Negative Calorie foods on Dr. Oz

Options
1246

Replies

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    And how is anu$ a censored word?

    Vagina
    Penis
    Breast
    Boob
    Tit
    *kitten*
    Dick
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    :D
  • OneHundredToLose
    OneHundredToLose Posts: 8,523 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    And how is anu$ a censored word?

    Vagina
    Penis
    Breast
    Boob
    Tit
    *kitten*
    Dick

    I was gonna respond to the OP, but...

    latest?cb=20120921164818


    Lol :tongue:
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Nikion901 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!!
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Nikion901 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. :)
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    And how is anu$ a censored word?

    Vagina
    Penis
    Breast
    Boob
    Tit
    *kitten*
    Dick

    The three year old in me is amused. :)
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Nikion901 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.
  • bellabonbons
    bellabonbons Posts: 705 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    Options
    Is he talking about eating tapeworms?

    Yes! I think you figured it out!
  • thin1dayplease
    thin1dayplease Posts: 291 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    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
  • vczK2t
    vczK2t Posts: 309 Member
    Options
    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.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    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."
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,669 Member
    Options
    lydcot58 wrote: »
    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.
    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.

    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

    9285851.png

  • OneTwentyThree
    OneTwentyThree Posts: 186 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    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.
  • Colorscheme
    Colorscheme Posts: 1,179 Member
    edited February 2016
    Options
    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.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    lydcot58 wrote: »
    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.
    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.

    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.
  • peachyfuzzle
    peachyfuzzle Posts: 1,122 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    And how is anu$ a censored word?

    Vagina
    Penis
    Breast
    Boob
    Tit
    *kitten*
    Dick

    *kitten*
    Piss
    *kitten*
    *kitten*
    *kitten*
    .... and tits.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    senecarr wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    lydcot58 wrote: »
    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.
    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.

    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
  • CyberTone
    CyberTone Posts: 7,337 Member
    Options
    senecarr wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    lydcot58 wrote: »
    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.
    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.

    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.xml
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    Options
    senecarr wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    lydcot58 wrote: »
    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.
    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.

    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"}