No food contains fewer calories than it takes to digest (damn!)

[LeeLee]

Dieters looking for a quick fix may turn to the promise of negative-calorie foods. But can eating actually burn calories?

Who, Why, What: Can foods have negative calories?

 

[Northerner]

As a doctor focused on obesity and nutrition, Dr Garvey maintains that the only real way to lose weight is the boring, old-fashioned, unsatisfying and ultimately successful method: eat fewer calories than you burn through exercise - not digestion.

What's he on about, boring and unsatisfying? Exercise can be both enjoyable and invigorating and you get rewarded by endorphins! 🙂

Oh, and celery? Ugh!!!! 😱

 

[Dory]

Strawberries apparently burn more calories (in chewing/swallowing/digesting) than they contain.

But I don't eat them for that I eat them coz they're lurvely 🙂

 

[Vicsetter]

Strawberries apparently burn more calories (in chewing/swallowing/digesting) than they contain.

But I don't eat them for that I eat them coz they're lurvely 🙂

Not true 1 strawberry is 6 cal, and doesn't take much chewing/swallowing/digesting esp compared to celery.

 

[HOBIE]

Fish & fish, No batter, & i often have a cellery or 2

 

[Andy HB]

Not true 1 strawberry is 6 cal, and doesn't take much chewing/swallowing/digesting esp compared to celery.

Eating them whilst running a marathon might result in a negative calorie position?