Healthy Outdoor Grilling: In today's "Sham vs. Wham: The Health Insider"

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
please rate
this thread
Posted by D. on June 7, 2007, 12:04 pm
 
Today's post at http://shamvswham.blogspot.com/  discusses a great idea
for healthy cooking which comes from Harvard research into the cancer-
linked ingredients on grilled meats:

With outdoor grilling now in full swing, it's a good time to look at
some safe practices for using your barbeque. Harvard scientists report
that when meat is cooked at high temperatures, amino acids react with
creatine to form heterocyclic amines, which appear to be cancer-
causing. That's why cooking meat by grilling, frying, or broiling can
be a problem.

Grilling is double trouble because it also exposes meat to cancer-
causing chemicals contained in the smoke that rises from burning coals
and any drips of fat that cause flare-ups. How long the meat is cooked
is also a factor in heterocyclic amine formation; longer cooking time
means more heterocyclic amines. Depending on the temperature at which
it's cooked, meat roasted or baked in the oven may contain some
heterocyclic amines, but it's likely to be considerably less than in
grilled, fried, or broiled meat.

But did you know that there is a way to reduce these cancer-causing
byproducts by as much as 90%? Simply precook in the microwave:
According to research, just two minutes of precooking in the microwave
can have a very significant impact on your health.

D.


Posted by Rod Speed on June 7, 2007, 3:55 pm
 


Pity that if that was a significant problem, vegetarians would have significantly
lower cancer rates than those who eat grilled meat, and they dont.

So it must be more complicated than that.


Urk. Nothing like the same result.


Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.



Posted by D. on June 7, 2007, 8:39 pm
 Clams Casino -- please tell me what makes my post a spam message? You
seem to be some kind of Usenet "spam cop;" you even have a bulk post
that you put up after everything YOU determine to be spam. Those
annoying messages of yours about "before you link with Spam" pop up
everywhere, and are as annoying as the REAL spam, the penis enlarger
ads, etc.

I've posted a full text article, and a link to the original text.
Please, explain why that is somehow different than a person posting a
full text article from the WSJ or the NY Times and showing a link to
the original article? My site is primarily text, articles like this
one, and when something appears to fit the newsgroup here, I'll post
it. There are more ads on a typical NY Times page than there are on a
blog! And correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but Google, who
owns Blogger, doesn't allow sophisticated spyware or malware.

The point is, I'm not advertising anything, but providing a full text
article of potential interest to others. Rod's point about the science
is -- like all science - arguable, but in this case, my story
originates at Harvard, which has some credibility.

Dave


Posted by clams casino on June 7, 2007, 9:26 pm
 D. wrote:


What part of spamming your own blog is so difficult for you to understand?

Hint - Posting / referencing a 3rd party article is quite different than
spamming your own blog.


They may not allow such, but  Google is notorious not NOT  enforcing any
control.

Afterall, it's well known that 99% of all newsgroup spam & scams arrived
via google groups.


Posted by Rod Speed on June 7, 2007, 11:00 pm
 

No it isnt. And it isnt arguable that the earth rotates around the sun either.


That aint what decent rigorous science is about.



This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date