Re: Microwave ovens

[Guest guest]

Far be it for me to argue with something posted on the internet, but I've been using microwave ovens for years and haven't noticed any changes in my chi.

JR

-----Original Message-----From: Tim Tyler [mailto:tt2333@...]Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 12:07 PM Subject: [ ] Microwave ovens> > However not everyone is completely trusting of microwaves.> > For example, here is a sceptical article:> >> > http://www.nexusmagazine.com/microwave.html> > This is laughable.> I stopped reading it when i got to the bit about microwaves> from the sun.Definitely not my best link ever. I *used* to have a nice articleof microwave scepticism which expressed my own concerns almost exactly. It reported that there was a dearth of safety studies - and then produced a string of plausible-sounding stories abouthow microwave cooking was not like normal cooking, and about howwe were less likely to have developed adaptations to deal with it.Here's more anti-microwave material - make of it what you will:http://healbuildings.com/Microwave_Ovens/microwave_ovens.htmlhttp://www.relfe.com/microwave.html

[Guest guest]

As with any method of cooking, there is a right way and a wrong way to do it: 1) Microwave ovens are efficient producers of hot water. 2) Food immersed in hot water does not get hotter than the water, providing that there is enough water surrounding the food to allow good heat distribution from the heating source. 3) The contents of the container should be stired, or otherwise repositioned periodically during the cooking process, just like any other method of cooking. 4) A microwave turntable helps to distribute the heat. 5) Simmer animal protein and poach eggs and fish in a microwave. 6) Use a thermometer. 7) Relax!

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Tom Kobzina " <tkobzina@...>

Subject: Re: [ ] Microwave ovens

" As with any method of cooking, there is a right way and a wrong way to do

it.....

.....7) Relax!

Okay- i am relaxing. But - i thought i read fairly recently posts on the

other CR listgroup that

microwave cooking is the least desirable means of cooking, due to the high

temperatures

involved, inherent in microwave energy cooking. For hot water, for tea,

fine. Other than that

use, you're just manipulating time, not temperature to any reliable measure,

is this not correct?

Hue

[Guest guest]

You need to do a search of the other group archive for a more complete discussion some time ago.... it's not as simple as microwave is good or bad, but done properly it's probably better than most...

JR

-----Original Message-----From: Hue [mailto:kargo_cult@...]Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [ ] Microwave ovens----- Original Message -----From: "Tom Kobzina" <tkobzina@...>Subject: Re: [ ] Microwave ovens"As with any method of cooking, there is a right way and a wrong way to doit.........7) Relax!Okay- i am relaxing. But - i thought i read fairly recently posts on theother CR listgroup thatmicrowave cooking is the least desirable means of cooking, due to the hightemperaturesinvolved, inherent in microwave energy cooking. For hot water, for tea,fine. Other than thatuse, you're just manipulating time, not temperature to any reliable measure,is this not correct?Hue

[Guest guest]

--- " john roberts " wrote:

> You need to do a search of the other group archive for a

> more complete discussion some time ago.... it's not as

> simple as microwave is good or bad, but done properly

> it's probably better than most...

The " Hans Ulrich Hertel " study cited by Bob Avery there seems pretty

negative.

From his summary:

``All cooking damages food, but microwaving damages it the most.

The least damage (but still considerable) is done by light

steaming or fast wok frying. Next would be boiling, baking,

and pressure cooking; then barbecueing and deep frying;

and finally microwaving.''

That sounds a bit far gone to me. I would rate pressure cooking as

better than boiling or baking - and possibly less destructive than

steaming in some ways - due to the reduced cooking times - and would

probably put " deep frying " at the bottom of the list, with " fast wok

frying " not terribly far above it.

Some " anti-microwave " pages for your perusal:

http://chetday.com/microwave.html

http://healbuildings.com/Microwave_Ovens/microwave_ovens.html

[Guest guest]

This has already been well discussed, but in brief the negative consequences associated with cooking are caused by elevated temperature and time that the food is exposed to elevated temperature.

Moderate Microwave cooking (as long as there is still water content in the food) generally doesn't heat the food above 212F. Steaming food my be preferred because the heat is applied to the exterior surface of the food, where most bacteria will reside. You can cook only the outside of the food, while microwave cooks from within.

Regarding pressure cooking, you can cook in less time precisely because the steam is at a higher temperature. It seems logical that time-temperature product may be similar (less time but at a higher temperature).

Fast Wok cooking is certainly better than deep fat frying. I would expect moisture released from vegetables in the wok to create steam which does some of the cooking. It's all a continuum between more and less healthful methods. IMO Microwave is no more or no less dangerous than other approaches with similar time/temperature profiles.

JR

-----Original Message-----From: Tim Tyler [mailto:tt2333@...]Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 9:51 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Microwave ovens--- "john roberts" wrote:> You need to do a search of the other group archive for a > more complete discussion some time ago.... it's not as > simple as microwave is good or bad, but done properly > it's probably better than most...The "Hans Ulrich Hertel" study cited by Bob Avery there seems pretty negative.>From his summary:``All cooking damages food, but microwaving damages it the most. The least damage (but still considerable) is done by light steaming or fast wok frying. Next would be boiling, baking, and pressure cooking; then barbecueing and deep frying; and finally microwaving.''That sounds a bit far gone to me. I would rate pressure cooking as better than boiling or baking - and possibly less destructive than steaming in some ways - due to the reduced cooking times - and would probably put "deep frying" at the bottom of the list, with "fast wok frying" not terribly far above it.Some "anti-microwave" pages for your perusal:http://chetday.com/microwave.htmlhttp://healbuildings.com/Microwave_Ovens/microwave_ovens.html

[Guest guest]

--- " john roberts " wrote:

> Regarding pressure cooking, you can cook in less time

> precisely because the steam is at a higher temperature.

> It seems logical that time-temperature product may be

> similar (less time but at a higher temperature).

The idea that temperature x time is proportional to damage seems

essentially a reasonable one.

Higher temperatures will eventually start to bring qualitatively

different chemical reactions, though. This suggests to me that

higher temperatures are likely to be /slightly/ worse - despite the

fact that a shorter cooking time can be employed.

> IMO Microwave is no more or no less dangerous than other approaches

> with similar time/temperature profiles.

Possibly - though I expect those seeking explanations for

the Hans Hertel studies of the effect of microwaving food

on animals would not be satisfied.

Microwaves apply concentrated energy at absorpsion sites - which

then diffuses thermally into the surrounding material.

Just because there is some water left in food, that doesn't mean it

is not exposed to high temperatures. A fish, for example contains

moist muscle tissue - and abdominal and internal fat deposits. A

microwave is likely to elevate the temperature of those fatty

tissues well beyond the boiling point of water, even if the rest

of the product still has significant water content.

The result may be more like frying a fish than steaming it.

There are some other safety concerns about microwaving - e.g.:

``Some hardy, and dangerous, pathogens can survive microwave

cooking in certain ready-to-eat poultry and seafood

products. Virginia Tech researchers have investigated the

ability of pathogens, such as Listeria monocytogene, to

survive microwave cooking and discovered how they do it.''

-

http://www.agctr.lsu.edu/Subjects/SouthSuccess/soimpact/foodsafety.pd

f

[Guest guest]

In practice I find microwave more useful for re-heating than cooking. Especially if pathogens are involved. It is the nature of microwave heating to be localized. Modern designs try to dither these absorption sites to more evenly heat the food but if food safety is an issue, boiling or steaming will concentrate the heat on the outer surface of the food where pathogens are more likely to be found.

JR

-----Original Message-----From: Tim Tyler [mailto:tt2333@...]Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:20 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Microwave ovens--- "john roberts" wrote:> Regarding pressure cooking, you can cook in less time > precisely because the steam is at a higher temperature. > It seems logical that time-temperature product may be> similar (less time but at a higher temperature).The idea that temperature x time is proportional to damage seems essentially a reasonable one.Higher temperatures will eventually start to bring qualitatively different chemical reactions, though. This suggests to me that higher temperatures are likely to be /slightly/ worse - despite thefact that a shorter cooking time can be employed.> IMO Microwave is no more or no less dangerous than other approaches> with similar time/temperature profiles.Possibly - though I expect those seeking explanations for the Hans Hertel studies of the effect of microwaving foodon animals would not be satisfied.Microwaves apply concentrated energy at absorpsion sites - which then diffuses thermally into the surrounding material.Just because there is some water left in food, that doesn't mean it is not exposed to high temperatures. A fish, for example contains moist muscle tissue - and abdominal and internal fat deposits. A microwave is likely to elevate the temperature of those fatty tissues well beyond the boiling point of water, even if the restof the product still has significant water content.The result may be more like frying a fish than steaming it.There are some other safety concerns about microwaving - e.g.:``Some hardy, and dangerous, pathogens can survive microwave cooking in certain ready-to-eat poultry and seafood products. Virginia Tech researchers have investigated the ability of pathogens, such as Listeria monocytogene, to survive microwave cooking and discovered how they do it.''- http://www.agctr.lsu.edu/Subjects/SouthSuccess/soimpact/foodsafety.pdf

[Guest guest]

A lot of this discussion is achedemic. I think we have to cook potatoes, sweet potatoes some way, right? Micro wave is the way to do it.

Other foods probably have "ideal" ways to cook them also.

Regards.

[Guest guest]

--- " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote:

> A lot of this discussion is achedemic. I think we have to

> cook potatoes, sweet potatoes some way, right? Micro wave

> is the way to do it.

Your premise is questionable - sweet potatoes make a fine, rich

syrupy juice. Juicing seems to me like a fine alternative to

cooking - at least for them - if your concern is getting access

to sweet potato nutrients.

Potato juice is widely regarded as unpalatable - and is usually

mixed when it is used at all. Having said that we certainly don't

need to eat potatoes at all. As far as we can tell 99% of our

ancectors did without the potato. It doesn't seem at all

essential to me.

I don't microwave vegetables at all. When I cook sweet potatoes,

they tend to go into my pot: http://timtyler.org/pressure_cooker/

[Guest guest]

I was trying to pick a vegetable that everyone would cook. If you were going to cook a sweet potato how would you do it? ly, I steam my veggies, except the odd (S)potato.

My point was the choice of cooking probably goes with what we're cooking. Maybe we could define the "proper" way to cook a food if we were going to cook it. I don't juice anything because I want the fibre.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Tim Tyler

Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 3:32 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Microwave ovens

--- "jwwright" <jwwright@e...> wrote:> A lot of this discussion is achedemic. I think we have to > cook potatoes, sweet potatoes some way, right? Micro wave > is the way to do it.Your premise is questionable - sweet potatoes make a fine, rich syrupy juice. Juicing seems to me like a fine alternative tocooking - at least for them - if your concern is getting accessto sweet potato nutrients.Potato juice is widely regarded as unpalatable - and is usually mixed when it is used at all. Having said that we certainly don't need to eat potatoes at all. As far as we can tell 99% of our ancectors did without the potato. It doesn't seem at allessential to me.I don't microwave vegetables at all. When I cook sweet potatoes, they tend to go into my pot: http://timtyler.org/pressure_cooker/