Weight-Loss Negative Calorie Foods? True or not?

[TheFitnessNerd]

I have read a bit about some foods being negative calorie in that it takes more energy to digest them than their actual caloric value. This means you can eat as much as you like without gaining weight, or so it is claimed. They are all fruits and vegetables. Examples of such foods are celery, carrots, turnips, apples, oranges etc. Does anyone subscribe to this theory?

Celery is one of the only "true" negative-calorie foods. This is because celery is primarily water and cellulose -- a form of vegetable fiber that is indigestable by the human body. It has no meaningful sugar, protein or fat.

So yes, when you eat celery, the body expends slightly more energy to digest celery, than the enery that is actually present in the food. In that regard, it can be considered a slightly-negative calorie food.

However, it's important to know that the "negative" calories are marginal, and only add up to a few dozen a day. Yes, you in essence consume zero calories with celery, but you wouldn't be able to live on it, because it's empty from a macro-nutrient standpoint. It can help you cut calories some because it's a good substitute for higher calorie foods, but it's not a silver bullet.

The other foods that are getting listed here as being "negative-calorie" are suspicious. While fruits like apples are high in fiber, they are also high in fructose (fruit sugars.) A medium apple will generally have about 72 calories, with 3.3 grams of fiber and 14 grams of sugar. There is no way your body is burning 72 just to digest an apple.

Same goes for pineapple, papaya, blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, oranges, mangos, etc. I'm really perplexed at where people get their information. The Internet? ;-)

Leafy greens and certain fiberous vegetables like broccoli and cauliflower have marginal calories and could be considered close to "zero" calorie foods, but they aren't negative enough to really add up.

The good news is most of the foods on these lists are very healthy, so eat as much of them as you want -- provided you aren't slathering them in butter and Ranch Dressing.

 

[San2]

Hmm....if this was true, and the so-called negative calories would actually have any impact, does that mean if I had a diet that consists only of negative calorie foods, I would end up starving?

If everything I put in my body would consume more energy than it puts in, it should result in me starving to death at some point. Since I don't think that ever happened, and since I am sure there are people out there desperate enough to a) believe in this sort of stuff, and b) try it, I would put the whole negative calorie food into the 'myth' department.

Those foods might be healthy, and low in calories, but I doubt there is such a thing as negative calories. *shrugs*

Would be nice if there was....you could eat and eat, and the more you eat the more you lose......remember what they say about things that sound too good to be true?? *lol*