Crock Pot Nutrition Advantages

MyDigitalpoint

MyDigitalpoint

New Member
Member
I have allegedly heard many versions about how good or how bad is crock pot cooking, so I thought to come here to as the experts, because I know there must be several among us.

Could someone explain what are the nutrition advantages of slow cooking and why is worth the waiting time during this long process?

Your input will be much appreciated :)

Central-Network-USA-crock-pot-nutrition.jpg
 
My husband was exposed to chemicals a few years ago and now has Toxic Encephalopathy. Because of this, his dr. (a chemical exposure specialist) informed us of what he could and could not eat due to his exposure. One of the things we learned that really surprised me is the slow cooking vs quick cooking for nutrition. Everyone says how bad cooking in the microwave is, however, she states just the opposite. Slow cooking brings out the flavor of the food, but cooking for a long period of time removes a lot of the nutrients. Cooking in the microwave cooks quicker and does not remove the nutrients because of the quickness of preparing the food. I'm not saying to quit using a crock pot and start using the microwave. ( I use the crock pot way more than the microwave). But, for nutritional value, the slow cooker is not the winner.
 
I have never heard of this argument. I think some things taste better in the crockpot. Some things need time to simmer and have their flavors blend better. For example, I think chili and potato soup from the crockpot tastes so much better than quick cooking them on the stove. I have never really thought they would loose their nutritional content.

I would like to know if this is true too.
 
mama2012 said:
My husband was exposed to chemicals a few years ago and now has Toxic Encephalopathy. Because of this, his dr. (a chemical exposure specialist) informed us of what he could and could not eat due to his exposure. One of the things we learned that really surprised me is the slow cooking vs quick cooking for nutrition. Everyone says how bad cooking in the microwave is, however, she states just the opposite. Slow cooking brings out the flavor of the food, but cooking for a long period of time removes a lot of the nutrients. Cooking in the microwave cooks quicker and does not remove the nutrients because of the quickness of preparing the food. I'm not saying to quit using a crock pot and start using the microwave. ( I use the crock pot way more than the microwave). But, for nutritional value, the slow cooker is not the winner.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing this post. I definitely agree with you. It is scientifically proven that slow and lengthy cooking does remove the necessary nutrients from the food with eat; and I do believe the whole purpose of us eating is for us to be able to absorb all that necessary nutrients from the food into our bodies. At the same time, we do have taste buds and the slow cooking does bring the food to that flavor that agrees with our palettes. We just have to know how to combine both methods in our cooking. Variety is the spice of life.
 
Wow- I never thought about the consequences of nutritional loss during long periods of cook time- I would think that it would make them even better, but I guess it makes sense when you really think about it. I always thought microwaves were the worst and tried to avoid them in my cooking as much as possible. I hesitate to defrost meat in the microwave because some of the things I read online about it scared me. I agree that a balance of both would be best!
 
I actually agree that slow cooking makes food taste better but overall it destroy a lot of the nutrients. I use it regularly to make chicken soup and yes while the meat does fall off the bone, I really think all the vegetables and herbs I add to it have lost quite a lot of their natural nutrient content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top