What are some foods that burn more calories being digested than they contain? I think grapefruit is one, but are there some others?
asparagus, apples, beets, berries, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, celery, chili, cucumbers, garlic, lettuce, grapefruits, lemons, mangos, onions, oranges, papayas, pineapples, spinach, turnips, zucchini
So all those would be pretty good for snacks I guess then? I could deal with celery or cucumbers.
celery and hummus makes for a great snack
"What are some foods that burn more calories being digested than they contain?"
if they did that, why would people have eaten them in the past?
"if they did that, why would people have eaten them in the past?"
Vitamins and minerals?
i doubt about fruits too.
how about black coffee, water, and diet soda?
they bring 0 calories and you use some energy to ingest them
The "burn more digesting then you take in" idea is a myth.
how can it be a myth?
If i eat ice, it will bring 0 calories in my system. However, i will spend a few calories to take it, put it in my mouth and chew it. Not alot of calories spent, but still more than 0. So if you do the maths you will burn more calories than you ingest eating ice cubes.
(Also, your body will use calories to keep warm when eating cold ice)
eating ice is bad for your teeth
I would think most leafy greens but definitely not fruit.
i have yet to see information regarding "negative calorie foods" that provide any hard numbers for actual number of calories burned in the consumption and digestion of a foodstuff. if you have any i'd love to see them. if you don't, you're really just perpetuating someone else's money-making scheme.
Before we explain why it would take more calories to metabolize some foods and not others let take a quick look at how calories are used. Let's say you eat a piece of cake before bed that contains 350 calories, and most of that is all from sugar. Your body expends 75 calories digesting that piece of cake leaving you with a net gain of 275 calories. Where do those extra calories go? Straight to fat storage. Now let's say you eat a negative calorie food like a grapefruit (some of you are probably familiar with the grapefruit diet fads) that has 35 calories. If it takes the body 90 calories to digest and metabolize that grapefruit your body will have burned an extra 55 calories with no additional work from you.
How does this happen? Most negative calorie foods fall into the fruits and vegetables families. Because fruits and vegetables are nutrient dense and contain lots of fiber the digestive system must work extra hard to extract these nutrients for use by the body. The high fiber content also contributes to the negative calorie phenomenon because fiber digestion is one of the most energy intensive processes the body undertakes when it comes to metabolizing food.
some food and drinks have very little or no calories at all (like water and black coffee), but your body needs to work to ingest and digest it.
Work = spent calories
Even if the calories spent to digest it are very little it can still be negative.
And seriously, how can anyone scam me for money with that? It's just simple energy balance
Besides chewing and the motility of the intestines where are these calories being burned. Most of digestion/breakdown is caused by the acid in your stomache. I can't see creating stomache acid cost much energy. This theory is highly suspect.
"If it takes the body 90 calories to digest and metabolize that grapefruit your body will have burned an extra 55 calories with no additional work from you."
Serious lol at needing 90 calories to digest a piece of grapefruit. Did you have to reach far into your ass to pull that out?
"(some of you are probably familiar with the grapefruit diet fads)"
And that's how people make money off this stuff.
Water, diet soda, and coffee aren't foods.
i got that off of a couple of different health websites, whether it is true or not i don't know, just trying to help out
-- Where do those extra calories go? Straight to fat storage. --
this is false
-- i got that off of a couple of different health websites, whether it is true or not i don't know, just trying to help out --
and those 'health websites' failed to site their references because it doesn't look good in the footnotes to see ' Extracted from ass.'