295509 Sat Dec 27 17:52:30 -0800 2003 11 27 General Chowhounding Topics 0 1624194 I just heard on the news that, according to one study, microwaving broccoli will remove 96% of its flavonoids, and boiling it will remove about 50% - so you should always steam it. Is this true? What is the best way to cook vegetables so that the most nutrients are retained? Is steaming better than sauteeing? Sat Dec 27 17:52:30 -0800 2003 0 rodney 1 1624197 Microwave, baby. Just about everything is retained. Sat Dec 27 18:19:54 -0800 2003 1624194 0 Nina W. 2 1624210 Less is more - two to three minutes using a 1200 watt oven does it. Sun Dec 28 07:07:05 -0800 2003 1624197 0 Zoe 3 1624211 And NO water; let them steam in their own moisture... Sun Dec 28 09:05:30 -0800 2003 1624210 0 galleygirl 4 1624217 Yes...and cover them tightly... Sun Dec 28 12:51:55 -0800 2003 1624211 0 Nina W. 5 1624234 I use an ancient Tupperware microwave vegetable container to cook vegetables. Bought a couple over the years at yard sales; the vegetables lie on a plastic collander like base and the top fits firmly. No water or just a sprinkle and they are perfect every time at 2 to 3 minutes. Sun Dec 28 20:24:35 -0800 2003 1624217 0 Zoe 1 1624198 If nutrients are your overwhelming concern, don't cook them. Sat Dec 27 19:34:35 -0800 2003 1624194 0 Dorothy 2 1624203 I don't think raw vegetables are necessarily the way to ensure nutrients stay put. Some nutritional value is released when vegetable fibers are "softened" through cooking. For instance, it's my understanding that beta-carotene becomes more "bio-available" when carrots are cooked just a little. In other words, cooking can "free" nutrients for the body to use. Leastwise, that's my understanding. Sat Dec 27 20:34:37 -0800 2003 1624198 0 David Hammond 2 1624207 Not necessarily so. The lycopene in tomatoes is greatly enhanced if the tomatoes are cooked. Similarly, carrots, if cooked, have greater availablility of nutrients. This probably holds true with many vegetables. Sat Dec 27 23:42:50 -0800 2003 1624198 0 Jeremy Newel 1 1624219 My feeling is that there are two kinds of people...those who eat well and those who don't. I never hear about people who eat a balanced diet having any deficiences (nutrition-wise). Looking around the world, there really aren't any examples of mal-nourished people except in third world countries. The 'half' of americans who eat well also feel that they need to take multi-vitamins, nutrition supplements, etc. Just eat a reasonable diet and don't worry about it. That said, I always figure that anything that can be eaten raw (most veggies, fruits, fish) is better under-cooked than over. As to cooking method, I'm guessing (as did most of the other posters) that it varies from food to food. Boiling is bad unless you use the broth. I would think sauteeing is better than steaming unless you steam only a short time, based on the steamer water looking cloudy when done -- something is in that water and no longer in the food. And the posters who pointed out that absorption of nutrients becomes easier in some foods that are cooked are, indeed, correct. Sun Dec 28 13:50:09 -0800 2003 1624194 0 SteveT 1 1624257 The tastiest thing you can do with broccoli is a Chinese stir-fry. Include little pieces of onion, dried or fresh mushrooms, water chestnuts or bamboo shoots and finish with a little soy-flavored sauce - very good. Even broccoli haters would like it. Bet stir-frying preserves the nutrients very well, too. Mon Dec 29 11:44:15 -0800 2003 1624194 0 Sharuf 1 1624425 Sometimes there is some confusion between nutrients and enzymes. Beneficial enzymes--like those in crushed garlic, pineapple, papays--are destroyed(irreversably denatured) when cooked. If you want the benefit that active enzymes offer, eat it raw. If you are concerned about nutrients, it is a case by case basis. Tue Dec 30 09:10:22 -0800 2003 1624194 0 IHTJ