Sender: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 3 Sep 1997 23:09:16 -0400 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
Organization: |
shabear |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Some years ago I read of a study in Germany using two well-matched
groups of people. They fed one conventionally cooked food, the other,
microwaved. What I remember is that they took blood samples from both
groups and the ones eating the m-waved foods had significant changes in
their white blood cells. It was alarming enough that all involved with
the study swore off microwave cooking. Sorry I can't recall any further
details.
I have a pretty good idea that it was reported by PPNF
http://members.aol.com/ppnf/main.html
which has the details on the Pottenger cat feeding experiments. This
foundation is well worth the membership as their accompnaying journal is
a wonderful source of health information. Enig and Fallon are connected
somehow with them also.
Sharon
John C. Pavao wrote:
>
> Very good point. Microwaves are no better, and probably worse, than
> regular cooking. I haven't seen any actual data on what a microwave does
> to food, but I think of it like this: the body is probably a little more
> likely able to handle regular cooked food than what comes out of a
> microwave, especially if it alters molecular structure. Personally, I try
> to keep microwave use to a minimum.
>
> The difference between what heat cooking and what microwaving does is still
> a little unclear to me. I've read that it breaks down some molecules into
> unnatural compounds that the body may not be able to handle, or handle
> well. Like I said, though, I've yet to see any specific data on what the
> microwave does to food. Mechanically it sounds fairly innocuous. It just
> excites the water molecules, which creates heat. I'd really like to read
> something on this topic. Anybody know of anything?
>
> I have read in a few place recently about a study done on cats. Two groups
> of cats were fed cooked meat and raw meat respectively. (No more
> information is given on how the meat was cooked, or how much it was
> cooked.) The group on the cooked meat was largely unable to reproduce
> after three generations, was weak and had skeletal deformities. The group
> on raw meat was normal. Some of the cats on the cooked meat diet were
> switched back to raw meat. They recovered enough to reproduce, and their
> offspring were normal.
>
> Is this problem as serious for us? Maybe not, but it's likely that it
> applies to some degree. I know I try to eat as much of my beef as rare as
> possible (I cook it until the outside turns brown and that's it).
>
> I'm sorry I can't definitively answer your question. I'm going to try to
> do a little more research on this topic and if I find anything of interest
> I'll be sure to post it.
>
> John Pavao
|
|
|