Oxidation in steamed salmon

Steaming would be near perfect way to cook the fish.
I'd worry more about long term storage of the fish
in the freezer. The optimal way to cook the fish
is steaming.

"Dean_Travers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As one who enjoys eating steamed salmon several times a week--I am
concerned about possible oxidation incurred by the cooking process.
Especially so after reading this article:

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/fish-cook.htm

Does this article appear to be accurate & does steaming salmon indeed
result in overmuch oxidation? If so--what would be the optimal method
of preparing fatty fish?

Thank You,
Dean Travers

[email hidden]

This is an experiment which could be easily repeated, and there is no
reason to suspect it to be inaccuate - it's a simple setup. I don't
know how the other responder could say that steaming is the best after
reading this study. Considering that only oxidized cholesterol
"causes" heart disease (it's a bit more complicated, involving the
biochemically unstable molecule arachidonic acid), how could anyone who
values his/her health steam salmon after reading this paper? Why not
boil it - that's probably best, as oxidation requires exposure to air?
Once you boil it, you can put it in a saucepan with butter, etc., and
just get it to a warm temperature. Another thing is that fatty acids
and cholesterol can and does occur inside the body (lipid
peroxidation), so you should eat foods high in antioxdiants when you
eat salmon, however you prepare it. Blueberries, red wine, white or
green tea, broccoli florets, etc. are good (don't eat broccoli raw,
though),

Dean_Travers said:

As one who enjoys eating steamed salmon several times a week--I am
concerned about possible oxidation incurred by the cooking process.
Especially so after reading this article:

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/fish-cook.htm

Does this article appear to be accurate & does steaming salmon indeed
result in overmuch oxidation? If so--what would be the optimal

method

Quoted message said:

of preparing fatty fish?

Thank You,
Dean Travers

[email hidden]

Dean

This answer to your question from an anonymous, semi-retired usenet
poster.

Zee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The article is, indeed, accurate except for a
salient subject omitted.

How much is enough - is the question. Of course
there's oxidation; so
what? Min-max levels are variable to the extent
of who's saying what.

In any event, there's bright hope for the
terrified and succor for the
paranoiac. As usual in the case of such academic
studies, the
conclusion is that more study is necessary (and
we'll be looking for
funding soon...) and look at the list at the end
of people who agree
with us. Um, I mean the bibliography.

"ABSTRACT

"Cholesterol is a molecule with a double bond in
its structure and is
therefore susceptible to oxidation leading to the
formation of
oxysterols. These oxidation products are found in
many
commonly-consumed foods and are formed during
their manufacture and/or
processing. Concern about oxysterols consumption
arises from the
potential cytotoxic, mutagenic, atherogenic, and
possibly carcinogenic
effects of some oxysterols. Eggs and egg-derived
products are the main
dietary sources of oxysterols.
Thermally-processed milk and
milk-derived products are another source of
oxysterols in our diet.
Foods fried in vegetable/animal oil, such as
meats and French-fried
potatoes, are major sources of oxysterols in the
Western diet. Efforts
to prevent or to reduce cholesterol oxidation are
directed to the use
of antioxidants of either synthetic or natural
origin. Antioxidants
are not only able to inhibit triglyceride
oxidation, some of them can
also inhibit cholesterol oxidation. Among
synthetic antioxidants 2,
6-di-tertiarybutyl-4-methylphenol (BHT), and
tertiary
butylhydroquinone (TBHQ) can efficiently inhibit
the thermal-induced
oxidation of cholesterol. Some natural
antioxidants, such as alpha-
and gamma-tocopherol, rosemary oleoresin extract,
and the flavonoid
quercetin, show strong inhibitory action against
cholesterol oxidation."

<http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0716-97602003000300002&script=sci_arttext>

Happy fish... Oh, and skip the fries. And eggs.
And pasteurized milk.
And anything with nonfat dried milk which would,
of course, include
milk chocolate. And keep those preservatives
(BHA, BHT, TBHQ and the
like and don't forget vitamin E...) coming in.
This week, they're good for us.

I think the motto for fish eaters should be
"Sushi for all, damn the parasites."

Pastorio

montygram said:

This is an experiment which could be easily repeated, and there is no
reason to suspect it to be inaccuate - it's a simple setup. I don't
know how the other responder could say that steaming is the best

after

Quoted message said:

reading this study. Considering that only oxidized cholesterol
"causes" heart disease (it's a bit more complicated, involving the
biochemically unstable molecule arachidonic acid), how could anyone

who

Quoted message said:

values his/her health steam salmon after reading this paper? Why not
boil it - that's probably best, as oxidation requires exposure to

air?

Quoted message said:

Once you boil it, you can put it in a saucepan with butter, etc., and
just get it to a warm temperature. Another thing is that fatty acids
and cholesterol can and does occur inside the body (lipid
peroxidation), so you should eat foods high in antioxdiants when you
eat salmon, however you prepare it. Blueberries, red wine, white or
green tea, broccoli florets, etc. are good (don't eat broccoli raw,
though),

Thanks to all for the quick responses. To address your post--if I
choose to boil the salmon (or shrimp or chicken for that matter) would
it be advisable to drink the remaining water to ensure that any
water-soluble protein is not wasted?

Thanks again--Dean Travers
[email hidden]

The point is that you don't have to do this (steam things). There are
places where you can't get unpasteurized dairy, and Mary Enig, a fatty
acid expert, thinks that homogenization is a lot worse. Just like you
saw in that experiment, the numbers need to be presented. The raw
salmon had quite a bit of oxidation compared to something with almost
none, so it would be best to have a chart to see foods compared to each
other. People don't realize how simple and inexpensive experiments
that could save a ton of lives potentially just haven't been done.

To answer your question, I can't see how the water would contain more
than trace amounts of protein, so I wouldn't worry about it, though I
doubt it would cause major problems if you like it for whatever reason.

[email hidden] wrote:
:: The article is, indeed, accurate except for a
:: salient subject omitted.
:: [...]
::
:: "ABSTRACT
::
:: "Cholesterol is a molecule with a double bond in
:: its structure and is
:: therefore susceptible to oxidation leading to the
:: formation of
:: oxysterols. These oxidation products are found in
:: many
:: commonly-consumed foods and are formed during
:: their manufacture and/or
:: processing. [...]

Thanks for a good posting.

--
Juhana

"montygram" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This is an experiment which could be easily repeated, and there is no
reason to suspect it to be inaccuate - it's a simple setup. I don't
know how the other responder could say that steaming is the best after
reading this study. Considering that only oxidized cholesterol
"causes" heart disease (it's a bit more complicated, involving the
biochemically unstable molecule arachidonic acid), how could anyone who
values his/her health steam salmon after reading this paper? Why not
boil it - that's probably best, as oxidation requires exposure to air?
Once you boil it, you can put it in a saucepan with butter, etc., and
just get it to a warm temperature. Another thing is that fatty acids
and cholesterol can and does occur inside the body (lipid
peroxidation), so you should eat foods high in antioxdiants when you
eat salmon, however you prepare it. Blueberries, red wine, white or
green tea, broccoli florets, etc. are good (don't eat broccoli raw,
though),

Sorry. I responded without checking the link.
Now that I looked I agree you have a point.
Still I doubt fish fried in an omega 6 rich oil
or in trans fats is going to be as helpful healthwise.
And I won't be so sure that even boiling
prevents the formation of oxysterols as they
didn't test that cooking method.

About the raw fish: without enough stomach acid, you're asking for
stomach cancer. Take a look at the WHO statistics for stomach cancer.
Japan is in the lead and has been for decades. As you get older, you
make less stomach acid, which explains why stomach cancer used to be a
major killer in the USA and other Western nations, but is not any
longer. Now the food is too processed in many ways, but Japan still
has high cancer rates. I'd be more inclined to get good quality meat
(low in unsaturated fatty acids, which cause oxidation inside your
body), freeze it for two weeks, then eat it raw or boiled for a short
period of time (until it gets to the point where you think it would
taste best for you). Bringing rats into your house because you saw a
cockroach in the hope that the rats will eat them is not a good idea.

montygram said:

About the raw fish: without enough stomach acid, you're asking for
stomach cancer. Take a look at the WHO statistics for stomach
cancer. Japan is in the lead and has been for decades.

And the correlation with raw fish is demonstrated where...? Could it
not as effectively be attributed to sake or soy sauce? Or steamed
rice? Or smoking. Or karaoke? Or bad, imitation Scotch whisky?

Quoted message said:

As you get older, you make less stomach acid, which explains why
stomach cancer used to be a major killer in the USA and other
Western nations, but is not any longer.

Um, we're living longer. Wouldn't that imply a greater and growing
risk and a greater incidence?

Quoted message said:

Now the food is too processed in many ways, but Japan still has
high cancer rates.

Attributable to what? And why would "too processed" be linked here,
undefined and with the bad parts unenumerated? And why would there be
the implication that "too processed" might be a factor in reduced but
still high rates?

Quoted message said:

I'd be more inclined to get good quality meat (low in unsaturated
fatty acids, which cause oxidation inside your body)

Quality in beef as defined by the government and meat producers is
predicated on, among other things, fat. Prime grade meat will have
more internal fat then lower grades. Better flavor results from that.
This "good quality meat" reference above means fat-free meats which
taste like sawdust and cook poorly.

Quoted message said:

freeze it for two weeks, then eat it raw or boiled for a short
period of time (until it gets to the point where you think it would
taste best for you).

Boiled beef doesn't have much flavor. I think this teapot has had
enough tempests. Living in mortal terror of the table is a silly,
profitless way to go through life.

The plain fact is that we've evolved for the past thousand millennia
cooking our foods and it's a balancing act. A tradeoff. The benefits
include greater digestibility, ease of chewing, reduction of some
toxins, and more flavorful results. The tradeoffs would include those
carcinogens and other compounds formed by so doing. But we've reached
a point where everything is the latest crisis, and it demands funded
study NOW! Upon funded study. Upon funded study. What happened with
those Swedish deadly fried foods. Remember that? Acrilamides? How
about Alar? And cholesterol in shrimp? Along with cold fusion. And
things ad infinitum that were going to be the destruction of the whole
human race. All this belief instead of reason and a sense of
proportion is a bit much.

Quoted message said:

Bringing rats into your house because you saw a cockroach in the
hope that the rats will eat them is not a good idea.

Oh, why not...?

No, seriously...

Pastorio