Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Sign in to follow this  
Starkman

Nutrition killed in slow cooking?

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

I suppose that this question has been asked several times, and I did search "+nutrition +slow +destroy*" (no quotes), but I couldn't find anything.

The question: when meat, particularly a tough cut, has been cooked for so long that it falls off the bone, does it loose nutrition? If so, how much?

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, I was wondering the same thing today as I had made some chicken stock and cooked a couple stewing hens all night. I set the meat aside for the dogs and was wondering if was still considered a protein. I'm guessing it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question: when meat, particularly a tough cut, has been cooked for so long that it falls off the bone, does it loose nutrition? If so, how much?

That's a great question.

I don't know the answer, but here's what I think:

Food that's eaten raw for nutritional reasons has pretty much lost its advantage by the time it hits the small intestine for absorption. Meat that's slow-cooked all day has surely lost nutrients but what remains falling off the bone is still delicious protein. Meat cooked sous vide has at least retained the volatile components within the bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot depends on what is done with the cooking byproducts. If they are tossed, a lot of nutrition may be lost, however, if they are retained as with a stew or through a sauce, most if not all of the nutrients should still be present. An exception may be volatile components lost to the air, however, most of those are probably flavor rather than nutritive components. One advantage of the slow cooking process nutritionally is that by breaking things down, it is like pre-digesting food, making many nutrients more available and more easily absorbed in the digestive tract. If they can't be or aren't absorbed, the presence of all the nutrients in the book in a piece of food are meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points, doc.

I'd add that losing some of the nutrition in a food is not the biggest crime in the world. And side dishes, which presumably wouldn't be slow-cooked too would compensate.

Most of us are overnourished anyway.


Edited by gfweb (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. . . . Most of us are overnourished anyway.

Sad but true, and even sadder still considering it's not true for many people around the world.

Slow cooking is what separates us from the animals. Think about it, one end of the spectrum involves sinking your incisors into a living creature, ripping off a chunk, chewing and swallowing. The other is a slowly bubbling cauldron with spices, enzymes, acidity and heat -- like an external stomach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(...) -- like an external stomach.

I like that. In an eerie sort of way. :blink:

*off to pull two beautifull, slow braised lamb shanks from the oven*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think so that you are right! If we cook meat on high heat then more chances of burning it as it stick to the pan and meat will not be completely tenderized and if you eat hard meat, it will damage your digestive system. Cook on slow heat for definite time so that it become soft and eat easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×