Negative Calorie foods on Dr. Oz

ericGold15 wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

He was a cardiothoracic surgeon who got dollar signs in his eyes and sold out to become nothing more than a snake oil peddler.

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 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.

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.