is a school day . Thanks for the argument I enjoyed it
Like I said previously this is more an observation than a study. Its just not broad enough.ceoverturf wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research thisAlatariel75 wrote: »Can't be bothered reading full thread bit in case anyone has already written this then apologies. Negative calorie food's are real... they are just food's that need more calories to break them down than they actually produce.. a lot of veg falls into this .
That's completely debunked. There are no negative calorie foods, that's a myth that has been dead for decades but keeps getting resurrected.
Really !! I suggest you research this and come back
please enlighten us as to how a food would contain negative calories..?
A food doesn't contain negative calories... a particular food may contain say 20 calories as an example ... the body has to break this down using energy... this may take 25 calories of energy to do so.... is that simple enough or perhaps a picture is needed...
You may want to do some more research, starting with the link that peachycarol posted.
How interesting..... What a broad selection of the population for coming to these obviously conclusive results.. A whole 15 females all with certain height and weight parameters. I mean this must be fact. ha ha ha. To come to any sort of conclusion in any study on the way we as humans burn calories then surely a large spectrum of people must be tested ?? Would you not agree ?? Do think that I that that I would burn of 100g of celery at the same rate as someone half my size ??? Clearly not. This 'study' is simply an observation on a select group. Do you seriously think this is undeniable and conclusive evidence ??
Not really worth funding a study for this. I am surprised that somebody actually paid for the one that peachycarol linked. Let's say you find some outlier subset of the population that has negative 1 calorie response to eating a pound of celery. How would that knowledge be beneficial at all?
It's just not not in depth enough to settle the argument. ..granted all food has calories. .that's a given.. the question is does it take more to burn than it provides .... as we are all different you just can't give a substantial enough answer.
Well so far the studies posted are 1 against; 0 for.
And yet, you still haven't provided anything of the contrary but continue to tell the majority to do more research. So yes, while it may not be the best study or observation, it is still more than anything else i have seen that isnt someones blog.
Honestly, i am all for more information so if you have it i would love to see it. If its solid, i may reconsider my position.
then admit you are wrong about negative calorie foods and move on….
0 -
my staples; fig newton's (strawberry flavor, mmm!) (2 newton's, 100 calories), skinny pop or some form of popcorn that is 150 calories or less, coffee w/ almond milk & equal "sugar" packets (11 calories per cup) (plus its good, but also an appetite suppressant!! keeps me from snacking!), watermelon (super low in calories), cherries (pretty low in calories also), Progresso light vegetable soup (120 calories per can) chicken noodle (140 calories per can), tofu, frozen veggies (super low in calories, I use this as a side dish instead of rice), Gardein vegan nuggets (like chicken nuggets, but vegan) (2 nuggets, 100 calories)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions