PDA

View Full Version : Hardboiling eggs



izitnick
10-27-2002, 11:33 AM
Are there any nutritional disadvantages to hardboiling eggs as an alternate means to either just simply eating them or to separate the yolk from the whites? (other than it sometimes being hard to do without cracking the shell)

AJ_11
10-27-2002, 11:43 AM
I use a 3:1 ratio here. Eggs Yolks contain some good fat. I personally use the white becasue its also cheaper and easier.

Stray
10-31-2002, 05:51 PM
boiled eggs are harder then normal eggs...thats about it. :)

Berserker
10-31-2002, 06:02 PM
With a hardboiled egg you eat every ounce of it. Frying you can but you have to lick the plate.
Berserker

body
11-01-2002, 01:23 PM
nutritional disadvantages to what? frying microwabing, poaching etc?

only frying will make a big difference with the fat uptake. depending on the fat will make a difference to how good or bad that is.

restless
11-01-2002, 01:30 PM
Exactly, compared to what?

Boiling is the best method. Frying and microwaving will alter the food.

Relentless
11-01-2002, 01:32 PM
:withstupi

poached eggs are teh bomb

body
11-01-2002, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by restless
Exactly, compared to what?

Boiling is the best method. microwaving will alter the food.

why agaisnt microwaving?

most of the non- heat stable vitamins normally survive better in a microwave.

though this is my knowledge with food in general, eggs may be a exception to the rule.

restless
11-01-2002, 01:46 PM
Well, I don't trust microwaves. It has been shown that it will cause mutations of some amino acids to dangerous isomers, and then there's that woman that died after receiving a blood transfusion of microwaved blood. Blood is routinely warmed up to body temperature before transfusions, but the only time it was done in a microwave the person died, so you can conclude it dramaticaly altered something in there.

It's like all other things that damage your health, there's a industry to protect so what can you do? If all the dangerous things were pulled out of the market the world economy would crash. So better off cancerous but with a job than healthy and unemployed. Or isn't it?

body
11-01-2002, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by restless
Well, I don't trust microwaves. It has been shown that it will cause mutations of some amino acids to dangerous isomers, and then there's that woman that died after receiving a blood transfusion of microwaved blood. Blood is routinely warmed up to body temperature before transfusions, but the only time it was done in a microwave the person died, so you can conclude it dramaticaly altered something in there.

It's like all other things that damage your health, there's a industry to protect so what can you do? If all the dangerous things were pulled out of the market the world economy would crash. So better off cancerous but with a job than healthy and unemployed. Or isn't it?

for microwaved blood.
did they do it succesfully on animals 1st?
how many people die having the same blood transfusion as the women who had the microwaved blood?

all cooking forms can alter the food structure.

but its your choice.
we know a bit more in 50 years time, then if your right, going to be a lot of dead people.
personally i think the word 'microwaves' does not do it nay favours.

restless
11-01-2002, 02:08 PM
It wasn't tested on animals I believe. It happened because they had no time to heat it properly.

It just proves everyone who says "it's safe because all it does is spinning water molecules around" wrong.

50 years time? Isn't the cancer increase in recent years enough? How many would have to die?

body
11-01-2002, 02:15 PM
I thought the sudden increase in the death rate was more due to various reasons.

a) people living longer
b) less infectious disease killing
c) in the thread that you contributed in recently about more people eating lots of carbs and not a diet that our ancient ancestor dieds from.

if their has only been one incedence of some one dieng from microwaved blood, i would call for animal test. it sound like she was on her last limb anyway. is she was not about to die, that minute they could have heated up normally.

though never taken much interest in blood transfusions. so i won't go into any depth except, I would not call that a conclusive study.

restless
11-01-2002, 02:43 PM
It wasn't really a study man, that was what I was trying to say. It was a lawsuit in 1991 in the USA.

This is an excerpt from a post in the HST board by someone called GiO:

"Dr. Lita Lee of Hawaii reported in the December 9, 1989 Lancet:

"Microwaving baby formulas converted certain trans-amino acids into their synthetic cis-isomers. Synthetic isomers, whether cis-amino acids or trans-fatty acids, are not biologically active.

Further, one of the amino acids, L-proline, was converted to its d-isomer, which is known to be neurotoxic (poisonous to the nervous system) and nephrotoxic (poisonous to the kidneys). It's bad enough that many babies are not nursed, but now they are given fake milk (baby formula) made even more toxic via microwaving."
"

The evidence is there, but people can't stand the ideia of losing something as convenient as a microwave. Mine will continue to sit on the bench and will only be used as a last resourt and never on a regular basis.

restless
11-01-2002, 02:53 PM
One thing I want to leave clear. I'm not saying microwaves cause all cancer or all disease. I'm just saying that I think there's enough evidence to believe they might play a significant role in there. I chose to avoid it.

Eating the amounts of food we bodybuilders eat I think it's a wise choice to keep it as healthy as possible.

Stray
11-01-2002, 03:00 PM
So no more baby formula for postworkout?


Damn.

restless
11-01-2002, 03:47 PM
You can, just don't microwave it.