Apples...a zero calorie food??
Options
Replies
-
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.54 -
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.34 -
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.
None of those foods are zero or negative calorie. Not a single one of them. There is no controversy about it at all, there's no such thing as a zero or negative calorie food. Do a Google search for "TEF" or "Thermic Effect of Food" to understand why this is all a lie/silly myth, perpetuated by a total misunderstanding of basic physiology.
Here's an excellent start to understanding why it's a complete and total myth: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/negative-calorie-foods/11 -
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.
Post said studies.
Interestingly, I once looked up a study on celery after one of these discussions. There is, in fact, a net digestible caloric intake from it. You don't burn the calories in it "digesting" it.
The same is true for all these other foods.7 -
I eat an apple everyday it's 80 calories for the one I eat.4
-
I find apples to be high calorie. I actually think twice before I eat them because I don't need the carbs. They're basically nature's candy.11 -
Yes, and one apple has 22g of carbs which is insane8
-
Why is 22g of carbs insane?rickiimarieee wrote: »Yes, and one apple has 22g of carbs which is insane
8 -
Man that website. I mean, some of them look tasty enough but zero calorie? Oh boy. Also a stretch to call cinnamon apples crustless apple pie, like, the whole point of pie is the crust.9
-
I find apples to be really filling, and don't consider them to be calorie dense.
They're calories per gram ratio fits a lower calorie item profile... they only have 65 calories per 100 grams. That's not high calorie.
A medium apple usually clocks in around 100 calories and is a filling snack for me.
The carbs? Why demonize them, they're nutritious carbs.10 -
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.
10 -
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.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I find apples to be really filling, and don't consider them to be calorie dense.
They're calories per gram ratio fits a lower calorie item profile... they only have 65 calories per 100 grams. That's not high calorie.
A medium apple usually clocks in around 100 calories and is a filling snack for me.
The carbs? Why demonize them, they're nutritious carbs.
I am personally not demonizing them. But if they don't fill someone up, they're allowed to state that. Just as you can say that they do it for you.
7 -
Even Weight Watchers and their '0 points' foods suddenly gain points when cooked & processed don't they?
And WW accounts for the calories in other ways (they over-count certain foods and under-count others to incentivize eating a more varied & balanced diet).4 -
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?10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I find apples to be really filling, and don't consider them to be calorie dense.
They're calories per gram ratio fits a lower calorie item profile... they only have 65 calories per 100 grams. That's not high calorie.
A medium apple usually clocks in around 100 calories and is a filling snack for me.
The carbs? Why demonize them, they're nutritious carbs.
I am personally not demonizing them. But if they don't fill someone up, they're allowed to state that. Just as you can say that they do it for you.
That's different than what you said, though.
Calling them out as "nature's candy" wasn't something you stated as a personal preference or matter of satiety.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I find apples to be really filling, and don't consider them to be calorie dense.
They're calories per gram ratio fits a lower calorie item profile... they only have 65 calories per 100 grams. That's not high calorie.
A medium apple usually clocks in around 100 calories and is a filling snack for me.
The carbs? Why demonize them, they're nutritious carbs.
I am personally not demonizing them. But if they don't fill someone up, they're allowed to state that. Just as you can say that they do it for you.
That's different than what you said, though.
Calling them out as "nature's candy" wasn't something you stated as a personal preference or matter of satiety.
Nature's candy. They're sweet and have sugar. Awesome. I love candy of all kinds.10 -
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.
Why am I walking 3 miles each evening to earn exercise calories (and improve my cardio health of course). I could just eat an apple or two...
12 -
Water is probably the only true calorie free food...0
-
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.10
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions