I’ve learned as a trainer the importance of putting myself in my clients’/prospective clients’ shoes. Not literally, although high heels do make my calves look even sexier (as if that’s even possible).
What I mean is that topics I might find satisfying to preach and blog about may be a total bore for women who just want to know what to do to get into peak shape.
It would be very tempting to turn my blog into a reverse chronological pile of research reviews, especially considering how many of my fellow trainers and health/fitness professionals I would impress with what would no doubt be the most cutting edge, groundbreaking website of it’s kind.
The fact is however, I am a trainer at heart and only keep up with the research to the extent I do because it’s absolutely necessary in weaning my clients off of the typical “ready, fire, aim” approach that took them from wherever they started to wherever they were when they began working with me (usually stalled, and just short of their ideal body). Basically, my new clients need proof that my methods are the best IN THE UNIVERSE.
That said, I do feel the need from time to time to delve into more complex topics that I don’t feel have been done justice, which by my definition means nobody on the first page of Google has gotten it right (hint: rhymes with Schmick Schma Schmedia).
These topics require that I get all nerdy and actually cite research, which you will be quizzed on at your first session with the best trainer who ever lived (tell Richard Simmons I said hi by the way). This post falls into that category of complex topics, although I am going to compromise and keep it short.
"You can do it girls! Just ten more chews to go!"
There is something I’m still hearing people nearly as smart as me talk about that drives me crazy!: It’s “Negative Calorie Food”. This post will discuss what they are saying, where they’re wrong and whether it makes much difference at the end of the day:
“Certain foods are considered Negative Calorie and therefore don’t need to be included in your daily calorie count.” This is interesting because there are different interpretations of what causes a so-called negative calorie food to have no energy yield…and flat out amazing in how the concept has tricked even some fairly educated people into thinking it’s legit.
I don’t know which myth the Negative Calorie concept (and the popular diets which revolve around it) was originally intended to be based on, but here are the three most popular:
“You burn more calories chewing these foods than what they actually contain.”
“It takes more calories to attempt to digest these foods than what they actually contain.”
“These foods are made up primarily of insoluble fiber and water, which has no caloric yield.”
I feel the first statement has been disproved enough (and is ridiculous enough) that I won’t go any further than to say it’s simply not true. The act of chewing barely even brings your caloric output above basal, regardless of what you’re eating.
The same can be said to a lesser extent about the second statement…and it has been enough times that I’ll be short here too. The idea is that some foods require more from the digestive system to be metabolized than others (Thermic Effect of Food, or TEF).
This is true, but it only accounts for an average of 10% of the calories contained in the food. Most of the foods on the “Negative Calorie” lists are a little higher than 10%, but nowhere near 101%…which is what their TEF would have to be for them to qualify. RIP myth #2.
The third statement however is a bit more complex. Everything I’ve found doing the same google searches most people would do has either blindly confirmed the statement (at best pointing to flawed evidence) or rejected it without completely closing the book, if you will.
The argument is that these foods are made up mostly of insoluble fiber, which many still falsely think cannot be digested and converted to energy. The alleged result is a net calorie loss attributed to the digestive system’s “futile” efforts to metabolize the fiber (maybe these people should make up a new scientific terminology while they’re at it…like ‘Thermic Effect of Farting’ or something).
More health and fitness quackery
What they’re missing is that most forms of insoluble fiber are actually fermented to short chain fats, and fats do contain calories. So while some of the fiber does pass through your system (decided against posting a picture), enough of it is converted and stored that there is definitely a net calorie gain, thus debunking myth #3. Piece of cake… something harder next time.
Oh wait, there is something harder. This one took some research…which to me means reading studies, not Bodybuilding.com forum post archives. Fun stuff. So here it is…your bonus myth:
“Foods like celery and cabbage are primarily cellulose and water…and cellulose cannot be metabolized by humans.”
Good one, I must admit. Although my killer personal training instinct (which is one of many reasons I’m the best there ever was) told me there was no way ANY food…even celery…could possibly be calorie negative, there was a brief period where I was worried I might be wrong.
Fortunately, I found the info I was looking for and my “being right” streak is still intact. Studies going WAY back have shown plant cellulose (as opposed to refined) to be at least somewhat digestible, and that it is in fact fermented to short chain fats and stored.
So, RIP all versions of the “Negative Calorie” myth. Unfortunately, my search engine optimization skills suck so badly that this post will probably be buried in the pile of related yet substandard articles, but at least you can hold your head high knowing you’re one of three people who’ve been enlightened (you’re welcome).
Now finally, on to the significance and practicality of the whole thing. You may be asking yourself the following question:
Does this mean I wasted my money on the Negative Calorie/Cabbage Soup/Grapefruit diet?
Not necessarily. While the foods these books tout are not going to directly put you in a caloric deficit as claimed, they are way healthier and lower in calories than many of the alternatives. I mean you could be snacking on a snickers bar instead of those celery sticks.
If the manner in which the program is “pitched” to you is motivating enough to make you adhere to it, and you use it to put yourself into the amount of caloric deficit or surplus you need to be in to reach your goals…I’m all for it. I can’t say I would recommend it for bikini or figure competitors looking to increase their lean body mass, but it could be adapted for fitness models and competitors nearing a competition/event.
So long story short, all of this posts’ negativity and general whining was to tell you that while there is still no miracle diet out there, there are plenty of options and room for individual preferences as long as the body’s energy requirements are met.
Research Cited:
Am J Clin Nutr. 1995 Nov;62(5 Suppl):1158S-1160S. Contribution of fiber and resistant starch to metabolizable energy. Behall, KM, Howe JC
J Nutr. 1981 Feb;111(2):287-97. Neutral detergent fiber, hemicellulose and cellulose digestibility in human subjects. Slavin JL, Brauer PM, Marlett JA.
Gastroenterology 1982; 82: 1389-94. Quantification of the fate of dietary fiber in humans by a newly developed radiolabeled fiber marker. Carryer PW, Brown ML, Malagelada JR, Carlson GL, McCall JT.
