Negative Calorie foods on Dr. Oz
Options
Replies
-
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 -
I am not a fan of Dr. Oz's forays into fads and alternative medicine, but if you are going to spew poison, then at least get your facts straight:He was a cardiothoracic surgeon who got dollar signs in his eyes and sold out to become nothing more than a snake oil peddler.
He IS a CT surgeon; in fact he has an academic appointment as a Professor of Surgery with Columbia University. I can only guess at his motivations to appear on TV but money seems to be the least likely.
I also find it troubling to read all these attacks, yet not one person has bothered to watch the show and counter any statements with science. Irony. Perhaps he was simply pointing out that a person can eat low caloric density foods to satiety and be under BMR.
1 -
And many Doctors think should be fired because his appointment is a disgrace.
cnn.com/2015/04/17/health/dr-oz-columbia-letter/0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »
I am not a fan of Dr. Oz's forays into fads and alternative medicine, but if you are going to spew poison, then at least get your facts straight:He was a cardiothoracic surgeon who got dollar signs in his eyes and sold out to become nothing more than a snake oil peddler.
He IS a CT surgeon; in fact he has an academic appointment as a Professor of Surgery with Columbia University. I can only guess at his motivations to appear on TV but money seems to be the least likely.
I also find it troubling to read all these attacks, yet not one person has bothered to watch the show and counter any statements with science. Irony. Perhaps he was simply pointing out that a person can eat low caloric density foods to satiety and be under BMR.
I find it bizarre that you're criticising people for not watching the show, then proffering an erroneous assumption as to what he meant, when the OP had clearly stated that his guest was saying that there are foods which take more calories to digest than they impart - an old, well travelled and frequently debunked myth.0 -
Preventative medicine isn't lucrative for the medical industry. This episode was advocating eating more vegetables, fruits, and grains. Most of his episodes advocate eating/using natural things or suggest which natural things can benefit specific conditions. Not saying that vegetables will 100% prevent diseases but I don't see how encouraging his audience to eat more fruits and veggies could harm anyone.
Copied from the CNN article:
Dr. Joel Tepper, a radiology professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, is also a former classmate of Miller's.
He told CNN he does not have a vendetta against Oz. He said he just wants him to "follow the basic rules of science and state what he knows as fact as fact and state what he doesn't know as fact as not fact."
Dr's have issues with things that are not concrete scientific evidence. I don't know how they expect to have concrete scientific evidence that eating more salads through out your life will let your body be at it's optimum health. And I believe everyone's optimum health is different. Some are predisposed to diseases or conditions beyond their control, but perhaps certain diets can make it a better version of that disease or condition.
I posted this previously, at some point Dr Oz said during the episode "these shouldn't really be called negative calories". He or his Dr guests obviously exaggerate some things but I think it is common sense to take what he says with a grain of salt.. I mean broccoli is not magical and wont instantly make you lose 5lbs after ingesting it.
0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »
I am not a fan of Dr. Oz's forays into fads and alternative medicine, but if you are going to spew poison, then at least get your facts straight:He was a cardiothoracic surgeon who got dollar signs in his eyes and sold out to become nothing more than a snake oil peddler.
He IS a CT surgeon; in fact he has an academic appointment as a Professor of Surgery with Columbia University. I can only guess at his motivations to appear on TV but money seems to be the least likely.
I also find it troubling to read all these attacks, yet not one person has bothered to watch the show and counter any statements with science. Irony. Perhaps he was simply pointing out that a person can eat low caloric density foods to satiety and be under BMR.
If the show's title or segment includes the word negative calorie foods, that's a claim. No one has to watch the entire show to fact check if they literally called a specific food negative calories and classified how many negative calories it contains.
If you looked at his profile, the "no new patients" statement on there implies he no longer is an actively practicing thoracic surgeon. Saying he was a CT is an accurate statement when he's making most of his living and spending most of his time working on his show.
Also, I find it ironic that someone thinks they're in a thread correcting people and getting facts straight when saying "to satiety and be under BMR" when weight loss involves being under TDEE. Being under BMR will certainly cause weight loss, but only because everyone BMR is less than their TDEE.0 -
enterdanger wrote: »I am extremely delighted that I live in a country where that charlatan does not grace our airwaves
Although we do have other satires available to us
And no such thing as a negative calorie food
Apart from dust of course
Dr. Oz is a Quack. Hey @rabbitjb your in Britain, right? I used to get this weight loss show on BBC America where they would follow someone for a week, make them go poo in a tupperware, tell them what was wrong with their poo, and put them on a diet and exercise plan. I loved that show. That one and the two old birds that help hoarders clean their houses and analyze the germs in their house.
lol
Never watched the poo woman ...but heard about it
Watched the cleaning programme a couple of times ...Aggy and someone...classic TV :bigsmile:
I've heard the term "negative calories" before. It just means that it takes more calories to digest certain foods than the foods contain. According to the Mayo clinic, it's possible but the scientific research isn't there to support the claim: http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/expert-answers/negative-calorie-foods/faq-20058260.
I love Jillian McKeith and How Clean is Your House? One of the women (Aggy, I think) would analyze all of the bacteria on the filthy surfaces and Kim cleaned for the royal household, I think. I use some of their "cheap and cheerful" cleaning tips sometimes. I think both of the shows can be seen on YouTube.
Also love Fawlty Towers, Last of the Summer Wine, Are You Being Served?, As Time Goes By, Ab Fab and Keeping Up Appearances - IOW - the Britcom "classics." Oh yeah, can't forget Doc Martin!0 -
I am extremely delighted that I live in a country where that charlatan does not grace our airwaves
Although we do have other satires available to us
And no such thing as a negative calorie food
Apart from dust of course
And if you ever watched Little Britain, you'd know that Marjorie Dawes encourages the Fat Fighters to increase their dust intake whenever possible!
0 -
Disclaimers:
1. I am not trying to defend Dr. Oz
2. I don't know what that show was calling a 'negative calorie,' but I consider the entire notion more than a bit silly
But just as an exercise in thinking, is it possible for a person to burn more calories than they digest from a food ? Well, it probably for the most part depends on how one defines food. E.g., say that a person actually absorbs a very small amount of energy from eating lawn grass. Most people would not call it 'food' for humans precisely because the work to get that energy is more than obtained. So this becomes a tautology.
How about chewing gum ? Is it a food ?
How about celery eaten by a person with no teeth ?
How about a mite of sugar encased in an envelope that takes an hour of chewing to break down ? Certainly net negative!
The Mayo clinic blog linked above got it right: "negative calories" as defined above (and by them) is possible but is not a reasonable way to live or diet.
However, it is reasonable to advocate eating low caloric density foods as a majority of the daily diet. From that POV Dr. Oz is pointing people in a good direction, towards an unprocessed, plant based diet rather than refined sugars and fat wrapped up in plastic.
Now, something of a defense of Dr. Oz:
Frankly I view him the same way I view this forum: 90% noise related to fads and hokum, but a net positive because people eat healthier and lose weight when they have community, when they can talk about their diet rather than simply eat less and move more. Both jump into the deep end precisely because humans (and overweight dieters in particular) are psychological works in progess and the solutions are a case of "don't let facts get in the way of improvement." So if Dr. Oz's viewers find motivation to eat a healthier diet from believing that vegetables are making them smarter or sexier or whatever, I try to not lose sight of the actual beneficial result. And if they eat a placebo 'supplement' along the way as a support mechanism, well that is a whole lot better than the alternative.
My wife occasionally watches his show while at the gym and brings home tidbits. I change the subject because I find fads and hokum annoying, but then I avoid the "ketogenic" and "metabolism" diet threads too. At least to me, a more palatable MD on TV is Dr. Fuhrman, of the "nutritarian" movement. I read a good part of one of his books and while most is repetition and salesmanship and a fair bit is hokum, he gets the important things right:
1. Hunger is a complex physiology and psychology, and not well understood. Support, community, exercise, and food choices all have their roles to play in not having it become an unhealthy part of our lives.
2. Eat vegetables. Lots of them
3. The less processed food, the better
4. Move!
Dr. Oz gets this too, which is much more important than the hokum.
0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »Disclaimers:
1. I am not trying to defend Dr. Oz
2. I don't know what that show was calling a 'negative calorie,' but I consider the entire notion more than a bit silly
But just as an exercise in thinking, is it possible for a person to burn more calories than they digest from a food ? Well, it probably for the most part depends on how one defines food. E.g., say that a person actually absorbs a very small amount of energy from eating lawn grass. Most people would not call it 'food' for humans precisely because the work to get that energy is more than obtained. So this becomes a tautology.
How about chewing gum ? Is it a food ?
How about celery eaten by a person with no teeth ?
How about a mite of sugar encased in an envelope that takes an hour of chewing to break down ? Certainly net negative!
The Mayo clinic blog linked above got it right: "negative calories" as defined above (and by them) is possible but is not a reasonable way to live or diet.
However, it is reasonable to advocate eating low caloric density foods as a majority of the daily diet. From that POV Dr. Oz is pointing people in a good direction, towards an unprocessed, plant based diet rather than refined sugars and fat wrapped up in plastic.
Now, something of a defense of Dr. Oz:
Frankly I view him the same way I view this forum: 90% noise related to fads and hokum, but a net positive because people eat healthier and lose weight when they have community, when they can talk about their diet rather than simply eat less and move more. Both jump into the deep end precisely because humans are psychological wrecks and the solutions are a case of "don't let facts get in the way of improvement." So if Dr. Oz's viewers find motivation to eat a healthier diet from believing that vegetables are making them smarter or sexier or whatever, I try to not lose sight of the actual beneficial result. And if they eat a placebo 'supplement' along the way as a support mechanism, well that is a whole lot better than the alternative.
My wife occasionally watches his show while at the gym and brings home tidbits. I change the subject because I find fads and hokum annoying, but then I avoid the "ketogenic" and "metabolism" diet threads too. At least to me, a more palatable MD on TV is Dr. Fuhrman, of the "nutritarian" movement. I read a good part of one of his books and while most is repetition and salesmanship and a fair bit is hokum, he gets the important things right:
1. Hunger is a complex physiology and psychology, and not well understood. Support, community, exercise, and food choices all have their roles to play in not having it become an unhealthy part of our lives.
2. Eat vegetables. Lots of them
3. The less processed food, the better
4. Move!
Dr. Oz gets this too, which is much more important than the hokum.
Chewing gum has a few calories.
How would a person with no teeth eat celery? If it's precut/smoothied it would take even less work to digest.
Seriously? "Oh yeah, if you first had to do a marathon to get to your sandwich the sandwich totally is negative calories!"
The mayo clinic blog post didn't say it's possible but not reasonable. It said in theory there may be something that might be harder to digest than the energy it provides, however, there's been no reputable evidence for any food like this existing.
And to Dr. Oz: it's nice that the right ideas are in it, but people don't want to hear those. You've probably experienced that too. Someone asking you how you lost weight, then not wanting to hear it when it turns out it's really just moving more and eating less with good nutrition.
They want the easy "take this pill" or "if you eat this you can eat as much as you want" approaches that are not based on science. They will take the noise over the signal to use your analogy.
Dr. Oz knows that too, I don't think he actually believes the crap or even thinks it's a valid possibility. He invites those guys to his show because he knows people will watch it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 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
- 981 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions