Negative Calorie foods on Dr. Oz
Options
Replies
-
It is possible to overeat vegetables and fruit. Calories do add up. We burn calories constantly, just by being alive. If we eat more calories than we burn, most of us will gain weight. For a doctor to promote foods as being negative calories, is very misleading to people who may trust his knowledge. JMHO0
-
diannethegeek wrote: »
I saw someone work out the calories in dust, once. It has fairly good macros, but that was for dust in the home and not trail dust. I imagine they're going to be different.
There's probably a lot more dog and deer poo in trail dust. WHich... I totally didn't need to think about.
0 -
-
Wow!!! I came back on and cannot believe all the Dr. Oz haters. Yeesh! I don't know if any of you watched the segment. I guess not since why would you watch him. I admit he does flip-flop a lot, who ever is his guest he usually goes with, not always. He was saying how some foods, mostly vegetables and some fruit actually use up more calories to digest in the body than they add to your caloric total. Hence, being negative calories. I'm still logging my calories and I am counting fruits and vegetables. I just thought it was an interesting concept.
The amount of calories your body needs to digest any given food is a percentage proportional to the amount of calories available. You will never use more calories digesting something than is contained in it.
Except for heating up cold water.0 -
You know, an older gentleman who lives in a tent under a freeway nearby and who pans for money by my workplace once told me that I'll live longer if I "joined his forces to discover the real meaning of nimby gump" (then he showed me a parabola and an equation to prove his point.)
His advice I'd take far more readily than Dr.Oz.
F that guy...my mom listens to him and it's a complete scam.0 -
1 -
but we can trust a late-night tv show host named after a fictional barbarian? ...;)0
-
Wow!!! I came back on and cannot believe all the Dr. Oz haters. Yeesh! I don't know if any of you watched the segment. I guess not since why would you watch him. I admit he does flip-flop a lot, who ever is his guest he usually goes with, not always. He was saying how some foods, mostly vegetables and some fruit actually use up more calories to digest in the body than they add to your caloric total. Hence, being negative calories. I'm still logging my calories and I am counting fruits and vegetables. I just thought it was an interesting concept.
what he is talking about is TEF, which studies have found to be negligible.
if you are eating 1500 calories and then eat some fruits and vegetables that is not going to turn those foods into negative calories and "erase" the 1500 that you have already consumed.
Dr. Oz is a quack and a woo woo shaman. if you don't believe me just look up his testimony before the senate....0 -
Wow!!! I came back on and cannot believe all the Dr. Oz haters. Yeesh! I don't know if any of you watched the segment. I guess not since why would you watch him. I admit he does flip-flop a lot, who ever is his guest he usually goes with, not always. He was saying how some foods, mostly vegetables and some fruit actually use up more calories to digest in the body than they add to your caloric total. Hence, being negative calories. I'm still logging my calories and I am counting fruits and vegetables. I just thought it was an interesting concept.
His flip-flopping is an understatement. He twists facts constantly to make them seem like they're based on science, and like in this segment, only part of it is. It's not the whole truth.
There is a small increase in calorie burn every time you eat. But it doesn't last, is minimal and it doesn't matter what you eat. The way they came up with that was that Jenna did an RMR test before she ate and then after. The after number was higher. In no way is that proof that the food she ate was "negative calorie" or that certain foods burn more than they contain. Everyone would have the same thing happen after they ate anything. So, yes, her metabolism was slightly higher after she ate but that's where the truth ends and the facts get twisted.
Turn off the TV. Or if you're going to watch shows like that, at least put on your common sense hat.
FTR: I do not watch Dr. Oz. I just have a job that involves listening to segments of his shows. I had never even heard of him before I started this, but I know I've learned enough about it that I will go out of my way to avoid ever having to voluntarily watch it. Flip-flop is an understatement of what he does.0 -
When people who lie professionally call you out, it's pretty bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkUe4bMS_8Y
0 -
JW wasn't the Wizard of Oz one of those "phony fortune tellers" that traveled around the country in those days.(before he ended up in Emerald City)
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, kind of appropriate. Dr Oz is kind of doing the same thing...........or does he actually believe what he spouts out?0 -
Suddenly I'm having a case of Deja Vu.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »There is no such thing as a negative calorie food...
Do yourself a favor and google "Dr Oz Senate Hearings"...then you can read all about how he was under senate investigation for scamming the public with his *kitten*. I think it all ended with the senators giving him a good dress down...unfortunately there wasn't enough there to put this *kitten* bag in prison.
Also google. dr oz, british journal of medicine, according to A legit medical periodical, half of what he says is wrong.0 -
The only good thing about Dr. Oz is that because of his senate hearings I found out about John Oliver.
Why is it that when someone calls out Oz for what he is that makes them a hater?
0 -
Just because you found it interesting doesn't make it truth, just makes him a decent liar.0
-
Wow!!! I came back on and cannot believe all the Dr. Oz haters. Yeesh! I don't know if any of you watched the segment. I guess not since why would you watch him. I admit he does flip-flop a lot, who ever is his guest he usually goes with, not always. He was saying how some foods, mostly vegetables and some fruit actually use up more calories to digest in the body than they add to your caloric total. Hence, being negative calories. I'm still logging my calories and I am counting fruits and vegetables. I just thought it was an interesting concept.
Most people have the hate because of examples like the segment you mentioned - it is absolutely wrong. Like I said, it doesn't even make evolutionary sense. Why would something have evolved in an environment where calories are a scarce resource to waste calories getting less than you take in? Wouldn't any animal that evolved the trait to ignore the food contents and pass it mostly undigested gain the calorie advantage and produce more offspring?0 -
ElizabethOakes2 wrote: »but we can trust a late-night tv show host named after a fictional barbarian? ...;)
Of course. Barbarians use charisma as a dump stat and don't get bluff as a class skill. They're liable to be horrible at lying.0 -
Oh ... I didn't see it, but suppose he was taling about celery ... it's all fiber and water, they say ...0
-
Oh ... I didn't see it, but suppose he was taling about celery ... it's all fiber and water, they say ...
Sure - and whatever minimal calories are in celery (including fiber) are carbohydrates. The TEF (Thermic Effect of Food) involved with processing carbohydrates is around 3-5% of total calories. So if you ate 10 calories worth of celery, it would take about 0.3 - 0.5 calories to digest/process it, leaving you with 9.5 - 9.7 net calories. If you eat 100 calories of celery, you'd be left with 95 - 97 calories - the exact same as any other carbohydrate source. Nowhere near "negative calories".
Dr. Oz is a tool. It's not worth listening to a single word he says. He was a cardiothoracic surgeon who got dollar signs in his eyes and sold out to become nothing more than a snake oil peddler.0 -
ManiacalLaugh wrote: »I saw a show in London that really convinced me how different our cultures were about certain topics. A doctor's booth was set up in the middle of the street and people were invited to come in and speak with a medical professional about anything that might be troubling them, provided they were willing to appear on the show. Not a bad premise, as a doctor's appointment can be expensive and time-consuming, and this provided them with instant answers and/or advice.
One lady walked into the booth having trouble with her - let's just say "Exit Door" since I don't know what will be censored.
She dropped trow and spread cheek - and they showed everything. I promptly changed the channel.
Now, I get that the British sense of shame and nudity is different from US standards. HOWEVER - this woman said that the reason she hadn't gone to her normal doctor was because she was too embarrassed. Too embarrassed to go to a private doctor's appointment, but she happily went on a national television program (which revealed her face, first name, etc...)? I was so confused.
(To avoid derailing, I will say that Dr. Oz says a lot of common sense things... but if it's old and proven, it's probably already somewhat common knowledge. If what he says is new and different, he's probably speaking out of his "Exit Door".)
Only we have free at point of need healthcare
That one is called embarrassing bodies and an *kitten* is not the worst thing they've shown0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions