Why the Russians Banned Microwave Ovens

reply to post by Anjaba

Hello genius,

How many of the studies you mention speak of essential minerals?

Originally posted by zzombie
Iron is primarily found in the body as heme complexes, so it is much more bio available.

Bioavailable to who? I'm guessing some chemolitotrophs much prefer iron in some other state. For us humans iron is obviously more bioavailable as atoms in hemes as that happens to be what we consume. However we're not magically going to not consume it if it's on our plates in some other form. The question is, can we make use of it. That I don't know. I'm far from convinced that ultimate fate of those iron atoms is any different between different cooking methods anyways.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by sirnex

 

Irons atoms bind with other molecules during heating in microwave? What molecules and why? Also why can't our body make use of them afterwards?

ps. I'm a big fan of irony and love your signature

[edit on 18-5-2010 by rhinoceros]

Really? You purposefully take a statement out of complete context, then ridicule it without offering any constructive insight as to *why* it deserves to be ridiculed.

You then mention:

Having written essays about ecotoxicology, biomagnification, bioaccumulation, bioavailabity, biotransformation, etc. during my undergrad years I'm off opinion that I have fairly good idea (probably better than yours) of what bioavailability means.

Afterward, discussing the topic of bioavalability with another member:

Is heme complexed iron more or less bio available than iron oxide ?

No idea.

Your asking *me* when your telling me that *you* know and write about bioavailability and then can't even answer a simple question about it posed by another user?

Are you seriously handing me a steaming pile of crap and trying to tell me it's a dozen roses?

You then make another statement indicating possible ignorance on bioavailability:

The question is, can we make use of it. That I don't know.

So, do you or do you not know? Your telling me one thing whilst telling someone else another thing. You decided to make empty claims of a study being ridiculous after you take a statement completely out of context in order to insult it and then make two claims of knowing and not knowing, all without adding any constructive criticism as to *why* it's ridiculous.

How about instead of trolling, you offer up some constructive criticism as to why you believe the study to be ridiculous before you ask others to do a simple search for you after you claim to know all about it.

Hey, if I can find studies on decrease of bioavailabiity of iron after cooking, then so can you!

[edit on 19-5-2010 by sirnex]

Originally posted by sirnex
Really? You purposefully take a statement out of complete context, then ridicule it without offering any constructive insight as to *[why* it deserves to be ridiculed.

First post:

Structural degradation leading to decreased food value was found to be 60 to 90 percent overall for all foods tested, with significant decreases in bioavailability of B complex vitamins, vitamins C and E, essential minerals, and lipotropics (substances that prevent abnormal accumulation of fat).

Part of my first post:

What does structural degradation of essential minerals mean?

Another part of my first post (criticism):

Is for example iron going to turn into something else in the microwave (like fusion in stars)?

Does it count as constructive criticism? In the light that so far nobody has explained why and how essential minerals found in food degrade during microwave heating I'd say yes it does.

You implied that I just don't get it while (you were) professing a "truth" here:

Did you consider that perhaps it binds with other molecules during the cooking process? Christ, that &*#$'s just basic if what your telling me about yourself is true

Yes, I did consider that. However I couldn't think of a reason why and mechanism how this would happen. You just happen to "know" that this is what happens..

Your asking *me* when your telling me that *you* know and write about bioavailability and then can't even answer a simple question about it posed by another user?

Bioavailability is not some universal parameter that somehow magically applies to all life and chemicals. Of course iron atoms in heme complexes are more bioavailable to us than for example iron ore in the ground, but this has to do with uptake. When said substance is already on our plates uptake is not a problem. Then it's a question about digestion. I'm not a nutrient specialist so I really have no clue what is more bioavailable to us after it's already on our plates. My educated guess is that it doesn't really make a difference because our microbiota has about 100 times more genes than our genome and thus it's rather likely that there are prokaryotes inside us that get energy from doing stuff to iron oxides (also supporting this is the fact that iron is not in heme complexes in iron supplements). Stated question only seemed simple to you because you had no idea of how many factors were at play..

[edit on 19-5-2010 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros

First post:

Structural degradation leading to decreased food value was found to be 60 to 90 percent overall for all foods tested, with significant decreases in bioavailability of B complex vitamins, vitamins C and E, essential minerals, and lipotropics (substances that prevent abnormal accumulation of fat).

See, there you go doing it again. Why emphasize three words as if attempting to make that the main point of the statement?

Part of my first post:

What does structural degradation of essential minerals mean?

It means nothing, it's a trolling question born from taking a few words out of context and making a new statement from them.

Do you know what a comma is? Here, allow me to illustrate again the idiocy in your out of context question.

Here is the statement one more time:

Structural degradation leading to decreased food value was found to be 60 to 90 percent overall for all foods tested

,

with significant decreases in bioavailability of B complex vitamins, vitamins C and E, essential minerals, and lipotropics (substances that prevent abnormal accumulation of fat).

I emphasized the comma, perhaps you missed it? This is separating two different aspects of the statement. If your curious, a comma can also be used to separate items in a list.

Here are both parts of the statement, explained again for you seeing as how your still arguing from your trollish line of questioning.

Structural degradation leading to decreased food value was found to be 60 to 90 percent overall for all foods tested

This statement is not too hard to grasp, or so I thought! It says nothing of structural degradation of essential minerals.

with significant decreases in bioavailability of B complex vitamins, vitamins C and E, essential minerals, and lipotropics (substances that prevent abnormal accumulation of fat).

Here is the second aspect of the statement, again. Here, it is discussing a decrease in bioavailability of various vitamins and minerals. It too says nothing about structural degradation of essential minerals.

Another part of my first post (criticism):

Is for example iron going to turn into something else in the microwave (like fusion in stars)?

Does it count as constructive criticism?

Not even close as it's born from your blatant and purposeful out of context statement set up for the sole purpose to ridicule without giving reason why the original statement, in *context* is wrong.

In the light that so far nobody has explained why and how essential minerals found in food degrade during microwave heating I'd say yes it does.

The statement doesn't say that at all, that's what your trolling comments is saying without warrant.

In retrospect, your right *NOBODY*, including yourself has explained that. If you don't want anyone picking on you for trolling, then don't troll. If your going to make a baseless unfounded empty claim without offering criticism as to why your constructed sentence is ridiculous, then don't make up ridiculous piss poor excuses in attempt to continue validating your poorly constructed line of reasoning unless you can substantially back up your statement in defense.

Which you've failed to do.

You implied that I just don't get it while (you were) professing a "truth" here:

Are you really going to go the hypocrite route? Your going to attempt to bash me whilst agreeing that this is a possible reason:

Yes, I did consider that. However I couldn't think of a reason why and mechanism how this would happen.

Whilst admitting to your ignorance of the subject in the above and below quotes:

I'm not a nutrient specialist so I really have no clue what is more bioavailable to us after it's already on our plates.

If you don't know, then don't argue. If your curious, look it up. If you can't make a valid critical point against a statement and need to resort to trollish behaviorism, then don't expect others to respect your *opinions and educated guesses* when you can't even back up those *opinions and educated guesses* and admit to ignorance of the subject.

Do your own damn search, I'm not your mommy and I have no respect for trolls. You came in, you trolled, you got called on it. Grow up, admit to your faults, proceed to correct the behavior problem and then properly construct a criticism in context to the statement.

Then I will be more than happy to provide you links.



[edit on 19-5-2010 by sirnex]

The OP is stating facts.

The most damning thing is it destroys 80-90% of the nutrition in your food.

Tis makes the whole cancer causing thing irrelevant. I almost never use a microwave. I don't preach to others about them I figure if you don't know by now you don't want to.

I protect my health as much as possible. The part about antioxident blends made me smile. I take enough antioxidents daily to supply your local gnc

reply to post by sirnex

Hello, how can you not understand this:

Suggested cause:

Structural degradation leading to decreased food value was found to be 60 to 90 percent overall for all foods tested,

Suggested effect:

with significant decreases in bioavailability of B complex vitamins, vitamins C and E, essential minerals, and lipotropics (substances that prevent abnormal accumulation of fat).

?

It says:

Structural degradation of essential minerals leads to decreases in bioavailability of essential minerals.



Or maybe I got it wrong?

Instead it says:

Structural degradation (of something we're not going to name) leads to decreases in bioavailability of essential minerals?

Either way how structural degradation (perhaps even of what) leads to decreases in bioavailability of essential minerals is not explained anywhere.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by rhinoceros]

I find it rather ironic that all that panic and rant about microwave ovens started right in the beginning of the grilling season!

I'm willing to bet most anything on that grilling produces lots more carcinogens in the food than microwave method ever did. Just look at the "well done" burger. It's like a cigarette butt.

Hysterical.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Hello, how can you not understand this:

Hi! Why are you emphasizing out of context still? Did I just not go over this twice with you? Do you want me to start talking down to you and explain grammar rules and context to you like a child? I can if you really want me to.

Suggested cause:

Structural degradation leading to decreased food value was found to be 60 to 90 percent overall for all foods tested,

*sigh*, your doing it wrong and I'm honestly surprised by it.

Suggested Cause:

Structural degradation

Suggested Effect:

leading to decreased food value was found to be 60 to 90 percent overall for all foods tested

What was hard to understand there? Now the second half:

Suggested Cause:

decreased food value

Suggested Effect:

significant decreases in bioavailability

Again, what was so hard to get there? Do you disagree that a decrease in food value would lead to a decrease in bioavailability? If so, why?

It says:

Structural degradation of essential minerals leads to decreases in bioavailability of essential minerals.

No, that's what you said. Would you like a link on reading comprehension as well?

Or maybe I got it wrong?

Duh, you think? It's either lack of comprehension in what your reading coupled with admitted ignorance of the subject or it's purposeful trolling. You tell me which is true.

Instead it says:

Structural degradation (of something we're not going to name) leads to decreases in bioavailability of essential minerals?

It does say as it's implied in the article. What do you think the article is talking about in regards to things being microwaved. A ball of clay? A digital camera? A filing cabinet? A bunk bed?

Come on, no one is seriously that stupid.

Either way how structural degradation (perhaps even of what) leads to decreases in bioavailability of essential minerals is not explained anywhere.

Did you bother reading the article? It cites sources. You know what those sources talk about? The very thing your bitching about.

Are you going to keep trolling or do you have anything intelligent and of substance to add to the discussion?

Cooking meat on a grill also creates a great deal of carcinogens, but it sure tastes good.

I am with those who find anything cooked in microwave distasteful. The only thing I use my microwave for is popcorn. I will also use it to defrost frozen stuff, like when I don't fee like cooking, and go for a frozen lasagna. What I do is defrost for about 30 seconds, and then let it sit for several minutes, and hit again for about 30 seconds, but after it is defrosted, I cook it in the oven.

Microwaved food just tastes weird.

For years people laughed at me and still laugh at me when they come into my home. I have no microwave and keep my fridge outside the house. Let them laugh I say, let them laugh.

Why no microwave they ask me? The same reason as no toothpaste I reply. It's bad for my health. Laughter prevails.. Each to their own.....

reply to post by rhinoceros


You may need to check up on the history of microwave chemistry. It's a relatively new field. The write-ups of the original experiments are available on the net and they are from the 1980's if I remember correctly. As someone else has mentioned microwave heating has some surprising results. Depletion of nutrients is one thing but the creation of toxins that are unique to microwave heating is something that really needs to be studied carefully.

Since you understand a little about chemistry you may know the term isomerisation. You know, dextro to levo, trans into cis etc. Certain trans-amino acids are converted into their cis counterparts by microwaves. This is not good. One amino acid in babies milk becomes a neurotoxin in it's cis form. Can't remember the details. You will have to Google it.

I know a little about chemistry as well and a good rule of thumb about synthetic isomers is to stay the heck away from them.

reply to post by sirnex

I had a look at the article:

A study published in the November 2003 issue of The Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture[5] found that broccoli "zapped" in the microwave with a little water lost up to 97 percent of its beneficial antioxidants. By comparison, steamed broccoli lost 11 percent or fewer of its antioxidants. There were also reductions in phenolic compounds and glucosinolates, but mineral levels remained intact.

An article it cites:

Microwave cooking can be more energy efficient than conventional cooking because foods cook faster and the energy heats only the food, not the whole oven compartment. Microwave cooking does not reduce the nutritional value of foods any more than conventional cooking. In fact, foods cooked in a microwave oven may keep more of their vitamins and minerals, because microwave ovens can cook more quickly and without adding water.