Please stop microwaving your food

NiliP

http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/microwave.html

Here's another http://suite101.com/article/how-do-microwave-ovens-work-a35365

http://www.livestrong.com/article/421142-health-concerns-with-the-use-of-infrared-heat-to-cook-food/

Please take note of the peer review journals sources throughout the article and at the bottom.

I just can't bring myself to read an article in which the first sentence is completely wrong. Infrared is a completely different part of the electromagnetic spectrum from microwaves.

Damiilla

I don't mean to be rude but I just can't understand how some people didn't know microwaves were really bad... it's radiation people. What did you expect?

That being said, I'm sure if you have to use it on occasion, it can't be *that* bad for you.

uh huh. The radiation produced by a microwave oven is non-ionizing. I does not have the cancer risks associated with ionizing radiation

Yeah it's on the same frequency as TVs and phones. Anything more would destroy your food.

SRH7

The reason there are people unhappy with you is because of the way you started this thread.

Mistake 1: Telling people what to do.
Mistake 2: Telling people what to do based on something that isn't true
Mistake 3: Changing your story.


You can eat raw. But telling someone else what to do based on inaccuracies is asking for trouble.

This is the issue. As others have said, stating something as an opinion is one thing; stating it as fact is an entirely different matter. Many people turn to these forums for advice and help and scaremongering does not benefit anyone.

I've studied science to university degree level and can't see the logic in the arguments given on here about microwaves. I've also been eating microwaved food since the early 80s with no ill effects (apart from getting tetchy and argumentative on forums - but the whole point of 'discussion' boards is to do just that, so I will forgive myself for that).

Those who are genuinely afraid of microwaves are fine to go ahead not using them. The rest of us will continue to use them to quickly cook our food with no ill effects and we will have far more time to spend out running or down the gym.

CarolynB38

I don't mean to be rude but I just can't understand how some people didn't know microwaves were really bad... it's radiation people. What did you expect?

That being said, I'm sure if you have to use it on occasion, it can't be *that* bad for you.

Hmmm. Light is radiation. Microwaves are a kind of radiowave. Radiowaves are radiation and they are everywhere. If your microwave oven is properly functioning an in good condition there should be very little, if any, radiation affecting you. Microwaves directed right at you wouldn't be too good on a regular basis, but they're not supposed to be able to escape from your microwave oven. I'd be more worried about the x-rays and CT scans I've been exposed to in my life and the background radiation. I grew up within a few miles of two nuclear power stations and I'm still healthy. If microwave ovens were that bad, we wouldn't have them any more. What about mobile phones? HT power cables? I think as long as you are sensible in life, there are worse things to worry about. If you have too much exposure to something then maybe it's time to worry

I think the problem with older microwave ovens is that it was very easy to overheat certain areas of the food, which isn't too good for the food, and not heat other areas quite so well. Newer ovens are much better at providing even heating. Yes, perhaps it is better to heat in other ways, or eat fresh, but I certainly don't think it's time to panic just yet!

KaleidoscopeEyes1056

Dear internet,

Please do the world a favor and start paying attention in HS chemistry.

Love,
Melba

(P.S. But really, stop microwaving plastic. Otherwise, go nuts.)

It seems that a lot of people totally forget any science education they had when they sign up for this site. Especially Biology.

weathergirl320

I haven't used a micro wave oven in 3 years. I moved to a new place, and didn't have one. And I put a tv in my kitchen so I can watch my stories when I am cooking. But the tv takes up the spot where the micro wave should go. So I just never got one. And I'm cheap so unless someone gives me a hand me down I'm not buying one because its just not necessary. That being said, I really don't miss the micro because I have a toaster oven. Generally the food comes out way better. Like leftovers and stuff. They don't taste like leftovers at all. The only time I sort of miss the microwave is when I want popcorn because its a pain to make on the stove. But not impossible and it tastes better too. Can't say i am afraid of using it or think its bad, but I have heard about the plastic potentially being a problem. But anyway, I am a freak without a microwave and don't miss it. It is possible to live without one. But for me to be afraid of the radiation or whatever is silly, I think the tv in my kitchen is more of a threat.

KaleidoscopeEyes1056

Oh no!

I need my microwave to boil my eggs in. What am I going to do????????

I use the microwave to boil spaghetti. But, I guess I shouldn't be eating that, though, because carbs make you fat. Ignore the fact that I've lost 23 lbs.

SRH7

Oh no!

I need my microwave to boil my eggs in. What am I going to do????????

I use the microwave to boil spaghetti. But, I guess I shouldn't be eating that, though, because carbs make you fat. Ignore the fact that I've lost 23 lbs.

:laugh:

tigersword

total b.s. come back with a real peer reviewed article supporting your argument. (peer reviewed means scientists substantiated such claims, not that it is agreeable hearsay by other MFP users)

I have access to peer reviewed journals. ( Access provided through my masters program.) Here is the information to find it yourself as my access requires a log in and If I link it.. you would need your own log in.

1.Retention of Lysine in Foods Processed with Microwave and Conventional Heating.
Source:
International Journal of Food Engineering; 2009, Vol. 5 Issue 3, preceding p1-11, 13p, 3 Charts
2.Biological quality and safety assessment of rice bran protein isolates.
Source:
International Journal of Food Science & Technology; Nov2011, Vol. 46 Issue 11, p2366-2372, 7p

Have you read these?
1.

Results indicated that in moist heat-treated samples lysine retention was between 69 – 83%. Dry heat treatment resulted in a greater loss of lysine, which was proportional to the degree of heating.

It compared wet vs dry cooking methods. Not microwave vs non-microwave.

2.

Nitrogen balance study parameters too were better in microwave and dry heat stabilised protein isolates, while the lowest values were observed for parboiled protein isolates

And as this quote shows, according to your second source, MICROWAVING IS BETTER THAN NOT MICROWAVING, the exact opposite of the point you are trying to defend. Even the first study said microwaving was better than raw.

thefreebiemom

Total, complete and utter nonsense. Microwaves work on the principal of exciting the electrons in water molecules. They do not change the structure in any way, they simply cause the molecule to vibrate, generating friction, which, in turn, causes heat. The more water in a substance heated in a microwave oven, the more quickly it will heat. A microwave oven will not irradiate food or alter it's structure in any way. The originator of this thread and anyone who believes this nonsense is an idiot deficient in basic scientific literacy. If you don't believe me, consult www.snopes.com, or ask your local high school science teacher.

Ok..please answer this. what is causing the exciting of electrons is water? And whatever source you provide for this excitement..How does it know to only excite the electrons in water and not the electrons in the molecules that make up the food?
And please.. If am required to post peer reviewed sources for my position, then please do the same. Snopes is not peer reviewed.

http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/microwave.html

Here's another http://suite101.com/article/how-do-microwave-ovens-work-a35365

http://www.livestrong.com/article/421142-health-concerns-with-the-use-of-infrared-heat-to-cook-food/

Please take note of the peer review journals sources throughout the article and at the bottom.

This is the first paragraph of one of the "references" that you are talking about at the bottom of your article.
"The effects of five domestic cooking methods, including steaming, microwaving, boiling, stir-frying, and stir-frying followed by boiling (stir-frying/boiling), on the nutrients and health-promoting compounds of broccoli were investigated. The results show that all cooking treatments, except steaming, caused significant losses of chlorophyll and vitamin C and significant decreases of total soluble proteins and soluble sugars. Total aliphatic and indole glucosinolates were significantly modified by all cooking treatments but not by steaming. In general, the steaming led to the lowest loss of total glucosinolates, while stir-frying and stir-frying/boiling presented the highest loss. Stir-frying and stir-frying/boiling, the two most popular methods for most homemade dishes in China, cause great losses of chlorophyll, soluble protein, soluble sugar, vitamin C, and glucosinolates, but the steaming method appears the best in retention of the nutrients in cooking broccoli."

That says all heating of broccoli causes loss of various nutrients. It actually says stir frying is the worst loss whereas steaming has the least loss of nutrients.

The other article sites about heating of milk isn't referring to microwaves that we use in our homes it is talking about pasteurization of milk and how the heating processes used create cholesterol in milk. http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin265.pdf
Yes there is one or 2 little sentences in there about how people use microwaves in their kitchens but the experiment they are conduction is on the pasteurization process. Sorry to tell you but ALL milk in the US is pasteurized. It is required by law, even organic milk is pasteurized. The only way you would get milk that is not pasteurized is to know someone on a farm with a cow selling it under the table.

The only reason I posted the 2 articles I did is because I did not feel like scanning the pages from my physics book about how water molecules behave with electromagnetic waves and why, then uploading the scanned pages into photobucket, and then linking them here. Besides the 1 article does have a resource - Bloomfield, Louis A., How Things Work The Physics of Everyday Life, Wiley, 1997. Textbooks are peer reviewed, otherwise they would not be able to be adopted as textbooks.

The other article is a Penn state article. I didn't post them to prove that microwaves were bad or not. I posted them because you asked how microwaves excite water particles and not other particles in food. Those were both good explanations of that. Its the same things that both of the physics books I have say in regards to electromagnetic waves and their effects on dipoles or polar molecules. Modern Physics 4th Edition by Paul A Tipler and Ralph A Llewellyn and Fundamentals of Physics Sixth Edition by Halliday, Resnick, and Walker.

tigersword

Total, complete and utter nonsense. Microwaves work on the principal of exciting the electrons in water molecules. They do not change the structure in any way, they simply cause the molecule to vibrate, generating friction, which, in turn, causes heat. The more water in a substance heated in a microwave oven, the more quickly it will heat. A microwave oven will not irradiate food or alter it's structure in any way. The originator of this thread and anyone who believes this nonsense is an idiot deficient in basic scientific literacy. If you don't believe me, consult www.snopes.com, or ask your local high school science teacher.

Ok..please answer this. what is causing the exciting of electrons is water? And whatever source you provide for this excitement..How does it know to only excite the electrons in water and not the electrons in the molecules that make up the food?
And please.. If am required to post peer reviewed sources for my position, then please do the same. Snopes is not peer reviewed.

http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/microwave.html

Here's another http://suite101.com/article/how-do-microwave-ovens-work-a35365

http://www.livestrong.com/article/421142-health-concerns-with-the-use-of-infrared-heat-to-cook-food/

Please take note of the peer review journals sources throughout the article and at the bottom.

You do know that infrared is NOT microwave, right? I mean, you say your basing this on science, but your counter arguments seem to display a basic lack of scientific knowledge.

ivikatasha

I think the OP has been througly pwned at this point.

silico

If possible... get a toaster oven or use the stove or regular oven. A saucepan with a bit a water will heat up your food just fine. Microwaves make your food no better than the plastic container you nuked them in. Food (especially the vitamins and nutrients contained in them that your body needs) are not meant to be heated up that fast and to the degree that microwaves produce.

The nutrients contained food (especially protein) have a certain structure. That structure is essential as it is used for "recognition" by the body's digestive system of what it is and what the body needs to do with it. When you microwave or nuke your food, you are denaturing or abolishing the structure of MOST of the nutrients and your body no longer recognizes it and considers it waste. It doesn't get used and goes in your mouth and out the other end. For some people..this can cause your body to trigger the hunger response in order to get the nutrients is it craving.. even though you may have already eaten.

This basic principle of this can be found in any anatomy and physiology book or H.S science books.

Try this test at home. Buy two identical 1.00 plants. Place them in the same spot in your home with sufficient light. Feed one plant regular tap water and the other microwaved water. The plant fed with microwaved water will be dead by the end of the week. Imagine what you are doing to your body with microwaved food.

"According to most studies, however, the reality is quite the opposite. Every cooking method can destroy vitamins and other nutrients in food. The factors that determine the extent are how long the food is cooked, how much liquid is used and the cooking temperature.

Since microwave ovens often use less heat than conventional methods and involve shorter cooking times, they generally have the least destructive effects. The most heat-sensitive nutrients are water-soluble vitamins, like folic acid and vitamins B and C, which are common in vegetables.

In studies at Cornell University, scientists looked at the effects of cooking on water-soluble vitamins in vegetables and found that spinach retained nearly all its folate when cooked in a microwave, but lost about 77 percent when cooked on a stove. They also found that bacon cooked by microwave has significantly lower levels of cancer-causing nitrosamines than conventionally cooked bacon.

When it comes to vegetables, adding water can greatly accelerate the loss of nutrients. One study published in The Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture in 2003 found that broccoli cooked by microwave — and immersed in water — loses about 74 percent to 97 percent of its antioxidants. When steamed or cooked without water, the broccoli retained most of its nutrients."

From the NYtimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/health/17real.html?_r=1#secondParagraph

"Some nutrients do break down when they’re exposed to heat, whether it is from a microwave or a regular oven. Vitamin C is perhaps the clearest example. So, as a general proposition, cooking with a microwave probably does a better job of preserving the nutrient content of foods because the cooking times are shorter.

As far as vegetables go, it’s cooking them in water that robs them of some of their nutritional value because the nutrients leach out into the cooking water. For example, boiled broccoli loses glucosinolate, the sulfur-containing compound that may give the vegetable its cancer-fighting properties as well as the taste that many find distinctive and some, disgusting. The nutrient-rich water from boiled vegetables can be salvaged and incorporated into sauces or soups.

Is steaming vegetables better? In some respects, yes. For example, steamed broccoli holds on to more glucosinolate than boiled or fried broccoli.

But this is nutrition, and nothing in nutrition is simple. Italian researchers published results in 2008 of an experiment comparing three cooking methods — boiling, steaming, and frying — and the effect they had on the nutritional content of broccoli, carrots, and zucchini. Boiling carrots actually increased their carotenoid content, while steaming and frying reduced it. Carotenoids are compounds like lutein, which may be good for the eyes, and beta carotene. One possible explanation is that it takes longer for vegetables to get tender when they’re steamed, so the extra cooking time results in more degradation of some nutrients and longer exposure to oxygen and light.

But let’s not get too lost in the details. Vegetables, pretty much any way you prepare them, are good for you, and most of us don’t eat enough of them. And the microwave oven? A marvel of engineering, a miracle of convenience — and sometimes nutritionally advantageous to boot."

From Harvard medical school: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Microwave-cooking-and-nutrition.shtml

thefreebiemom

I don't mean to be rude but I just can't understand how some people didn't know microwaves were really bad... it's radiation people. What did you expect?

That being said, I'm sure if you have to use it on occasion, it can't be *that* bad for you.

By that understanding you should also not use computers, radios, cell phones, autos with any type of electronic components in them or anything else that uses electricity including heaters.

FlaxMilk

OP, congrats on staying classy--you've taken a really undeserved beating here.

Owlie45

The microwaved water and plants thing is a total urban legend.

Also, please don't microwave straight water. Unless you like boiling water to explode in your face.


ANY type of heating destroys nutrients. Freezing destroys nutrients.

Freezing does not destroy nutrients.

beattie1

OP, congrats on staying classy--you've taken a really undeserved beating here.

I disagree

FlaxMilk

OP, congrats on staying classy--you've taken a really undeserved beating here.

I disagree

I mean the rudeness, not the disagreement with her argument.

randomtai

I think the OP has been througly pwned at this point.

:smokin:

slkehl

You can pick up any science textbook and look up the effects of temperature on protein structures. Even if it has nothing to do with food. Your body temperature has an effect of the protein structures of cells if you have a really high temperature.

Yes, proteins can be denatured though heat. But it's temperature dependent, not time dependent. Heating it more slowly to the same temperature is still going to denature it, just more slowly.