Talk:Negative-calorie food

message: "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)
thread_title:  Un-wiki-like tone 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Something has to be misleading in article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cold Water Etc 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  So-called controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chewing Gum revisited