Apples...a zero calorie food??
Replies
-
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 -
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
-
Ericnutrition 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 responded to another post in this thread.
I think counting calories is great. But if I were suggesting to a friend to count calories, I would encourage them not to bother counting ALL calories.
Counting calories is like any other diet - the vast majority of people fail at it. So to lower the failure rate, it's a good idea to tell people that it is pretty pointless to count the calories of lettuce, spinach, garlic, celery, onions, cabbage, etc.
So, to not make it fail, you should tell people to cut corners and not do what they're supposed to do.
Got it.17 -
It's insane because I never knew the nutritional facts behind them before and 22 carbs seem like a crazy amount of carbs for someone who didn't know that. Especially if someone wants to do a keto diet.5
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »Alatariel75 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?
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?
A head of cauliflower is lunch or dinner. So yes, you can ignore those 75 calories because it's the lowest calorie lunch or dinner you can eat. Do you really eat a head of cauliflower?
You are a very strange dude.14 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »Alatariel75 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?
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?
A head of cauliflower is lunch or dinner. So yes, you can ignore those 75 calories because it's the lowest calorie lunch or dinner you can eat. Do you really eat a head of cauliflower?
Half a head of cauliflower? Sure. 300g is 75 calories and that's not at all unreasonable as a side dish for dinner. Considering recent recommendations are to eat 800g of veg a day, I generally pack a few other veggies in there too.6 -
rickiimarieee wrote: »It's insane because I never knew the nutritional facts behind them before and 22 carbs seem like a crazy amount of carbs for someone who didn't know that. Especially if someone wants to do a keto diet.
That adds context to the original comment. Keto demonizes carbs, so I don't imagine you'll find many keto people eating apples (or pretty much any fruit, or many veggies, for that matter). More likely they'll be eating fat bombs, deep fried lard coated in pork rinds and a 400 calorie cup of coffee with a butter oil slick in it.14 -
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.
It's not that uncommon for me to eat 200-300 calories of non starchy veg. Not all at dinner, no. My vegetables would always add up to more calories than there is in an apple.
Anyway, this is silly, there are no "no calorie foods."
How people log is a separate issue, although for me not logging my vegetables would have made it HARDER not easier, as the fun for me was seeing what I actually ate (and also that probably encouraged me to even more consistent with my vegetable consumption). Whenever people say veg doesn't matter I wonder if they just don't eat many (and I say that as someone who rarely logs anymore).
I'll also add that vegetables to me never add to the burden of logging -- I chop them when cooking anyway, so why not put them on the scale, it actually encourages me to do a mis en place. And they are generally in my favorites or recents and one of the easiest things to find accurate entries for. Meat is way harder/more burdensome to log, IMO, but of course I do (when logging at all).2 -
Yes I've looked into a keto diet because I THOUGHT I didn't eat much carbs. But then I come to realize some fruits and veggies have a good amount of carbs and you gotta keep it between 20-25g of carbs so that's a no go for me lol.1
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »Alatariel75 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?
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?
A head of cauliflower is lunch or dinner. So yes, you can ignore those 75 calories because it's the lowest calorie lunch or dinner you can eat. Do you really eat a head of cauliflower?
A head of cauliflower is not that huge (small head is around 300 g IME, which is about 75 cal). It's easy to eat a whole one (again, I wonder if you just don't eat many vegetables). Personally, I'd eat other food too, of course, maybe even some other veg.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 386 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions