Negative Calorie Foods- All You can Eat

CelesteHerrera

Here's an article on foods that are negative calorie foods. Burn fat and keep you feeling full.

http://www.naturalnews.com/030912_negative-calorie_foods_burn_fat.html

daybehavior

Ive read a few places that negative calories are a myth.

littlelol

just been on this site. realli interesting. thanku xx

lushy20

iv read this before too, as too previous comment negative calorie foods is not foods with no calories, all foods have calories but these foods take more energy to digest through the body's system than is in the food itself.

pity im too fussy and only thing i like on that list is carrots. lol

runningneo122

cool, thanks for that.

vickthedick

Ive read a few places that negative calories are a myth.

Ive read a lot of place negative calories is a myth. That being said, you would have to eat a buttload of any of these foods to actually gain since they are vlc to begin with

littlelol

what about mellons? re these negative calories?

daybehavior

Sorry to burst your bubble but they simply dont exist
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1896439_1896359_1896346,00.html

It's like what phcutie said though. You'd still have to eat a ton of them just to gain weight, so they're fine. Just didn't want everyone to go around believing these diet buzzwords.

punkrawkcutie

Sorry to burst your bubble but they simply dont exist
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1896439_1896359_1896346,00.html

It's like what phcutie said though. You'd still have to eat a ton of them just to gain weight, so they're fine. Just didn't want everyone to go around believing these diet buzzwords.

The article you posted actually doesn't refute anything in the article originally posted. The article stats that all food has calories, but when you can have 120g of something, it fills you up thus meaing you don't fill up on food that's full of calories.... Also, Dr. Nancy Snyderman is not a dietician so her statement is just that, a statement.

Perhaps they should be called "status quo" foods as opposed to the misleading negtive calorie, but that doesn't change the fact yuo can eat as much celery and iceberg lettuce as you want...

daybehavior

The article OP posted also says this:
"In other words, you expend more calories eating them than they deliver to your body" which is misleading.

AntonGorodetsky

.... Also, Dr. Nancy Snyderman is not a dietician so her statement is just that, a statement.

Uh...and just WHO is this "Mike Adams, the Health Ranger"? I sure didn't see any medical credentials next to his name. Regarding this matter, I'd be more likely to believe someone who is a doctor than someone who considers themselves an "Author, Investigative Reporter and Educator." Think before you post, people.

sallyLunn

You probably burn more calories buying, cutting, plating and eating the ice burg lettuce then is there.

It's just too bad butter isn't on the list. Now that would be welcome news.

myofibril

The article OP posted also says this:
"In other words, you expend more calories eating them than they deliver to your body" which is misleading.

Agreed.

Theroretically, you could gain weight just eating everything contained in that list of "negative" calorie foods. However, it's incredibly likely that you would be able to eat enough of them to do so. They may as well be negative calories...

punkrawkcutie

.... Also, Dr. Nancy Snyderman is not a dietician so her statement is just that, a statement.

Uh...and just WHO is this "Mike Adams, the Health Ranger"? Regarding this matter, I'd be more likely to believe someone who is a doctor than someone who considers themselves an "Author, Investigative Reporter and Educator." Think before you post, people.

I was simply stating she isn't a dietitian. I never said he knew what he what talking about either. Just to point out however, that someone can be a Dr. and actually not have any relevant (or any) medical experience at all. I was just pointing out she simply made a statement. Had she been a dietitian, I would have been much more interested in what her non-referrenced statement was.


[/quote]


The article OP posted also says this:
"In other words, you expend more calories eating them than they deliver to your body" which is misleading.

[/quote]

I agree that statement could be read in a totally wrong way, especially if someone wants to read it that way. It's all about word smithing really.

daybehavior

Agreed.

Theroretically, you could gain weight just eating everything contained in that list of "negative" calorie foods. However, it's incredibly likely that you would be able to eat enough of them to do so. They may as well be negative calories...

Yeah. I guess if you look at it the other way, if these foods WERE truly negative calories, by that logic, you would starve to death if all you ate was celery. In reality though, that would not be the case (although you would have to eat a ridiculous amount to stay alive).

It's all about word smithing really.

Yeah actually Techincally, yes can eat as much as you want of those, but to word it as if those foods have magic properties is deceptive.

punkrawkcutie

YUCK! can you imagin how sick you'd be if all you ate was this stuff? Not to mention that you'd have to LIVE in the bathroom....

roland72

hmmm, it's articles like this that fill people's heads with rubbish about nutrition. No wonder people struggle to lose weight on fad diets or with conflicting information with no scientific basis.

There is no such thing as a "negative calorie" food. All food (healthy or bad) contains calories which help to fuel your body. Saying that these negative calorie foods use up more calories while being digested than they actually contain is a whole load of rubbish.

The process of digesting and absorbing nutrients, breaking them down and utilising them or the "thermic effect of food" or TEF to use its proper name, contributes only 6 to 15 percent of the calories you burn in a day. Depending on how difficult the food is to digest or how hard our bodies need to work to extract it. So for instance apples or bananas would be easier to digest because they have a lot of simple sugars in them and break down easy as opposed to for instance brown rice or fibrous foods which take more energy to break down and extract nutrients. So if you would look at a bunch of celery in a salad worth 20 calories and your body would use 10% of those calories to actually break down the food you would still be left with 18 calories of food that need to go somewhere.

Also one of the things which doesn't get mentioned about this whole negative calories business is if the food is eaten raw or cooked because this can make a big difference as well. Some foods can be difficult to break down in their raw state and would have a higher TEF rating. But once you cook them you actually process the food and make it easier for your body to extract the nutrients. For instance peppers and carrots are quite fibrous and would require a lot of work by your body if eaten raw and your body would probably not extract everything from it when it passes through your system. However once you cook them you break down the cell walls of the food, making it easier for your body to get at more of the nutrients and calories. In effect increasing their calories. That is why on some packets of food you see that they contain more calories when cooked or prepared.

I think people need to actually read a bit more about how nutrition works and what goes on rather than believing what some so called "health rangers" are declaring as gospel on the internet

wriglucy

I agree that those foods are very low in calories, so that you do put little into your body. I'm concerned about the pickles though, because they are SO high in sodium! Of course they are going to make you feel full longer because you're going to bloat up!

wriglucy

YES!! Iplaypoker....exactly!