Foods that BURN calories
S10...@webtv.net
average person uses about 30 calories of body energy digesting and
preparing this steak for body use. That means that he or she will
actually net 220 calories from the 250-calorie steak. These extra 220
calories may be burned up by exercise, work, sleep, or play. If they are
not used, they will probably be stored by the body as an ounce of fat.
Now, let's look at a 6 ounce orange. All the same processes involved in
the digestion of that piece of steak must also take place to digest an
orange. The same whirling and twirling of the digestive system, the same
physical and chemical processes occur- there is not much difference. BUT
THE BODY MUST BURN MORE CALORIES TO DIGEST AN ORANGE THAN A PIECE OF
STEAK!
6 ounces of orange will, on average, give you about 80 calories of
energy. If, for instance, it takes the body 110 calories of energy to
digest the orange, then the orange eater would burn off the 80 calories
that the orange is going to produce plus 30 more calories that are going
to come from.......?????
Where would these extra calories come from? The body cannot find them in
the orange, SO THEY MUST EVENTUALLY COME FROM STORED BODY FAT!
An orange is one of the many foods that I call a "Minus Food", A food
that costs the body more calories to digest, than the food is worth to
the body. Eating nothing but oranges will cause a weight loss. But it
would be unhealthy to eat just one food all the time and who would want
to live off of just oranges?
What I have available is a full report that lists over a hundred of
these "Minus Foods", As well as, a recommended 7 day diet with
interchangeable foods from the list, that WILL quickly produce a
dramatic weight loss, when followed.
Eat a variety and as much as you want of these foods, the more you eat,
the more stored calories will be burned in the process of digesting
these foods. Or, if you prefer, add these foods to your present diet for
an increase in weight loss.
Eating these foods had been medically proven to cause 3-TIMES more
weight loss than STARVATION!
The information about these foods and their "reverse calorie" effects
was discoverd by a doctor in 1929. This information has been supressed
and will continue to be kept from the general public, as it would cause
our multi-billion dollar "fat free" and "diet pill" industry to collapse
overnight. This report is truly something that neither you nor I were
ever intended to see- do not expect to see it availabe again anywhere
else any time soon. I will send you this report, you will have it within
10 days.
Send your name and address with a check or money order in the amount of
$22.00 (that's $20 plus $2 shipping) to:
Skyprojects Minus Foods
P.O. BOX 150566
Cape Coral, Florida 33915-0566
Make checks and money orders payable to Skyprojects. You may also send
well-concealed cash at your own risk. You will have this report within10
days!
malc...@home.com
diet. " The same whirling and twirling of the digestive system" <<<<----- I
can see you've researched this thoroughly.
In article <12008-36...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>, S10...@webtv.net
wrote:
Denise Howard
> Now, let's look at a 6 ounce orange. All the same processes involved in
> the digestion of that piece of steak must also take place to digest an
> orange. The same whirling and twirling of the digestive system, the same
> physical and chemical processes occur- there is not much difference. BUT
> THE BODY MUST BURN MORE CALORIES TO DIGEST AN ORANGE THAN A PIECE OF
> STEAK!
That's ridiculous. An orange is all carbohydrate, while a steak is mostly
protein and fat with only a small amount of carbohydrate. The process to
break down the steak to the nutrient level for cell storage is much longer
and more complex than for the orange. You would know this if you'd read
even the most rudimentary description of how metabolism works. Research
has come a long way since 1929 (if indeed this "theory" was ever
"discovered" then at all).
This is the most laughable posting I've seen in ages.
Denise
ACE and AFAA certified fitness instructor
AFAA step certified
AEJ
that do burn calories????? Can I have it??
Denise Howard wrote in message <73fg1d$n9s$1...@news.idiom.com>...
Denise Howard
> I must have missed the beginning of this thread...Was there a list of foods
> that do burn calories????? Can I have it??
You didn't read my posting, did you? There are NO FOODS WHICH YIELD
NEGATIVE CALORIES. The whole idea is ridiculous. Anyway, the original
poster claims to have a list of a hundred or so "minus" foods, which
they'll sell you for $22. Save your money for a new pair of walking
shoes.
Siggers/Mela
>
> I must have missed the beginning of this thread...Was there a list of foods
> that do burn calories????? Can I have it??
> >In misc.fitness.aerobic S10...@webtv.net wrote:
> >> Now, let's look at a 6 ounce orange. All the same processes involved in
> >> the digestion of that piece of steak must also take place to digest an
> >> orange. The same whirling and twirling of the digestive system, the same
> >> physical and chemical processes occur- there is not much difference. BUT
> >> THE BODY MUST BURN MORE CALORIES TO DIGEST AN ORANGE THAN A PIECE OF
> >> STEAK!
> >
> >That's ridiculous. An orange is all carbohydrate, while a steak is mostly
> >protein and fat with only a small amount of carbohydrate. The process to
> >break down the steak to the nutrient level for cell storage is much longer
> >and more complex than for the orange. You would know this if you'd read
> >even the most rudimentary description of how metabolism works. Research
> >has come a long way since 1929 (if indeed this "theory" was ever
> >"discovered" then at all).
> >
> >This is the most laughable posting I've seen in ages.
True answer, Denise, but maybe not complete enough. This type of error
(e.g., "fat burning foods", "negative calorie foods", oranges vs steak,
etc,) comes up over and over, and is really due to a common
misunderstanding of how the caloric values in food tables are derived.
These values have ALREADY taken into account the differences in
digestibility and metabolic transformations/losses associated with
different nutrients. Thus, it is fundamentally incorrect to take the
book values (e.g., of an orange vs steak) and try to adjust them (again)
for differences in composition and metabolism.
More detail:
Bomb calorimetry sets the total available caloric value of the food
material ingested, its "gross energy value" (i.e., what you get if you
literally set it alight and burn it completely). This is then corrected
for estimated digestive and urinary losses associated with different
macronutrients (carb, protein, fat), to give a "physiological fuel
value" - which rounds off to the typical 4,4,9, respectively (and 7 for
alcohol), the values that are used for food composition tables and
labelling purposes. For other dietary constituents (sugar alcohols,
fibres, etc.), there can indeed be problems deriving specific values for
digestive losses and the potential energy value of metabolic and gut
fermentation by-products, but these would generally have a NEGLIGIBLE
impact on overall dietary energy value. There are also some other
potential complications to all this, but the basic points above are fine
for practical purposes and typical human adult diets.
Agreed, though, there are no foods which provide negative calories. Hope
this clarifies the issue.
[Sorry, I don't follow these newsgroups regularly, so am unlikely to
respond to further posts]
- Dave