Foods that burn more than contain?

-- dude there isn't that much money in growing celery... --

people 'sell' this information. other people buy it. there doesn't seem to be any hard science behind it. hence 'scam'. i'm asking for the science, but i haven't been able to find any yet. if i find some, i'll revise my opinion based on that new information.

-- 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. --

you're making an assumption that there exists a situation such that the amount of energy extracted from the foodstuff is less than the amount needed to digest it. it seems reasonable that this calorie deficit could take place for something like water, which is a vital nutrient for the body. it also seems reasonable that it may be worthwhile, from a survival perspective, to be willing to expend more energy than you gain in order to liberate micronutrients in the foodstuff. but you have no real numbers to back up any real assertion that this is somehow an effective way to snack or lose weight. it's all "well imagine..." or "well it's OBVIOUS..." without providing any evidence.

It works on the fact that you need a certain amount of calories to maintain your body weight not from the amount of calories it takes to digest the food. (as was stated most of this is done by acids)

For example if it takes 80 calories an hour for me to maintain a body weight of 190lbs and I only eat veggies for lunch I'm in the negative.

The idea is sound you just can't load up your celery with high fat peanut butter.

"For example if it takes 80 calories an hour for me to maintain a body weight of 190lbs and I only eat veggies for lunch I'm in the negative."

If you take in less calories then your body burns you'll loss weight? Get out of here.

"but you have no real numbers to back up any real assertion that this is somehow an effective way to snack or lose weight"

i never said it is a effective way to snack or lose weight

-- i never said it is a effective way to snack or lose weight --

i guess i got confused since it was the original premise of the thread. 'water' unfortunately isn't a food and so doesn't really apply to your argument. black coffee and diet soda are not particularly clearly-defined foods either since they have roughly zero nutritive value. they both typically contain caffeine, which can be argued elevates metabolism. but back to the original premise of this thread (not directed at quoted poster in particular) this would be a metabolism issue, not a calorie deficit derived strictly from digestion.

I too would be interested in research quantifying exactly how much energy is required to ingest process and expel a piece of celery.

I can't quite buy that this is an effective way to do much of anything though, considering the majority of your base energy consumption is used to maintain body temp and run your brain. A small part of the rest may be used to process food, but even if you knock off 50 calories (a generous amount imo) by eating some celery, what is 50 calories out of 2500? 2%. Whoopdeedoo.

Well, the bigger point is simply that you're adding bulk (so you get satiety, and you get fiber), and at least some nutrients, with zero Cals added. Your deficit might be tiny, but it's an alternative to a surplus.

True, but you have to maintain some level of caloric intake, even if you're trying to lose weight. So it may make it easier to avoid overeating, but calories you're not getting from that meal you have to make up later on. To me it seems more like shuffling around calories, not eliminating them.

well, eating only those sorts of foods is basically a fiber-fast (with some minerals, perhaps vitamins, added).

I don't think the idea is to survive on only those foods, just a way to take in food without taking in Cals. Use them to increase the volume of a meal without increasing Cals, that's all. (Or as standalone snacks in some cases; but not as sole food sources!)

-- To me it seems more like shuffling around calories, not eliminating them. --

that seems to be a reasonable outlook on the whole thing. the whole 'negative calorie' idea seems to me like an attempt to micro-manage the daily calorie balance/deficit.

Sweet Jesus, it's better to snack on celery than to clean out a box of Krispy Kreme. I think a few of you guys are making some crazy assumptions.

"Sweet Jesus, it's better to snack on celery than to clean out a box of Krispy Kreme. I think a few of you guys are making some crazy assumptions."

I didn't notice where anybody suggested substituting donuts for celery.

-- Sweet Jesus, it's better to snack on celery than to clean out a box of Krispy Kreme. I think a few of you guys are making some crazy assumptions. --

no one said celery was a bad snack. some of us are just questioning the validity of the claim that there exist 'negative calorie' foods.

and those 'health websites' failed to site their references because it doesn't look good in the footnotes to see '[1] Extracted from ass.'

lol, seriously laughing out loud!

"Sweet Jesus, it's better to snack on celery than to clean out a box of Krispy Kreme. I think a few of you guys are making some crazy assumptions."

Pot, kettle; kettle, pot.

;)

The original poster asked for zero calorie snack foods, not for your guy's bank accounts. Nobody is selling anything on this thread.