Guest guest Posted December 15, 2007 Report Share Posted December 15, 2007 --- " downwardog7 " <illneverbecool@...> wrote: > si or no? tb!!! check out this thread: http://www.chowhound.com/topics/357233 no se nada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 > > tb!!! check out this thread: > http://www.chowhound.com/topics/357233 > > no se nada > !! I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion on whether the magnetic field from an induction burner is a bad thing in close proximity to the food being heated. The Google-fu does nothing. tb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 16, 2007 Report Share Posted December 16, 2007 > > I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion on whether the magnetic field > from an induction burner is a bad thing in close proximity to the food > being heated. The Google-fu does nothing. > tb > Well, if the cookware is iron, steel, or copper, it will pretty effectively block the field, particularly if you put a copper or iron lid on the pot/pan. Aluminum, not so much. I don't think that a strong magnetic field is the best thing to have near your food for a long period of time, but I've not heard of any animal testing that's been done to conclusively answer whether food altered with a strong magnetic field causes health problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 --- , " downwardog7 " <illneverbecool@...> wrote: > I'm wondering if anyone has an opinion on whether the magnetic field > from an induction burner is a bad thing in close proximity to the > food being heated. The Google-fu does nothing. , like I said - I know nothing I had to learn a little more about it: http://www.eartheasy.com/article_induction_cooking.htm I would be suspicious of heating foods this way. However, I did find this info (googled - induction cooking food quality): These two links are from a pro-induction cooking site: " Induction Cooking: Pros and Cons " http://theinductionsite.com/proandcon.shtml " Induction Cooking: Radiation Hazards " http://theinductionsite.com/radiation.shtml This one actual did some measurements: " Effects of Cooking Methods on Sensory Qualities and Carotenoid Retention in Selected Vegetables " http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-4557.2006.00071.x ================================================================= The effects of induction boiling, conventional boiling and microwave steaming on the sensory qualities and carotenoid retention of broccoli, carrots, green beans and sweet potatoes were investigated. Significantly higher cooking yields were obtained for vegetables that were induction and conventionally boiled. No differences in the retentions of alpha-carotene ( & #945;-carotene), beta-carotene ( & #946;-carotene) and lutein/zeaxanthin were observed for vegetables by the cooking method, with the exception of & #946;-carotene retention in broccoli and sweet potatoes where retentions were higher for those that were induction boiled (90.3 and 86.1%, respectively) than those that were microwave steamed (62.2 and 66.4%, respectively). A trained panel judged the color scores of three vegetables by the cooking method as similar. The mean flavor scores (1 = extremely bland; 9 = extremely intense) for three vegetables that were conventional (4.7–5.4) and induction (5.3–5.5) boiled were lower than those that were microwave steamed (5.9–7.0). The mean texture scores (1 = extremely mushy/tender; 9 = extremely firm/tough) for all induction-boiled (5.0–6.0) vegetables were higher than those that were conventionally boiled (3.4–5.2) and lower than those that were microwave steamed (5.1–6.6). ================================================================= But that still doesn't tell us about other nutrients. I remain suspicious and it's way too expensive for me anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 --- michael grogan <tropical@...> wrote: > Well, if the cookware is iron, steel, or copper, it will pretty > effectively block the field, particularly if you put a copper or iron > lid on the pot/pan. Aluminum, not so much. I don't think that a > strong magnetic field is the best thing to have near your food for a > long period of time, but I've not heard of any animal testing that's > been done to conclusively answer whether food altered with a strong > magnetic field causes health problems. But Mike, I thought you were against any cooking of food Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 > > But Mike, I thought you were against any cooking of food > > > Absolutely. However, the Peruvians that Dr. Price studied had no cavities and no crooked teeth, and they ate quite a bit of cooked food. Cooking isn't smart, but there can be dumber things, like veganism, and eating food from poor-quality soil. Mmkay, enough preaching from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 --- michael grogan <tropical@...> wrote: > However, the Peruvians that Dr. Price studied had no > cavities and no crooked teeth, and they ate quite a bit of cooked > food. Cooking isn't smart, but there can be dumber things, like > veganism, and eating food from poor-quality soil. Mike, it almost sounds like you're having second thoughts about a no-cook diet? Have you been cheating? Dr Cowan recommends getting some food from each category each day: vegetables - raw, cooked, fermented meat - raw, cooked, soup broth http://www.fourfoldhealing.com/Diet_and_Nutrition.htm > Mmkay, enough preaching from me. Be careful what you say or we might have to add the RELIGION tag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 > > Mike, it almost sounds like you're having second thoughts about a > no-cook diet? Have you been cheating? > Does unrefined coconut oil count as cheating? if so, I cheat every day. Every once in a while, I'll eat something cooked for social reasons, but no more than a couple times a month at most, usually. In my book, if I don't notice a difference in my health, it probably isn't doing me great harm. Not that that's a rule of thumb for all situations, but I think it works well for the cooked versus raw debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 Mike, > Absolutely. However, the Peruvians that Dr. Price studied had no > cavities and no crooked teeth, and they ate quite a bit of cooked > food. Cooking isn't smart, but there can be dumber things, like > veganism, and eating food from poor-quality soil. Mmkay, enough > preaching from me. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't all of Price's " primitives " eat cooked food on a regular basis? -- " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " Max Planck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 2007 Report Share Posted December 17, 2007 Mike, > Does unrefined coconut oil count as cheating? if so, I cheat every > day. Every once in a while, I'll eat something cooked for social > reasons, but no more than a couple times a month at most, usually. In > my book, if I don't notice a difference in my health, it probably > isn't doing me great harm. Not that that's a rule of thumb for all > situations, but I think it works well for the cooked versus raw debate. If that is the standard, then it appears to me that in the cooked versus raw debate the cooked side loses hands down, since, unless I'm missing something as I alluded to in the previous post, all the groups that Price studied ate cooked foods on a regular basis and had little to zero tooth decay. In fact it appears not to be an either/or situation but a both/and scenario. -- " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " Max Planck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Cooking isn't smart, but there can be dumber things, like > veganism, and eating food from poor-quality soil. Mmkay, enough > preaching from me. > OK you had me laughing on that one. I enjoy cooked and raw food but veganism?!?!?!?! Too funny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 > Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't all of Price's " primitives " eat > cooked food on a regular basis? > So it seems. They all also had thick dark green tartar buildup on their teeth. This isn't natural. As well, most of the groups he studied also had a few cavities and crooked teeth. I'm not against cooking, specifically, it's just that I wonder quite a bit what kind of shortening of life span people are causing by eating a diet that causes thick green tooth buildup. Unfortunately, Price didn't do any real data gathering on the relative life spans of the different groups. Also, what would be your control group? Chimps? No humans eat all-raw these days, for the most part, except for a few folks even more focused than me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 On Dec 18, 2007 6:53 PM, michael grogan <tropical@...> wrote: > > Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't all of Price's " primitives " eat > > cooked food on a regular basis? > > > > So it seems. You doubt they ate a mixed diet of raw and cooked foods? > They all also had thick dark green tartar buildup on > their teeth. Was this true of all the groups? It seems logical since they didn't brush their teeth. > This isn't natural. Is their any evidence it affected their health? > As well, most of the groups he > studied also had a few cavities and crooked teeth. Little or no cavities is not an argument against cooked food. I don't recall pictures of crooked teeth as the norm. Any references? > I'm not against > cooking, specifically, it's just that I wonder quite a bit what kind > of shortening of life span people are causing by eating a diet that > causes thick green tooth buildup. Again, what groups? Any pictures you can point to? And how do you know it was the diet and not the lack of hygiene? If Price's hypothesis is correct, that dental health is a reflection of overall health, then it seems the onus is on you to explain why the tartar buildup hurt their health, if it actually did. > Unfortunately, Price didn't do any > real data gathering on the relative life spans of the different > groups. Also, what would be your control group? Chimps? No humans > eat all-raw these days, for the most part, except for a few folks > even more focused than me. Right, so it seems any dogmatic claims for raw foods and their superiority to cooked foods would be out of bounds, or am I missing something here? -- " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " Max Planck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 > > They all also had thick dark green tartar buildup on > > their teeth. > > Was this true of all the groups? It seems logical since they didn't > brush their teeth. > > > This isn't natural. > > Is their any evidence it affected their health? > Show me wild animals with tartar on their teeth. > > > I'm not against > > cooking, specifically, it's just that I wonder quite a bit what kind > > of shortening of life span people are causing by eating a diet that > > causes thick green tooth buildup. > > Again, what groups? Any pictures you can point to? And how do you know > it was the diet and not the lack of hygiene? If Price's hypothesis is > correct, that dental health is a reflection of overall health, then it > seems the onus is on you to explain why the tartar buildup hurt their > health, if it actually did. Really? You want me to take this line of questioning seriously? There are actual pictures in his book, at least 1 I can think of without looking, where an adult native is shown smiling with thick dark buildup on his teeth. Have you not read the book? I remember Price stating very clearly that he had to spend several minutes cleaning the junk off of peoples' teeth before photographing them in every case. I'll say it again, since you seem to have little gift to see it without me saying it clearly--for wild animals, brushing/flossing isn't necessary. Given that, I don't see what is so great about a practice, the cooking of food, that makes tooth cleaning suddenly necessary. I mean, whatever. Like I care, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 --- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote: > I meant to say the " raw side loses hands down... " I was wondering about that . I thought you'd gone off the deep end with that logic. We'll forgive you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.