Message Boards » Website Suggestions/Feedback

TOPIC: Foods that burn more calories than they contain

 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
November 9, 2012 4:17 PM
Im wondering if myfitnesspal will latch on to the calculation of food such as strawberries, oranges, apples, apricots zucchini, tomatoes, lettuce, water melon, carrots, celery, cucumbers, chilli peppers, cauliflower, grapefruit and tangerines that all burn more calories than they contain putting the calorie content down by automatic deduction? I know for sure it has not yet been donr but this will give a very accurate calculation and would encorage people to eat more fruit where as now if you ate two oranges its got the rough equivilent as a bar of chocolate. sometimes its hard to turn away from them thoughts of comparing what I cauld also eatr that im craving with the same calories. I think if MFP did a deduction it would urge you more to fill up on a fruit mix with no fat yoghurt rather than a choc bar which wont fill you up and leave you craving!
November 9, 2012 4:35 PM
Negative calorie foods don't exist. Here's a great link about it and an excerpt from the link:

http://www.answerfitness.com/269/negative-calorie-foods-fact-fiction/

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.”
November 9, 2012 4:37 PM
See above post. Negative calories are a myth.
Edited by Contrarian On November 9, 2012 4:37 PM
November 9, 2012 4:39 PM
MFP will never do that... because it's a load of bunk. Luckily, MFP relies more on science then that.
  3112724
November 9, 2012 5:00 PM
I see your points but If your drank a really cold glass of water (contains no calories) your body burns more calories getting that water to body temp hence negetive calories which is a scientific fact so negetive calories cannot be a myth. Surely like chillies which cause sweating and a burn in your increased heart rate causes a deduction to those calories contained therefore giving a less acurate calorie calculation at present.
November 9, 2012 5:08 PM
Wow. Just... wow! noway
  5345245
November 9, 2012 5:30 PM
The reaction that you get from eating spicy foods is an irritation to your system, consider like a short term rash-like affliction on your mouth and stomach. You don't actually get a temperature increase, it's the irritation to the mucus membranes that your body is reacting to that causes the runny nose, red face, and even sweat that may occur. You aren't going to lose weight from it though.

And the water...just...*sigh*
November 10, 2012 7:12 AM
so... technically, he is right about the water thing. Raising the temp from, say 35*F to 98.6*F, takes energy. The amount of energy it takes is about 8.5 cal/cup of water. This is based on the thermo equation E=m*cp*dT (which is pretty rudimentary and assumes 100% efficiency). HOWEVER, your body is made primarily of water, too, and the mass is much greater. So, the net effect in regards to calories burned is negligible.

It DOES take calories, but they aren't worth counting. Worry about the cookies instead!
  11058666
November 10, 2012 7:15 PM
QUOTE:

so... technically, he is right about the water thing. Raising the temp from, say 35*F to 98.6*F, takes energy. The amount of energy it takes is about 8.5 cal/cup of water. This is based on the thermo equation E=m*cp*dT (which is pretty rudimentary and assumes 100% efficiency). HOWEVER, your body is made primarily of water, too, and the mass is much greater. So, the net effect in regards to calories burned is negligible.

It DOES take calories, but they aren't worth counting. Worry about the cookies instead!


Cheers Pal! That is scientifically correct but yeah its not worth counting I know but Im putting it out there with the food because instead of an orange being 80 calories should it be 60 with a 20 cal difference in burnage. If people dont suggest these things then how is anything going to improove.

I notice there are alot of tetchy people that comment, probably need to relax a tad!!
November 10, 2012 7:20 PM
Picking crabs seems to take more calories than you get :) Until you count the beer...

Reply

Message Boards » Website Suggestions/Feedback

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.