Is it true...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 6:20 PM GMT
    that foods like cucumber or celery are so low in caloric intake that the effort of chewing/digesting them actually burns calories?
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Aug 22, 2007 6:27 PM GMT
    It might be so but I'm not into sitting by the pool eating a bunch of raw veggies (like I saw some guy do the other day!)

    Get on a program you will stick to (diet and exercise) and weigh your food.
    I'd recommend Body For Life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 6:38 PM GMT
    LOL - I'm not looking to diet my friend. It was just something I heard and wondered whether there was any truth to it. :)

    NICK
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 6:44 PM GMT
    I believe they are considered something called negative calorie foods.

    I would TOTALLY sit by a pool and eat raw fruits and veggies! YUM!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 6:46 PM GMT
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_calorie_diet

  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Aug 22, 2007 6:53 PM GMT
    Rocco, an apple: YES, a raw potato: NO!
  • MikePhilPerez

    Posts: 4357

    Aug 22, 2007 6:53 PM GMT
    My Sister told me that once. Not sure if it is true or not.

    Mike
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 7:00 PM GMT
    OH NO...not a raw one... though from what i gather raw ones have the most nutrients. I do enjoy raw carrots, celery, cucumbers, peppers and such though, even more exotic veggies like snopeas i like raw.

    ACTUALLY... i just wish i were by a pool right now instead of at work LOL

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 7:04 PM GMT
    supposed to get to 110 today - definitely pool weather.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 7:09 PM GMT
    if you have a grill or george forman, try slicing your potatoes and grilling them. it will keep the nutrients without killing most of them as you do when you microwave or boil.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 7:10 PM GMT
    "...it will keep the nutrients without killing most of them..."

    I support the right to life for all nutrients!!!

    :-)
  • MikePhilPerez

    Posts: 4357

    Aug 22, 2007 7:11 PM GMT
    The only way to eat a carrot is raw.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 7:12 PM GMT
    Of course, as many here know, there are other things you can do with a carrot that burn more calories than you take in (from the carrot)....

    :-)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 7:14 PM GMT
    uh...
  • MikePhilPerez

    Posts: 4357

    Aug 22, 2007 7:18 PM GMT
    LOL
  • MikePhilPerez

    Posts: 4357

    Aug 22, 2007 7:19 PM GMT
    Have you never done it Nick. :)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 8:00 PM GMT
    well, while I'm not entirely certain what the reference was, if I go gutter and guess, then the answer would have to be nooooo. I've grown them, picked them, peeled and slivered, sliced and minced them, but never, mounted them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 8:32 PM GMT
    I remember that my Great-Granddad would sometimes carry a potato and a salt shaker in his pocket as "lunch." But raw potatoes are actually rather toxic. Long-term consumption can lead to liver damage and other bad results, especially if eaten on an empty stomach.
  • DenveRyk

    Posts: 167

    Aug 22, 2007 8:34 PM GMT
    "The only way to eat a carrot is raw."

    Raw?? The one eating, or the carrot?!? lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2007 10:34 PM GMT
    Going on what swimbikerun said....

    Although weighing food is the best way to get accurate measurements of food in regards to calories/fat/etc.... I found out that using visual references work the best for me... Most people don't have a scale at home, nor do any of us take scales with us to restaurants... Example... a serving of meat is about the size of a deck of cards... etc...

    AND... The BodyForLife program is great!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2007 12:02 AM GMT
    My partner occasionally will munch on a raw potato.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2007 12:14 AM GMT
    Apparently Paris Hilton has declared cum a negative calorie food. She's thin, who can argue?



    I'll be here all week boys. Tip your waiters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2007 1:29 AM GMT
    what kind of freak eats a raw potato?

    :)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 23, 2007 4:17 AM GMT
    I love to eat raw veggies too. Snowpeas, cauliflower, tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, celery, carrots, lettuce - at least half my diet is salads with little dressing.

    As for the erotic side of carrots, I've met a few that looked interesting, but it turned out they were straight. Now Parsnips, definitely a queer vegetable. I got whistles and catcalls walking past a row of them at the grocer. I checked em' out but decided to turn them down, I acted all snooty and disinterested, but really the size was intimidating *blush*.
    -------

    As for calorie counting - what an art. You'd think it was science and it could be but generally it's practice is an art. A calorie is a measure of heat given off when you burn something. NOTHING catchs fire in your body. So to get the accurate calorie content of a Big Mac you'd need to burn one in a calorimeter to get the maximum calories. Then eat one - on a completely empty digestive tract and empty bladder. Measure any urine generated by consumption of the Big Mac and burn it. Measure any fecal matter generated and burn it. Then subtract the urine and fecal caloric counts from the total for a Big Mac.

    Food packagers do not express likely 'waste' calories for their food. So your 120 calorie snack has no indication on it saying only 80 calories is likely to be absorbed.
    Comparied to a 100 calories snack where 90 is absorbed, its more attractive for dieters.

    Also, mixing foods could change how they digest and the amount of calories absorbed by the body. Volume of food could be another variable. Speed of your intestines would matter.
    Different people may digest foods completely differently. Both could eat a piece of pie with 450 calories and one absorbs 300 and the other 250.

    I think it would be interesting to be involved in scientific research that studied food and calorie absorbtion. Maybe there are genetic classes of people who have specific digestive strengths and weaknesses. Being genotyped might help you determine the right diet.

    If calorie counting works for you, great! I have trouble taking it too seriously when I know alot of the numbers are just guesswork.