negative food?

manny_bee

ive seen quite a few articles about negative foods
apples ~ apricots ~ artichokes ~ asparagus ~ beet greens ~ beets ~ blackberries ~ blueberries ~ broccoli ~ Brussels sprouts ~ buffalo fish ~ cabbage ~ cantaloupe ~ carrots ~ cauliflower ~ Chinese cabbage ~ chives ~ clams ~ cod ~ cranberries ~ cucumbers ~ Damson plum ~ dandelion greens ~ eggplant ~ endive ~flounder ~ frogs legs ~ garlic ~ grapefruit ~ grapes ~ green beans ~ honeydew ~ lemons ~ lettuce ~ limes ~ loganberries ~ mangoes ~ mushrooms ~ muskmelons ~ mussels ~ mustard greens ~ nectarines ~ okra ~ onions ~ oranges ~ parsley leaves ~ parsnips ~ peaches ~ pears ~ peas ~ peppers ~ pineapple ~ pomegranates ~ prunes ~ pumpkin ~ quince ~ radishes ~ raspberries ~ red cabbage ~ rhubarb ~ rutabagas ~ spinach ~ squash ~ strawberries ~ string beans ~ tangerines ~ terrapin ~ tomato ~ turnips ~ watercress ~ watermelon

do yo believe this? what's your take on it?

edit: negative calorie foods. foods that use more energy to digest than calories they contain.

WhyW8

not sure what that is! (sorry!) it all sounds pretty healthy to me...but you got me curious...what the heck is a "buffalo fish?"

wicklessgal

What do you mean by negative foods? I don't think I have ever heard that before?

Naomi91

I dont believe in it. Digestion and all of that is taken account in you BMR

TDGee

I'm not sure I follow this. Does this mean that these foods have a bad attitude?

lady95

I've heard of heavy foods, but not negative foods. I wouldn't believe it, though, cause a lot of good, healthy food is on that list.

Newfiedan

A negative calorie food is a food that is purported to require more food energy to be digested than it provides. That is, its thermic effect is greater than its food energy content. It is a theory but I do not actually buy into it

julicurtiss

Hi!

You must be referring to foods that contain those so called "negative calories"? This means that you burn more calories digesting and processing the food than it contains in calories anyways. This CAN be true, but not for very many foods, and you would have to eat a very small amount of each. The great advantage of these "negative foods" is you can eat by VOLUME. Which means, you can have a lot of them, feel fuller faster, and consume less calories than you would by eating the same amount of higher calorie foods. Great for weight loss! The fiber helps with weight loss as well!!!

Juli

P.S. I have my BS in Food Science Human Nutrition and LOVE answering food questions!

Mtsidad

I have to say I don't know if I "believe" or "dis-believe." I'd like to see the science. As far as I know, food is broken down into the same thing - a sugar that you burn in your muscles. So whether it comes from a potato or a prawn, it's food, it's sugar, and it's the same.

How it breaks down is determined by the type, with fats taking longer and carbs/proteins taking less time.

I'm a little gun-shy of "news" about food as if suddenly we discover a Whole New Fact about the lowly rutabaga or whatever. The nutritional value of most foods is well-known due to laws requiring disclosure, so unless it's unprocessed, you can tell what's in it. And if it's unprocessed (such as a raw apple) then the average value of the product is also easily findable.

Maybe what's being alleged is that some foods take more energy to break down than they give back as calories. I'm not going to speculate, but if it's true then it can be proven. If it's just a thought-experiment - "Hey it takes more effort to chew and burn celery than celery provdes as calories!" - then I have to say that rabbits should be the thinnest animals on the planet.

manny_bee

so by eating, let say apples as snacks, youre technically burning the 130 calories they contain and you really can eat several if very hungry?

Tiggerrick

Not even celery. Not true. Your body is very efficient at digesting food, and you will NOT loose weight if your intake calories are more than your spent calories regardless of where you get the calories from.

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

canuck_67

There are foods that are very low in calories, however if there were real negative foods, don't you think that frito lay would somehow manage to get it packaged in some sort of snack and make a billion dollars on it?

I was told by a very wise person once. Apples and peanut butter are a great snack, but if you eat a dozen apples you will still gain weight.

I did a study on the effect of ice cold beer on the digestive track and heat dissipation effects on the central core of the body. The numbers did tell us that the calories in the beer would be consumed by overcoming the heat loss caused by the cold beer thus causing a calorie neutral result. However, the physical testing proved otherwise. It was a great study, or what I can remember of it. Also I learned to complete the data entry BEFORE the drinking is started.

manny_bee

There are foods that are very low in calories, however if there were real negative foods, don't you think that frito lay would somehow manage to get it packaged in some sort of snack and make a billion dollars on it?

I was told by a very wise person once. Apples and peanut butter are a great snack, but if you eat a dozen apples you will still gain weight.

I did a study on the effect of ice cold beer on the digestive track and heat dissipation effects on the central core of the body. The numbers did tell us that the calories in the beer would be consumed by overcoming the heat loss caused by the cold beer thus causing a calorie neutral result. However, the physical testing proved otherwise. It was a great study, or what I can remember of it. Also I learned to complete the data entry BEFORE the drinking is started.

best. response. ever.

julicurtiss

No, this is an incorrect statement. The only true "negative" foods would maybe be celery or lettuce, but technically you are still intaking the calories. To understand this you have to understand a little about how digestion works. For the most part, the calories you consume either get stored as energy (fats) or you use them for your energy (brain function, walking, breathing, exercising, etc). The same calories you consume may not be the same calories you "use" for energy. Try not to think of foods as "negative" but rather as lower in calories and higher in volume. If you take a cup of apples (about 100 calories for example) and a cup of french fries (perhaps up to 300 calories) you can think of it in a way that you can consume 3 cups of apples for every one cup of french fries, so you would be much better off eating the apples. You would most likely get full on half of the amount of apples (or carrots, or celery, or green beans) as you would with the fries, therefore VOLUME. Track all of your calories, apples, fries, drinks, dressings. They all add up and can push you over your calorie limit. If you eat too many of these foods you are referring to, you could gain just as much food if not more than from fries or hamburgers, because you have to view weight loss in terms of calories (and fat intake and other things of course) but calories is the easiest measurement to go by. So I would say, just get the negative foods idea out of your head, and look at food in terms of calories, protein, fat, carbohydrates, and sugar. Those are your main categories. I hope I'm helping...I feel like i'm rambling!

lady95

Ah. I see why they call it "negative". But I still don't think it would make that much of a difference, even if you ate nothing but celery or any other negative food.

manny_bee

Ah. I see why they call it "negative". But I still don't think it would make that much of a difference, even if you ate nothing but celery or any other negative food.

honestly, it's 11:30PM my time and im HUNGRY like a fox (haha) and was trying to debate on if it was worth the extra calories to eat an apple or not hoping it wouldnt add to my calories for the day right before bed

julicurtiss

In my opinion, if you're hungry..eat. Because more than likely, if you go to bed hungry, or skip lunch or whatever, you will probably over eat or eat the wrong things later on. Try to drink LOTS of water and have an apple. 100 calories will not put you off your pace. So I say have the apple, much better than a brownie~!

TDGee

There are foods that are very low in calories, however if there were real negative foods, don't you think that frito lay would somehow manage to get it packaged in some sort of snack and make a billion dollars on it?

I was told by a very wise person once. Apples and peanut butter are a great snack, but if you eat a dozen apples you will still gain weight.

I did a study on the effect of ice cold beer on the digestive track and heat dissipation effects on the central core of the body. The numbers did tell us that the calories in the beer would be consumed by overcoming the heat loss caused by the cold beer thus causing a calorie neutral result. However, the physical testing proved otherwise. It was a great study, or what I can remember of it. Also I learned to complete the data entry BEFORE the drinking is started.

I believe that I'm very familiar with your groundbreaking study. However, my team has repeated this study a number of times, but we have been unable to replicate your results.
We have astoundingly been unable to generate any results, largely because we had to trade our scientific temperature reading and recording equipment for more cold beer. Actually, Dave got drunk and tried to drink the mercury out of the thermometer...

Tiggerrick

manny_bee: You worked out, you have plenty of room to have an apple or two.