What are your opinions on microwaving, steaming or boiling vegetables?
I am thinking about the nutritional values left and that different
veggies react in different ways to the above processes.
For example, I can microwave carrots in a minute or so, but it takes a
long time to steam them. What is the difference nutritionally?
I am also aware that my cooker is on for ages in order to steam them
and is so using lots of electricity (but that argument is for another
forum).
regards
Jonny

"Jonny" > wrote in message
...
> What are your opinions on microwaving, steaming or boiling vegetables?
> I am thinking about the nutritional values left and that different
> veggies react in different ways to the above processes.
> For example, I can microwave carrots in a minute or so, but it takes a
> long time to steam them. What is the difference nutritionally?
> I am also aware that my cooker is on for ages in order to steam them
> and is so using lots of electricity (but that argument is for another
> forum).
> regards
> Jonny

Microwaving IS steaming. Nutritionally, microwaving and cooking in a steamer
are superior to boiling. Many nutrients are discarded with the cooking water
when boiling veggies. Your carrots would be even more nutritional raw. If
your steamer is working properly, it shouldn't take more than 8 -15 minutes
depending on how you cut the carrots.

Charlie

"Jonny" > wrote in message
...
> What are your opinions on microwaving, steaming or boiling vegetables?
> I am thinking about the nutritional values left and that different
> veggies react in different ways to the above processes.
> For example, I can microwave carrots in a minute or so, but it takes a
> long time to steam them. What is the difference nutritionally?
> I am also aware that my cooker is on for ages in order to steam them
> and is so using lots of electricity (but that argument is for another
> forum).
> regards
> Jonny

Microwaving IS steaming. Nutritionally, microwaving and cooking in a steamer
are superior to boiling. Many nutrients are discarded with the cooking water
when boiling veggies. Your carrots would be even more nutritional raw. If
your steamer is working properly, it shouldn't take more than 8 -15 minutes
depending on how you cut the carrots.

Charlie

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:23:13 GMT, "Charles Gifford"
> wrote:

>
>"Jonny" > wrote in message
<My stuff snipped>
>
>Microwaving IS steaming. Nutritionally, microwaving and cooking in a steamer
>are superior to boiling. Many nutrients are discarded with the cooking water
>when boiling veggies. Your carrots would be even more nutritional raw. If
>your steamer is working properly, it shouldn't take more than 8 -15 minutes
>depending on how you cut the carrots.
>
>Charlie

Thanks for that Charlie

Jonny wrote:
> What are your opinions on microwaving, steaming or boiling
vegetables?
> I am thinking about the nutritional values left and that different
> veggies react in different ways to the above processes.
> For example, I can microwave carrots in a minute or so, but it takes
a
> long time to steam them. What is the difference nutritionally?
> I am also aware that my cooker is on for ages in order to steam them
> and is so using lots of electricity (but that argument is for another
> forum).
> regards
> Jonny

I've dumped my microwave oven. It works by vibrating the molecules of
food at very high frequencies. That may cause significant changes to
the molecular structure of foods. That means that something that was
food may be converted to molecules of substances that are not food.
This possibility, which I don't consider to be remote, is enough to get
me back to cooking the real way, with more naturally generated
heatsources.

TC

> wrote:
> I've dumped my microwave oven. It works by vibrating the molecules of
> food at very high frequencies. That may cause significant changes to
> the molecular structure of foods. That means that something that was
> food may be converted to molecules of substances that are not food.
> This possibility, which I don't consider to be remote, is enough to get
> me back to cooking the real way, with more naturally generated
> heatsources.

I hate to break it to you, but heat is increasing the molecular energy
of food. It may cause significant changes to the molecular structure
of foods. That means that something that was food may be converted to
molecules of substances that are not food.

--
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
as they fly overhead. -- RFC 1925

In rec.food.veg.cooking, wrote:

> I've dumped my microwave oven. It works by vibrating the molecules of
> food at very high frequencies. That may cause significant changes to
> the molecular structure of foods.

Really? How so? Given that microwave heating has been around for
decades, I imagine that many studies have been done on it. Can you
recommend any good ones for me to review?

Or are you just airing your phobia in public?


That means that something that was
> food may be converted to molecules of substances that are not food.
> This possibility, which I don't consider to be remote,

What is your basis for this consideration? Fact or phobia?

--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

wrote:
> In rec.food.veg.cooking, wrote:
>
> > I've dumped my microwave oven. It works by vibrating the molecules
of
> > food at very high frequencies. That may cause significant changes
to
> > the molecular structure of foods.
>
> Really? How so? Given that microwave heating has been around for
> decades, I imagine that many studies have been done on it. Can you
> recommend any good ones for me to review?
>
> Or are you just airing your phobia in public?
>
>
> That means that something that was
> > food may be converted to molecules of substances that are not food.
> > This possibility, which I don't consider to be remote,
>
> What is your basis for this consideration? Fact or phobia?
>
> --
> In the councils of government, we must guard against the
> acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
> by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the
> disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
> -- Dwight David Eisenhower


http://www.jrussellshealth.com/microwaves.html

Here is some discussion on the topic with some references to some
studies.

TC

wrote:

> http://www.jrussellshealth.com/microwaves.html
>
> Here is some discussion on the topic with some references to some
> studies.
>
> TC

There are no references to medical studies, just made up conjecture and
a lot of bogus pseudo science mumbo jumbo. Anybody that considers
Mercola.com to be a reliable source of anything is deluded.

By the way, cooking releases the prime nutrient in carrots (beta
carotene), tomatoes (lycopene) and spinach (Lutein) and makes them more
bio-available than leaving them raw. The cell fibres in spinach lock in
the Lutein, cooking breaks them down. Cooking tomatoes with a small
amount of fat (use a healthy oil of your choice) releases up to ten
times the amount of lycopene as raw. Carrots release more beta carotene
when they are cooked to the crisp-tender stage.

Also, on microwaving, that is part of an Urban Legend:

http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/lib...ave-dioxin.htm

Dennis

wrote:

> http://www.jrussellshealth.com/microwaves.html
>
> Here is some discussion on the topic with some references to some
> studies.
>
> TC

There are no references to medical studies, just made up conjecture and
a lot of bogus pseudo science mumbo jumbo. Anybody that considers
Mercola.com to be a reliable source of anything is deluded.

By the way, cooking releases the prime nutrient in carrots (beta
carotene), tomatoes (lycopene) and spinach (Lutein) and makes them more
bio-available than leaving them raw. The cell fibres in spinach lock in
the Lutein, cooking breaks them down. Cooking tomatoes with a small
amount of fat (use a healthy oil of your choice) releases up to ten
times the amount of lycopene as raw. Carrots release more beta carotene
when they are cooked to the crisp-tender stage.

Also, on microwaving, that is part of an Urban Legend:

http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/lib...ave-dioxin.htm

Dennis

Dennis Rekuta wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > http://www.jrussellshealth.com/microwaves.html
> >
> > Here is some discussion on the topic with some references to some
> > studies.
> > TC
>
> There are no references to medical studies, just made up conjecture
> and a lot of bogus pseudo science mumbo jumbo. Anybody that considers
> Mercola.com to be a reliable source of anything is deluded.
>
< mod snip >

What has the website referenced got to do with Mercola? You are seeing
things.

The website referenced makes references to real science. Your negative
opinion of the science being referenced is based on what?

TC

In article .com>,
says...
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.jrussellshealth.com/microwaves.html
> > >
> > > Here is some discussion on the topic with some references to some
> > > studies.
[snip]
> The website referenced makes references to real science. Your negative
> opinion of the science being referenced is based on what?


I'd like to jump in here. I'd like to comment first about the chemistry
of cooking and then a bit about this website and "real science". I'll
even throw in my two cents about the original question. I love science,
and I love cooking, and I'm long winded, so I apologize in advance for
the length. However, I think it is important to provide a partial
critique of the website that has been posted as a reference of why not
to microwave.

The original question was, I believe, what cooking method best preserves
nutrients? I'd say it probably doesn't matter. The nutrition is
probably best immediately after picking... a lot of the chemicals in
produce start to degrade as soon as they are picked. So, when you by a
hunk of broccoli that was harvested 4 weeks ago, you've already taken a
hit. Eat a variety of foods, try to buy local, fresh produce and don't
worry about it too much.

Cooking causes chemical reactions. That's why we do it. A loaf of
bread tastes different from a hunk of dough. Some molecules are
destroyed and others are created. Proteins are altered and broken down-
generally made more digestible. In some cases the molecules created are
toxic or carcinogenic (cancer causing). A case you may remember from a
few years ago was that carcinogenic compounds were found in french fries
and baked goods.

Cooking dumps heat into your food via radiation. It doesn't matter
whether you use an oven, a microwave, a grill, or the stove. Some
methods are more direct than others. Look inside the oven- that glowing
element is emitting radiation. Microwaves target water molecules so the
water heats up. This is why food out of the microwave
tasted/looks/feels steamed.

A really nice book about the science behind cooking is
"What Einstein Told His Cook: Kitchen Science Explained"
by Robert L. Wolke

It is at a very general level. He's a pretty funny writer too, so don't
think this book will read like a text book.

Now, on to the website. I'm not going to deconstruct the whole site, or
rebut point by point, but I would like to point out a few things. "Real
Science" generally requires peer review. That is, other scientists in
the field review the work, make comments, suggest additional
experiments, and judge whether the conclusions drawn are supported by
the evidence. While this isn't perfect, it is a pretty good system, and
most people involved spend a lot of time making sure good science gets
done and published. The majority of the references here are not from
such journals. Furthermore, a reference should be complete enough that
you or I could go to the library and pull that article up. That way we
can judge it ourselves based on the whole article, and not a 3 sentence
summary. Many of the references are to other websites (and not websites
of universities or scientific journals), which doesn't rank too much
higher than "I read it on usenet". The scariest portions have the
weakest referencing. For example (and sorry to quote such a long
passage:

"Microwave cooking is an important cause of ill health, and its effects
are mostly ignored. The violent change that microwaving causes to the
food molecules forms new life forms called radiolytic compounds, which
are mutations that are unknown in the natural world. Ordinary cooking
also causes the formation of some radiolytic compounds, but microwaving
cooking causes a much greater number. This then causes deterioration in
your blood and immune system. In addition, it was found that the number
of leukocytes increases after eating microwaved food, something which
hematologists take very seriously because this is often a sign of highly
harmful effects, such as poisoning. Cholesterol levels increase after
eating microwaved foods. In summary: Blanc and Hertel found that eating
microwaved food: increases cholesterol, increases white blood cell
numbers, decreases red blood cell numbers, and causes production of
radiolytic compounds (compounds unknown in nature). Editor's comment:
For those who are interested, there is a long list of effects from
microwaves observed by Russian forensic teams." - from
http://www.jrussellshealth.com/microwaves.html

I don't find either Blanc and Hertel a sufficient reference. Googling
for them finds (at least the top hits) a million pages like
http://www.jrussellshealth.com/microwaves.html- they provide summaries
of the study, but not a single reference to the actual study. The
editor's comment is even less helpful- Russians did research? Without
an actual citation so you can find the source yourself- this is like a
game of telephone. And I find the summary sufficiently garbled that I
don't trust this site is accurately represented Hertel and Blanc's work.
A few of the many errors include-
Microwaving doesn't form "new lifeforms". It may form new chemicals
(but again, that's why we're cooking, right?). They are not mutations.

What I would want to see in a study was people fed the same food cooked
by oven and by microwave and the looking at blood workups. For all I
know, the study participants just ate a Hungry Man microwave dinner. Or
maybe peoples cholesterol levels always go up in response to eating (or
eating fat or something). Studies purporting to be "science" need to be
read skeptically- whether your participating in peer- review or looking
on the internet.

A few of the studies here have little to do with microwaving and more to
do with heating. The bit at the end about superheating- microwaving
happens to be particularly good at setting up the conditions for
superheating, but you can also get superheating boiling water on the
stove topic. Microwaves have nothing to do with the injury- scalding
hot water does.

I'd be glad to discuss this further if you wish, though perhaps it might
be best to take it to email.

L.

Louise Sinks wrote:
>
> A few of the studies here have little to do with microwaving and more
> to do with heating. ....
<mod snip>


Generally, I agree with what you say. I would much prefer to have some
specific serious scientific study to reference directly, unfortunately
I haven't been able to put my finger on any good science on either side
of the issue.

The fact that very few studies have been done to verify that
microwaving foods is harmless seriously concerns me. Those few studies
that have been done point to frightening conclusions that seriously
concern me.

In the absence of any preponderance of scientific evidence verifying
the safety of microwaving foods, I will avoid using that cooking
methodology. It is not a method of cooking that is of absolute
necessity, nor will it be much, if any, of an inconvenience to not make
use of it.

Better safe than sorry.

TC

Louise Sinks wrote:
>
> A few of the studies here have little to do with microwaving and more
> to do with heating. ....
<mod snip>


Generally, I agree with what you say. I would much prefer to have some
specific serious scientific study to reference directly, unfortunately
I haven't been able to put my finger on any good science on either side
of the issue.

The fact that very few studies have been done to verify that
microwaving foods is harmless seriously concerns me. Those few studies
that have been done point to frightening conclusions that seriously
concern me.

In the absence of any preponderance of scientific evidence verifying
the safety of microwaving foods, I will avoid using that cooking
methodology. It is not a method of cooking that is of absolute
necessity, nor will it be much, if any, of an inconvenience to not make
use of it.

Better safe than sorry.

TC

> wrote:
> The fact that very few studies have been done to verify that
> microwaving foods is harmless seriously concerns me. Those few studies
> that have been done point to frightening conclusions that seriously
> concern me.
<mod snip>

Very few studies have been done to verify that conventional baking
is harmless.

Heck, I'm sure the average raw foodist can easily list many reasons why
baking is probably bad for you.

But wait! That's not all. What about storing food in a fridge?
I would strongly suspect that the low temperature is causing changes in
food.

While skepticism is fine and dandy, its better to live life by avoiding
known risks. Eat a balance diet, always wear your seatbelt, schedule
regular medical and dental checkups, try to stay a healthy weight and
get plenty of exercise and sleep.

--
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
as they fly overhead. -- RFC 1925

> wrote:
> The fact that very few studies have been done to verify that
> microwaving foods is harmless seriously concerns me. Those few studies
> that have been done point to frightening conclusions that seriously
> concern me.
<mod snip>

Very few studies have been done to verify that conventional baking
is harmless.

Heck, I'm sure the average raw foodist can easily list many reasons why
baking is probably bad for you.

But wait! That's not all. What about storing food in a fridge?
I would strongly suspect that the low temperature is causing changes in
food.

While skepticism is fine and dandy, its better to live life by avoiding
known risks. Eat a balance diet, always wear your seatbelt, schedule
regular medical and dental checkups, try to stay a healthy weight and
get plenty of exercise and sleep.

--
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
as they fly overhead. -- RFC 1925

wrote:
<snip>
>
> The fact that very few studies have been done to verify that
> microwaving foods is harmless seriously concerns me. Those few studies
> that have been done point to frightening conclusions that seriously
> concern me.
>
<snip>

Google is your friend. A few simple queries brought out several
citations from the National Institutes of Health, British, European and
Canadian government agencies on the safety of microwave cooking.
Microwave safety standards have been around for over 30 years. If the
only negative citations you find are from sources like Jane Russell's
and Dr. Mercola's quack web sites; and you automatically assume all
government agencies are part of some evil conspiracy; then there will be
no convincing you. Even Vegetarian Times endorses the use of microwave
ovens in some recipes. Are they stooges as well? I have run into this
kind of thinking elsewhere.

There is currently a poster named Tom on alt.support.glaucoma who cannot
understand why both patients and doctors are willing to use inherently
dangerous pressure lowering prescription eye drops to prevent(even
though they have safely and effectively been in use for between five to
thirty years depending on the med). Tom advocates that people should be
exploring the use of marijuana, a natural product that has been around
for thousands of years. It was pointed out to him that studies indicate
that marijuana only seemed to produce temporary lowering of ocular
pressures for the duration of the time that you took enough to be
"stoned", and once enough TCH left your system for you to be able to
carry out everyday functions, any medical effect was gone. Tom
essentially stated that it would be better to be "stoned" all of the
time than to risk the side effects of drops.

The whole thread can be read at:

http://snipurl.com/d8vi

Dennis

wrote:
<...>
> The fact that very few studies have been done to verify that
> microwaving foods is harmless seriously concerns me.

Very few studies verify the safety of ANY thing, including getting out
of bed on one side as opposed to the other. Microwaves are just
electromagnetic energy. It's like sunlight and radio waves. Are you also
afraid of the sun or listening to the radio?

> Those few studies
> that have been done point to frightening conclusions that seriously
> concern me.

Such as...? And are you reading the actual studies or second-hand
reporting of them by biased (and possibly ignorant) parties?

> In the absence of any preponderance of scientific evidence verifying
> the safety of microwaving foods, I will avoid using that cooking
> methodology. It is not a method of cooking that is of absolute
> necessity, nor will it be much, if any, of an inconvenience to not make
> use of it.
>
> Better safe than sorry.

That's what people used to say (and based on the same unfounded
arguments!) about automobiles, airplanes, indoor plumbing, and (egads!)
computers. You'd be better off learning the simple mechanics of
microwave ovens and a little of the science behind it and throwing off
that Luddite label.

Nutrients in the water used to boil foods can be retained. E.g. if you
use the water used for boiling vegetables to make a gravy. Admittedly I
mainly use the water from boiling vegetables to make gravy (instant)
because it makes the gravy taste better, but some nutrients will be
retained.

Cheers,

Ross-c

wrote:

> I've dumped my microwave oven. It works by vibrating the molecules of
> food at very high frequencies. That may cause significant changes to
> the molecular structure of foods. That means that something that was
> food may be converted to molecules of substances that are not food.
> This possibility, which I don't consider to be remote, is enough to get
> me back to cooking the real way, with more naturally generated
> heatsources.

May be a little bit of very basic science will do away with such
nonsense.

Matter, including food and ourselfs, is made of molecules, which in turn
consist of atoms connected by chemical bonds. For the purpose of this
discussion you can think of atoms as tiny hard spheres, and of bonds as
springs connecting them.

If you supply energy to such a ball/spring system, you get oscillations.
Particularly violent oscillations are observed when the energy is
supplied at specific frequencies, called the natural frequencies of the
system. Even then however the spring does not break.

Heat is the movement of molecules and atoms, either oscillatory of the
bonds or random (Brownian) motion of the entire molecules. What we call
an increase in temperature is microscopically an increase in the speed
of Brownian motion and in the amplitude of intramolecular oscillations.

Heat can be added classically by a fire place, in this case energy is
supplied over a wide spectral region. Microwaves work differently in
that they add energy only at a specific frequency, which is selected to
coincide with the natural frequency of the hydrogen-oxygen bond in
water. Thus movement in water molecules is excited very efficiently, the
moving water molecules knock against other molecules in their vincinity,
transfering energy also to them.

The microwave energy however is not sufficient to break chemical bonds
(you need UV light for that), it only excites oscillations in the bond.
Hence the fears expressed above are totally unfounded.

The changes observed in boiling/steaming/microwaving are not caused by
the breakage of chemical bonds, but by the unfolding of proteins and
some polysaccharides, resulting in a more open, more easily digestible
food. That indeed is one of the main purposes of cooking: Making food
easier to digest.

In roasting on the other hand heat is applied from the surface of the
food, leading to local overheating. Under these conditions, chemical
bonds may indeed break, resulting in the formation of new compounds,
which change the colour (browning) and flavour of the food. In
moderation that is harmless and even intended, but if the food is
allowed to become too dark, carcinogenic compounds may form.

So microwaving food does not make it harmfull, on the contrary since
heating time is short, damage to heat-sensitive vitamins is limited. The
only possible damage results from microwaves escaping from the oven and
directly interacting with our body (especially the eyes). Thus microwave
ovens should be well maintained and never operated with the cover
removed.

wrote:

> I've dumped my microwave oven. It works by vibrating the molecules of
> food at very high frequencies. That may cause significant changes to
> the molecular structure of foods. That means that something that was
> food may be converted to molecules of substances that are not food.
> This possibility, which I don't consider to be remote, is enough to get
> me back to cooking the real way, with more naturally generated
> heatsources.

May be a little bit of very basic science will do away with such
nonsense.

Matter, including food and ourselfs, is made of molecules, which in turn
consist of atoms connected by chemical bonds. For the purpose of this
discussion you can think of atoms as tiny hard spheres, and of bonds as
springs connecting them.

If you supply energy to such a ball/spring system, you get oscillations.
Particularly violent oscillations are observed when the energy is
supplied at specific frequencies, called the natural frequencies of the
system. Even then however the spring does not break.

Heat is the movement of molecules and atoms, either oscillatory of the
bonds or random (Brownian) motion of the entire molecules. What we call
an increase in temperature is microscopically an increase in the speed
of Brownian motion and in the amplitude of intramolecular oscillations.

Heat can be added classically by a fire place, in this case energy is
supplied over a wide spectral region. Microwaves work differently in
that they add energy only at a specific frequency, which is selected to
coincide with the natural frequency of the hydrogen-oxygen bond in
water. Thus movement in water molecules is excited very efficiently, the
moving water molecules knock against other molecules in their vincinity,
transfering energy also to them.

The microwave energy however is not sufficient to break chemical bonds
(you need UV light for that), it only excites oscillations in the bond.
Hence the fears expressed above are totally unfounded.

The changes observed in boiling/steaming/microwaving are not caused by
the breakage of chemical bonds, but by the unfolding of proteins and
some polysaccharides, resulting in a more open, more easily digestible
food. That indeed is one of the main purposes of cooking: Making food
easier to digest.

In roasting on the other hand heat is applied from the surface of the
food, leading to local overheating. Under these conditions, chemical
bonds may indeed break, resulting in the formation of new compounds,
which change the colour (browning) and flavour of the food. In
moderation that is harmless and even intended, but if the food is
allowed to become too dark, carcinogenic compounds may form.

So microwaving food does not make it harmfull, on the contrary since
heating time is short, damage to heat-sensitive vitamins is limited. The
only possible damage results from microwaves escaping from the oven and
directly interacting with our body (especially the eyes). Thus microwave
ovens should be well maintained and never operated with the cover
removed.

micro wave means a very small energy wave
but if einstein is correct matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
or some idiot would be rebuilding lead to make gold.

HOWEVER you are partially correct
simply because not all food containers are safe in the microwave.
that plastic bag you wrap the food with, might not be food grade quality.
so grocery bags, are a no no. if the bag has printing on it, is the inks
they use of food grade quality.

use natural containers if at all possible
corn on the cob, cooked in the microwave (in its own husk)
try it once and you will never go back to steamed or heaven forbid boiled.

cooking carrots? well shred a carrot and add a few drops of lemon juice,
just to give them the fresh look. cooking is not needed.
carrot, onion and celery are the trinity, for all vegees soup base.
but that is just the slow cooker doing it's thing, and i get my pot roast
ready when i get home.

i hope that gives you some options you can work with.
dug88

[ quoting removed - moderator ]

I prefer to steam my vegetables. However, for time sake i cook harder
vegetables in the microwave as it incredibly quicker then boiling or
steaming.

I always try and steam. I don't consider cooking food in microwaves
natural.

> wrote:

> I prefer to steam my vegetables. However, for time sake i cook harder
> vegetables in the microwave as it incredibly quicker then boiling or
> steaming.

We don't have a microwave, so we always steam or boil or oven-roast our
veggies.

serene
--
http://serenejournal.livejournal.com
http://www.jhuger.com

seraphina075 wrote ...
> I prefer to steam my vegetables. However, for time sake i
> cook harder vegetables in the microwave as it incredibly
> quicker then boiling or steaming.
>
> I always try and steam. I don't consider cooking food in
> microwaves natural.

Molecular movement is molecular movement, whether
it is generated by microwaves or by steam. OTOH, steam
is more likely to remove some nutrients (unless you use
the condensate elsewhere).