[nineteen]

Thoughts?

[nineteen]

Found this on a web site about negative calorie foods:

"All foods have some calories. No food is actually "negative calorie" food. BUT the overall effect of certain foods in our body is that of "negative calories". Negative calorie foods are foods, which use more calories to digest than the calories the foods actually contain!

Calories from these foods are much harder for the body to breakdown and process. In other words, the body has to work harder in order to extract calories from these foods. This gives these foods a tremendous natural fat-burning advantage."

The list:

asparagus
beet
broccoli
green cabbage
carrot
cauliflower
celery root
celery chicory
hot chili peppers
cucumber
dandelion
endive
garden cress
garlic
green beans
zucchini apple
cranberries
grapefruit
lemon mango
orange
pineapple raspberries
strawberries
tangerine
lamb's lettuce
lettuce
onion
papaya
radishes
spinach
turnip

[RememberHowToSmile]

I've read the same thing before. I don't know what to think of it. I still count them as part of my daily intake but I also try and use them when I'm hungry but close to my calorie intake for the day that way I feel less guilty.

[srmb60]

I have looked at this before. I jokingly tell folks the 2 food groups are protein and things that grow.

This is actually a pretty good list to give someone who is having a hard time incorporating vegetables into their menus.

[carlady]

What about the natural sugar in beets, carrots and such?
I'm wondering how they have no value on some plans, are non-options on others and count as points on others.
I am a sugar, alcohol and chocolate abstinent OA'er, so the sugar in these foods makes me nervous. I would have atendency to overeat these foods just because they have this "negative calorie" authorization.

[Jasmine31]

Interesting info. i eat grapefruit, oranges, carrots and brocolli almost daily!

[Suzanne 3FC]

For the most part, negative calories are a myth. The claim from that website, that those foods have "a tremendous natural fat-burning advantage." is really hogwash. It is true that there are some foods, such as celery, that contain so few calories and high fiber that between chewing and digestion, you may burn an extra calorie or two more than they contain. But seriously, the amount is so SMALL that you would have to binge on celery nonstop all day long, and it would still take a long time to see any result from that. You have to burn 3500 calories more than you consume to lose one pound of fat. At least that's all that the so-called negative calorie effect can do. Many of the foods on those lists don't even qualify in the same way.

I've read articles by several dietitians that have looked at the list you posted. Most of the foods listed do not qualify because they contain a lot more calories than they use to digest. However, everything on that list is good for you, and is still low in calories, so it can only help to include them in your diet. But technically, some of the foods on that list may qualify because they do actually burn more calories than they contain, though it's usually just a couple of calories.

Here's the REAL negative calorie list, according to Marcia Byrd, clinical health educator at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in Gilroyand, and it isn't nearly as appetizing,
Asparagus
Broccoli
Cauliflower
Celery
Cucumbers
Garlic
Green beans
Green cabbage
Iceberg lettuce
Onions
Radishes
Spinach
Turnips
Certains kinds of zucchini

Even with the updated list, there isn't really a fat buring potential. If anything, you can eat a lot of them and not worry about gaining weight.

[nineteen]

Lots of good points, Suzanne.

And thank you for the list.