Ask the Dietician: Should my Quack-O-Meter be ringing?

[Metroknow]

I ran across this site tonight (literally Stumbled, using StumbleUpon) where it talks about "Catabolic" foods - or foods that require more energy to metabolize then they contain. Somehow I'm not believing this to be true, but I can't quite figure out why, other than that tingling "spidey-sense" of false promises...

Here's the site: http://www.drkaslow.com/html/catabolic_foods.html

So my question is for our Resident Dietitian(s): Is this based in any real science at all? Do we actually know how much energy it takes to metabolize something, for everyone universally? Do you burn more calories with, or without the snake oil?

Is snake oil a catabolic food? Is buying a timeshare in a Florida swamp going to help me burn more catabolically? :)

To me, its a common sense thing, which says that if I were to eat nothing but "catabolic" (negative net calorie) foods (apples, etc.) I would Literally starve myself to death over time. Or, if you gave a starving person a food from the list, you would actually do more harm then good. . .

I am by nature a little skeptical, but I just couldn't buy into this one on its own word...ATD? Any thoughts?

[Eve]

If this really worked I know my doctor would be prescribing this diet.

[Diana Young, RD, LD/N, CDE]

First, I noticed the "nutritionist" doesn't have a degree in nutrition.
And yes, it takes energy to metabolize food but anabolic vs catabolic foods - no.
Don't waste your time.