Author Topic: negative calories  (Read 5349 times)

ACE

  • Hectare
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,424
negative calories
« on: January 12, 2016, 11:01:24 »
As it is the diet season, yes me as well. I was reading that celery takes more calories to prepare and eat than it puts in, it started me thinking about the rest of our own grown crops. Every one of them should be negative calories as the calories used in preparing the ground, sowing, tending, harvesting and eating should far outweigh the ones they are putting in your body. So if I only ate my own crops and nothing else I will become so thin I would not even cast a shadow.

Should I patent this diet plan as I reckon it's a winner. I will grow a couple of rows of sugar beet, hops and barley, needn't use them just go through the motions.

daveyboi

  • Hectare
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,567
  • Have fun enjoy your allotment
    • Daveyboi's Blog and personal website
Re: negative calories
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2016, 11:16:11 »
A very interesting point and although that is correct in the basic theory I can not see you fading away living on your produce somehow.
Some crops are indeed energy intensive however others are probably a lot less than the crop produced I guess.
Daveyboi
Near Haywards Heath Southern U.K.

Visit My Blog if you would like to

Bill Door

  • Acre
  • ****
  • Posts: 375
  • Calne Wilts The builders put down clayish soil
Re: negative calories
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2016, 14:59:02 »
well Ace if you grow loads of beans (pulses) and a select few other vegetables on a 5 acre plot then i think you would be ok.

How many years, without substantial food, would it take for you to get to nearly not casting a shadow? :toothy10:

Bill

galina

  • Hectare
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,462
  • Johanniskirchen
Re: negative calories
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2016, 15:23:32 »
Isn't the rule of thumb that you need an acre of good land per person.  Hens (other animals), wood and cereal etc included?  If a ten rod (large) allotment is supposed to produce all the veg for a family of four, there's no need for 5 acres.  In Ace's case it would be far too much energy expended to cultivate these 5 acres.  And we don't want him to waste away, do we?  :tongue3:

   

Bill Door

  • Acre
  • ****
  • Posts: 375
  • Calne Wilts The builders put down clayish soil
Re: negative calories
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2016, 18:11:09 »
You forget Galina that ace has a very big  thumb :blob7:

Bill

P.S.  I think he has a long rule as well!!!

Silverleaf

  • Hectare
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,235
  • Chesterfield, clay, acidic
    • The Rainbow Pea Project
Re: negative calories
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2016, 16:18:00 »
I'm afraid the idea of "calorie-negative" foods is an urban myth. A stick of celery is somewhere between 6 and 10 calories. Chewing and digesting it only burns off somewhere between 0.5 and 2 calories, depending on the person (and what you've eaten it with and how muscular and insulin-resistant you are).

If you wanted to make your single stick of celery effectively 0 calories or less, you'd have to chew it for the best part of an hour!

Of course veggies can help weight loss, but their value is in filling you up with water and fibre so you eat less of the calorie-dense foods.

Pescador

  • Hectare
  • *****
  • Posts: 953
Re: negative calories
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2016, 18:10:53 »
" I will grow a couple of rows of sugar beet, hops and barley, needn't use them just go through the motions."
Ace, I think your imagination has used-up a load of calories thinking of this!!
Like us on Facebook. Paul's Preserves and Pickles.
Miskin, Pontyclun. S. Wales.
Every pickle helps!

ancellsfarmer

  • Hectare
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,335
  • Plot is London clay, rich in Mesozoic fossils
Re: negative calories
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2016, 20:02:42 »
I'm afraid the idea of "calorie-negative" foods is an urban myth. A stick of celery is somewhere between 6 and 10 calories. Chewing and digesting it only burns off somewhere between 0.5 and 2 calories, depending on the person (and what you've eaten it with and how muscular and insulin-resistant you are).

If you wanted to make your single stick of celery effectively 0 calories or less, you'd have to chew it for the best part of an hour!

Of course veggies can help weight loss, but their value is in filling you up with water and fibre so you eat less of the calorie-dense foods.
Surely the equation should factor in the 20 weeks caring it takes to mature, the amount of energy sapping action taken to cultivate, and cart composts and manure. Not forgetting the countless trips to the communal tap, carrying lots of water at 10 pounds per gallon uphill and across sites just to get the crop to a harvestable size. Also the effort into earthing up, patrolling for pests, keeping down weeds and finally hauling the harvest back home. Never mind food miles, its very energy consuming. Compare with your neighbour who simply emails T**co to arrange a supply delivered to the door. Now they are the folk who get fat!!!
Freelance cultivator qualified within the University of Life.

Silverleaf

  • Hectare
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,235
  • Chesterfield, clay, acidic
    • The Rainbow Pea Project
Re: negative calories
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2016, 21:41:00 »
I'm afraid the idea of "calorie-negative" foods is an urban myth. A stick of celery is somewhere between 6 and 10 calories. Chewing and digesting it only burns off somewhere between 0.5 and 2 calories, depending on the person (and what you've eaten it with and how muscular and insulin-resistant you are).

If you wanted to make your single stick of celery effectively 0 calories or less, you'd have to chew it for the best part of an hour!

Of course veggies can help weight loss, but their value is in filling you up with water and fibre so you eat less of the calorie-dense foods.
Surely the equation should factor in the 20 weeks caring it takes to mature, the amount of energy sapping action taken to cultivate, and cart composts and manure. Not forgetting the countless trips to the communal tap, carrying lots of water at 10 pounds per gallon uphill and across sites just to get the crop to a harvestable size. Also the effort into earthing up, patrolling for pests, keeping down weeds and finally hauling the harvest back home. Never mind food miles, its very energy consuming. Compare with your neighbour who simply emails T**co to arrange a supply delivered to the door. Now they are the folk who get fat!!!

Well it takes about 15 minutes of running to burn off 100 calories, which is 10-15 sticks of celery or about 1 celery plant, I guess (I've never grown it myself so I don't know exactly how many sticks you get). It would be interesting to see what the numbers are, because my initial instinct is to say that I don't think there's any ordinary crop that uses more energy to grow than it gives you when you eat it, unless you garden in a terribly inefficient way. Otherwise why didn't everyone waste away to nothing before we had grocery shops?

Mind you, I grow in my back garden and I don't dig (except to harvest potatoes). If a celery plant took as much effort as a 15 minute run then I wouldn't bother growing it personally.

galina

  • Hectare
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,462
  • Johanniskirchen
Re: negative calories
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2016, 07:54:46 »




Well it takes about 15 minutes of running to burn off 100 calories, which is 10-15 sticks of celery or about 1 celery plant, I guess (I've never grown it myself so I don't know exactly how many sticks you get). It would be interesting to see what the numbers are, because my initial instinct is to say that I don't think there's any ordinary crop that uses more energy to grow than it gives you when you eat it, unless you garden in a terribly inefficient way. Otherwise why didn't everyone waste away to nothing before we had grocery shops?


If I ignore fairly fruitless (but fun) gardening experiments such as growing melons and sweet potatoes that are really hit and miss here, the end result is always calorie positive.  But what is happening with home grown stuff on healthy soil goes beyond calories produced - it is the much higher nutrient density.  5 a day is not the same from the shops = you'd need to eat much more  - and as most of us are struggling to get our 5 a day down, it is more beneficial to get them from our plot, not from a micro-nutrient and mineral deficient veg from a monoculture farm.

How different plot grown and commercial vegetables look is nicely shown early on in this video of Vivi making celery/carrot soup.  Her celery looks very similar to mine and like her I use a lot of the leaves, not just the stems.  The nutrient profile has got to be very different from shop bought celery, which has almost all leaves removed.  Garden celery tastes much stronger than shop bought.  It is a similar story with leeks, where most growers would use quite a bit of the green in addition to the blanched stem.  To get back to the calorie/nutrient discussion, the soup in the video looks very nourishing.  Soups are of course a very easy way to incorporate more portions of vegetables than just eating them 'in bulk' and that bumps up the calorie count as well as the nutrients. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mK9fdxKdduc


ACE

  • Hectare
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,424
Re: negative calories
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2016, 08:59:27 »

 If a celery plant took as much effort as a 15 minute run then I wouldn't bother growing it personally.

My allotment is not just for food production, it keeps me from seizing up altogether, a bit of social interaction with other plot holders and a place to get a few hours of fresh air and tranquillity. Any plant is worth the effort, nothing is too much trouble. We have locked horns before on the subject of 'lazy gardeners' but if that is what rocks your boat, just do it, but it is not for me. I am restricted in my mobility, but it does not stop me putting in the effort, OK the veg might be a bit  hard won, but still worth it. Perhaps I should have renamed the thread 'negative effort'

 

anything
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal