Talk:Negative-calorie food

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Negative calorie food)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 

What about Grass[edit]

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)

The magicalworldof wikipedia[edit]

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 [1]. 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)

Zero-calorie foods and beverages[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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  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)

  • 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)

Celery as a positive calorie food[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 02:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Negative calorie beverage[edit]

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[edit]

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)

NPOV & RS[edit]

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)]

Caloric expense of heating cold water[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Vandalism[edit]

@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[edit]

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)