I’ll save everyone a click to this bullshit pseudo-science website and put this archive link (from 2011!) here instead. And since I’m bored, I’ll give it quick fact check why not. I may very well also be wrong, so you’re all welcome to fact check the sources too!
What may have started as a nutritious plate of food has now evolved into “dead food” due to the dielectric heating of microwaves. “They bounce around the inside of your [microwave] oven and are absorbed by the food you put in it,” writes Dr. Joseph M. Mercola. The water molecules rotate rapidly in the microwave and in the food in high frequencies which creates molecular friction and heats up your food. This causes the molecular structure in your food to change, and as a result diminishes the nutrient content in the food.
Link just goes to Dr. Mercola’s homepage website, a pseudo-science website written by someone who is known for dubious scientific claims, not even an article. (Side note, I find it funny that mercola’s website URL has been excluded from Wayback Machine)
And are the water molecules bouncing or rotating? The article can’t seem to make up its mind about it. And what does it mean by “changing the molecular structure in your food”? Seems like an extremely sensational way to say “the nutrients broke down”, which by the way, tends to happen when you cook stuff, microwave or not. 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. Boiling vegetables also robs them of some of their nutritional value because the nutrients leach out into the cooking water.
Microwaves Destroy Breast Milk And Vitamin B-12
If you’re going to claim microwaving is bad, then at least also say if heating up via other methods would preserve the nutrients. The article and the study it links to does not say. Not dunking on the original study of course, but this is just a textbook way of spinning a study into something that they didn’t claim in the first place.
When you head foods that are wrapped in plastic in the microwave, you can create carcinogens in the food. Based on Russian research and German studies, the Russian government issued a warning […] says Foodbabe.
Yeah no shit. You’re eating melted plastic. Same happens if you put plastic on the stove and eat food from it. No links to the research and studies, link to the Russian gov warning is to Mercola, and foodbabe is also a pseudo-science website. And why would anyone claim a study but put a link to another website and not cite the original source is beyond me.
Microwaves Can Change the Makeup of Your Blood: In a Swiss clinical study, researchers found that… The eight participants in the study ate a series of food…
The link to the study is to huffpost, not an actual study paper, and the article has since been removed by them. Looking at the archived webpage, it was written by Mercola again. The claims in the article itself isn’t that different to this one, I’d say it’s even more entertaining, including terms like Radiolytic Compounds and Biophotons.
It did say that there were 8 participants, but it also said that it was a significant downside that there was ONLY 8 participants, including the researcher himself, and that his methodology did not stand up to the scientific rigors of the field.
Microwaves can produce effects on your body instantly due to the 2.4 GHz radiation
Link to article is broken/taken down, even in internet archive. So let’s look up Dr. Magda Havas and her study instead. This article sums it up quite good. Her Ph.D is in botany, not medical nor EE. And an article also pointed flaws in her tests. She did do a follow up research, but I still seriously doubt the credibility of it. Providing statistics of people who are sensitive to EMI by just asking them, and then place a 2.4Ghz source straight on their chest to test their heart rate, doesn’t seem like a great way to test their claims.
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):
“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/
But we’re not discussing raw vs cooked food here, are we? The article in question and the “articles” they sourced claim microwaving food is an inferior method of cooking than other traditional methods. Though, human evolution tends to agree that cooking your food is simply better.
but it was being argued here that microwaves may uniquely cause damage over other methods of cooking.
So the proper scientific way of proving that would be to cook the same food on the stove or other methods and test their difference in nutrients, which the article does not do by the way. You can’t claim that the method does something different from the others without testing said methods too.
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.
If you’re not going to believe the other studies and articles saying the opposite, then it’s your freedom I guess. But consider this, I could change your quote into “It should be fair to at least consider it uncertain if cooking on a stove is 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”, but would it still make sense to you?
plants given microwaved water did not fare well
I don’t think that’s really relevant to the topic, as humans have multiple organs to fend off harmful substances while plants have none. As for the article itself I can’t comment on it too much, but a sample size of 2 is still too small, and ideally the experiment should be conducted in a way more controlled manner including a controlled environment, controlled source of water including not heated, heated, and microwaved, with maybe sources varying from tap water to diluted water. The problem could very well be the water source itself and not the microwave, or the plant itself was already dying regardless.
And a quick Google search of “plants microwave water” gives me other articles debunking the myth, so that doesn’t really help.
I’ll save everyone a click to this bullshit pseudo-science website and put this archive link (from 2011!) here instead. And since I’m bored, I’ll give it quick fact check why not. I may very well also be wrong, so you’re all welcome to fact check the sources too!
Link just goes to Dr. Mercola’s homepage website, a pseudo-science website written by someone who is known for dubious scientific claims, not even an article. (Side note, I find it funny that mercola’s website URL has been excluded from Wayback Machine)
And are the water molecules bouncing or rotating? The article can’t seem to make up its mind about it. And what does it mean by “changing the molecular structure in your food”? Seems like an extremely sensational way to say “the nutrients broke down”, which by the way, tends to happen when you cook stuff, microwave or not. 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. Boiling vegetables also robs them of some of their nutritional value because the nutrients leach out into the cooking water.
If you’re going to claim microwaving is bad, then at least also say if heating up via other methods would preserve the nutrients. The article and the study it links to does not say. Not dunking on the original study of course, but this is just a textbook way of spinning a study into something that they didn’t claim in the first place.
Yeah no shit. You’re eating melted plastic. Same happens if you put plastic on the stove and eat food from it. No links to the research and studies, link to the Russian gov warning is to Mercola, and foodbabe is also a pseudo-science website. And why would anyone claim a study but put a link to another website and not cite the original source is beyond me.
The link to the study is to huffpost, not an actual study paper, and the article has since been removed by them. Looking at the archived webpage, it was written by Mercola again. The claims in the article itself isn’t that different to this one, I’d say it’s even more entertaining, including terms like Radiolytic Compounds and Biophotons.
It did say that there were 8 participants, but it also said that it was a significant downside that there was ONLY 8 participants, including the researcher himself, and that his methodology did not stand up to the scientific rigors of the field.
Link to article is broken/taken down, even in internet archive. So let’s look up Dr. Magda Havas and her study instead. This article sums it up quite good. Her Ph.D is in botany, not medical nor EE. And an article also pointed flaws in her tests. She did do a follow up research, but I still seriously doubt the credibility of it. Providing statistics of people who are sensitive to EMI by just asking them, and then place a 2.4Ghz source straight on their chest to test their heart rate, doesn’t seem like a great way to test their claims.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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/
But we’re not discussing raw vs cooked food here, are we? The article in question and the “articles” they sourced claim microwaving food is an inferior method of cooking than other traditional methods. Though, human evolution tends to agree that cooking your food is simply better.
So the proper scientific way of proving that would be to cook the same food on the stove or other methods and test their difference in nutrients, which the article does not do by the way. You can’t claim that the method does something different from the others without testing said methods too.
If you’re not going to believe the other studies and articles saying the opposite, then it’s your freedom I guess. But consider this, I could change your quote into “It should be fair to at least consider it uncertain if cooking on a stove is 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”, but would it still make sense to you?
I don’t think that’s really relevant to the topic, as humans have multiple organs to fend off harmful substances while plants have none. As for the article itself I can’t comment on it too much, but a sample size of 2 is still too small, and ideally the experiment should be conducted in a way more controlled manner including a controlled environment, controlled source of water including not heated, heated, and microwaved, with maybe sources varying from tap water to diluted water. The problem could very well be the water source itself and not the microwave, or the plant itself was already dying regardless. And a quick Google search of “plants microwave water” gives me other articles debunking the myth, so that doesn’t really help.