Apples...a zero calorie food??
Replies
-
Here's an excellent start to understanding why it's a complete and total myth: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/negative-calorie-foods/
Dammit. I knew someone would beat me to this. I need to be quicker.
2 -
This content has been removed.
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
Why is 22g of carbs insane?rickiimarieee wrote: »Yes, and one apple has 22g of carbs which is insane
Why do you have to assume it's not? I maintain my weight on 1800 calories and cut on 1300-1500. 22 grams of carbs from an apple isn't helping me much.
I cut on 1800 or less and eat apples. I don't see the problem.
So that's great for you. Did I ask if you saw a problem?
No, I was just comparing notes. For the same 1800 calories, I don't have trouble fitting in what you do have trouble fitting in.
Now, since you said you don't find apples filling, I can see why you wouldn't chose them.
However. That's not the point that was in question. It was 22 grams of carbs.
If you're low carbing, that's cool, it's just that you didn't come out and state that, you just stated that the 22 grams of carb "isn't helping [me] much".
I was pointing out that there's plenty of room in 1800 calories for 22 grams of carbs. In fact, I had an apple this past weekend on a day where I ate 1200. But I don't low carb.
So I guess if this is down to you low carbing, that's cool, but that's not the apple's problem, and you've sort of made it sound like it is.
On 1800, sure. So happy you can cut on 1800. I cannot.
I'm annoyed at the world today. I'm leaving before I freak out on apples.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
If you need to run up and down stairs to burn off the calories, then they have calories. What a silly assertion. Since when is 44 of something zero "for all intents and purposes". Gawd, I'd hate to try your baking.20 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
If you need to run up and down stairs to burn off the calories, then they have calories. What a silly assertion. Since when is 44 of something zero "for all intents and purposes". Gawd, I'd hate to try your baking.
Your are actually going to even give a moment's thought to 5 calories of onion, 2 calories of celery, and 3 calories of spinach? Why?
How did 44 calories become 5?
Once again, your baking must be atrocious.
Let's not forget the 146 calorie cauliflower you mentioned running off.13 -
This content has been removed.
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
This is complete crap. Sorry, it's utterly scientifically wrong. There's no "controversy" because there is not a single study which shows that they are even close to zero calorie.
If it were correct, someone eating nothing but those foods would starve just as fast as someone not eating at all.
Zero calorie foods are NOT A THING. Not in any way you mean it.
Faster than eating nothing at all if they "burn more calories digesting".1 -
60# of apples? I'd be making apple crisp.8
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
If you need to run up and down stairs to burn off the calories, then they have calories. What a silly assertion. Since when is 44 of something zero "for all intents and purposes". Gawd, I'd hate to try your baking.
Your are actually going to even give a moment's thought to 5 calories of onion, 2 calories of celery, and 3 calories of spinach? Why?
How did 44 calories become 5?
Once again, your baking must be atrocious.
Let's not forget the 146 calorie cauliflower you mentioned running off.
You eat an entire medium onion and 1.3 lbs. of cauliflower at dinner? Interesting.
"An entire onion" isn't that much and a pound of veggies is a pretty normal amount to have for a meal.9 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
This is complete crap. Sorry, it's utterly scientifically wrong. There's no "controversy" because there is not a single study which shows that they are even close to zero calorie.
If it were correct, someone eating nothing but those foods would starve just as fast as someone not eating at all.
Zero calorie foods are NOT A THING. Not in any way you mean it.
Faster than eating nothing at all if they "burn more calories digesting".
A medium tomato contains 22 calories.
If I eat a salad with lettuce or spinach, slices of onion, slices of tomato, dressed with oil and vinegar (3 calories/tbsp.), the total calories is a footnote.
What kind of oil is only 3 calories a tablespoon?14 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
This is complete crap. Sorry, it's utterly scientifically wrong. There's no "controversy" because there is not a single study which shows that they are even close to zero calorie.
If it were correct, someone eating nothing but those foods would starve just as fast as someone not eating at all.
Zero calorie foods are NOT A THING. Not in any way you mean it.
Faster than eating nothing at all if they "burn more calories digesting".
A medium tomato contains 22 calories.
If I eat a salad with lettuce or spinach, slices of onion, slices of tomato, dressed with oil and vinegar (3 calories/tbsp.), the total calories is a footnote.
I think you forgot to count your oil calories in there. A rather glaring omission. Oil has a lot more calories than 3/tbsp.
Or is oil a zero calorie food now too?6 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
But the OP's premise isn't whether there are very low calorie food that would be negligible in terms of weight gain or loss. The question is whether there are foods that take more calories to digest than they contain. Which is no.9 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
But the OP's premise isn't whether there are very low calorie food that would be negligible in terms of weight gain or loss. The question is whether there are foods that take more calories to digest than they contain. Which is no.
Eric is never concerned with the OPs actual question - always just his own agenda that we shouldn't accurately log calories or we're all mentally deranged if we do.20 -
I could eat that much cauliflower in one sitting easily. That can add quite a heft to a meal when I'm cutting on an inactive day. An entire onion if roasted, sauteed or added to a cooked dish isn't much at all.
This is why people often end up not losing or not losing at the rate they expect, they're eating a bunch of stuff that easily tacks on 200 calories to their day and not properly accounting for it. If you're a female losing vanity pounds you margins are tight, those calories are significant.10 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
If you need to run up and down stairs to burn off the calories, then they have calories. What a silly assertion. Since when is 44 of something zero "for all intents and purposes". Gawd, I'd hate to try your baking.
Your are actually going to even give a moment's thought to 5 calories of onion, 2 calories of celery, and 3 calories of spinach? Why?
How did 44 calories become 5?
Once again, your baking must be atrocious.
Let's not forget the 146 calorie cauliflower you mentioned running off.
You eat an entire medium onion and 1.3 lbs. of cauliflower at dinner? Interesting.
From your quote above, you were the one who listed a whole onion and a medium head of cauliflower (amongst other things) in your hypothetical salad, so why would you consider it "interesting" that somebody else would eat that? Your hypothetical salad which, by the way, totals 212 calories. Without dressing included. Which you won't burn off by running up and down the stairs in your house. 212 calories would be roughly a two to 2 1/2 mile run.11 -
Ready2Rock206 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
But the OP's premise isn't whether there are very low calorie food that would be negligible in terms of weight gain or loss. The question is whether there are foods that take more calories to digest than they contain. Which is no.
Eric is never concerned with the OPs actual question - always just his own agenda that we shouldn't accurately log calories or we're all mentally deranged if we do.
Thanks for the reminder...6 -
Ready2Rock206 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
But the OP's premise isn't whether there are very low calorie food that would be negligible in terms of weight gain or loss. The question is whether there are foods that take more calories to digest than they contain. Which is no.
Eric is never concerned with the OPs actual question - always just his own agenda that we shouldn't accurately log calories or we're all mentally deranged if we do.
I never thought I'd see the day when I miss the girl with the worms in her nose.
11 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
But the OP's premise isn't whether there are very low calorie food that would be negligible in terms of weight gain or loss. The question is whether there are foods that take more calories to digest than they contain. Which is no.
Eric is never concerned with the OPs actual question - always just his own agenda that we shouldn't accurately log calories or we're all mentally deranged if we do.
I never thought I'd see the day when I miss the girl with the worms in her nose.
What? WHAT??3 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
But the OP's premise isn't whether there are very low calorie food that would be negligible in terms of weight gain or loss. The question is whether there are foods that take more calories to digest than they contain. Which is no.
Eric is never concerned with the OPs actual question - always just his own agenda that we shouldn't accurately log calories or we're all mentally deranged if we do.
I never thought I'd see the day when I miss the girl with the worms in her nose.
Not just her nose... o_05 -
150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Mango = 135 calories
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1952/2
How on earth does 135 calories = 0 calories??? I only wish mangoes were 0 calories ... I'd be eating several of them every day.
Apple (large) = 116 calories
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2
Still not seeing how 116 caloreis = 0 calories.
11 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
But the OP's premise isn't whether there are very low calorie food that would be negligible in terms of weight gain or loss. The question is whether there are foods that take more calories to digest than they contain. Which is no.
Eric is never concerned with the OPs actual question - always just his own agenda that we shouldn't accurately log calories or we're all mentally deranged if we do.
I never thought I'd see the day when I miss the girl with the worms in her nose.
Not just her nose... o_0
I didn't want to think about the other areas. It's taken a long time to recover.
3 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
But the OP's premise isn't whether there are very low calorie food that would be negligible in terms of weight gain or loss. The question is whether there are foods that take more calories to digest than they contain. Which is no.
Eric is never concerned with the OPs actual question - always just his own agenda that we shouldn't accurately log calories or we're all mentally deranged if we do.
I never thought I'd see the day when I miss the girl with the worms in her nose.
What? WHAT??
It's a long story, but suffice to say she was looking for natural cures for her infestation because her doctors wouldn't treat them.2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
But the OP's premise isn't whether there are very low calorie food that would be negligible in terms of weight gain or loss. The question is whether there are foods that take more calories to digest than they contain. Which is no.
Eric is never concerned with the OPs actual question - always just his own agenda that we shouldn't accurately log calories or we're all mentally deranged if we do.
I never thought I'd see the day when I miss the girl with the worms in her nose.
What? WHAT??
It's a long story, but suffice to say she was looking for natural cures for her infestation because her doctors wouldn't treat them.
Ah...OK. I'm now picturing what the conversation must have been like when she went for her consult.2 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »150_lbs_by_2019 wrote: »By zero calorie foods, the writer meant that the food burns more calories while you're digesting it than what the food contains. For example, (and these numbers are completely made up), if an Apple is 200 calories, and it burns 300 calories just to chew and digest it, then they would consider it a zero-calorie food.
Foods that are considered zero-calorie or negative-calorie include:
Apples
Asparagus
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lettuce
Mangos
Onions
Spinach
Turnips
Zucchini
However, before you go and eat a ton of apples, keep in mind that there are a lot of controversies about whether they are indeed zero calorie and that studies show that the amount you would have to eat to cancel out the calories is pretty substantial.
Calories are as follows:
- cup of lettuce - 5
- 8" stalk of celery - 6
- teaspoon of garlic -4
- cup of spinach - 7
- one medium onion - 44
- medium head of cauliflower - 146 (1.3 lbs.)
For all intents and purposes these are zero calories. You could burn off a salad with the above ingredients just by running up and down the stairs in your house. No need to count the calories.
Apples have real calories. About 100 on average.
If you need to run up and down stairs to burn off the calories, then they have calories. What a silly assertion. Since when is 44 of something zero "for all intents and purposes". Gawd, I'd hate to try your baking.
Your are actually going to even give a moment's thought to 5 calories of onion, 2 calories of celery, and 3 calories of spinach? Why?
What's with the assumption I'm only eating 1/9th of an onion? A minute ago it was 44 cals for a whole medium one. I can easily knock off half a head of cauliflower - should I ignore those 75 calories too?
6 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »What's with the assumption I'm only eating 1/9th of an onion? A minute ago it was 44 cals for a whole medium one. I can easily knock off half a head of cauliflower - should I ignore those 75 calories too?
Something should be ignored, but I'm thinking it's not the cauliflower.
17 -
This content has been removed.
-
120 calories in a tablespoon of olive oil. So hopefully the dressings on these salads are just vinegar... Add the oil and it is not close to "zero calorie."4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions