Negative Calorie foods on Dr. Oz
Replies
-
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 -
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.
Also, never underestimate a person's willingness to make even more money. Being a TV star pays pretty well.0 -
Yes I saw it too. I believe it, however a person would need to consume approx. 500 cals of these foods (Celery, carrot, lettuce, cuke....and the list goes on and these would have to be raw.) That just does not appeal to me. My jaws would be killing me after all that crunching. LOL!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 (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.
So pika is a negative calorie habit? I don't think that was what the segment was about, and I'm not about to tacitly endorse Oz's show's existence by viewing it to make a completely informed rebuttal.0 -
Dr. Oz put out good books before he had a show. I agree that he knows what he's talking about overall. He just is now making a daytime tv show about health and that means having guests that write diet books and those pretty much all have some exaggerated claims or attention-getting terms like this one does.
Hardly anyone in the weight loss industry doesn't rely on some mythical magic words to sell books and DVDS, including some authorities popular here. Alan Aragon's "Lean Muscle Diet". Lean muscle, seriously? Jillian Michaels sells fat burners. Beachbody is a pyramid scheme of b.s. All the books pretty much talk about firing up your metabolism. I think Chris Powell's had that. They almost all use diet catch phrases, usually right in the title or on the cover.0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »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.
So why not simply stick to the simple, correct message rather than all this smoke and mirrors nonsense?
Because it doesn't sell. It doesn't attract fame. It doesn't attract followers.
He's no different from those fake psychics who exploit desperate people's vulnerability towards supernatural thinking. He's given up being a man of science to be a preacher.
0 -
I'm in the UK. I have a love/hate relationship with embarrassing bodies. However, let me be clear, I don't understand why people go on that show. We have the nhs! lolManiacalLaugh 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".)
Ps everyone with the dr title doesn't deserve the title, or have any sense!0 -
For the exact same reason that this forum is a lot larger than one single post that says:ericGold15 wrote: »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.
So why not simply stick to the simple, correct message rather than all this smoke and mirrors nonsense?
1.Eat more vegetables
2.Eat less processed food
3.Move more!
4.Ignore non-physiological hunger
0 -
ericGold15 wrote: »
For the exact same reason that this forum is a lot larger than one single post that says:ericGold15 wrote: »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.
So why not simply stick to the simple, correct message rather than all this smoke and mirrors nonsense?
1.Eat more vegetables
2.Eat less processed food
3.Move more!
4.Ignore non-physiological hunger
Which is what reason? I am not being deliberately obtuse here, I promise.
It seems to me that a Person A may, in the long run, do Person B a disservice by indulging Person B's need for fantastical thinking so that Person B may obtain a short term benefit (such as temporary weight loss but without knowledge of the exact reasons why).
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.
I don't think Dr. Oz is legit, but I have heard this since I was little..... Celery is a perfect example. It burns more calories to chew and digest celery (which is mostly made up of water) than are actually contained in the celery itself. So, everybody just calm down and shove a celery stick in their pie hole
0 -
byrdiegrrrl 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.
I don't think Dr. Oz is legit, but I have heard this since I was little..... Celery is a perfect example. It burns more calories to chew and digest celery (which is mostly made up of water) than are actually contained in the celery itself. So, everybody just calm down and shove a celery stick in their pie hole
This has already been proven false earlier in this thread.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.
Just a note, my boyfriend's sister is a nurse at Columbia-Pres and has seen Dr. Oz on her floor since she works with open heart surgery patients, heart transplant patients, etc. So he's kept his MD license and sometimes does surgeries. So everyone saying that is not a CT surgeon, you are wrong.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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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