negative caloried food?

bogus term thrown around the media..

calories are calories and you're burning them as your body needs them

race car spelled backwards is race car

It's all BS. Not even celery, the trophy "negative" food, contains more calories than it takes to digest it.

Apples can be up to 100 calories each! You certainly don't burn anywhere near 100 calories digesting an apple.

Myth!

It's just another gimmick thrown around in the media to try to convince us that there is a "magic quick fix" to lose weight.
There isn't.

Eat healthy, not too much, move your body. It really is that simple, most of us just don't want to put in the time and effort to do it!

rebuttale impossible-- if it were true there is no way it would fatten my bunnys for the winter like they do!

I dunno Ive heard that you burn calories drinking COLD water because your body has to burn calories to warm it up.. it makes sense even if its only like 200 calories after 8 servings of cold water thats 200 extra in a day. Im pretty sure cucumbers are the same deal after chewing and digesting.. I think you end up negative.

it takes about 240 calories (not kilocalories .. which is what you're actually talking about) for your body to heat up a cup of ice cold water.

240 grams of water in a cup x 8 cups = 1920 grams of water. you burn 1 calorie to heat up 1 gram of water. (I'm talking about what scientists use as 1 calorie, not what we use as 1 calorie.)

since 1000 calories = 1 kilocalorie (which is what we're actually counting), you're not even burning 2 extra dietary calories a day heating up 8 glasses of ice-cold water.


the media has funny ways of blowing "news" out of proportion.

I dunno Ive heard that you burn calories drinking COLD water because your body has to burn calories to warm it up.. it makes sense even if its only like 200 calories after 8 servings of cold water thats 200 extra in a day. Im pretty sure cucumbers are the same deal after chewing and digesting.. I think you end up negative.

It is nowhere NEAR 200 calories.

Its around 40 calores for almost FREEZING cold liter of water you drink.

I dunno Ive heard that you burn calories drinking COLD water because your body has to burn calories to warm it up.. it makes sense even if its only like 200 calories after 8 servings of cold water thats 200 extra in a day. Im pretty sure cucumbers are the same deal after chewing and digesting.. I think you end up negative.

It is nowhere NEAR 200 calories.

Its around 40 calores for almost FREEZING cold liter of water you drink.

calories or kilocalories?

40 calories = .04 kilocalories

I dunno Ive heard that you burn calories drinking COLD water because your body has to burn calories to warm it up.. it makes sense even if its only like 200 calories after 8 servings of cold water thats 200 extra in a day. Im pretty sure cucumbers are the same deal after chewing and digesting.. I think you end up negative.

It is nowhere NEAR 200 calories.

Its around 40 calores for almost FREEZING cold liter of water you drink.

calories or kilocalories?

40 calories = .04 kilocalories

I've looked multiple sites and articles and most state 1 calorie per oz. Granted the water needs to be specifically 37 degrees or lower.

calories used for dietary needs are not the same as calories used to measure TEF. what we use to measure food is called a calorie but scientifically they're really kilocalories. 1 kilocalorie = 1000 calories of energy. the body uses 1 calorie of energy to "heat up" 100 grams of water 1 degree celsius.

They don't exist. http://www.answerfitness.com/269/negative-calorie-foods-fact-fiction/

An excerpt from the above link:

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.”

Tapeworms!

No, I don't believe in negative calorie foods at all.

Actually, the hype makes me angry. It's not so bad when we're talking about lettuce and celery but when an article can lead to an inexperienced dieter believing they can eat as much mango (to pick one of the higher calorie egs) as they like for free then I do think it's a problem.