It would have made sense to me if the list of 'negative calorie' foods were all very low calorie: lettuce, celery... but pineapple and other sugary fruit? And they claim that you can eat cake, as long as you also pig out on the 'negative calorie' stuff to make up for it? There's no good science to back it up. At least Atkins and other low-carb proponents can back up their claims.

Thelma: I tried finding the links with a google search, but guess what? A google search only turns up MLM pages of people who want you to pay money for the "e-book." I tried searching with the terms "scam" or "myth" thrown in, and it didn't help much.

Okay, I finally found:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psych...y/catabolic.htm

http://www.cableone.net/kkelly/articles/catabolic.html

Note that part of the "scientific evidence" supporting this diet is the fact that it works three times faster than starvation. Well, starvation shuts down your metabolism. Any diet works better than starvation. But there's simply no food that requires your body to burn energy just to digest that food. Now that doesn't mean you won't lose weight if you eat a lot of the foods on that list, thereby going on a calorie-reduced diet - but their whole marketing scheme seems to be based on deceptive advertising, IMHO.