Elaine

To make a negative calorie food list, we must be precisely clear on what we mean. There has been some confusion about this phrase. Some have thought that this kind of food contains no calories at all. This can't be right as long as all kinds of food contains at least some energy.

We're going to present you with a list of this kind of food. If you follow it, not necessarly without any other kinds of food, it will increase metabolism naturally, and the result will be weight loss - especially compared with eating a meal where these foods are not included.

Now, it's time for a definition. When we say nagative calorie food, we mean foods which contain so little energy that the body actually uses more energy to digest and absorb the nutrients. So if you subtract calories you'll burn from the calories you eat, the result will be negative. Only by digesting the food you have eaten, there will be a net loss of energy or a negative energy balance. This is what must happen if you want to lose weight but with this food you don't have to do anything but eat it to accomplish that.

You can also eat protein in combination with such food. Good protein will help you control your appetite as well as increase your metabolism because the total amount of calories are not reduced too much.

Here is the list:

Vegetables

Fennel, aubergine, gourd, broccoli, leek, cabbage, lettuce, carrots, marrow, cauliflower, peppers, celery, radish, chicory, spinach, cress, tomato, cucumber, turnip.

Fruits

Apricot, mandarin orange, blackberry, melon canteloupe, blackcurrant, peaches, clementines, plums, damsons, raspberry, grapefruit. rhubarb, guava, strawberry, honeydew melon, tangerine, lemon, watermelon.

Terje Brooks Ellingsen is a writer and internet marketer. He runs the website 11-Weight-Loss.net. Terje enjoys to help people with negative calorie food diets and workout to increase metabolism naturally.

I just read another article dealing with the safety of wearing a helmet. It spoke of the controversy surrounding helmet use since many riders who wear helmets die in a crash. In the past year Ive read several articles that spit out statistics one after the other either supporting the position that helmets keep you safer or refuting it.

Are we serious about this?

Crashing is an event that is almost always the culmination of several factors. We overthink this whole helmet issue because the obvious benefits of wearing a helmet get obfuscated by what caused the crash or fatality. Of course its safer to wear a helmet than not. Does wearing a helmet mean you wont die or get injured in a crash? No. There are many factors that contribute to the severity of a crash; but if you have any doubt that its safer to wear a helmet than not, than I challenge you to conduct the following experiment:

If you dont wear a helmet, borrow one and put it on. Now give a buddy a hammer and have him hit you on the helmet with about the same force hed use to drive a nail into a two by four. Now take the helmet off and have him do it again. Whats that? You stop him before he gets a chance to hit you? How come? I thought your position was that helmets dont really do that much to protect you?

And as for the full face versus open face debate: get out the belt sander and have him take that to your unprotected nose. Sounds gross doesnt it? Im sure sliding 150 feet on your face across the pavement would be too.

You get the point (I hope). Statistics can be argued over and over again. How helmets can be made even safer can be argued. What cant be argued is that it doesnt hurt nearly as much to get hit on the head with a hammer when youre wearing a helmet.

Use your head. Gear Up! Ride Safe!

Gordon Simmons is a motorcycle enthusiast and owner of Gordo's Motorcycle Gear http://www.gordosgear.com Gordon believes in safe riding and responsible motorcycling.