Apples...a zero calorie food??
Options
Replies
-
Apples are a free food if you are following Slimming World dieting rules, not calorie counting.2
-
vickiwheeler1153 wrote: »Apples are a free food if you are following Slimming World dieting rules, not calorie counting.
Apples have calories and are never free food. If a plan has them as free, then it is overvaluing something else, or giving you too low of a food goal to compensate.4 -
Although Eric-buddy there is clearly a troll and I have little interest in engaging him directly (heeeeere trolly trolly!), I do think there's an interesting point buried in the horse hockey about how best to ease someone into calorie counting who isn't a complete numbers nut. I mean, I'm basically built for MFP: I find playing with numbers and databases and spreadsheets *soothing.* But my mom, for example, gets really flustered by that kind of thing and I can't imagine her sticking with the kind of tracking I'm doing. So if she said to me, Mega Moose, you look great these days and I want to give calorie counting a try, I probably would recommend a simplified form that did not include low calorie/volume foods, probably using hand-size portion estimates instead of a scale, and modest cardio without eating back exercise calories. And, of course, regular weigh-ins to adjust as needed.10
-
vickiwheeler1153 wrote: »Apples are a free food if you are following Slimming World dieting rules, not calorie counting.
But we're not talking about "free foods", which is a weight-loss plan construct. We're talking about negative calorie foods that take more calories to digest than they contain. Which don't exist. <frustration> Eric has derailed the thread so thoroughly that the OP has been completely lost in the noise.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FOOD THAT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO DIGEST THAN IT CONTAINS
.
6 -
It not calorie free, BUT, better for you than a lot of other things. For instance, a Frito Chili Pie has like 500+ calories in just one cup and loads of fat. Whereas an apple pie you make lighter will have a lot less calories and virtually no fat. What I look at is not only the calorie count but the fat content which is what most diet plans also look at. Like a salad with ranch dressing may be the equivalent to a hamburger on the caloric side, but on the artery side it's much healthier because it doesn't have as much fat.10
-
vickiwheeler1153 wrote: »Apples are a free food if you are following Slimming World dieting rules, not calorie counting.
But we're not talking about "free foods", which is a weight-loss plan construct. We're talking about negative calorie foods that take more calories to digest than they contain. Which don't exist. <frustration> Eric has derailed the thread so thoroughly that the OP has been completely lost in the noise.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FOOD THAT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO DIGEST THAN IT CONTAINS
.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/expert-answers/negative-calorie-foods/faq-20058260
exactly1 -
How is this thread still going on?9
-
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Although Eric-buddy there is clearly a troll and I have little interest in engaging him directly (heeeeere trolly trolly!), I do think there's an interesting point buried in the horse hockey about how best to ease someone into calorie counting who isn't a complete numbers nut. I mean, I'm basically built for MFP: I find playing with numbers and databases and spreadsheets *soothing.* But my mom, for example, gets really flustered by that kind of thing and I can't imagine her sticking with the kind of tracking I'm doing. So if she said to me, Mega Moose, you look great these days and I want to give calorie counting a try, I probably would recommend a simplified form that did not include low calorie/volume foods, probably using hand-size portion estimates instead of a scale, and modest cardio without eating back exercise calories. And, of course, regular weigh-ins to adjust as needed.
It might depend on the person, but that way of doing it would be more burdensome to me and something I'd find completely uninteresting and annoying and not stick to.
What I did do before I discovered options like MFP existed was write down what I ate (just forcing myself to be mindful is really what works for me), and focus on serving sizes (although not the hand method which has always irritated me as not making any sense). But being able to write down things I was happy about eating -- like vegetables -- was a motivator. I'd never stick to a plan where I logged but ignored a lot of the foods I liked being able to log and just focused on calories as something to keep low.
If one wants a simplified plan, and finds logging burdensome, I happen to think WW is probably a good option, and some versions don't track vegetables or the first 2 servings of fruit or some such. I'd hate it, but lots of people love it.0 -
shaunshaikh wrote: »How is this thread still going on?
It's all about the drama.2 -
MystikPixie wrote: »It not calorie free, BUT, better for you than a lot of other things. For instance, a Frito Chili Pie has like 500+ calories in just one cup and loads of fat. Whereas an apple pie you make lighter will have a lot less calories and virtually no fat. What I look at is not only the calorie count but the fat content which is what most diet plans also look at. Like a salad with ranch dressing may be the equivalent to a hamburger on the caloric side, but on the artery side it's much healthier because it doesn't have as much fat.
But it wasn't being marketed as "better for you," it was being marketed as a "free food." Which doesn't exist.
If I created a salad with enough ranch dressing to equal the calories in a hamburger, I'm guessing the fat content would be pretty high. Most of the calories in it would probably be ranch dressing and that's typically high in fat.2 -
It's debatable whether any dietary fat has any negative effect on the health of your arteries. If anything, the "healthy" fats make it better. Saturated fats seems to be a current point of debate.
...
...
..
Damnit I got roped in.3 -
MystikPixie wrote: »It not calorie free, BUT, better for you than a lot of other things. For instance, a Frito Chili Pie has like 500+ calories in just one cup and loads of fat. Whereas an apple pie you make lighter will have a lot less calories and virtually no fat. What I look at is not only the calorie count but the fat content which is what most diet plans also look at. Like a salad with ranch dressing may be the equivalent to a hamburger on the caloric side, but on the artery side it's much healthier because it doesn't have as much fat.
A normal apple pie will have a LOT of calories and a LOT of fat. I usually make a crust using plenty of butter, for example (and you need some kind of fat for a crust).
Apples themselves are lower cal than a lot of things, but hardly calorie free. No one is saying avoid apples.
I have no clue what a frito chili pie is (I hate fritos, so it doesn't sound good to me), but presumably it has meat, so would be a better meal in some ways (protein) than an apple pie (which no one considers a regular meal, although it might make a nice post Thanksgiving breakfast).
You seem to assume fat is bad, it's not.
A salad with ranch dressing could very easily have far more fat than a burger, if you make the burger with very lean ground beef (as I normally do) and if the majority of calories in the salad are from ranch dressing (but maybe you added a bunch of croutons or something, I dunno). But again fat isn't all that -- the burger has protein, which you need, and the salad (especially if you use a variety of vegetables) has a lot of micros.
(I'm eating a quite caloric salad at the moment with a bunch of vegetables, some chicken for protein, some feta cheese and olives (FAT), and some dressing made with olive oil and red wine vinegar (I hate ranch, but this also has FAT). Pretty sure it's not actually bad for me, and it fits into my day.)4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Although Eric-buddy there is clearly a troll and I have little interest in engaging him directly (heeeeere trolly trolly!), I do think there's an interesting point buried in the horse hockey about how best to ease someone into calorie counting who isn't a complete numbers nut. I mean, I'm basically built for MFP: I find playing with numbers and databases and spreadsheets *soothing.* But my mom, for example, gets really flustered by that kind of thing and I can't imagine her sticking with the kind of tracking I'm doing. So if she said to me, Mega Moose, you look great these days and I want to give calorie counting a try, I probably would recommend a simplified form that did not include low calorie/volume foods, probably using hand-size portion estimates instead of a scale, and modest cardio without eating back exercise calories. And, of course, regular weigh-ins to adjust as needed.
It might depend on the person, but that way of doing it would be more burdensome to me and something I'd find completely uninteresting and annoying and not stick to.
What I did do before I discovered options like MFP existed was write down what I ate (just forcing myself to be mindful is really what works for me), and focus on serving sizes (although not the hand method which has always irritated me as not making any sense). But being able to write down things I was happy about eating -- like vegetables -- was a motivator. I'd never stick to a plan where I logged but ignored a lot of the foods I liked being able to log and just focused on calories as something to keep low.
If one wants a simplified plan, and finds logging burdensome, I happen to think WW is probably a good option, and some versions don't track vegetables or the first 2 servings of fruit or some such. I'd hate it, but lots of people love it.
Yeah, that makes sense. It wouldn't work for me, but I was really just spitballing.0 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Although Eric-buddy there is clearly a troll and I have little interest in engaging him directly (heeeeere trolly trolly!), I do think there's an interesting point buried in the horse hockey about how best to ease someone into calorie counting who isn't a complete numbers nut. I mean, I'm basically built for MFP: I find playing with numbers and databases and spreadsheets *soothing.* But my mom, for example, gets really flustered by that kind of thing and I can't imagine her sticking with the kind of tracking I'm doing. So if she said to me, Mega Moose, you look great these days and I want to give calorie counting a try, I probably would recommend a simplified form that did not include low calorie/volume foods, probably using hand-size portion estimates instead of a scale, and modest cardio without eating back exercise calories. And, of course, regular weigh-ins to adjust as needed.
Holy cow--I never would have thought that this thread and the "Why don't people use MFP to set their calorie goals?" threads would converge. And yet they have...4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I weigh garlic and I don't eat lettuce. (I do, however, weigh spinach.) I don't find it "daunting." In fact it helps sometimes, as it is easy for me to add waaay too much garlic. (I would eat it anyway, but not everyone would.)
I love apples but they do have calories (typically 80-150). They don't make me hungrier, but they only give me a 1-2 hour boost so I try to eat them shortly before a meal.
Why don't you eat lettuce? It's a zero calorie food. Maybe even negative.
Lettuce is low calorie, not zero calorie.
[sarcasm] Why don't you eat lettuce? It's a zero calorie food. Maybe even negative. [/sarcasm]
One can never be sure on here.2 -
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.
Literally every post I've seen from you has been complete and utter nonsense. Please stop.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MystikPixie wrote: »It not calorie free, BUT, better for you than a lot of other things. For instance, a Frito Chili Pie has like 500+ calories in just one cup and loads of fat. Whereas an apple pie you make lighter will have a lot less calories and virtually no fat. What I look at is not only the calorie count but the fat content which is what most diet plans also look at. Like a salad with ranch dressing may be the equivalent to a hamburger on the caloric side, but on the artery side it's much healthier because it doesn't have as much fat.
A normal apple pie will have a LOT of calories and a LOT of fat. I usually make a crust using plenty of butter, for example (and you need some kind of fat for a crust).
Apples themselves are lower cal than a lot of things, but hardly calorie free. No one is saying avoid apples.
I have no clue what a frito chili pie is (I hate fritos, so it doesn't sound good to me), but presumably it has meat, so would be a better meal in some ways (protein) than an apple pie (which no one considers a regular meal, although it might make a nice post Thanksgiving breakfast).
You seem to assume fat is bad, it's not.
A salad with ranch dressing could very easily have far more fat than a burger, if you make the burger with very lean ground beef (as I normally do) and if the majority of calories in the salad are from ranch dressing (but maybe you added a bunch of croutons or something, I dunno). But again fat isn't all that -- the burger has protein, which you need, and the salad (especially if you use a variety of vegetables) has a lot of micros.
(I'm eating a quite caloric salad at the moment with a bunch of vegetables, some chicken for protein, some feta cheese and olives (FAT), and some dressing made with olive oil and red wine vinegar (I hate ranch, but this also has FAT). Pretty sure it's not actually bad for me, and it fits into my day.)
Beat me to it.
Not sure how you would make an apple pie(or any pie) with No/Low fat.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MystikPixie wrote: »It not calorie free, BUT, better for you than a lot of other things. For instance, a Frito Chili Pie has like 500+ calories in just one cup and loads of fat. Whereas an apple pie you make lighter will have a lot less calories and virtually no fat. What I look at is not only the calorie count but the fat content which is what most diet plans also look at. Like a salad with ranch dressing may be the equivalent to a hamburger on the caloric side, but on the artery side it's much healthier because it doesn't have as much fat.
A normal apple pie will have a LOT of calories and a LOT of fat. I usually make a crust using plenty of butter, for example (and you need some kind of fat for a crust).
Apples themselves are lower cal than a lot of things, but hardly calorie free. No one is saying avoid apples.
I have no clue what a frito chili pie is (I hate fritos, so it doesn't sound good to me), but presumably it has meat, so would be a better meal in some ways (protein) than an apple pie (which no one considers a regular meal, although it might make a nice post Thanksgiving breakfast).
You seem to assume fat is bad, it's not.
A salad with ranch dressing could very easily have far more fat than a burger, if you make the burger with very lean ground beef (as I normally do) and if the majority of calories in the salad are from ranch dressing (but maybe you added a bunch of croutons or something, I dunno). But again fat isn't all that -- the burger has protein, which you need, and the salad (especially if you use a variety of vegetables) has a lot of micros.
(I'm eating a quite caloric salad at the moment with a bunch of vegetables, some chicken for protein, some feta cheese and olives (FAT), and some dressing made with olive oil and red wine vinegar (I hate ranch, but this also has FAT). Pretty sure it's not actually bad for me, and it fits into my day.)
Beat me to it.
Not sure how you would make an apple pie(or any pie) with No/Low fat.
it was crustless...*shudders at the thought*3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MystikPixie wrote: »It not calorie free, BUT, better for you than a lot of other things. For instance, a Frito Chili Pie has like 500+ calories in just one cup and loads of fat. Whereas an apple pie you make lighter will have a lot less calories and virtually no fat. What I look at is not only the calorie count but the fat content which is what most diet plans also look at. Like a salad with ranch dressing may be the equivalent to a hamburger on the caloric side, but on the artery side it's much healthier because it doesn't have as much fat.
A normal apple pie will have a LOT of calories and a LOT of fat. I usually make a crust using plenty of butter, for example (and you need some kind of fat for a crust).
Apples themselves are lower cal than a lot of things, but hardly calorie free. No one is saying avoid apples.
I have no clue what a frito chili pie is (I hate fritos, so it doesn't sound good to me), but presumably it has meat, so would be a better meal in some ways (protein) than an apple pie (which no one considers a regular meal, although it might make a nice post Thanksgiving breakfast).
You seem to assume fat is bad, it's not.
A salad with ranch dressing could very easily have far more fat than a burger, if you make the burger with very lean ground beef (as I normally do) and if the majority of calories in the salad are from ranch dressing (but maybe you added a bunch of croutons or something, I dunno). But again fat isn't all that -- the burger has protein, which you need, and the salad (especially if you use a variety of vegetables) has a lot of micros.
(I'm eating a quite caloric salad at the moment with a bunch of vegetables, some chicken for protein, some feta cheese and olives (FAT), and some dressing made with olive oil and red wine vinegar (I hate ranch, but this also has FAT). Pretty sure it's not actually bad for me, and it fits into my day.)
Beat me to it.
Not sure how you would make an apple pie(or any pie) with No/Low fat.
it was crustless...sounds like a crumble almost.
If someone offered me pie and then gave me something without a crust . . . well, I try to be gracious when people give me things, but it would be a struggle in that situation.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions