What's for dinner? Here's mine... (Part 2)

[Fire Me Boy!]

What you got?

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I realize you and others aren't going agree. So let's agree to disagree on the health aspects. As someone into natural health, there are better methods. However, it does heat differently than conventional cooking and affects certain dishes adversely just from a cooking viewpoint.

I used to use it, just never for meat. Results not so great. I used to use it for veggies, as cooking faster or in less time preserves nutrients on them. Baked potatoes were never as good as in the oven. It was a a texture change. You could see it and taste it. So it can't do certain things well. Same with tea. Tastes horrible and I can tell when someone serves me tea made in one.

I haven't used it for meals in ten years. Only to melt something like marshmallows to make fondant for decorations.

Not arguing at all that it can have adverse effects on some foods in regards to texture and flavor for some foods. But it doesn't destroy nutrients as you previously suggested. And for some foods, it works really well (fish, for instance; I know, it shocked the hell out of me, too).

[GloucesterChief]

Microwave is great if you need to cook something like a steak well done without burning the outside or if you undercook chicken but don't want to continue cooking the outside.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

That is a hoax. Norma Levitt did die but of a blood clot.

There seems to be an error that link about the court case. The jury didn't find the woman died of a blood clot. It's what the defendants claimed. The malpractice case doesn't prove that exactly even if the defendents won the case. There's many facets to the case including legal points. However, I used that as one of many articles on microwaves. I originally got it from material provided by one of my health care practioners.

I went through the transcript of the case and found this under Footnotes:

Footnotes:

1 Heating blood in this manner destroys the red blood cells, resulting in "gross hemolysis" of the blood, releasing large amounts of potassium. Excessive potassium, when introduced into the body, is often fatal. The practice of warming Intravenous (IV) fluids, other than blood, in the microwave was an accepted practice at Hillcrest Medical Center, as reflected in its written procedures.

In fact, Abbot Laboratories, the manufacturer of the IV solutions, mailed Hillcrest a letter containing a statement that microwaving the solutions was not recommended. Wilkinson's evidence showed that any of the Anesthesiologists had the authority to question and stop the practice of microwaving IV solutions at Hillcrest. Wilkinson contends they had an affirmative duty to do so. "

Now that may not apply to eating food, but I go by taste and texture and still find a microwave less than adequate for certain dishes, especially meat even read meat, even when I used them. For me, if something has that much contradictory claims I avoid it to be on the safe side.

[lewdog]

BucEyedPea you are wrong and it's a misconception that has been spouted since microwaves were developed and still to this day isn't proven.

The microwave does not destroy nutrients. That's a fact.

An actual scientific study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19397724

From article above

According to the method of analysis chosen, griddling, microwave cooking, and baking alternately produce the lowest losses, while pressure-cooking and boiling lead to the greatest losses; frying occupies an intermediate position. In short, water is not the cook's best friend when it comes to preparing vegetables.

Microwaving does not destroy nutrients but it does change the flavor IMO. I'd never cook meat in it because of that and what it does to certain textures of food.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Microwave is great if you need to cook something like a steak well done without burning the outside or if you undercook chicken but don't want to continue cooking the outside.

Ugh! I would never eat a steak well done. Not just because I don't like it like that but the less it's cooked the healthier it is. You're just killing it and eating a food that is too dead and more nutrients do die.

I don't see how you can get the Maillard reaction which I like on a steak. That creates rich, savory flavor.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by lewdog

BucEyedPea you are wrong and it's a misconception that has been spouted since microwaves were developed and still to this day isn't proven.

The microwave does not destroy nutrients. That's a fact.

An actual scientific study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19397724

From article above



Microwaving does not destroy nutrients but it does change the flavor IMO. I'd never cook meat in it because of that and what it does to certain textures of food.

I would never trust a govt source on something like this. Even their food pyramid is a joke. Look at all the obesity and diabetes in this country.
So they're not doing a very good job educating.

Certain dishes still don't cut it whether or not you want to believe it. If there's too much contradictory claims—I usually avoid to be on the safe side.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fried Meat Ball!

Not arguing at all that it can have adverse effects on some foods in regards to texture and flavor for some foods. But it doesn't destroy nutrients as you previously suggested. And for some foods, it works really well (fish, for instance; I know, it shocked the hell out of me, too).

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

[Mennonite]

I like to microwave bacon. In fact, that is what I had for supper tonight. Crispy, less grease, and evenly cooked, in a lot less time than pan frying.

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I would never trust a govt source on something like this. Even their food pyramid is a joke. Look at all the obesity and diabetes in this country.
So they're not doing a very good job educating.

Certain dishes still don't cut it whether or not you want to believe it. If there's too much contradictory claims—I usually avoid to be on the safe side.

Wait, you don't trust research through Pubmed that's an actual controlled experiment but instead quote an article that cites some case from 1991!? Please go on and find me some useful research then that supports your claim.

I'll wait............

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

I won't agree to disagree on something that is factually inaccurate. But I won't argue about it anymore.

You're right on its effect on taste and texture on some foods. I wouldn't cook most protein in it, certainly not beef, pork, or chicken.

[BucEyedPea]

I just found an explanation as to why tea tastes so bad when the water is heated in the microwave.

Food Explainer: Why Does Microwaving Water Result in Such Lousy Tea?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/..._so_lousy.html

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by lewdog

Wait, you don't trust research through Pubmed that's an actual controlled experiment but instead quote an article that cites some case from 1991!? Please go on and find me some useful research then that supports your claim.

I'll wait............

It had govt in the link—that's why. Plus there are other studies that contradict those. It's called contrary facts.

So when faced with contrary facts you have only a few ways to go since both can't be true. Either both are false, one is true or false or there's other data that is unknown.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Just a basic spaghetti and meat sauce.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fried Meat Ball!

I won't agree to disagree on something that is factually inaccurate. But I won't argue about it anymore.

You're right on its effect on taste and texture on some foods. I wouldn't cook most protein in it, certainly not beef, pork, or chicken.

You don't have to but I am not going to debate it, which I thought you said at one point. I know you said that regarding safety but the nutrient issue falls under that for me.

I've already said, when there are contrary facts, which there are here, then I will stay away from using something.

I agree with about about cooking protein foods though. I never did that when I used them. That was one reason why I commented on the chicken nuggets....as they are a protein. ( and also nutrients)

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

It had govt in the link—that's why. Plus there are other studied that contradict those. It's called contrary facts.

So when faced with contrary facts you have only a few ways to go since both can't be true. Either both are false, one is false or there's other data that is unknown.

Yea, it's a national archive of research literature.

I guess all those papers I wrote in graduate school citing studies from PubMed were pretty worthless. I'll let my professors know.

I'd love to be presented with a study that actually contradicts those facts instead of you just stating it does. I've yet to see any "contrary" facts on this subject. Clearly, something here is true.