I started a thread some weeks with a title something like 1500 cake calories vs. 1500 healthy food calories. Were they the same?

Since I have come across the term "negative calorie". What is means though is having a "negative effect" when metabolised.

For example, a grapefruit may have 35 calories but it takes your body 90 calories to burn it...then you "save" 55 calories.

There is a list and I started adding more foods from that list to my diet. As I stated before I didnt eat particularly unhealthy, processed foods etc...just wasnt losing weight when I exercise 4-5 times every week.

But I think the negative calorie foods HAVE made a different that my boyfriend can tell.....

http://www.natural-fatloss.com/negat...-food-list.htm

Be in Shape: natural fat-burning

Been done mate.

Having said that, pick your own blackberries are meant to be negative calories. That is, the energy required to pick them is greater than continuously eating them. Otherwise, negative calorie foods don't exist.

On a related note, I read a recent article about a US professor, a specialist in nutrition, who ate nothing but "junk food" for 70 days, but restricted his daily intake to just 1800 calories. By the end, he had lost 20lbs, his LDL (bad cholesterol) was reduced and HDL (good cholesterol) was increased. Goes to show it may simply just be a case of how much you eat, irrespective of the quality of the food.

Of course if you convert a twix entirely to energy, it contains ten trillion calories.

And breaking your biscuits before you eat them doesn't make the calories fall out

If you are very still when you eat, your food will be lower in calories. Same if you are very cold.

I did do a search on the forum to see any topics with Negative Calories BEFORE writing this.

But it is nice to get all the clever feedback from mostly EF veterans.

........

No such thing, only way to lose weight is to burn more calories then you take in.

You can't have - I just typed Negative Calories and got the thread that I linked above.

Sugar-free chewing gum has to be the ultimate anti-matter of the calorie-counting universe:

no calories but so many calories burned up chewing it. Not to mention the energy used spitting it out and then the guy who scrapes it off his shoe, removes it from the floor etc etc...

I'm sure sweet corn is negative cals as you can chew it for ages and it still comes out the other end looking the same as it did before you started.


But seriously I think things like Asparagus and Celery are difficult to digest and do therefore use more cals than they contain


(i read it on tinternet therefore it must be true).

It isn't true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_calorie_food

and there was me about to embark on the celery diet.
back to the beer and chocolate.

Whether the calories or negative or not, if its working (and it sounds as though it is) its all good !

I always liked Billy Connolly's idea of the "Mars Bar Diet".

Eat as much as you like of whatever you like, stick a mars bar up your ar*e and get a rottweiler to chase you. That should get rid of the calories.

if wikipedia says it....the there you wikipedi-go!!!

But I think there is something to it....not to ONLY eat such foods...but there are foods if eaten alone for a snack....do take more calories to digest.

It seems simple...and if science can prove it...can they DISPROVE it?

what else do they have to do all day these scientist???

OK - very clearly now: there is no food that takes more energy to burn than it supplies to the body. None. Now go have a cheeseburger.

If that's your attitude, then just believe what you want to believe and don't bother asking questions you might not like the answer to. Don't worry, you're not alone, billions of people do it.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...896346,00.html

"La-la-la-la, I can't hear you!"