No - there is no such thing as a 'negative calorie food'.
I googled the term 'negative calorie food' and ended up with a ton of advertising and spam type links - selling ebooks, etc for their 'negative calorie diet'.
Hoo boy...
...the thing is, this is not a new 'concept', if that term can be used for fad diets. The "Grapefruit Diet" which basically claimed the same thing - that grapefruit had some sort of 'fat burning enzyme' or what have you and that all you had to do was add grapefruit to your diet and the fat would just melt off - is the same concept.
I put the "Negative calorie" food myth in the same trash bin as "drinking ice cold water burns calories" or "eating hot/spicy foods will burn fat". None of which are true, or even if they DO burn calories, not enough to make a big difference.
I found
this Q&A that pretty much sums it up IMO (check out the last paragraph):
Quote:
Q: I keep hearing about negative calorie foods such as celery. Can foods really have negative calories… is there any truth to this?
A: What marketers actually mean when they claim a food has negative calories is that the body burns more calories processing it than the food actually contains. The energy required to digest, absorb and utilize the nutrients in food is called the thermic effect of food (TEF). However, there is no scientific proof that certain foods utilize more calories than they contain. To my knowledge, whatever calculations, if any, that have been used to determine these claims have not been obtained through reliable research and published in peer-reviewed journals. From a physiological standpoint, our bodies are extremely efficient at utilizing the calories contained in food, typically spending only 5 – 35% of the calories contained in foods for processing (TEF), with protein producing a higher TEF than carbohydrate. Thank goodness for this incredible efficiency or we, as a species might not be here today!
The lack of research in this area is probably due to:
1) The unlikelihood that our bodies would be so inefficient as to burn more calories digesting a food than it contains. Research takes time and money; therefore, researchers only tend to pursue hypotheses that are worthwhile.
2) The number of calories that we’re talking about here is extremely small. For instance, based on past research concerning the TEF of foods, the body may spend about .5 to 3 calories digesting a stalk of celery. This amount of energy is almost impossible to identify through the measurement of basal metabolic rate (the method in which TEF is obtained). Subjects would have to eat an enormous amount of celery to obtain numbers large enough to allow accurate measurement.
Given the fact that the number of calories in question is extremely small, we should touch on the relative impact that these claims would have on weight loss, even if these foods did burn more calories than contained. In a nutshell – the impact would be insignificant. The percentage of calories in a stalk of celery, whether positive or negative, relative to the whole days caloric intake is approximately 0.005 %. For example, let’s postulate that instead of a stalk of celery providing 10 calories, it actually burned 10 calories – a 100% reversal – extremely unlikely! Even so, you would have to actually eat 350 stalks of celery to lose 1 lb. I don’t call that eating for health, eating for enjoyment or eating to lose weight – I call that insane! It is much more effective and easy to manipulate calorie deficits by adjusting total calories ingested and total calories utilized through exercise.
Having said that, most of the foods that I’ve seen listed on “negative calorie food” lists are actually quite healthy, nutrient rich and filled with fiber (celery, carrots, lettuce, broccoli, onions, cabbage, etc.). Therefore, eating these types of foods are highly encouraged. However, incorporate them into your diet in a balanced and reasonable way. Remember, a healthy diet should be nutrient rich, balanced, enjoyable and sustainable over a lifetime.
It’s in our nature to seek out that magical pill or miracle diet to make it all so easy. However, I hope that the provided explanation revealed the unlikely nature that these claims have any validity or significance to actual weight loss or maintenance. If people have been successful using this “negative calorie” diet, it is most likely due to decreasing their total caloric input by replacing high calorie foods with low calorie foods and increasing satiety by eating low-energy dense foods.
Suzanne 3FC , 07-11-2005 02:52 PM
I cringe every time I see the reference to negative calories. It's all wishful thinking. The foods on the lists ARE low in calories and high in other types of nutrition, so we should all eat more fruits and vegetables. But the idea that they can burn more calories just by eating them is a joke. The way I understand it, foods such as celery contain so few calories that you may well burn an extra calorie or two by eating them, but you would have to eat nonstop, massive quantities to gain any benefit. You should plant celery in your yard instead of grass 
