Talk:Negative-calorie food

Un-wiki-like tone

"And let's remember, calorie burning does not equal calorie intake. The calorie is a measure of potential energy, your body doesn't see it that way. It doesn't use all you've consumed for energy. Once it's broken down, most of it is absorbed and used to support the body's operations, not just fueling it."

I don't think this sounds professional, the use of "let's" and "your". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.204.146 (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Something has to be misleading in article

The article gives an example of negative calorie diet where the people lost 13 pounds (5.9 kg) over fourteen weeks. Negative calorie suggests you should lose more weight than not eating anything. Air has zero calories. You can look up the facts that you will definitely lose magnitudes more weight than 13 lbs per 14 weeks. More like 2 to 4 lbs per *day* if you don't eat anything! 108.93.181.106 (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There were a number of problems with some recent additions to the article. I have reverted to a long-standing older version which should resolve your concerns. Can you have a look and see if the article sense to you now? Deli nk (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Cold Water Etc

Just wanted to point out, for future reference, that cold water (and any other chilled zero-calorie food) is only calorie negative on the assumption that the body needs to warm up. But this is only true when the ambient temperature is low enough and the body is expending energy specifically to heat itself up. By contrast, when the ambient temperature is high and the body is trying to cool itself down (as is common in many hot countries) drinking cold zero-calorie drinks is likely to decrease the number of calories the body spends trying to cool down. Either way the effect is likely to be extremely minimal if it exists at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.7.243 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

So-called controversy

Not limited to this article because the same problem occurs in many articles, but I want to object to the use of the heading "controversy" in a case like this. There is no legitimate dispute about this topic, there are not two sides to the story, the evidence is clear and overwhelming. When one "side" is undisputed truth and the other "side" is engaged in willful lying, the result is not legitimately controversial; by using that word, far too much credit is being given to people making stupid claims like the existence of negative-calorie foods. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Controversy simply means "disagreement". It doesn't necessarily mean that one side isn't right and the other wrong, ignorant, and foolish. 199.204.56.215 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Broken reference

The only reference to the idea that drinking ice water burns calories - something obviously supported by the laws of thermodynamics - is broken. The sentence should be removed, or referenced properly.

The math behind this is simple and indisputable. It uses 1 food-caloroe (1Kcal) to heat 1L of water 1 degree Celsius. So if someone drinks 2 500ML glasses of 5 degree water a day, this will burn 32 calories. There is no ifs, ands, or buts here.

I2605:B100:B03:2604:99A2:3375:DAA2:8A2A (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

linked archived version --Cubbi (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Just for your education and anyone reading this. An explanation why this is wrong was already given above (according to the time stamps earler). Yes it will teak 32 calories of heat to warm up that water. That does not mean it will "burn" calories. Providing this heat may or may not require work which depends on the status of the human engine. Note that humans already produce heat as a side effect so often no extra work and thus no extra fuel is required.

If this isn't clear enough perhaps it helps to think of the opposite process. If I have a fridge trying to maintain a low temperature and I put ice blocks in it. Will this "burn" additional electricity. The answer is no. Yes the ice will melt and warm up. Yes this consumes heat. No this does not cost additional fuel. Abenthy (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Chewing Gum revisited

If we believe the source on Chewing gum (I did not check the quality of the research) the conclusion made in this article (without any citation and not representing the conclusion of the scientific source cited) should be almost the opposite of what it is now. Chewing gum with less than 2kcal per serving are readily available. (Should I link a commercial source?). This means that chewing it for 11 minutes would result in a net negative calorie intake. Chewing one gum for 11 minutes seems reasonable. This makes the opposite point of the 10kcal per serving number that was chosen before which resulted in the somewhat unreasonable requirement of chewing a piece of gum for a full hour in order to achieve a net negative effect.

Abenthy (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)