PDA

View Full Version : evidence for or against "negative calorie" foods



momotheglutton
07-10-2005, 07:41 PM
Does anyone have any actual evidence that there are foods, such as broccoli, that take more calories to digest than you get from eating them? I don't mean a link to some website that lists negative calorie foods without any source or justification. But does anyone have actual studies or computations that show their existance or debunk this idea?

RU4A69
07-10-2005, 07:59 PM
I have no studies, but I have read several threads on this topic-all have concluded that the "negative calories" of vegetables and the thermogenic properties of water are NEGLIGIBLE.

However, we have also concluded that the fiber and health benefits of veggies are CONSIDERABLE :)

Stagger
07-10-2005, 08:07 PM
I doubt they're really negative calorie, but they're still low-calorie. It's a negligible difference anyway.

If you're trying to keep calories down, those are the foods to eat.

BackInTheJox
07-10-2005, 10:01 PM
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/celery.asp



You're welcome.

keninottawa
07-11-2005, 12:04 PM
If you're counting vegetable calories in the first place, you're taking your diet far too seriously.

Zirus
07-11-2005, 12:40 PM
If you're counting vegetable calories in the first place, you're taking your diet far too seriously.

Exactly.

Stand Ablaze
07-11-2005, 12:42 PM
I would only count certain veg, like Carrots (if even) and potatoes..

Negative calorie food doesnt exist, they don't have -6 calories, but they DO take more calories to burn, than are taken in. It could be to do with high water and fibre content.

Although, the amount of calories burnt by eating these low calorie foods isnt much, and may not even happen at all if you take it with other things.

luke77
07-11-2005, 11:31 PM
If you're counting vegetable calories in the first place, you're taking your diet far too seriously.

I don't think so...I usually get about 300 calories a day from vegetables...but I guess I eat a lot more veggies than most people.

phiednate
07-11-2005, 11:35 PM
I personally count everything I eat and I mean everything. Green veggies are in every meal I eat and make up a fair portion of my diet.

BackInTheJox
07-12-2005, 07:38 AM
If you're counting vegetable calories in the first place, you're taking your diet far too seriously.



Dumbest post of the day so far. Although, it's still quite early.

momotheglutton
07-12-2005, 09:06 AM
If you're counting vegetable calories in the first place, you're taking your diet far too seriously.
I count everything. It prevents me from grabbing "small" snacks that add up to big calories over the period of a day. Some days I have a lot of veggies and that can add up to a decent chunk of calories.

WallyWhitecross
07-12-2005, 09:09 AM
I would only count certain veg, like Carrots (if even) and potatoes..


Potatoes are not a vegetable. They are carbs. Starchy ones at that

BackInTheJox
07-12-2005, 09:24 AM
Potatoes are not a vegetable. They are carbs.



Ok, I take it back, THIS is the dumbest post of the day!

Be-Be
07-12-2005, 10:41 AM
Potatoes are not a vegetable. They are carbs. Starchy ones at that
And corn. Nobody believes me when I tell them that. My mother was actually proud of her healthy meal that had potatoes and corn as the only vegetables.

Stand Ablaze
07-12-2005, 10:49 AM
Potatoes and Corn are veg, they just aren't the average low carb veg. Potatoes are quite a healthy veg, and I'd rather eat corn than a mars bar calorie for calorie.

GSP
07-12-2005, 10:57 AM
There must be someone here that loves vegetables and has a large enough appetite to test this ;)

Eat nothing but your caloric maintenance level of veggies from the neg. calorie list. If they are indeed negative calories, you should lose 7-9 pounds per week during this trial if they are indeed negative net calorie foods.

Simple enough!

Stand Ablaze
07-12-2005, 11:25 AM
But doing so would cost a bomb, and you'd be on the toilet 4 hours a day :(

RubberDuck
07-12-2005, 11:26 AM
I'd like to see someone eat 2500 calories worth of celery, broccoli etc. Youd pass out from the exhaustion of chewing it all before youd finish

Jules Verne
07-12-2005, 01:26 PM
There must be someone here that loves vegetables and has a large enough appetite to test this ;)

Eat nothing but your caloric maintenance level of veggies from the neg. calorie list. If they are indeed negative calories, you should lose 7-9 pounds per week during this trial if they are indeed negative net calorie foods.

Simple enough!


This is hard. But, as I have posted before, I can tell that I do get energy from veg. When I am in a state of low blood sugar (going hypo) and eat a meal where 50% of the calories come from veg, I can tell the difference between adding the veg and not.

Now this is not the case with absolutely ALL veg - lettuce and cucumbers are two that don't seem to add much energy. Most others are definitely not 'negative calorie'.

momotheglutton
07-12-2005, 02:04 PM
This is hard. But, as I have posted before, I can tell that I do get energy from veg. When I am in a state of low blood sugar (going hypo) and eat a meal where 50% of the calories come from veg, I can tell the difference between adding the veg and not.

Now this is not the case with absolutely ALL veg - lettuce and cucumbers are two that don't seem to add much energy. Most others are definitely not 'negative calorie'.
Well, I guess there is a difference between affecting blood sugar levels and having positive net calories. Hypothetically speaking, suppose that you have a serving of veggies that had 50 calories all from sugars and took 80 calories to digest. That might affect your blood sugar levels, but you would still have a net loss of 30 calories from eating it (and those calories could come from elsewhere).

dp13368
07-12-2005, 02:21 PM
If you're counting vegetable calories in the first place, you're taking your diet far too seriously.

You're joking right?

Jules Verne
07-12-2005, 03:57 PM
Well, I guess there is a difference between affecting blood sugar levels and having positive net calories. Hypothetically speaking, suppose that you have a serving of veggies that had 50 calories all from sugars and took 80 calories to digest. That might affect your blood sugar levels, but you would still have a net loss of 30 calories from eating it (and those calories could come from elsewhere).


Ha. Gotme! I had considered that - a good point.

The thing is, at the end of the day anyone asking the question, and seriously cutting, is probably not eating enough veg, otherwise they would know from experience that they are not negative calorie.

t_dats
07-12-2005, 04:17 PM
Potatoes are not a vegetable. They are carbs. Starchy ones at that

lol, man :D

keninottawa
07-13-2005, 12:27 PM
Dumbest post of the day so far. Although, it's still quite early.

Granted, take in to account the calories that you receive from veggies. They're obviously as important as any other calories. What I meant to convey was that if you're fretting that you've added 2 cups of chopped greens to your salad instead of 1.5 cups, or if you've taken out the calculator to determine the number of calories in 12 baby carrots compared to the serving size of 10 on the package label, you're taking your diet too seriously.

I meant to convey 'precisely counting vegetable calories', not 'taking into account calories from vegetables'.

But thank you for the compliment, nonetheless, BackInTheJox.

BackInTheJox
07-13-2005, 12:33 PM
But thank you for the compliment, nonetheless, BackInTheJox.



I'd hate to read your teachers' comments on a term paper or a math test.