On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 12:52:37 EDT, Denise LePage <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Siobhan,

>As for fat content in microwaved meat, that was a strange thing to pick out
>of the whole article.  We all know that's the popular train of thought
these
>days.  But to get very nit-picky, the author was actually correct,
according
>to what I've read from Ray and Loren Cordain.  Unless you are eating
>naturally fed free-range meats, you should not be ingesting excess amounts
of
>the fats on domestic animals.
>
>I use my microwave to reheat meats but not cook them, since I like my meat
>browned.  Not that this makes any difference one way or another to the
>debate. :)
>
>Denise

I just quoted the article I found at ask.com, which points to
a research at Cornell and also a USA Today article. I would think
the significant thing to pick out is:

 Meats cooked on the grill and
 conventionally (the old charred roast, bacon, etc.) show signs of
 carcinogenic properties whereas meats in the microwave do not.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Article found at from ask.com:

 does microwave cooking effect the chemistry of a food --
 nutritional value, creation of antigenic, or carcinogenic,
 compounds, ..?


 As with any cooking method, microwave cooking will
 effect food somewhat. It has been found, however, that
 nutritional value (vitamins, etc.) are preserved in vegetables, etc.
 vs. other cooking methods. Dr. Gertrude Armbruster of Cornell
University
 did a study which varifies this. Meats cooked on the grill and
 conventionally (the old charred roast, bacon, etc.) show signs of
 carcinogenic properties whereas meats in the microwave do not.
 U.S.A. Today ran a front page article regarding microwaved meat
 being the healthiest on March 27, 1991.
 More fat is removed during microwave cooking than other
 methods which make it more heart healthy also.