walnutwalrus @ walnutwalrus @lemmy.world

Posts

60

Comments

108

Joined

2 yr. ago

"the way nature intended"

Ok so based on your response and others, it seems like 1) raw is being compared to 2) non-microwave other cooking methods (say stove or oven) versus 3) microwaves, so three categories roughly of cooking (fair?). In the (2) non-microwave cooking category, concern has been raised about burning foods to a char (some raw food enthusiasts bring this point up I think):

(this article suggests microwaving instead of food getting burned, so take with a grain of salt): https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/does-burnt-food-give-you-cancer.aspx

back to this comment

“the nutrients broke down”, which by the way, tends to happen when you cook stuff, microwave or not

I think this is a good point to highlight. This is what some (1) raw food enthusiasts argue for, against cooking with or without microwaves. They argue cooking can reduce the nutrients in food, so people should consume raw foods instead. It seems this point may be admitted, however people often argue for cooking food for the trade off of killing off certain diseases. So the counter-argument in favor of the raw position would be to emphasize cleanliness for most people (and then only possibly cook for "at risk" people), i.e. mostly eat raw unless you are likely to get sick from raw food.

In fact, studies show that due to the shorter length of time microwaves need to heat up food, they tend to damage the nutrients the least

This would be true if all else was equal, but it was being argued here that microwaves may uniquely cause damage over other methods of cooking.

Boiling vegetables also robs them of some of their nutritional value because the nutrients leach out into the cooking water.

Right, I saw one site arguing that it was correct that microwaves removed nutrients (Vitamin C) from broccoli, but that this was similar to how the stovetop might affect it

eating melted plastic

I think this is a good point to take note of, that even assuming microwaves to be safe for the sake of argument, some people may wrongly microwave things thinking them to be "microwave safe". So there may be dangers to microwaves beyond the act of microwaving itself, which I think would be good to note.

In a Swiss clinical study

I get that people are critiquing the studies, but it should be fair to at least consider it uncertain if microwaves are healthy or not; it sounds like people should avoid them when they can, but if they want to take the risk, that's for them to decide, and there should be discussions on if it is healthy or not.

For example, plants given microwaved water did not fare well. This study seems easily reproducible, and I am open to it being explained if it is not thought to be relevant, but I'm curious about your thoughts on it: https://www.giftofcuriosity.com/plants-microwaved-water/

Do you have any arguments against what is being said rather than simply attack the source? What if what they are saying is correct?

This is no argument against the claims made in the article or other articles

the world is flat

That's another topic, although people have become skeptical about the shape of the earth after realizing certain photos of the earth were "composites" rather than actual pictures:

https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it

These people put their health at risk by doing so

That is what is being argued by the OP article, that people in contrast put their health at risk by using microwaves

It is a risk to one’s health to eat raw meat

They're saying it is a risk to one's health to use a microwave to heat food, in contrast

Not all view points merit deep discussion

True, although it is unfortunate that some subjects which probably should have deeper discussion, don't get the discussion needed

Are you anti-vax too

Vaccines have many problems; I'm open to vaccines possibly working, but sanitation may be more important (like quarantining and social distancing were used during lockdowns), they may be contaminated with toxic additives, they may be ineffective as recent flu vaccines have been, there are "free" alternatives that people might do like get Vitamin D by getting some sunshine that help prevent disease, there are financial incentives that may get in the way of recommending free alternative remedies, there is the placebo effect which may explain the "effectiveness" of some vaccines, and so on (to name some issues).

I guess the question would be, could you cook food with radioactive material, versus cooking simply with fire? Or stovetop versus charcoal contaminants

you absolutely get more nutrients from cooked food

Sure, this is just questioning if it is healthy or safe to cook the food with a microwave, versus stovetop or a grill

Understood, however microwaves being healthy or not is independent of studies (implying studies could be wrong and have been at times)

You’re suggesting eating raw meat in this thread

Not that I am promoting that over microwaves (stovetop is fine), but there have been people who have lived on raw meat:

https://nypost.com/2022/04/27/ive-been-eating-raw-meat-for-166-days-and-wont-stop-until-i-die/

It is the same perspective as anti-vaxers who think the vaccines are more harmful than the disease

There have been people who have argued that sanitation has played a greater role in preventing the spread of disease rather than vaccination:

http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com/how-plumbing-not-vaccines-eradicated-disease

There has also been concerned raised about toxic additives being in vaccines (not that vaccines themselves are necessarily harmful)

Regarding the current "covid vax", there was a concern about a lack of knowledge of long term effects since the virus was thought to be new

"everything that is wrong is pseudoscience"

how about a hypothesis? doctors prescribed cancer-causing cigarettes at one time, right? There are people raising concerns over the dangers of microwaves, that is all. We can have a discussion about it, or I can just call the view that "microwaves are safe" "pseudoscience"... but then there isn't really much of a discussion.

implying there are not chemicals being sprayed in to the atmosphere

there are plenty of contrary sources that raise questions about the safety of microwaves: https://naturalsociety.com/microwaves/

I don’t doubt that the microwave process does degrade the quality of the food

Same, food can be eaten raw or cooked in other ways, that's all that is suggested...

I wouldn't call it pseudoscience, and your link could be "debunked" by people with opposing views; it would be more helpful to discuss the issue at hand rather than respond as such

trash article

it is posted for discussion, and I think it stands unless you have some specific issue with it

There are people who advocate for raw-only diets, microwaving aside (they also oppose other heating methods)

b vitamins are decreased when heated. Good luck with your inevitable

It's not intended to be inevitable, as there are people who heat with other methods, and even people who consume raw meat (or fermented meat) without issues

I certainly disagree with the response here and the downvotes rather than a discussion of the issues but thank you for offering some counter-view argument

based on the title this gave me an opposite idea of an offline reader, like being able to download posts for offline reading or archiving?

mostly just software licensing versus FreeDOS and much less functionality (but the focus has been on squaring away basics, anyone could probably add a lot more public domain programs on from this point forward, idk what fundamentals still need to be fixed)

in that there are hierarchical meritocratic levels of achievement?

or that there are extractive processes which benefit the top at the expense of those lower?

new seems best (maybe)

This could be suggested as an alternative name