Talk:Negative-calorie food/Archive 1

This has got to be BS

Most of the foods on this list are probably not truly negative calorie. Eat 5 pounds of food from this list every day and see what happens to your waistline. 71.254.209.246 (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A strict diet of only fruit and vegetables actually works to reduce weight. The principle is that the body uses more calories to burn up fruits and vegetables than the calorie content of the food itself. I speak from ongoing personal experience and that of people I know. Those who use fuzzy mathematical formulas here to declare this as false have not indicated that they tried in practice to eat only fruits and vegetables and failed to lose weight. Experimentation is the ultimate empirical method of debunking a theory. Merlin1935 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Merlin, your argument is completely unsound. I could eat a diet of strictly oreo cookies and still lose weight (if I ate few oreos and burned a lot of energy exercising). That doesn't mean that Oreos are good for me, much less "negative calories". There are plenty of reasons that an "all fruit/vegetable diet" would work that have nothing to do with this claim of negative calories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.179.196 (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not claim that there are no other foods or regimen that could cause weight loss, neither did I suggest that a diet of fruits only is healthy in the long term. Merlin1935 (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Merlin, you seem to have forgotten that other activities also burn calories - breathing, walking, the heart pumping, typing on a keyboard - lots of things. What you think of as negative calorie foods are foods supply fewer calories to the body than the body is burning overall. In other words, a diet.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just stated that fruits alone are not the only weight-loss regimen, therefore the point of your statement is not clear. When fruits are suggested as "negative calories" it does consider other activities such as walking, breathing, etc as you suggested. Certainly it is not hard to imagine that regardless of what you eat, you will still breathe and walk. Therefore these activities are discounted when you are comparing efficacy of weight-loss diets. And, your last sentence is simply a repetition of my whole point. Merlin1935 (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So you no longer believe the statement that the body uses more calories to burn up fruits and vegetables than the calorie content of the food itself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my statements, and nothing in my previous posts contradicts that statement. Any suggestion to the contrary is imaginary.Merlin1935 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why this is not correct and how the mistake came about

This misunderstanding happens because there are two different kinds of calories: A gram calorie is approximately the amount of energy needed to increase the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius. A kilogram calorie is approximately the amount of energy needed to increase the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius.

This misunderstanding happens because people measure the energy content in food as kilogram calories, but calculate the energy needed to digest the food as gram calories, then compare these two values without realising they are actually measured in different units.

One kilogram of celery contains only 120 kilogram calories, and is mostly water.

If you were to eat an entire kilogram of cool celery out of the fridge at only 7 degrees, It would take about 30 kilogram calories of energy to raise the celery to about body temperature, 37 degrees.

This is only about a quarter of the calories in the celery.

However this is not the only problem with this theory.

There is no evidence presented to show that eating cold food will result in an increase in your metabolic rate to keep body temperature constant, and if this does not happen, it is not correct to equate heat absorbed by food, with energy consumed by the body. This situation is exactly analogous to suggesting cold showers as a weight loss method. mathew (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The fatal explosiveness of celery?

When you drink 8 - 8oz cups of cold water, your body uses about 70 calories to raise the temperature of that water. The calorie content of 110g of celery is 18 (105g of that being water).

So if drinking 1814g of cold water burns 70 calories then drinking 105g means you burn... Someone help with the math. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Verstandlich (talk • contribs) 00:02, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

I really like your direction (too much, as we'll see) but so far we're extremely wet. 1814g of water is around one-half gallon! (At 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees C), it occupies 0.479 gal.; 1 US gallon = 3785mL; mass of pure water is 1g/mL at 4C = 39.2 degrees F.)

[Actual readers may simply skip to the last paragraph for my official answer, wherein I reveal the question & answer were meaningless, yet the subject is catastrophic for mankind.]

Right. On Earth an 8oz cup (0.0625 gal. or 236.59mL) holds just 236.59 grams of 'cold' 39-degree water.

And you say drinking that will make your body burn 70 Calories, eh? I have no idea, let's see. Working back from a body temp of around 98.6F, negative 70 food Calories would unheat 1000g of water by 70C or by 126F. I'm getting nervous about visiting your cafe now! It seems that removing the 70 kCal the body added . . . cools the 8-ounce cup of water . . . by 296.9C or by 532.6 degrees Fahrenheit . . . meaning it must have started out incredibly frozen at -259 Centigrade or -434 degrees Fahrenheit -- just above absolute zero!

So if the body really spends 70 Calories to heat up a cup of ice water, wouldn't it become absolutely scalding?

Thats 70 Calories for 8 cups.

I don't know if I'm right but this is all very important for seeing if munching ice cubes burns enough calories to justify all the dental work. . .

(If I am somehow correct I am amazed how much energy goes into powering a person for 24 hours on a 2000-Calorie diet. Of course a 150-pound customer has the mass of around 300 cups of Beverage X.)

I'm not going to touch your piece of celery just yet, not until someone provides confirmation and insurance. Given the 18 Calories, we need to check just how flammable the damn stuff can become.

OH, WAIT, you said EIGHT 8-oz cups of water? That's 1893g so you really DO mean about a half-gallon? A full day's supply of beverages. So I'm not crazy but I really "totalled" your example didn't I.

(REWIND) "And you say drinking that will make your body burn 70 Calories, eh? Working back from a body temp of around 98.6F, negative 70 food Calories would unheat 1000g of water by 70C or by 126F." Where do you keep the creamer? Oh thanks, what a fine cafe you've got! "It seems that removing the 70 kCal the body added . . . cools the HALF GALLON of water" . . . by a lovely 36.98C or by 66.57 degrees Fahrenheit . . . meaning it must have started out at 32.03 Fahrenheit as, well, ice. Your example was perfectly rigged all along and we didn't know!

So yes, it seems that if you "drink" your BUCKET of stealth ice cubes, it may just save you some of those trips to the plastic surgeon for gut reduction.

What now of the celery? First, I trust this is FROZEN celery or your example was even more whacked than my first analysis. Second, you will eventually "drink" 105g of water after prying it out of the celery if celery is 95% ice as you suggest. That is around 3.55 fluid ounces of frozen water to heat up, and your body burns 3.88 Calories to recover from the chill. (Maybe more if we count any waste heat you lose though your skin/lungs/etc. since your slightly raised metabolism can't be 100% channeled into just the celery-water; but your "70 Calorie" tidbit didn't specify whether this was considered or not.)

SO the answer to your original question is "3.88 Calories" (or 4.05 by simple ratio), but this has almost nothing to do with celery. (Maybe I should have just answered you in the first place? But you asked for math!) Dangerously, the Celery Question totally bogs down the human mind from here on out. HOW much work did it take to get the water out of it? HOW much work does it take to extract any useful chemical energy? DOES the 18 calories include that or not? We know nothing! Only that a half cup of frozen water takes around 4 calories to warm to body temperature. Where is my antidepressant? Celery be damned. It takes far more energy TO THINK ABOUT than you could ever get from eating it. That must be the real secret. This is why the studies can never be done. The researchers would be ruined. "The Celery Death" it's called. --Parsiferon 00:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the number. So in the end it's pointless to try to lose weight with this "diet". 4 calories? haha...

Actual Facts requested (healthy conspiracy alleged)

So whats some good facts to use to debunk this myth?

Does an apple burn more calories to digest than actual calories contained within the apple?

Negative calorie diet is probably a trick into getting us to eat more fruits, leaf vegetables and a good diet. the foodstuffs included in this diet has already been included on the health pyramid as one of the important ones. so it doesn't hurt to eat them. I must have lost a few kilos to these fruits and vegetables though i didn't keep an exact track of the servings etc.--Idleguy June 28, 2005 07:07 (UTC)

according to this article i learn that all foods require the same amount of energy to digest, so to make it take more energy to burn them, i just need to eat low-calorie foods. no? mickey 03:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

yeah. pretty much. but it's not just any low cal food but low cal veggies and fruits etc. Idleguy 04:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did the whole notion arise? Is it true of celery at least?

I want to know where this notion originated so I can be more sure that this is a myth. Is it the calorie/kilocalorie (calorie vs Calorie) confusion? That was alluded to but it wasn't clear to me.

I don't know about all the foods listed, but I've never seen any facts to disprove the celery one. Even snopes seems to think it's true. snopes. If you have a hard time believing that you can loose calories from eating something, consider water. It has zero calories, and your body has to at the very least warm it up (unless your urine is cold?). Skepticism is good, but it's just as annoying as those "religious right" people when you start to declare everything false. :D --Capi crimm 09:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody gives a crap about your opinion of the religious right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.149.230 (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Article needs NPOV and fact-checking

Questions: How prevalent is this fad diet? The article needs further npov-ing and factual improvement, clarifying what foods actually do provide no net energy. Clearly some foods are zero-calorie, for instance, most dill pickles (American sense; unsweetened pickled cucumbers). But most of the things on this list are quite ludicrous. An apple can contain 80-110 Calories, a single cup of blueberries has over 80. A large wedge of cantaloupe has about 30. That's a significant amount of energy, in a sugary, easily-digestible form. NTK 14:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's as false as any other diet, but an invaluable resource for many people.

Carb free diets aren't healthy,

Negative calorie diets and foods do have research behind them, and for many people and our lifestyles this information is useful. Even if the name is not 100% accurate. Just because you don't like us or our lifestyles, which some would rather see as a disease, that is no reason to remove this valuable information. Studies about negative calorie foods are referenced below.

---

Verbatim reproduction of article removed (and my comments) when I realised this was pure cut and paste copyvio. The original of the article that was copied can be found here: Negative Calorie Foods (Personal Trainer Today website). --Seejyb 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of the negative calorie idea isn't that some foods take away from your caloric intake, it is that the digestion of the foods takes more calories than are provided by the food.

---

I want to know where this notion originated so I can be more sure that this is a myth. Is it the calorie/kilocalorie (calorie vs Calorie) confusion? That was alluded to but it wasn't clear to me.

An author of this wiki mentions calories and kilocalories (Calories) as if they are related to the negative calorie diet, but in manners of the body, the latter is generally exclusively used. If we say it takes 10 additional calories to digest a serving of celery that has 5 calories, then we are talking about "food calories" (kilocalories/Calories) in both instances. I suggest mention of the "small calories" (1/1000 of a food calorie) be removed per its irrelevance.

Quiteokay 07:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This diet is completely bogus in my eyes. First of all, why are there so many fruits listed on the page? Doesn't the author know that fruits contain sugar, and therefore cannot possibly be a "negative calorie" food? Secondly, there seems to be no science behind this theory. Metabolism is quite relative to each person. If someone starts to starve their body, the body, in turn, will attempt to adapt, and therefore their metabolism will drop. This means that if you don't eat adequate amounts of calories then your body will start to function using minimal energy. This means that even foods that in the past were "negative calorie" may begin to accumulate calories in your body. Furthermore, I don't really understand what this diet entails. For any diet to be legitimate, there needs to be some sort of guideline, which this article has none. Is this diet supposed to be about eating only lettuce and celery for the rest of your life? It lists of bunch of fruits and vegetables, so wouldn't that just be the same as a vegetarian diet? What makes this diet different? What exactly does this diet do? Is this diet all about starvation? And if so, wouldn't the people following this be considered having an eating disorder? Shu ster 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that if you are making a fuss over this, you are probably not getting enough fiber in your diet...All the things on that list are good sources of fiber.

Some people are just so focused on things like counting calories they forgot to see the big pictures...or maybe never have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliabadi (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasted water math?

I see several parts of this discussion that try to calculate how many calories and kilocalories are in celery versus how many it takes to warm celery to body temperature. These are used as arguments to disprove the "negative calorie" foods idea. This amount of energy is very small compared to how much energy the body wasted trying to digest the dietary fiber in celery. Even eating celery that is warmed to body temperature will cause the body to go through the whole digestive process, spending energy on all the muscles involved and getting nothing but a small amount of extracted water and the digestive cleansing benefit of fiber. I definitely agree with questioning some of the fruits on this list, which I would think are high in sugar. Some of the fruits listed are very sweet and the body can absorb much of the sugar while passing the indigestible fiber parts. Are there any scientific-minded dietitians out there that can help with this? I understand how this all works but lack real scientific data on a per-food basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.101.31 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, one question.. How much calorie does an red mushroom have? Maybe toxic food do have negative calories??! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertjohn (talk • contribs) 10:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Celery appears twice?

//While low nutrient, high cellulose foods such as celery may consume slightly more energy to digest than absorbed, the difference is of negligible consequence metabolically. Limiting a diet to such foods over an extended time could lead to malnutrition. True "negative calorie foods" are rare, and limited to fibrous vegetables like celery and relatively indigestible items like grass, paper, or cardboard.//

SO celery is both a good and bad food? These sentences seem to contradict themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.96.135 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't boil down to good and bad. Celery has very low calorie density. Because of this it consumes a lot of energy in digestion relative to how much nutrition is absorbed from it and thus, could lead to malnutrition if eaten exclusively. That's not contradictory at all. Duien (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

world's most fattening food?

If the post at the top were true:

a) celery would be the world's most fattening food, since it provides around 1000 times more energy than it takes to digest, and

b) biologists would need to rewrite their entire understanding of life, since according to "Compoundeye"/Matthew we do not require food energy to regulate body temperature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.90.200 (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a skeptic, but I need more info to really believe or dis-believe this

It's easily proven that the amount of calories used to warm up the food consumed as related to the Calories listed for that food won't be equal for anything aside from water. Those that suggest tree bark and paper, if we think about it still have a calorie level as they burn and produce heat thus the measurement of calories as opposed to Calories. However, the digestion process and the chemical reactions, and energy used to create the needed chemical and biological supplies for digestion, and the energy used musclarly to power the digestion process I would think would be the far larger consumer of Calories. If we think about it a 2000 Calories diet is supposed to be roughly the norm, for maintaining body weight with only normal levels of excercise, not heavy working out, but the basics routines of life. I supposed if you were bed ridden it would be an excessive calorie count. That guideline isn't based on any significant portion of the food being consumed being low calorie/volume. I've also heard that some sugars such as fructose are immiedietly bruned by the body and not converted to fat stores the way say Carbs and starchs are. I've also heard that proteins are harder for the body to convert to fat and energy that say starchs, hence the basis for the Atkins diet. The atkins will kill you in the end becuase the digestion process produces toxins that will slowly kill your liver or kidneys (can't remember which). This suggests that there are different amounts of energy and different process used for the digestion of different foods. Now I don't have any answers att he end of this, but I think we need to get past the energy used to raise the temperature and get some facts on the energy used to digest different types of foods. I would guess it be something along the lines of: X Calories used for the physical mechanics of digestion X Calories used/gram of Y type of food

So there will be some portion used that always gets used, perhaps even for water, the muscluar contractions of the stomach and digestive tract, and without getting generally disgusting with the details you get the idea. Then a second amount as teh body semi-intelligently releases certain amounts of enzymes, and acids, and bacteria for the digestion process is deemed needed by chemical detectors that line our digestive system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mensoid (talk • contribs) 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed unsourced content

The following is the unsourced or inappropriately sourced content from the main page. Whistling42 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not scientifically accurate. No food can literally have negative calories in the sense of absorbing energy from the body when digested. However, some foods provide very few calories to the human body, and the body may use up more energy to digest them than it gains. The result is a net calorie deficit.

Low nutrient, high cellulose foods like celery are generally agreed to consume slightly more energy to digest than they provide nutritionally. These foods may be consumed within a weight-loss diet to potentially relieve the feeling of hunger without contributing to total caloric intake. Limiting a diet to only these foods would result in malnutrition.

There's a source right in the middle of that second paragraph; it's not great (it's Snopes), but it's a source. I've restored it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Catabolic Foods?

Is this the same as Catabolic foods as referred to at Catabolic foods?dkliman (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Foods that you can absolutely be sure, will lower your calories

Note: There are many variations to the following. Ex: shape, size, weight, race, gender, digestion, metabolism, functionnality of different organs, etc. I only show calories I calculated, the calorie counts may be wrong, but it's guarenteed all the below choices are neg-kcals.

1. Cold Water(1L at 1°C): 43.8 kcal needed to bring it up to body temperature, the water itself has no Calories, and then there's urination! Water will also make you have more stools.

2. Diet Soda(Rm.temp): I don't really know the amount of kcals for this one, especially because it has more of a chemical reaction then water(which has around none.)

Ugh, gotta sleep, don't erase for a few days, more foods. Kingarmy (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it neg-calories for cooke or raw?

Cooked celery vs raw celery.

My guess is that cooked celery is much easier to digest than the raw type.

Can anyone concur?DaveDodgy (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Replaced Disputed Tag

This article has been disputed and shifted around since it was created over 4 years ago. Would anyone who has authored or changed it care to add ANY reputable sources other than the discussion of celery on Snopes.com?--Dwinches (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone dispute this?

One of the first sections on this talk page contains the words of someone saying that this is probably BS to get us to eat more fruit and vegetables.

Who would say that? Why would it ever be bad to eat more fruits and vegetables?

Yes, this diet does work. Not a "diet" in terms of what a fat person does to lose weight (all though you will), but rather what a normal person does to stay healthy while receiving healthy amounts of vitamins and nutrients and still having energy to exercise.

Honestly, you guys can go and say this doesn't work, but don't confuse the people for crying out loud. Keep it to yourself. And remember, not all body types are the same. Some people may not react positively to eating these foods. If you eat these foods and only these foods, you'll lose weight if that's what you want and you'll be healthy by accident. If you eat these foods but still squeeze in crap here and there, you probably won't lose weight, you'll still have a blemished face and cellulite and fat on your body. There is no trick, and there is definitely no right to tell anyone to not eat more fruits and vegetables.

From experience, these foods have helped me lose weight FAST. Really fast. And that was with a once a month cheat of a bar of chocolate. Not only that, I am not anemic, I am healthy, I have energy to exercise multiple times a day, and I love finding new ways to cook or mix my fruit and vegetables as much as I love eating them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.102.48 (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The dispute isn't that a "negative calorie" fruit-and-veg diet doesn't work, just that it's no different to a normal, healthy fruit-and-veg diet, and doesn't actually involve "negative calories" in any scientific sense. --McGeddon (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Calorie rich foods

Unless someone provides reliable sources in, say the next week, I will remove from the "negative calorie" listing such calorie rich foods as apples, tomatoes, berries, and watermelon, since tables of nutritional values show significant calorie content in a normal portion, and no reliable source says they take more energy than that to digest. This article sounds hoaxalicious. Edison (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There are presently two refs. Snopes only credits celery as a food of slight negative calories, as well as calorie free diet soda served cold. The other ref says the idea is scientifically unsound, but says that some believe celery, lettuce, cabbage and cucumbers might qualify. As for sugar laden fruits, the claim is nonsense. The article should be pared down to state what the belief is, then the list limited to foods for which some kind of claim is made by reliable sources. Sources denying the effect should be included. Most of the foods added are wishful thinking and do not belong. See WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR. Edison (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See [1] which denies that even celery is "negative calorie." I would like to see some cites to peer reviewed scientific journals and nutrition textbooks rather than this popular book or "Mens Health [2]" to support the "no negative calorie foods" view which counter claims in some unreferenced popular books on dieting. [3] also denies any foods are "negative calorie." as does Prevention magazine [4]. Edison (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For balance, here is a claim that some vegetables are "negative calorie," but the author cites no source for his statement: [5]. Nutritional claims should be traceable to reliable sources as described above: peer reviewed journals or textbooks from respected publishers. Edison (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

if this is not deleted, i will trim out all other food products and list, if still appropriate, only celery. this should be deleted. sugary fruit is not negative calorie. if our bodies burned more calories eating sugary fruit, we wouldnt crave it. probably the only reason we eat celery is for the fiber and trace nutrients, or the flavor. there are other reasons to eat food besides calories. Clay has been eaten by many peoples, and is definitely neg cal. and "tea" is not a food, nor is diet soda, which is merely a drug delivery system for caffeine, or a medication designed to sate the bodies desire for sugar without providing it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cutting out the unsourced list and claim, we've got a one-sentence stub, which is mostly just a fact about celery. If there's been nothing else to say about the subject in the past four years, maybe that one sentence should just be merged into the "celery" article. --McGeddon (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

i agree. even having a stub for searchers for this phrase can just be directed to "celery", "nutrition", "diet", or whichever seems best. trimmed tautological sentence. any negative calorie food is low in calories.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do, at best this should be listed as a curiosity in the celery page itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.179.196 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negative calorie food. Fences&Windows 23:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Snopes reference is not RS

If you follow the link from the snopes reference, it's actually not any good. I'll take it out if no one objects.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also not correct to say that celery can be thought of as a negative calorie food because it doesn't have many calories. Negative calorie foods have a clear definition that is not in dispute at all. People who still want to consider celery a negative food are simply wrong. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Supression" in "Negative calorie food"

Please see Urban legend, and note how significantly different an "urban legend" is from commonplace scientific / factual inaccuracies (such as negative calorie foods). Hence why I requested a citation to replace. I was reverted nonetheless (I won't revert back without comment).

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

PS "Removing suppression of text" is a pretty melodramatic 1984-esque edit summary.

(copied reply from my talkpage) I didn't mean to sound Orwellian ;-) - I don't know the wiki term for hiding text like that. On the substantive point, urban legends on that page include the stuff that Mythbusters disprove - which include scientific claims. However, I've had a look at a few RSs e.g. here I see you're right. Apologies.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, good job on finding that source, I would never have been that thorough! ;) I wouldn't have thought a Google Book Search would've produced any valuable results for such a subject; Google Book Search has to be the most useful tool to exist for sourcing work in Wikipedia....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. There's google books and then there are more than a few wikipedia editors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Grapefruit

This article currently says that eating grapefruit "leads to weight-loss simply by taking up space in the stomach that might otherwise go to higher calorie foods." Why single out grapefruit? Anything with lower-than-average calories relative to their volume would take up more space with fewer calories than average food choices would, right? Also, the volume of a food in the stomach isn't the only thing that affects satiety. Eating a smaller amount of one food could make you feel fuller than eating a larger amount of grapefruit. That's my non-expert gathering of information from more knowledgeable sources, anyway. 72.244.204.134 (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Celery as a positive calorie food

The source currently referenced in the article, saying celery is not a negative calorie food, says that negative calorie foods are basically wishful thinking. I do not think that it was meant to discount celery alone, while leaving the other foods in the list, as celery was likely mentioned only due to the popularity of its low calorie nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyquist562 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Negative calorie beverage

There's a template up at Negative calorie beverage proposing a merge; I'm not sure who put it there, but I'd support that, as there isn't much to say about either and it repeats more or less the same science. What do other editors think? I suppose it would mean renaming this article - maybe "Negative calorie food and drink" or just "Negative calories"? --McGeddon (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with merge proposal. Also merge with "thermic effect". --Ehrenkater (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Kellogg School of Management study

Although this is interesting, I've cut it for being off-topic. It's describing a delusion where people unthinkingly conclude that "burger with salad" must have fewer calories than "burger without salad", to the point where you can calculate an average "negative calorie" value for a portion of salad. It doesn't mean that anyone consciously believes the salad to have a negative amount of calories, which is what this article is actually about. --McGeddon (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, hum, I see. I guess I misread it. I agree that it's off-topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Zero-calorie foods and beverages

Water and other zero-calorie drinks, as well as insoluble fiber, have zero bioavailable calories. These foods and drinks must then fit the definition of "negative calorie" foods, then. It plainly takes more than zero calories to turn water into urine, and ice water even more so. This MD with the Texas Dietetic Association claims that "other than water and diet beverages, there is unfortunately no such thing as a zero-calorie or negative-calorie food". I would submit that the doctor ruled out insoluble fiber because insoluble fiber is not a food that's available to buy, but rather is a component of food that comes along with the calories that are also in food, and even fiber drinks like Metamucil and Benefiber contain calories. However, insoluble fiber is insoluble because it does not change inside the body. From dietary fiber: "Since insoluble fiber particles do not change inside the body, the body should not absorb any energy (or Calories/kilojoules) from them."

I appreciate that this article dispels myths about celery and other foods, and I don't want to take away from that valuable service, but I think that water, zero-calorie drinks and insoluble fiber should be noted as fitting the definition of "negative calorie" foods. 72.244.204.134 (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

--I came to pretty much say the same thing. The article reads more like an opinion piece than a wikipedia should. Assuming even just 7 calories to digest a cold soda that at most has 2 or 3 calories, that's still negative, and that's not even calculating the stimulative effect of caffeine and other additives (though other stimulants are usually absent from soft drinks). -anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.93.129 (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

more sources

• Robert Matthews (July 13, 2003), "No matter what you eat, there's no such thing as a zero calorie food", The Sunday Telegraph London, p. 29
• Nancy Snyderman (May 06, 2009), Debunking 10 Myths About Dieting. There Are No Negative-Calorie Foods {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Sally Squires (30 October 2001), "The Lean Plate Clue; Positively Bunk", The Washington Post, p. F3

--Enric Naval (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Mark J. Schalk (December 19, 2013), Fastest Way to Lose Weight

• Sorry, but I can't find the credentials of this author or this website. Also, it doesn't mention "negative calorie". --Enric Naval (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Caloric expense of heating cold water

Currently, the article reads

Cold water will expend a greater number of calories because the body has to warm the liquid to body temperature, although a single glass of ice water at 0°C would burn only 8.8 kcal.

That actually sounds closer to correct than the Prevention article does... but it's unsourced. I'm using the article's numbers (5 or 6 glasses would burn 10 calories a day) until we have a source for these numbers apart from OR. (Certainly, the raw number is higher than what the article states: 12 oz. should be about 13 calories. That said, presumably, there's some research they're looking at that backs up the idea that feedback mechanisms &c. reduce the actual number from the theoretical maximum.) — LlywelynII 14:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

True zero-calorie foods

The food section of this article probably needs to be reworked as well: the sources only support the idea that this list of foods is noncaloric.

In fact, the idea that zero-calorie foods don't exist is circular: it's only true if you exclude non-calorie items from the idea of "food". We should make our definition of what counts as food explicit. Dealing with the stuff we aren't counting, though, I don't know that we have any articles on noncaloric foodstuffs except in the form of pages on mental disorders: consuming ice is dealt with at pagophagia and clay at geophagy but both articles are keen to link them with pica. — LlywelynII 15:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV & RS

Claims that water and solely water is a negative-calorie beverage is patently false: infusions such as straight tea and black coffee don't add calories to the water. Moreover, while the FDA does allow food with less than 5 calories per serving to be advertized as 0 calorie and while some studies correlate diet-soda consumption with weight gain, there's no truth to rumors that soda companies pay fines to the FDA to get away with false advertizing or that the sodas have more than 1 calorie per serving. A chilled 12-oz. soda (roughly 0.35 kg of water) would require more than 12 calories to raise to the standard body temperature.

Now, that's WP:OR until we find a book or study supporting it but it's still true and, regardless of sourcing, we cannot simply lie:

An "American Water Works Association" is not a neutral source and cannot be used to support the idea water alone is cal-negative.

I'm not going to remove it entirely: it's moderately useful to have a source for the the statement that drinking ridiculous amounts of water is not an effective weight-loss strategy. But we can't simply repeat its untrue claims. For the people who thought the soft-drink slam was being supported by the Prevention article: it isn't. The Prevention article actually debunks the AWWA, lists coffee and tea among the zero-calorie beverages, and doesn't support disparaging diet soda at all. (It actually claims that it takes 5 or 6 ice-cold glasses of water to burn 10 calories a day but, even if there are reasons that math is accurate, it still leaves <1-calorie soda in and of itself a negative.) — LlywelynII 13:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

[Went ahead and removed it since the other source also establishes that it's a lousy weight-loss strategy. — LlywelynII 15:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)]

What about Grass

It is said that grass does nothing but provide moisture when chewed in survival situations. Is there actually some calories provided for us when eating it? I can't find any data on this.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.168.154 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you couldn't. Googling "caloric value grass" and "digestion of grass" brought up plenty of hits for me. In any case, the answer is obviously 'yes': wheat, millet, durum, rice, &c. are all just specially-cultivated grasses. Obviously, what you're looking for is the seed, though: our stomachs won't digest most of the green stuff before it's already passed through. Presumably, though, you could work out some kind of cellulase soup or slurry to get the digestion started and then eat that to get more energy out of the leaves. — LlywelynII 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

@175...: That's all it is when you blank valid and needful linked information because you prefer it to be addressed elsewhere in a different way... but then don't bother to actually follow through and provide that section. If you can't be arsed to make the improvements yourself, WP:PRESERVE the information where it is.

@Others: Kindly restore the link to water intoxication to the lead in the event of future vandalism. It's rather important, since people coming here will be looking for something that works and might otherwise walk away thinking 'it won't do much, ok, but couldn't hurt'. In fact, it can be harmful and we should note that and point people towards more information without spending WP:UNDUE time focusing on it here. — LlywelynII 00:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing sentences on water intoxication is not vandalism. There should be a discussion about the topic here and whether or not it should be included. XFEM Skier (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Water intoxication

Seems to be a difference of opinions on the inclusion of Water intoxication. I don't seem to think that it really needs to be included here. Note that wikipedia does not give medical advice (WP:MEDICAL). I think the reason given for including it are not encyclopedic and therefore don't need to be included. XFEM Skier (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The magicalworldof wikipedia

What sorcery makes it so that icewater is Negative Calorie Food, but ice Diet Coke isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.62.144 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The world of science and rounding. Coke Zero contains .5 calories (.5 kcal) per 150 ml [6]. If the Coke is cold enough then it could be zero calories as well, but all of this becomes comlicated because of the human body's functions, although the same arguement could be made for water making it in worse case secarios a zero calorie food but Coke Zero will be a positive in those same cases. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Making the Coke Zero colder doesn't eliminate its 0.5 calories/serving. It just means your body has to expend more energy staying alive after you try to chill it down. — LlywelynII 15:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, however if the coke is cold enough, it would mean more calories were expended in warming the beverage than were contained in the beverage itself.Confuciusdragon (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The real answer is the world of lousy sourcing. See below. [Oh, but neither water nor Coke is a food.] — LlywelynII 15:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)