ZERO CALORIE FRUITS

I'm sorry to inform you, but there is no such thing as zero calorie fruit.

Berries are going to be the lowest calorie fruits, but due to the sugars in fruit, none are zero calorie.

Are you thinking points, like weight watchers? I think for weight watchers purposes I have heard others say that some fruits are no points.

Watermelon is actually really high in sugar as well as pineapples and mangos & bananas.

Try Plums, strawberries, Red Grapes, apples, (you want to stick with the berries they are good) oranges, grapefruit, prunes , pears peaches

Hope this helps

Watermelon is actually really high in sugar as well as pineapples and mangos & bananas.

Try Plums, strawberries, Red Grapes, apples, (you want to stick with the berries they are good) oranges, grapefruit, prunes , pears peaches

Hope this helps

Oranges are very high in sugar as well.

yea the last comment is right, there is such a thing as "zero-calorie fruits and veggies" you can google it haha, its not that the actual fruit gives you zero calories, that is yes impossible...but there are fruits/veggies that take more calories for your body to digest then what they actually give, therefore they create a calorie deficient and can be considered 'zero calorie'.

STILL....yep no calories fruits ...impossible BUT... people go... OMG SUGAR!!!!
Let's get real here.... It's natural fructose sugar...You need some, not too much but it's very healthy.
Fruits are so important for many reason...Yes they include sugar but it's good sugar.

So, let's not freak out for fruits

It's similar to FAT... Avacado are amazing for you... But so many calories and fat BUT again, Awesome calories and fat!
People need to make the difference here .... eating healthy doesn't mean, Stopping everything.


Take Care

yea the last comment is right, there is such a thing as "zero-calorie fruits and veggies" you can google it haha, its not that the actual fruit gives you zero calories, that is yes impossible...but there are fruits/veggies that take more calories for your body to digest then what they actually give, therefore they create a calorie deficient and can be considered 'zero calorie'.

or not.

Any calorie burn achieved through eating (called the thermogenic effect) is already factored into your BMR - so still please count your low calorie fruits & veggies as they do add up.

In regards to the people that posted about fruits that take more calories to digest then they have, here's my favorite excerpt from my favorite article on it. ( http://www.answerfitness.com/269/negative-calorie-foods-fact-fiction/ ):

Is Celery Really a Negative Calorie Food?
While the list of negative calorie foods has ballooned to include everything from beets to strawberries and mangoes (yes, I’m being serious here), celery is the most commonly cited negative calorie food.

From a nutritional standpoint, celery is pretty much empty. It’s basically made up of water, sodium, some trace minerals and something called cellulose — which is a form of vegetable fiber than the human body cannot digest. It contains no protein or fat and marginal carbohydrates. Any other nutrition in celery is in the form of vitamins, minerals and enzymes, which contain no calories.

In fact, aside from iceberg lettuce and cucumbers, you probably couldn’t find a less nutritious, lower-calorie vegetable to eat. These foods are already about as close as you can get to eating zero calories. Close, but not quite, as we’ll see in a moment.

A large, stalk of celery weighing in at 2.2 ounces contains only nine calories. Negative calorie diet advocates claim that the mere process of chewing and digesting celery requires an expenditure of energy that exceeds the 9 calories present in the celery. Therefore, the argument goes, celery has “negative calories.”

Again, this all sounds good in theory, but what about in practice?

Issues with the Negative Calorie Foods Theory
There are some flaws with the negative calorie food theory, however.

First, the reason that certain foods like celery are already low in calories is exactly because of their high-non-caloric nutritional content. The fact that cellulose, water and minerals like sodium contain no calories is already figured into the food’s caloric-content. That’s why it has minimal calories in the first place. Negative food advocates want to double-dip here, and have you believe that the non-caloric nutrients like cellulose lower its effective calorie levels even more, but that’s just not how it works. This is already baked-in.

Second, the whole argument that the body burns more calories chewing and digesting negative calorie foods like celery is also suspect.

Yes, the body does expend a certain amount of energy to digest food, but that expenditure — even with foods that contain a high-percentage of non-caloric nutrients like cellulose — is actually fairly minimal.

Typically, the body will expend 10 - 15 percent of the calories you consume each day to fuel digestion. Let’s just throw the negative calorie food gurus a bone and say that for foods that are rich in non-digestible nutrients like cellulose, that number is actually as high as 50 percent of calories consumed (I have no evidence for this claim — I’m just being generous to prove a point.)

In the case of celery — the poster child of all negative calorie foods – you would be burning an extra 4.5 calories per each 9 calorie, 2.2 oz serving of celery. That would put your effective net calories at 4.5 (9/50% = 4.5 calories) — hardly “negative calorie” territory.

And because the amount of energy expended on digestion of foods is always expressed as a percentage, to have a negative calorie effect, digestion would have to constitute at least 101% of the energy consumed in order to create a negative calorie environment — something which is physically impossible.

So it appears that the food that is the best candidate for qualifying as a negative calorie food — celery – can’t even hit the break-even point, let alone become “calorie-negative.”
Edited by wolfchild59 on Wed 03/14/12 01:52 AM

Hi

I think what is meant by zero calories is that although an apple will have say 62 calories it would take 150 calories for your body to digest this which would then mean a deficit of say 90 calories and that where the zero comes in. I read this somewhere and
it made sense to me.

Um, no. It certainly doesn't take 150 calories to digest an apple, it might take 20. Also, I'd love to see an apple with only 60 calories, most of them are 150 or so, unless you eat really small apples.

Your body uses roughly 200 calories a day digesting all the food you eat, it certainly doesn't use all of that for just the apple you ate.

Only things that are ZERO calorie are water & air. Sorry. Nothing apart from that.


Why do so many people listen to weight watchers kind of crap?

Lol I foolishly rushed to see the answer to this question even though I knew the answer. :blushing:I

Go for a ten minute run everytime you eat an apple.
Ta-da - you now have your 'zero/negative calorie' fruit :P.

There aren't any, and if there were it would be pointless eating them as they wouldn't do anything for you.

I hear sawdust is a good filler.