Negative Calorie foods on Dr. Oz
Replies
-
And how is anu$ a censored word?
Vagina
Penis
Breast
Boob
Tit
*kitten*
Dick0 -
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.
Don't forget that in the 10 calories of celery, there's over 50 grams of water at room temperature! That needs to rise to body temperature which is 17 more degrees, which would take 17 calories if it was 1 liter, but it's 1/20th of a liter so it takes 17/20th of a calorie to bring it up!!0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
Don't forget that in the 10 calories of celery, there's over 50 grams of water at room temperature! That needs to rise to body temperature which is 17 more degrees, which would take 17 calories if it was 1 liter, but it's 1/20th of a liter so it takes 17/20th of a calorie to bring it up!!
How could I have possibly missed that? Now we're all the way down to 9.415 - 9.615 net calories. Woo hoo! Calories have dropped, but Dr. Oz is still a fraud and a tool.
0 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »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.
Don't forget that in the 10 calories of celery, there's over 50 grams of water at room temperature! That needs to rise to body temperature which is 17 more degrees, which would take 17 calories if it was 1 liter, but it's 1/20th of a liter so it takes 17/20th of a calorie to bring it up!!
Although since you have to eat to stay alive, a lot of this is in your TDEE already. So just like the eternal "sex is already built into your numbers unless it isn't something you normally do", eating (gigity) is already part of the expected TDEE, and only matters if you're changing the water level temperature of your food.0 -
Dr Oz is an embarrassment to the medical society. He is an example of when money is the goal. The only reason he is still on national TV is because of high-powered attorneys. My late husband was a physician and he would agree that Dr. Oz should be canceled. He has also been investigated by Congress and I think it's only a matter of time before he is finally fully exposed. I would highly suggest that you do not take any of his advice. He would not be welcomed as a practicing physician by prestigious and ethical medical groups.0
-
meganridenour wrote: »Is he talking about eating tapeworms?
Yes! I think you figured it out!0 -
This is not something which is new. I wouldn't believe it! I actually posted regarding zero calorie foods back in 2012.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/627717/zero-calorie-foods#latest0 -
anything coming for Dr Oz's mouth is BS. He has changed his mind and his allegiences SO MANY TIMES, i have lost count. I believe NOTHING the guy says, regardless of being about cardiac surgery or nutrition or weight loss.0
-
thin1dayplease wrote: »This is not something which is new. I wouldn't believe it! I actually posted regarding zero calorie foods back in 2012.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/627717/zero-calorie-foods#latest
I hope the consensus back then was also "Except for water there is none."0 -
TEF (thermic effect of food) is already accounted for by more calorie counting sites. Protein digestion uses more energy to digest than fat or carbs. Shrimp isn't high in calories and would use more energy to digest versus it's calorie count, but yet isn't mentioned as a "negative calorie food". Don't believe everything you see on a "Doctor" show.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.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Don't usually have a chance to watch Dr Oz, but randomly watched that episode. I dont think he was implying the idea that weight will literally burn off if you eat these foods. It was more along the lines that if you eat these foods your body takes longer to process them, they are more filling because of their nutrients while being low in calories, therefore making you feel full without eating a lot of calories. Which will most likely lead to weight loss or allow you to eat a higher quantity of food without gaining weight.
At some point he said the exact words 'we shouldnt really call these negative calories'. Anyway that's what i got out of the episode. He's not so bad when he's not trying to sell something, i wish more Dr's would look at nutrition and preventative medicine instead of only focusing on how to fix something with pills.
But as someone else posted I have noticed some of the 'drs' who write health books come from an unrelated profession.
Obviously things are exaggerated on his show in order to get attention, so take everything with a grain of salt but there are some underlying concepts there. If any calories are lost while eating celery it's very minimal, but you probably wont eat ever be able to eat enough celery so that it will cause weight gain. But if you eat bread your body quickly absorbs it which makes it easier to eat a ton of it without feeling full but at same time will gain weight.0 -
tillerstouch wrote: »Dr. Oz is a joke... all the doctor shows on tv are. They feed misleading information to sell products and boost ratings. I saw an episode once where doctor Oz said "lose 10 pounds easy, just give up gluten...." hm yeah maybe if you have a gluten intolerance you'll lose ten pounds easy otherwise I don't think so.
Negative foods don't exist what does exist though are low calorie foods that pack tons of nutrients. Foods like spinach and celery have tons of nutrients but are low calorie which are great if you're in a calorie deficit because you can eats lots of them if you're hungry and not use too many calories.
It's really sad. Dr Oz started out as a legit cardio-thoracic surgeon. You can't be an idiot and perform heart surgery. And, he was a good one at that, but somewhere along the line I guess he got greedy and started shilling anything and everything. He lost all credibility in the process.0 -
TEF (thermic effect of food) is already accounted for by more calorie counting sites. Protein digestion uses more energy to digest than fat or carbs. Shrimp isn't high in calories and would use more energy to digest versus it's calorie count, but yet isn't mentioned as a "negative calorie food". Don't believe everything you see on a "Doctor" show.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.
Thermic effect of food and energy needed to digest are two different things. While protein does have a high TEF, the often quoted claim that protein requires 20% of its own calories to digest is already reflected in the 4 calories per gram. Protein - on average - actually contains about 5.7 kCal /g when burned in direct bomb calorimetry, but a human body must spend about 1.6 kCal /g on digestion.0 -
-
TEF (thermic effect of food) is already accounted for by more calorie counting sites. Protein digestion uses more energy to digest than fat or carbs. Shrimp isn't high in calories and would use more energy to digest versus it's calorie count, but yet isn't mentioned as a "negative calorie food". Don't believe everything you see on a "Doctor" show.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.
Thermic effect of food and energy needed to digest are two different things. While protein does have a high TEF, the often quoted claim that protein requires 20% of its own calories to digest is already reflected in the 4 calories per gram. Protein - on average - actually contains about 5.7 kCal /g when burned in direct bomb calorimetry, but a human body must spend about 1.6 kCal /g on digestion.
I had always read TEF was exactly that (energy to digest it). I have never heard the 4 calories/gram estimate already was lowered for TEF, either.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-what-is-thermic-effect.html0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
TEF (thermic effect of food) is already accounted for by more calorie counting sites. Protein digestion uses more energy to digest than fat or carbs. Shrimp isn't high in calories and would use more energy to digest versus it's calorie count, but yet isn't mentioned as a "negative calorie food". Don't believe everything you see on a "Doctor" show.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.
Thermic effect of food and energy needed to digest are two different things. While protein does have a high TEF, the often quoted claim that protein requires 20% of its own calories to digest is already reflected in the 4 calories per gram. Protein - on average - actually contains about 5.7 kCal /g when burned in direct bomb calorimetry, but a human body must spend about 1.6 kCal /g on digestion.
I had always read TEF was exactly that (energy to digest it). I have never heard the 4 calories/gram estimate already was lowered for TEF, either.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-what-is-thermic-effect.html
I haven't done a lot of research on this, and this discussion may be better fitted for the new Nutrition Debate message board; however, one of the FDA guidelines for estimating the Calories from protein indicates subtracting 1.25 Cals per gram of protein when using calorimetry to correct for incomplete digestability. I am not sure I would assume that correlates to any positive association with the TEF of digesting protein, rather it might correlate to the fact that the body does not completely metabolize proteins in the same way outright burning them to ashes does.(E) Using bomb calorimetry data subtracting 1.25 calories per gram protein to correct for incomplete digestibility [emphasis added], as described in USDA Handbook No. 74 (slightly revised 1973) p. 10, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 (the availability of this incorporation by reference is given in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this section).
Reference:
https://gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2008-title21-vol2/xml/CFR-2008-title21-vol2-part101.xml0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
TEF (thermic effect of food) is already accounted for by more calorie counting sites. Protein digestion uses more energy to digest than fat or carbs. Shrimp isn't high in calories and would use more energy to digest versus it's calorie count, but yet isn't mentioned as a "negative calorie food". Don't believe everything you see on a "Doctor" show.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.
Thermic effect of food and energy needed to digest are two different things. While protein does have a high TEF, the often quoted claim that protein requires 20% of its own calories to digest is already reflected in the 4 calories per gram. Protein - on average - actually contains about 5.7 kCal /g when burned in direct bomb calorimetry, but a human body must spend about 1.6 kCal /g on digestion.
I had always read TEF was exactly that (energy to digest it). I have never heard the 4 calories/gram estimate already was lowered for TEF, either.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-what-is-thermic-effect.html
https://www.facebook.com/gregory.nuckols/posts/10152455358473779?comment_id=10152455775063779&comment_tracking={"tn":"R9"}0 -
Who is Greg Nuckols? His site says he's a trainer? The other guy is a PhD in nutrition, the one who said "If you eat 200 calories your body will use between 40 and 70 of them in digestion."0
-
I just read in People that chef Rocco Dispirito is also hawking a negative calorie diet book.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Negative-Calorie-Diet-Pounds-ebook/dp/B00WR0UB0K1 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
TEF (thermic effect of food) is already accounted for by more calorie counting sites. Protein digestion uses more energy to digest than fat or carbs. Shrimp isn't high in calories and would use more energy to digest versus it's calorie count, but yet isn't mentioned as a "negative calorie food". Don't believe everything you see on a "Doctor" show.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.
Thermic effect of food and energy needed to digest are two different things. While protein does have a high TEF, the often quoted claim that protein requires 20% of its own calories to digest is already reflected in the 4 calories per gram. Protein - on average - actually contains about 5.7 kCal /g when burned in direct bomb calorimetry, but a human body must spend about 1.6 kCal /g on digestion.
I had always read TEF was exactly that (energy to digest it). I have never heard the 4 calories/gram estimate already was lowered for TEF, either.
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-what-is-thermic-effect.html
I wasn't saying the 4 kcal/g already includes TEF. The commonly used 20% comes from the difference between direct calorimetry and what actually ends up excreted. I was agree with the person I linked to, not Greg Knuckols.
TEF of protein can't really be determined definitively. Someone who's using protein to make other protein is going to have a lower TEF from it than someone that's low on glucose and is spending the energy converting glutatamate into glucose.0 -
I can't believe people are saying there's no zero calories food besides water. Um hello? Fingernails?
You expend energy growing them, gnawing them, chewing them, digesting them, then replacing them. Totally negative calories.
But only if they're your own. Don't eat someone else's and expect to lose weight.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I can't believe people are saying there's no zero calories food besides water. Um hello? Fingernails?
You expend energy growing them, gnawing them, chewing them, digesting them, then replacing them. Totally negative calories.
But only if they're your own. Don't eat someone else's and expect to lose weight.
I guess this means certain kinds of milk are negative calories too?
Fun fact - the platypus, as a mammal that both lactates and produces eggs, is one of the only animals that can make its own custard.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I can't believe people are saying there's no zero calories food besides water. Um hello? Fingernails?
You expend energy growing them, gnawing them, chewing them, digesting them, then replacing them. Totally negative calories.
But only if they're your own. Don't eat someone else's and expect to lose weight.
I guess this means certain kinds of milk are negative calories too?
Fun fact - the platypus, as a mammal that both lactates and produces eggs, is one of the only animals that can make its own custard.
I'd say so, yes! with the apparent ability to stimulate lactation without the need for a pregnancy and birth, we could make a fortune on the fingernail and boobfood diet. It's just the kind of thing Dr Oz would be all over!0 -
Today on Dr. Oz "Thanks for the mammaries - the new diet men can't stop looking at."Alatariel75 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »I can't believe people are saying there's no zero calories food besides water. Um hello? Fingernails?
You expend energy growing them, gnawing them, chewing them, digesting them, then replacing them. Totally negative calories.
But only if they're your own. Don't eat someone else's and expect to lose weight.
I guess this means certain kinds of milk are negative calories too?
Fun fact - the platypus, as a mammal that both lactates and produces eggs, is one of the only animals that can make its own custard.
I'd say so, yes! with the apparent ability to stimulate lactation without the need for a pregnancy and birth, we could make a fortune on the fingernail and boobfood diet. It's just the kind of thing Dr Oz would be all over!
0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I can't believe people are saying there's no zero calories food besides water. Um hello? Fingernails?
You expend energy growing them, gnawing them, chewing them, digesting them, then replacing them. Totally negative calories.
But only if they're your own. Don't eat someone else's and expect to lose weight.
I dont know of anyone who eats their fingernails. chew/bite them off yes,but eat them? eww lol0 -
Did someone just make a sentence with the words "negative calorie foods", "dr. oz" and "seems legit"?
What is happening?!0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I can't believe people are saying there's no zero calories food besides water. Um hello? Fingernails?
You expend energy growing them, gnawing them, chewing them, digesting them, then replacing them. Totally negative calories.
But only if they're your own. Don't eat someone else's and expect to lose weight.
I read that as "don't eat someone else and expect to lose weight "
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions