There is a very small list of vegetables that supposedly use more calories to chew and digest, but carrots are not on it. There is a widely circulated list of so-called negative calorie foods, but most of the foods on the list do not qualify, if any at all do.
Here's the real list, according to Marcia Byrd, clinical health educator at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Gilroyand. She doesn't specify if the foods are raw or cooked, though, and I would imagine that might make a difference.
Asparagus
Broccoli
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Green beans
Green cabbage
Iceberg lettuce
Onions
Radishes
Spinach
Turnips
Certains kinds of zucchini
They won't cause you to lose more weight, since the amount of calories involved is so small, but if anything you can pig out on the above and not worry about gaining weight
YES, thanx for that list and info ... very helpful. I once heard on a show that you can have a whole large plate of certain veggies for your dinner and that was supposed to help you lose weight. I can't remember what all the veggies were now, but one of the them was sweet potatoes (yams)!
Lately, I have been trying out more veggies and fruits to help fill me up; esp broccoli, cauliflower, summer turnips, and green beans; plus pears, apples, and bananas.
Supposedly the only true negative calorie is water, but since it doesnt actually contain any calories it doesnt really qualify. It does however take some energy for the body to process the water.
IMO, negative calorie foods are irrelevant, whether they do or do not even exist. If you start saying, "this cucumber has 10 calories but takes 20 calories to digest, so it's really only -10 calories," then why wouldn't you do it for all foods? Why wouldn't you say, "this cookie has 75 calories but takes 25 calories to digest, so I'll only count it as 50!"
Calories in v. calories out--if you take in 1500 calories a day and your body burns 2000, then you have a 500 calorie deficit--and that's whether those 1500 calories you ate were comprised of lettuce and cucumbers or 2 Big Macs and fries. That 2000 calories your body burns already includes normal bodily functions, such as digestion. Yes, the amount of calories your body burns in digestion each day will vary depending on what you eat, but not enough to make much of a diference.
Again, all my opinion, but that's what makes sense to me
The other thing is that veggies are so good for us, provide so much volume for so few calories and help our bodies run themselves that it seems rather churlish to demand that they contain *negative* calories in addition to everything else.
I've eaten raw asparagus and I thought it was good. Yes I think if you cook things, it makes them easier to digest so I also think raw versions is where the "negative" calories come from.
I think the list is good because it points out what some of the lowest calorie fibrous foods. If you can add them to your diet (raw or cooked), I think that it would help fill you up while keeping calories low.
The negative calorie theory has been around for at least 20 years, because when I was in college our human biology professor addressed this myth. We were taught that there was only one "negative calorie consumable" (which takes more calories to consume and digest than the food contains) and that is ice water, and an entire quart of ice cold water would only produce a calorie deficit of a calorie or two. So if you drink a gallon of ice water, you might burn the calories in that piece of celery you thought had negative calories.
Wow really interesting, I have heard that too! I guess it makes sense as snacks some of those foods raw, I imagine the raw is harder to chew so more calories burned right!!!! Really good question, and funny too!!?!?!
I like the comment about the cookie too!
You girls are crazy fun!
I think it's true, I just don't think it's a viable weight loss practice because just how many carrots (or other raw negative foods) could you eat to make it useful? So my vote is for true but useless.
Truth or Myth.... Carrots have negative calories
