Weight-Loss The easiest and amazing way to slim ever

Weight-Loss

jhonharold

New member
Do Not starve , Eat to silm ? The answer is YES Eat to Slim

Do you have any idea about Negative Calorie Foods ?

Negative calorie foods are foods, which use more calories to digest than the calories the foods actually contain! some of these natural foods are asparagus,apple, beet,berries, broccoli, chili peppers, lemon, mangos,orange,onion and so on... the list of negative calorie foods contains about 100 foods
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.
A piece of dessert consisting of 400 calories may require only 150 calories to be digested by our body, resulting in a net gain of 250 calories which is added to our body fat! According to this theory, for example, if you eat 100 calories of a food that requires 150 calories to digest, then you've burnt an additional 50 calories simply by eating that food.

Negative calorie food concept:

Before we get ahead of ourselves, consider this. All foods have a caloric (calories), nutrient (carbohydrate, fat, protein), and vitamin & mineral (enzyme producing) content.
For the purpose of this article, we will concern ourselves with the calorie & enzyme producing components of foods. While it is true, enzymes are not found in foods, it has been simplified by researchers, that vitamins can be considered biochemicals found in foods that, among their many other functions, stimulate living tissues to produce enzymes that ideally are sufficient to breakdown that particular food’s caloric nutrients. Therefore, for our purposes the relative result of vitamin ingestion is the production of enzymes.
As a side note, this lay definition of vitamins paves the way for a more clear understanding of empty calories (junk food) as well. Foods falling into this “empty calorie” category would be foods with too little enzyme producing vitamin & mineral content, while containing a surplus of calories.
The ingestion of empty calorie foods requires the body to produce its own enzymes (usually in the lining of the intestinal tract) to be able to convert these “empty calories” into usable energy. Obviously, these enzyme producing functions in the body should be reserved for the performance of other internal, and more vital metabolic reactions.
It is a given these days, that it is difficult to find foods that contain a sufficient amount of vitamins & minerals to alone break down their own “host” caloric nutrients (purely natural food). This situation can be attributed to nutrient robbing pesticide application, processing, the use of preservatives, and various commonly used poor cooking practices.
Surprisingly, in the case of the negative calorie foods in question not only do they contain sufficient vitamins & minerals to break down the host calories there is actually a surplus of these enzyme producing biochemicals. This simply means that once ingested these “negative calories” foods provide for enzyme production in quantities sufficient to break down not only its own host calories, but possibly additional calories present in digestion as well.
Is this discovery truly a tremendous breakthrough? Not really. Unless of course research is performed confirming that these surplus enzymes produced in digestion are in some way transported into the bloodstream. As likely as this enzyme transport would seem, until now there has been no real evidence to support this conclusion.

The article above came from the NFPT Personal Trainer Magazine Over 12 Years of Personal Trainer Certification, Credibility & Support. The Most Trusted Name in Personal Fitness Trainer Certification Internationally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:spam: - and of the worst kind as well!
 
Reference #1:
According to a recent study performed by Dr. Dean Ornish, M.D., of the University of California, at San Francisco

Reference # 2:
In an article in the January, ’94 Issue of Self Magazine, contributed by Dr. Neal Barnard M.D., author of “Food For Life” (Harmony Books), he basically supports the concept of “negative calories” foods

Reference #3 :
The article above came from the NFPT Personal Trainer Magazine Over 12 Years of Personal Trainer Certification, Credibility & Support. The Most Trusted Name in Personal Fitness Trainer
 
So, if I eat 'negative calorie foods' only, am I going to starve? Just wondering....

We heard of this nonsense so often around here, it's not even funny anymore. 13 year old studies or obscure magazine articles don't really do it for me, sorry.

As for Dr. Ornish, his study was about heart diseases, not weight loss. His test subjects were severly overweight people, all with heart diseases in various stages. The weight loss was a side effect, down to the fact that he put them on a diet consisting of mainly fruit and vegetables (not 'negative calorie', just fruit and vegetables in general). According to the study there was no restriction on calories or portion size, but since those people were severely overweight, the assumption is that even with huge amounts of fruit and vegetables consumed, their calorie intake was at least halfed. THAT is where the weight loss stemmed from.

Nice try though.
 
Last edited:
Eat More, Weigh Less: Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Losing Weight Safely While

stop saying whatever ok , have you read his last book called " eat more weight less' here is the link[(REMOVED)so shut up ok , next time you should be sure about what u are saying u should be updated because u seem to have old argument sorry .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nope, didn't read it, have no interest in reading it. I went and googled him, and found piles of recent information. So....well, I know what I'm talking about.

Do you? You just copied an article from somewhere else and used it to try and sell stuff.

And old arguments? I am not the one who came here and used 15 year old studies as references, or tried to sell people stuff that they can have for free somewhere else. Stuff which, as I might point out, has been around for Donkey's years, it's not like it's anything new.

But no worries, I'll leave you to it. Not gonna bump this thread again, the sooner it disappears under a pile of others, the better.
 
It's kind of funny when someone tries to discuss the merits of this book you starting getting hostile. I wonder why??

I agree with everything San has said.
 
Back
Top