hi,
i've been experimenting with some home-made toasted oat cereal. to
make it more healthy i add wheatgerm and bran. someone said on a web
site that if you cook wheatgerm it loses its nutritional value. is
this true? what about bran? the cereal is baked in the oven in a
honey + oil mix @ 180 c.

i find it hard to believe that nutrients could disappear with heat...
but you never know.

thanks in advance for any tips
tim

"Tim_Mac" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> hi,
> i've been experimenting with some home-made toasted oat cereal. to
> make it more healthy i add wheatgerm and bran. someone said on a web
> site that if you cook wheatgerm it loses its nutritional value. is
> this true? what about bran? the cereal is baked in the oven in a
> honey + oil mix @ 180 c.
>
> i find it hard to believe that nutrients could disappear with heat...
> but you never know.

It is my understanding that this only happens when cooking in water,
as the nutrients leach out in the water. I would not expect it to happen
with baking or roasting, but I may be wrong.

Incidentally, collard greens are one of the few foods whose nutrient
value increases when boiled. No kidding, cooking makes some of
the nutrients available to us that are not available raw. Strangely, the
fiber content quintuples when the collards are cooked.

http://www.vegparadise.com/highestperch55.html


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

uz051235198 wrote:
> It is my understanding that this only happens when cooking in water,
> as the nutrients leach out in the water. I would not expect it to happen
> with baking or roasting, but I may be wrong.
>
> Incidentally, collard greens are one of the few foods whose nutrient
> value increases when boiled. No kidding, cooking makes some of
> the nutrients available to us that are not available raw. Strangely, the
> fiber content quintuples when the collards are cooked.
>
> http://www.vegparadise.com/highestperch55.html

That's silly. Fiber is a physical product that does not undergo much
change. Someone is either not reading correctly or not dividing
properly.

Let see the latest release I have from the USDA lists 100 grams of
collards, boiled, drained, without salt, as 2.8 grams of dietary fiber.

And raw is 3.6 grams of dietary fiber for 100 grams. So really 0.8
grams difference. That's not five times but more like the reciprocal,
1/5th more. I gather someone did not divide properly.

I suggest using the USDA. They actually do real experiments. And those
in water loss have also been done. I was surprised how little was lost
in general. Very, very surprised. About the water, don't remember now.
The brain is elsewhere at the moment. In any case, drink the water if
concerned. But I would try to find an actual scientific article. This
web stuff is very inaccurate and gets quoted over and over.

USDA = United States Department of Agriculture
100 grams = 22% of a pound, almost a quarter of one pound weight.

wrote:
> uz051235198 wrote:
> > It is my understanding that this only happens when cooking in water,
> > as the nutrients leach out in the water. I would not expect it to happen
> > with baking or roasting, but I may be wrong.
> >
> > Incidentally, collard greens are one of the few foods whose nutrient
> > value increases when boiled. No kidding, cooking makes some of
> > the nutrients available to us that are not available raw. Strangely, the
> > fiber content quintuples when the collards are cooked.
> >
> > http://www.vegparadise.com/highestperch55.html
>
> That's silly. Fiber is a physical product that does not undergo much
> change. Someone is either not reading correctly or not dividing
> properly.
>
> Let see the latest release I have from the USDA lists 100 grams of
> collards, boiled, drained, without salt, as 2.8 grams of dietary fiber.
>
> And raw is 3.6 grams of dietary fiber for 100 grams. So really 0.8
> grams difference. That's not five times but more like the reciprocal,
> 1/5th more. I gather someone did not divide properly.
>
> I suggest using the USDA. They actually do real experiments. And those
> in water loss have also been done. I was surprised how little was lost
> in general. Very, very surprised. About the water, don't remember now.
> The brain is elsewhere at the moment. In any case, drink the water if
> concerned. But I would try to find an actual scientific article. This
> web stuff is very inaccurate and gets quoted over and over.
>
> USDA = United States Department of Agriculture
> 100 grams = 22% of a pound, almost a quarter of one pound weight.

You need to consider *total* nutritional value. All vegetables lose
nutritional value when cooked, aside from fiber decomposition (heat
destroys vitamins). But in many cases cooking makes whatever
nutritional components remain to be more available for absorbtion when
ingested (especially minerals). So yes, with tough fiborous vegetbles
like collards cooking will enhance nutrition to some degree, but only
if the cooking liquid is consumed... and in fact with how some cook
collards to death unless they consume the cooking liquid then they may
as well not bother... eating drained collard is kinda like reusing
teabags.

Sheldon

hi uz,
thanks for the reply. i would be of the same opinion.
cheers
tim

Tim_Mac wrote:
>
> i find it hard to believe that nutrients could disappear with heat...
> but you never know.

Vitamins are destroyed by exposure to heat, light, humidity, air...
well read:

http://www.jamiesonvitamins.com/qa.asp?cat_id=2

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:
> Tim_Mac wrote:
> >
> > i find it hard to believe that nutrients could disappear with heat...
> > but you never know.
>
> Vitamins are destroyed by exposure to heat, light, humidity, air...
> well read:
>
> http://www.jamiesonvitamins.com/qa.asp?cat_id=2
>
> Sheldon

Not really, at least the vitamins examined individually by the USDA.

I think the worst was around 50%.

And even relatively fragile vitamins like C or E did quite well in
cooking tests.

If I find the URL which lists all the vitamins tested in cooking by the
USDA, it will be interesting reading because what these web sites post
is not true. It's just marketing and advertising for their selfish
purposes of selling more vitamins! Ask them for a reference and then
see what they sputter about. An awful lot of vitamins are not
destroyed. There may be unknown nutrients destroyed by cooking but the
ones we know about are not destroyed to any great degree. As I recall,
luteins are enhanced by cooking and that can prevent the most common
form of blindness.

Sheldon wrote:

>Tim_Mac wrote:
>
>
>>i find it hard to believe that nutrients could disappear with heat...
>>but you never know.
>>
>>
>
>Vitamins are destroyed by exposure to heat, light, humidity, air...
>well read:
>
>http://www.jamiesonvitamins.com/qa.asp?cat_id=2
>
>Sheldon
>
>
>
When I was a uni student, back in ancient times, I remember that people
who lived in what were called the halls of residence (this was Monash,
we didn't have colleges like the gentry at Melbourne) were advised, if
not commanded, to take a piece of fruit from the baskets put out at
breakfast. Dinners were plated up in advance and left to steam in hot
boxes, and apparently this was leading to vitamin deficiencies. We will
say nothing about flavour or texture.

Christine
Who lived at home

Old Mother Ashby wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> >Tim_Mac wrote:
> >
> >
> >>i find it hard to believe that nutrients could disappear with heat...
> >>but you never know.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Vitamins are destroyed by exposure to heat, light, humidity, air...
> >well read:
> >
> >http://www.jamiesonvitamins.com/qa.asp?cat_id=2
> >
> >Sheldon
> >
> >
> >
> When I was a uni student, back in ancient times, I remember that people
> who lived in what were called the halls of residence (this was Monash,
> we didn't have colleges like the gentry at Melbourne) were advised, if
> not commanded, to take a piece of fruit from the baskets put out at
> breakfast. Dinners were plated up in advance and left to steam in hot
> boxes, and apparently this was leading to vitamin deficiencies. We will
> say nothing about flavour or texture.
>
> Christine
> Who lived at home

I gather you can destroy nutrients if you leave them to steam all day
long. The times used by the USDA were for cooking not destroying
nutrients in a steam table. In any case, how did they know this was
leading to vitamin deficiencies? Did they actually do chemical
analyses? Did they see any vitamin deficiencies? It's kind of difficult
to see a vitamin deficiency immediately but there are somet that can be
seen right away. Scurvy and limes would be an example, a classic one.
Again, what did they see that led them to believe vitamin deficiencies
were occuring? I'm curious. Scurvy was a common problem in the English
navy and ancient marines but they solved it. And the cure was rather
dramatic, some fresh oranges or anything with a solid vitamin C
content. Limes were the weapon of choice, antisorbutic, hence the name,
limeys.