The latest health news indicated that cooking habit of boiling broccoli leech off glucosinolate, an anti-cancer agent.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/070518/health/health_cancer_food


The study is interesting and seem credible. will you change your cooking habit after reading the article?

It has long been known that cooking vegetables will break down the vitamins and minerals. Alot of those vegetables they mention taste better when eaten raw anyway, or lightly steamed to soften them up a bit. I can't imagine cooking broccoli for 30 minutes, even though I do like it better steamed but still firm (it also brings out the color).

If you're not eating many raw veggies I suggest you make them a proper staple in your diet, and only lightly steam if you have to cook them.

(this is not directed against picard120, but against stupid science)

While I have no problem with the conclusion (don't boil yer veggies), I do have a problem with the conclusions of the article. It is just bad science.

Tipoff: "Cancer-causing carcinogens" is redundant.

Some time in the past, an epidemiological study was done that showed some correlation between eating broccoli and the like with reduced cancer rates. Inductive leap of faith: eat yer broccoli.

Without even getting into why confounding factors make such a study worthless, the main thing to remember is that reduced cancer in broccoli-eaters do not mean broccoli reduces cancer. Cause and effect cannot be shown by correlation.

Now we have the present study showing that boiling reduces glycosinolates. Conclusion: eat yer broccoli but don't boil it. Another inductive leap of faith: glycosinolates are the "active" ingredient in broccoli. What? Did they test it in rats by gavage* in a standard two-year study?

Yes, eat your broccoli stir-fried. It tastes better so you'll eat more of it. It will reduce your total caloric intake, which is an anti-carcinogen.

This toxicology rant brought to you by BlackSwan, who has a PhD in toxicology, and happens to like broccoli in moderation.

* gavage: rats are often dosed by mouth using a syringe with a bulb-tipped needle. You shove it down the critters throat till it hits the bottom of the stomach, then fill the stomach from the syringe. It is really gross for all participants, glad I don't have to do it anymore. The reason rats are used for cancer tests is that they cannot vomit so whatever nasty crap you overdosed them with stays down there. Fun toxicology fact.

Did it say if it was safe to cook vege's in a Dutch Oven?

From this weekend, the beginning of an awesome beef stew:

oh man. the dutch oven stew looks delicious. yummy

Oh that beef stew looks so good! Could you please post or PM me the recipe?

BTW, and I could be wrong on this, but I think if you drink/eat the liquid the veggies are cooked in, you still get some of the vitamins and nutrients that were cooked off. I hope someone can back me up on that, because I sure love my slow-cooker stews and chili.

I lightly steam my brocoli in a vegetable steamer that adjusts itself to the size of different pots as seen on this random internet picture:



I'm not sure it would fit a dutch oven though.

Frankie

Well, I don't have a recipe exactly, it comes out a little different everytime we make it. It's lots of vege's; potato, carrots, peppers, and onions, along with some small chunks of stew beef from our local butcher (he donates it whenever we ask for the Scouts, nice guy), and various seasonings. I know that one of my ASM's actually wrote down a recipe once, but, we usually just wing it.

You have to sear the beef first, quick and easy in a very hot cast iron pan over the fire. Then it's ready to go in the Dutch oven. You cover the beef with the vegetables, all cut up into bite sized pieces. Add some water, olive oil, salt, pepper, italian seasoning, garlic, and a couple beef boulion cubes and you're in business. That stage is about when the picture was taken. Put the Dutch Oven on the coals, add a few to the top, and wait. After it's cooked for a while, you'll start to smell the most awesome aroma leaking out around the cover, (you'll have to check it until you get used to how fast/slow your oven and coals are cooking things) you add some flour/water mixed up in a rue (that's what one of the mom's told me it's called, I just call it the flour/water thickener goop). Another 15 or 20 minutes after the flour goes in, and you're ready to serve. You can make a spicy version by replacing the beef with some form of spicy sausage. We use Portuguese Chourico, it's got some kick to it!

I wish I had a picture of what it looked like when it's done and the gravy is thickened. Unfortunately, you only got the "before" shot, because once it was done, there were ladles flying and mess kit bowls being filled with this stuff. It goes well with some cornbread that we cook in the cast iron skillet mentioned earlier for browning the beef. You cook the cornbread like a cake over the fire, and it's to die for with the stew, or even better, with chili. Ok, now I'm getting hungry again.

Thank you Black Swan- sorry BlackSwan

Nope, becuase it isn't even junk science. It's just irrelevant, we've known for decades that overcooking reduces the nutritional value of everything. Because most "processing" involves cooking or increased chance/rate of oxidation, you have the rule of thumb that the more it is processed the less it is food.

That being said, if you fill up on even over cooked broccoli, you are still less likely to indulge in stuff that is higher in fats and cholesterol, thus reducing your heart health risks. Odds are you eat more fiber to, which reduces cholesterol and certain cancer probabilities. Put bluntly, people eat vegetables without butter or sauces and the like are generally more likely to be eating better period.

Slow news day, someone wanted to have something that sounded alarming and flamboyant in their "science for the illiterate masses" page, becuase half the idiot who read will it think that boiled broccoli somehow causes cancer and their share their newfound "wisdom" with seven or eight other people and readership will go up becuase that "news" service was the firstest with the mostest when it came to cutting edge scientific health facts that no one else is brave enough to cover. *blows a razzberry at yahoo's news staff*

But thanks for looking after us. *pats picard on the head*

well, I don't take his word on yahoo news as bible gospel. I don't have his research papers to examine it throughly. I am aware that attention seeking scientist tend to release junk science news to the public as fact. they should provide documentation to support their claim.

It isn't always the scientists. A scientist has a theory based on an observed phenomena. He mentions it in a journal, or in a forum like this one (there are a few good ones for the various sciences, but with restricted access). Someone notices it, usually a "science editor" or "advisor" who failed for whatever reason in their particular field, and passes it on to his editor who has all the scientific comprehension of a tape worm on the principle that our eager young space cadet is partially paid by the word or article. From there, it gets published.

Remember, all the news that is printed to fit.