Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microwaved milk is bad for you

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Microwaved milk is bad for you

    The gauge is, at best, merely an indicator, accurate mainly with itself. i.e. when you find the perfect shot, the gauge might be almost anywhere on the scale - and the next good shot will be around the same. Mine does best with pressure a little above the top of the colour segments.

    Sounds like you're getting in the range. You could try 1 step finer and tamp a lot lighter than the 15kg or so and see how that goes. I have had blissful coffees pour in 45secs and even 1 or 2 that took maybe 60secs with no sign of blonding and tasted great. Again the time of 60ml in 25secs is just an indicator - depends on the bean, the grind, the machine and your tamping.

    Something to remember - most grinders adjust best when either empty of beans or when running. It confused the hell out of me for a while as I would make an adjustment and either see no change or even have it go the wrong way. One good thing about an EM0480 grinder is the switch at the side - you can flick it up and the grinder runs while you use both hands to adjust. It's a bit awkward with the EM0450/440 to try to press the button and still adjust things. (not sure which grinder you have)

    I usually just empty it, clean any stuck beans from the grind surfaces and make the adjustment - experience usually means I get it right within one or at most two adjustments, but it's a bit of a piss off to empty, adjust, fill, grind, empty, adjust etc. Makes for fast learning.

    I've also found the SB baskets seem to work better with the tamped coffee at least 4mm down. With both the 6910 version and the 7000 version, that sits the ground weight at about 15g - 16g. (my scales only do gram accuracy)

    Post copied from another thread in its entirety but only the following paragraph relates to this new thread topic.

    A word of warning - one of the worst things to microwave is milk. MW works by breaking apart molecules to release heat and some milk byproducts are toxic. Also, the reason why there's a 'best' temp for frothing milk is to avoid getting the milk to where it begins to break down. The steamer on the 7000 is pretty good, so it isn't really much of a chore to use.
    Last edited by Javaphile; 19 June 2014, 11:01 AM. Reason: Off topic discussion moved

  • #2
    Originally posted by Journeyman View Post
    A word of warning - one of the worst things to microwave is milk. MW works by breaking apart molecules to release heat and some milk byproducts are toxic.
    This is absolutely rubbish.

    Comment


    • #3
      Free amino acid concentrations in milk: effects ... [Amino Acids. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI which states:

      "Microwave effects on free amino acid concentrations in milk versus a water bath heating were investigated in view of their importance for infant growth. Concentrations of few amino acids, such as aspartate, serine or lysine, are unchanged whatever the way and the temperature of heating. In contrast, tryptophan concentrations decreased similarly whatever the way of heating (110 +/- 3 mumol/l before heating vs 84 +/- 4 mumol/l after 30 degrees C microwave heating, p < 0.05). On the contrary, concentrations of glutamate and glycine increased more after water bath heating at 90 degrees C (325 +/- 4 and 101 +/- 1 mumol/1, respectively) than after microwave heating (312 +/- 4 and 95 +/- 1 mumol/l, respectively, p < 0.05) suggesting milk proteolysis. Moreover, the accumulation of ammonia observed at 90 degrees C with the water bath together with increase Glu levels might reflect a degradation of glutamine. An ornithine enrichment, more evident with microwave heating, was shown and could be of interest as it is a polyamine precursor. Also, considering few variations of free amino acid concentrations and the time saved, microwave heating appears to be an appropriate method to heat milk."

      Comment


      • #4
        Science is meant to be sceptical, and that actually includes, of science. Modern versions of science are political and funding controlled by producing expected results. It's easy to find many examples of this all around us.

        Any claim of 'absolute' anything is not supported by the tenets of science (except possibly 'absolute zero' ) and the saturation levels of surety we see about all kinds of subject shows how the media has driven science to the level of being the new 'opiate of the masses.'Personally I prefer not to drink the Kool-aid even if it IS offered by a white coat.

        The history of microwave use has quite a few martyrs along the path and there has been little real testing of effects. Anyone interested in learning more than the panaceas offered by 'Authority' can trace the history of MW since it was first used. Along the way are rather startling road signs such as how the US decided on what is a safe level, why US safe levels are more than 10x that of USSR/Russia (a country not renowned for putting safety first, why the US embassy in Moscow was such a health risk during the 60's and much more.

        MW DOES break apart molecules as they vibrate so rapidly bonds get broken, and proteins and aminos are not good things to break apart then ingest. Milk these days causes many issues with health, including an alarming rise in lactose intolerance - one has to question why the milk we get now is so much worse for us than what they were getting in the 50's and 60's - seems strange that making it 'better' for us would cause so many more people to become sick... doncha think.

        So for those wanting to drink the kool-aid and not do real science by being sceptical of claims and checking for themselves, feel free to keep microwaving your food. Those who prefer to perhaps avoid some of the ever-increasing 'syndromes', 'disorders' and deficiencies might like to do some reading for themselves.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Journeyman View Post

          MW DOES break apart molecules as they vibrate so rapidly bonds get broken, and proteins and aminos are not good things to break apart then ingest. Milk these days causes many issues with health, including an alarming rise in lactose intolerance - one has to question why the milk we get now is so much worse for us than what they were getting in the 50's and 60's - seems strange that making it 'better' for us would cause so many more people to become sick... doncha think.
          There is a difference between saying microwaves can break apart molecules, and saying that it's how they work (which is not the case).

          Heating milk on a gas stove can (and does) break apart molecules too.

          Science is about investigation, and generating models of reality, to improve our ability to "understand" the complex behaviour of everything.

          My day job is, in essence, using models to design or troubleshoot process facilities, and one of my favourite sayings is "all models are wrong, but some are useful" - the trick is understanding the limitations of the model you are applying.

          Henpicking "facts" and considering only half of the problem at hand generally does not lead to a useful model

          Comment


          • #6
            @MrJack - I may have worded my post better, but the content is still valid. There is a significant difference between heating milk molecules on a stove or with steam and subjecting it to 2.45 billion vibrations per second - these vibrations cause significant direct damage to molecules and also deformation of nearby molecules due to friction and impact.

            To quote a 1989 report in 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."


            Also, a comparative study of conventional and MW foods found:
            One short-term study found significant and disturbing changes in the blood of individuals consuming microwaved milk and vegetables. Eight volunteers ate various combinations of the same foods cooked different ways. All foods that were processed through the microwave ovens caused changes in the blood of the volunteers. Hemoglobin levels decreased and over all white cell levels and cholesterol levels increased. Lymphocytes decreased.Luminescent (light-emitting) bacteria were employed to detect energetic changes in the blood. Significant increases were found in the luminescence of these bacteria when exposed to blood serum obtained after the consumption of microwaved food."


            Also, from Switzerland,
            In 1991, he [Hertel] and a Lausanne university professor published a research paper indicating that food cooked in microwave ovens could pose a greater risk to health than food cooked by conventional means. An article also appeared in issue 19 of the Journal Franz Weber in which it was stated that the consumption of food cooked in microwave ovens had cancerous effects on the blood. The research paper itself followed the article.
            And there is much more out there available to read as well as better detail on the ones I show here. It's not that difficult to find and you can get lots of clues by carefully reading the mainstream reports - often the reporters copy across words that indicate exactly where the original scientists were trying to cover themselves against later reactions.

            These are not 'alternative world' studies but rigorous science done by established professionals. Strangely you have to search for them, when one would think the implications would bring banner headlines. There are vested interests in only doing research that supports the paradigm (and money-making) of the corporations - when contrary results arise, pressure is used to prevent publication, to dilute the message and even to attack the experimenters.

            So I stand by what I wrote, even if 'how they work' might not be semantically correct. Microwaving milk is NOT a good thing to do if you value your health.

            Comment


            • #7
              Drinking 8-10 cups of water that's been captured from the ground where animals and birds live, stored, pumped re-cycled, treated, run though asbestos, copper, steel pipes, and boiled in brass/ copper/ stainless steel, then forced through a smashed up, roasted bean to extract somewhere between 100-200mg of a nasty stimulant probably isn't that good for us either..

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Robbks View Post
                Drinking 8-10 cups of water that's been captured from the ground where animals and birds live, stored, pumped re-cycled, treated, run though asbestos, copper, steel pipes, and boiled in brass/ copper/ stainless steel, then forced through a smashed up, roasted bean to extract somewhere between 100-200mg of a nasty stimulant probably isn't that good for us either..
                That kind of took the shine off of my freshly brewed Costa Rican Hermosa SHB Premium double ristretto, but made me chuckle nonetheless. There's nothing quite like a brutally stark bit of reality to get us off of our pedestals and soap boxes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Robbks View Post
                  Drinking 8-10 cups of water that's been captured from the ground where animals and birds live, stored, pumped re-cycled, treated, run though asbestos, copper, steel pipes, and boiled in brass/ copper/ stainless steel, then forced through a smashed up, roasted bean to extract somewhere between 100-200mg of a nasty stimulant probably isn't that good for us either..
                  While I might dispute the nasty stimulant bit, (there's a growing body of evidence coffee is actually good for us ) the water part of it is why I have a reverse osmosis system for all consumable water.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yeah, I don't need filtering.
                    Fresh Tasmanian Rainwater staright from the sky... Filtered through Gumleaves and a dead possum in the guttering...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Journeyman View Post
                      While I might dispute the nasty stimulant bit, (there's a growing body of evidence coffee is actually good for us ) the water part of it is why I have a reverse osmosis system for all consumable water.
                      I'm pretty sure the human body was never designed to ingest/consume pure, unadulterated water, after all, it sure as hell doesn't occur anywhere in the natural world. You may as well wear an alu-foil hat (to protect your head from solar flares and radio waves) while drinking your reverse osmosis water for all the good it will do. There is such a thing as being overly protective.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        So I take it you don't drink beer or cook on the BBQ either JM?


                        Originally posted by Journeyman View Post
                        @MrJack - I may have worded my post better, but the content is still valid. There is a significant difference between heating milk molecules on a stove or with steam and subjecting it to 2.45 billion vibrations per second - these vibrations cause significant direct damage to molecules and also deformation of nearby molecules due to friction and impact.
                        Our models of reality are obviously some ways apart...

                        You suggest that microwave heating is the result of exothermic chemical reaction (or rather, implied it by suggesting it is the result of breaking chemical bonds)
                        vs.
                        Heating induced by exciting chemical bonds without breaking them (which, as I recall, is the primary mode of heating in a domestic microwave).

                        I believe it is a fundamental difference, not a semantic one.

                        Anyway, I'm not arguing that the studies and finding you have quoted are invalid (as I haven't read it), but what you've stated as fact, isn't, and the language you are using reads (to those who have some knowledge of the subject matter, that is) less like a scientific explanation, and more like marketing sensationalism.

                        Deformation of molecules through friction and impact? And?

                        Any increase in temperature will increase the rate of collisions between molecules (which is part of the reason reaction rates increase at higher temperatures). Friction doesn't really even have meaning at that scale.

                        Molecules (particularly complex organic molecules like in milk) are not a fixed material object. They vibrate, and stretch, and waggle, and twist, and move, and bump into each other, and change shape (I.e. deform) and even change chemical structure, constantly.

                        So, it's not some terrible thing that a microwave subjects them to, it's quite normal and will be happening in your milk jug too!

                        I'll take my kool-aid neat, and in a in a test tube. Thanks

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Mr Jack. This is a coffee forum. Not a place for you to sprout your knowledge in a condescending manor.
                          I to have a science degree and work in the food industry. If someone wants to believe that there is some issues with microwaved food then all good.
                          By the way after reading what JM has posted I can't see anywhere he tried to say the heating is caused by an exothermic chemical reaction. So how about you put away your dictionary and start posting something that is worthwhile.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Fard View Post
                            Mr Jack. This is a coffee forum. Not a place for you to sprout your knowledge in a condescending manor.
                            I to have a science degree and work in the food industry. If someone wants to believe that there is some issues with microwaved food then all good.
                            By the way after reading what JM has posted I can't see anywhere he tried to say the heating is caused by an exothermic chemical reaction. So how about you put away your dictionary and start posting something that is worthwhile.
                            Actually, what JM said was:
                            MW works by breaking apart molecules to release heat and some milk byproducts are toxic.
                            Breaking apart molecules to release heat is almost the definition of an exothermic chemical reaction.

                            I was not intending to be condescending, but was responding to what I found a questionable explanation, based on my own understanding (no dictionary was harmed in this discussion).

                            In my experience simply saying "that's incorrect", without backing it up, tends to result in more "open your eyes, don't drink the kool-aide" type responses, which doesn't really benefit anyone (and is extremely frustrating).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Robbks View Post
                              Yeah, I don't need filtering.
                              Fresh Tasmanian Rainwater staright from the sky... Filtered through Gumleaves and a dead possum in the guttering...
                              Do you prefer brushtail or ringtail? I guess the ringtail might add greater depth to lighter roasts.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X