Does microwaving food suck up the food's nutrients?

[Hulbert Lee]

Hi, I know this is probably a dumb question but I am trying to change into a raw food person, however I'm finding a hard time trying to eat hot food, which I enjoy.

I know cooking food sucks up its nutrients such as they do at fast food restaurants, but I was wondering does microwaving food have the same effects?

I like to microwave pancakes in the morning and I don't want to give that up.

[Mabel]

Certainly eating more raw foods will be a good change to make! I believe that cooking is better than microwaving because from what I understand, microwaving more profoundly changes the properties of the food than does cooking. Here is an article that explains the effects more specifically:

Microwave Cooking is Killing You!

If I want to warm some food without even using my oven, I put it in my dehydrator. I rarely eat bread but occasionally I will get some high quality whole grain bread and toast it in the dehydrator!

[Andrew Brunelle]

Microwaving foods actually make them much worse for you, because the nutrients become toxic. The food becomes toxic. Irradiating food is one of the worst things you can do to it. I may have used a microwave 5 times in the last 2 years. And it doesn't taste good either.

[Carl Carlson IV]

I don't know anything about what chemical reactions or what happens to the food properties, but microwaving anything makes it taste like ****. That should be reason enough to avoid it!

[Criseyde]

I've never really understood why microwave cooking would be any different than using a stove or a regular oven. All heat is a form of radiation, microwaves just heat things up faster than more traditional methods.

So when I saw this thread, I remembered that I have access to a lot of academic databases.

I found a couple interesting things (I'm just reading abstracts):

One study (Effect of enzyme inactivation by microwave and oven heating on preservation quality of green tea), in the Journal of Food Engineering (Volume 78, Issue 2, January 2007), showed that "both spring and autumn tea possessed by microwave heating had significantly higher vitamin C content and less loss during storage than that by oven heating," "chlorophyll content of spring and autumn tea by microwave heating was higher and more stable than that by oven heating followed by storage, which indicated that microwave-heating treatment could reduce the decomposition of chlorophyll," and "the preservation qualities of green tea harvested in spring and autumn were greatly enhanced by microwave heating."

Another (Nutrient retention in foods after earth-oven cooking compared to other forms of domestic cooking), Journal of Food Composition and Analysis (Volume 19, Issue 4, June 2006):

Retention of retinol: "Generally higher retention of this vitamin was observed in microwave cooked samples whereas the lowest retentions were characteristic of earth-oven cooked samples."

Thiamin and riboflavin: "Highest losses were usually observed with oven roasting, slightly more than the losses with earth-oven cooking. Microwave cooking caused the least loss of these two B vitamins."

"Niacin was quite stable to all the cooking methods with the retentions ranging from 63% to 95%. Retention values were comparable between similar samples cooked by different methods."

[SheldonCooper]

Raw food diets are completely innecessary, require more work than non-raw (even Steve found it a waste of time) and really, no big deal.

Micro waving does not make food toxic :/

I wouldn't worry about nutrient sucking. Although it does change the moisturity and texture of some food and consume more energy than normal coccion methods. If the taste is not good for you , do a change, if it is ok for you then there's no reason to change

Microwave ovens are cool stuff. The dielectric heating causes water molecules to vibrate (it also does it to metals and that's the reason you don't put metals in it) which generates heat. Do not take the word "radiation" for granted and assume it is the same radiation from Chernobyl :P . The microwave radiation in ovens is non-ionizing.

The waves themselves are of course dangerous and hence the shield protection in the door, but they are dangerous because they generate heat and would produce burns on you if you were exposed to them. Actual burns caused by heat. If you were directly exposed to a microwave oven's radiation, you would burn but your DNA would not mutate nor would your inner chemicals suffer nuclear changes and all that stuff that is related to alpha, beta or gamma radiation, thanks for reading.


Does cooking itself "suck nutrients" ? I think it is dubious. Although in some food it reduces the nutrients, it also makes the food easier to digest. Digestion requires energy, so it makes food more efficient. Also, in some food, it will actually boost the nutrients making them more suitable for us. (Not to mention that you will get rid of bacteria...)

Edit: From the 'article' linked above:

The violent change that microwaving causes to the food molecules forms new life forms called radiolytic compounds. These are mutations that are unknown in the natural world. Ordinary cooking also causes the formation of some radiolytic compounds (which is no doubt one reason why it is better to eat plenty of raw food), but microwaving cooking causes a much greater number. This then causes deterioration in your blood and immune system

And the bull award goes to... I just hope I don't have to explain why.

Edit: Ok, I found a interesting article:
Microwave Cooking - Does it Destroy Nutrients in Vegetables?

Edit: Hey, for more info refer to the comments section in this blog post:
Dangers of Microwave Cooking

Edit: I... can't.. stop... finding... links:
Cooking in The Microwave Oven: Is It Safe?

[Hulbert Lee]

Although there were differences in the effects of a microwave on food, I appreciated everyone's information here. Thank you. It seems like it's best not to go with a microwave...

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by Hulbert Lee

Hi,
I know this is probably a dumb question
but I am trying to change into a raw food person.

Hmm, how many RAW meals have you enjoyed like WILD animals do?

See, IF God had wanted you to digest foods just like them,
don't you think He'd create your Digestive-system identical to theirs?

Of course, Fresh/Raw veggies & fruits are a different matter, these you can enjoy raw...

Originally Posted by Hulbert Lee

I know cooking food 'sucks up' its nutrients
such as they do at fast food restaurants,

Properly-cooked, if anything, destroys harmful microbes,
that otherwise have the advantage to kill you.

Other foods, such as beans, & high-fiber foods, etc. need to be cooked so you can benefit from them.

Water-soluble vitamins are the nutrients that get harmed by enough heat, not minerals.

Originally Posted by Hulbert Lee

but I was wondering does microwaving food have the same effects?
I like to microwave pancakes in the morning and I don't want to give that up.

Microwaving is safe , as it is not IONizing-radiation

unlike X-rays, or 400-times worse: Cat-scans.


Continue enjoying your microwaved pancakes; yum!

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by sk8joyful

Hmm, how many RAW meals have you enjoyed like WILD animals do?

See, IF God had wanted you to digest foods just like them,
don't you think He'd create your Digestive-system identical to theirs?

Of course, Fresh/Raw veggies & fruits are a different matter, these you can enjoy raw...


Properly-cooked, if anything, destroys harmful microbes,
that otherwise have the advantage to kill you.

Other foods, such as beans, & high-fiber foods, etc. need to be cooked so you can benefit from them.

Water-soluble vitamins are the nutrients that get harmed by enough heat, not minerals.


Microwaving is safe , as it is not IONizing-radiation

unlike X-rays, or 400-times worse: Cat-scans.


Continue enjoying your microwaved pancakes; yum!

Are you trying to say that "god" created humans to eat cooked food?

Hell, even raw meat is twice as easy to digest then cooked meat.

who says humans were meant to eat beans and grains and etc? If "god" wanted us to, "he" would have created us with the capability to digest it. What food that we NEED, needs to be heated for us to consume it?

as far as microbes. I've been eating raw fruit for awhile now. Raw fish. Raw meat. Raw eggs. Barely ever wash my fruit, even tho people say how that will kill you. Yet, I get sick a lot less then everyone else I know, who "protects" themselves from those scary things in foods, by cleaning or cooking them to death. It's all much to do about nothing. "god" created us a lot more resilient then people give us credit for.

[elucidate]

Maybe the main factor here is that they WORRY about it where as you don't. I think it's the worrying that can cause people to get sick...which may be why so many health conscious vegan/vegetarians end up dying an early death from cancer. They all worry about it too much.

People who smoke a pack a day and don't worry about it can often live longer than those who don't touch cigarettes. Of course, they are not as self-respecting of their bodies, but then, they don't worry about it either, and thus, don't get sick!

Then again, your constitution may be genuinely more resilient than most people you know RR? Coming from Russia, I'd imagine that your immune system would have had to fight a lot harder than most people in say America or Australia, doe to the climate difference and cold. Just a theory...?

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Are you trying to say that "god" created humans to eat cooked food?

Hell, even raw meat is twice as easy to digest then cooked meat.

who says humans were meant to eat beans and grains and etc? If "god" wanted us to, "he" would have created us with the capability to digest it. What food that we NEED, needs to be heated for us to consume it?

as far as microbes. I've been eating raw fruit for awhile now. Raw fish. Raw meat. Raw eggs. Barely ever wash my fruit, even tho people say how that will kill you. Yet, I get sick a lot less then everyone else I know, who "protects" themselves from those scary things in foods, by cleaning or cooking them to death. It's all much to do about nothing. "god" created us a lot more resilient then people give us credit for.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Maybe the main factor here is that they WORRY about it where as you don't. I think it's the worrying that can cause people to get sick...which may be why so many health conscious vegan/vegetarians end up dying an early death from cancer. They all worry about it too much.

People who smoke a pack a day and don't worry about it can often live longer than those who don't touch cigarettes. Of course, they are not as self-respecting of their bodies, but then, they don't worry about it either, and thus, don't get sick!

Then again, your constitution may be genuinely more resilient than most people you know RR? Coming from Russia, I'd imagine that your immune system would have had to fight a lot harder than most people in say America or Australia, doe to the climate difference and cold. Just a theory...?

I agree where you are going with that. I used to get colds all the time tho, so I don't know how well the Russia theory works. Then again, my step mom works in a hospital and always brought crap home with her, on top of picking everything up from school. Since I moved out, I haven't had a cold once, and I've never had the flu. My body is all messed up lol but my immune system is superb. My dad has been a 1-2 pack a day smoker for about 55 years, and is healthy as a horse. Doesn't even cough. While I believe cigarrettes aren't healthy, I remember reading a stat awhile back that said only 10% of smokers get a smoking caused illness. Of course that's not counting having bad lungs, no stamina, bad teeth, etc etc. So I feel the worry is so over the top, that as you said, people are killing themselves just by thinking that what they are doing is killing them. His dad died at 45 and his mom died at 93, so it's not like his genes are perfect either.


oh and, now that I think about it. Another factor of me living in Russia, is that we didn't sterilize everything. We didn't have anti bacterial soap and sprays in every aspect of our lives. We didn't take antibiotics for every single thing, nor did we fill ourselves up with drugs every time we had a sniffle. Everyone in America gets sick, because they worry about getting sick and try to protect themselves from it. If only they could see the irony. When all you eat are things that are dead and heated, then of course your immune system isn't gonna handle anything. Personally, I've always wondered if I'd be willing to get vaccines to travel some place, as I personally don't think I'd get sick.

[elucidate]

Well that explains alot. You've been sick as a child alot, and so your immune system had a fighting chance of strengthening from an early age. And yeah, hospitals can be some of the sickest places around...ironically.

The only way our immune system can get strong is BY GETTING SICK! The more times we get sick in our life, the more our immunity fights and strengthens. If we suppress it with so many 'medicines', our system doesn't get a chance to do what it is supposed to do...which is fight for our health and immunity The fact that you got so sick as a child is the reason you are so immune from most things that make others around you sick. Then again, you may just eat more garlic than they do I once didn't get sick for 3 whole years where everyone else was getting sick, and I was eating at least a half a round of roasted garlic every day with potatoes roasted.

I knew a woman about 10 years ago who was fighting Hodgkins Lymphoma...and she was strictly vegan. After a while she admitted that she herself believed that she brought on the cancer cells (that lie dormant in all of us) by just worrying so much about health and what she was eating all the time.

You may be right about not needing vaccines...but I personally wouldn't risk it in malaria zones.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I agree where you are going with that. I used to get colds all the time tho, so I don't know how well the Russia theory works. Then again, my step mom works in a hospital and always brought crap home with her, on top of picking everything up from school. Since I moved out, I haven't had a cold once, and I've never had the flu. My body is all messed up lol but my immune system is superb. My dad has been a 1-2 pack a day smoker for about 55 years, and is healthy as a horse. Doesn't even cough. While I believe cigarrettes aren't healthy, I remember reading a stat awhile back that said only 10% of smokers get a smoking caused illness. Of course that's not counting having bad lungs, no stamina, bad teeth, etc etc. So I feel the worry is so over the top, that as you said, people are killing themselves just by thinking that what they are doing is killing them. His dad died at 45 and his mom died at 93, so it's not like his genes are perfect either.


oh and, now that I think about it. Another factor of me living in Russia, is that we didn't sterilize everything. We didn't have anti bacterial soap and sprays in every aspect of our lives. We didn't take antibiotics for every single thing, nor did we fill ourselves up with drugs every time we had a sniffle. Everyone in America gets sick, because they worry about getting sick and try to protect themselves from it. If only they could see the irony. When all you eat are things that are dead and heated, then of course your immune system isn't gonna handle anything. Personally, I've always wondered if I'd be willing to get vaccines to travel some place, as I personally don't think I'd get sick.

[Artelus]

Originally Posted by Mabel

Certainly eating more raw foods will be a good change to make! I believe that cooking is better than microwaving because from what I understand, microwaving more profoundly changes the properties of the food than does cooking. Here is an article that explains the effects more specifically:

Microwave Cooking is Killing You!

If I want to warm some food without even using my oven, I put it in my dehydrator. I rarely eat bread but occasionally I will get some high quality whole grain bread and toast it in the dehydrator!

When I read that website, I saw some frightening things. It's almost like...the author is fear mongering.

I took an interest in what his or her had to say and tried to give it a chance. After all- it's my health. Then I scrolled down and saw ear candles. Yeah.... definitely fear mongering.

Microwave radiation only heats up the food. It doesn't turn it into toxic. Who's word are you going to take for that? Those fear mongering people or real scientists?

[elucidate]

Some of the 'real' scientists who release this information into the general public do work for the fear-mongering government though...just had to throw that in.

There have been extensive studies done by both sides that have come up with equally compelling arguments saying it both is and isn't harmful to humans. Who to believe?

Personally I like to always listen to my body, which is far wiser and more trustworthy than any scientist or anyone else for that matter...and I have always felt sick around the stomach area whenever I am in the presence of a microwave that is cooking something? I don't know why exactly, but my instincts tell me to stay clear...that's gotta count for something. At least to me it does...I don't care if anyone else thinks I'm crazy.

Originally Posted by Artelus

When I read that website, I saw some frightening things. It's almost like...the author is fear mongering.

I took an interest in what his or her had to say and tried to give it a chance. After all- it's my health. Then I scrolled down and saw ear candles. Yeah.... definitely fear mongering.

Microwave radiation only heats up the food. It doesn't turn it into toxic. Who's word are you going to take for that? Those fear mongering people or real scientists?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Artelus

When I read that website, I saw some frightening things. It's almost like...the author is fear mongering.

I took an interest in what his or her had to say and tried to give it a chance. After all- it's my health. Then I scrolled down and saw ear candles. Yeah.... definitely fear mongering.

Microwave radiation only heats up the food. It doesn't turn it into toxic. Who's word are you going to take for that? Those fear mongering people or real scientists?

Consider that scientific theory after scientific theory is being dis-proven or changed, why would you even bother taking "real" scientists at their word? Would you like me to name all of those theories that have been changed, or would you like me to show you a list of all the theories that have 50% of scientists agreeing and 50% disagreeing?

[ginkgo]

I like some of tests people have done like giving plants water and microwaved water and all the plants getting only microwaved water dying, while the other plants are OK.

After I learned about it, I called my friends to tell them about it. They never tell me anything. They had stopped using it years ago.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

I like some of tests people have done like giving plants water and microwaved water and all the plants getting only microwaved water dying, while the other plants are OK.

After I learned about it, I called my friends to tell them about it. They never tell me anything. They had stopped using it years ago.

Could there have been other factors involved...like say...poor positioning of the plants that got the microwaved water? Not enough sunlight?

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Could there have been other factors involved...like say...poor positioning of the plants that got the microwaved water? Not enough sunlight?

I mentioned this on a thread before. To test something, you can only change one variable at a time. Now all these people responded with scientifically sounded nonsense about not doing this.

So that is when I quoted with links around 7 different sites the scientific method stating that. Then there was no more arguments offered. These sites were like for kids. It is the first thing you learn about scientific testing.

[Carl Carlson IV]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Consider that scientific theory after scientific theory is being dis-proven or changed, why would you even bother taking "real" scientists at their word? Would you like me to name all of those theories that have been changed, or would you like me to show you a list of all the theories that have 50% of scientists agreeing and 50% disagreeing?

This is a pretty poor explanation of what science is and does. It is rare for a scientific theory to be disproven. Sure, many theories are constantly updated as we learn more, but they certainly don't go from true to false.

The vibe from your post is we shouldn't trust any scientific theory because either it will be disproven later on or it's split 50/50 in the community. That's just not the case.

[Digital Jack]

I learned a little about this issue a while back. I became quite convinced (and still am) that microwaves are something that you should attempt to avoid in your cooking as much as you possibly can, and not just because of the arguments against the health effects on the food, but also because of my own taste testing.

Go to the grocery store and get two boxed, frozen, lasagna-type dinners of the same kind. They don't need to be healthy for the sake of this experiment. Cook one in a conventional gas oven, then cook the other one in a microwave oven. (most dishes have instructions for both) Then just taste both of them.

Assuming you didn't burn either one horribly, I can guarantee you that the lasagna from the oven will taste many, many times better than the microwaved one. I've found this to be true in just about everything I've tried through both cooking mediums. Microwaved food tastes incredibly bland to me now unless they have it loaded with seasonings.

I don't think it makes your food toxic, though. I think it does scramble the molecules inside the food to the point where anything beneficial (enzymes, vitamins, ect.) that used to be in it gets destroyed. So what you end up with is a hunk of food-something that your body really can't process well.

I also believe that your body has a way of telling you what foods are good for you based on flavor. Some people like and dislike certain foods, and that's because everyone needs slightly different nutrients to maintain our individual health.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Carl Carlson IV

This is a pretty poor explanation of what science is and does. It is rare for a scientific theory to be disproven. Sure, many theories are constantly updated as we learn more, but they certainly don't go from true to false.

The vibe from your post is we shouldn't trust any scientific theory because either it will be disproven later on or it's split 50/50 in the community. That's just not the case.

the vibe from my post is to not take anyone at their word. lol I'll go with the simple one and the one easiest to associate with.

Global cooling, turned global warming, turned global climate change. All with in how many decades? If that's not a clear cut case of " from true to false" then I honestly don't know what is. Instead of proven wrong, as no theory is considered "fact", lets go with revised, and revised, to the point where it's the complete opposite of the original theory.

oh oh , another one. Awhile ago, scientists figured out that the human body needs so much salt. Decades later, we found out they were off by a decimal point. Science is tricky business, and with how much money and bias is involved these days, forgiven me for not wanting to trust any scientists.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

the vibe from my post is to not take anyone at their word. lol I'll go with the simple one and the one easiest to associate with.

Global cooling, turned global warming, turned global climate change. All with in how many decades? If that's not a clear cut case of " from true to false" then I honestly don't know what is. Instead of proven wrong, as no theory is considered "fact", lets go with revised, and revised, to the point where it's the complete opposite of the original theory.

oh oh , another one. Awhile ago, scientists figured out that the human body needs so much salt. Decades later, we found out they were off by a decimal point. Science is tricky business, and with how much money and bias is involved these days, forgiven me for not wanting to trust any scientists.

The first thing to look at is if the decision of the experiment involves money then it cannot be trusted. There can be people that have never been arrested and money can make theim do strange things. For example Chelsea Clinton's husband's father was a congressman and you do not get that way from having a criminal record. But in 2008 he was released from federal prison and is still on probation for stealing $10 million from people with fraud.

A philanthropist is not trusted with billions of dollars if he has a criminal record. So Bernie Madoff must have had a clean record when he stole billions of dollars from people. A crimnal does not get to become governor of Illinois and that guy broke the law for money.

So if the scientist has an experiment in something that he has money involved in, it is a conflict of interest but that is not against the law. I was reading a book by a physicist in Great Britain and he said the physicits there make around the same wages as a trash collector. It even used to be less.

He said that this comes from the old practice in England that only wealthy people can become scientists and they do not get paid to do it. This brilliant physicist cannot research what he thinks holds promise but what they tell him to research. He loves science but hates all the bureaucracy. In the 2008 book, Anticancer, the author is an MD and gets cancer.

He quickly learns that he cannot trust other doctors to treat him. They make the same whether they save him or kill him. So he had to go out on his own and learn about cancer treatment since it was a matter of life and death for him.

The experiement that I mentioned with giving water to plants, you can try it yourself but only if you trust yourself to be honest and give both sides an equal chance. And then if you can do the above then you can trust your results. Say that I say that I have proven that if you fast for one day, you will have the ability to move objects with your mind. Are you going to give me studies disproving it? There aren't any. But you can try it yourself and see.

[Hulbert Lee]

It's interesting to see where my question led to...

[MightySunTzu]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Science is tricky business, and with how much money and bias is involved these days, forgiven me for not wanting to trust any scientists.

Yes that's the real problem. Between the pharmaceutical and food industries, the pile of "scientific" lies from studies they have financed is stacked quite high. Imagine how different it might be if there was no greed-induced bias and everybody sought only the truth.

[GhostGoat]

Microwaves were banned for a while in the USSR.

Unfortunately, most of what I eat these days is microwaved (I should learn to really cook one of these days). It's better than fast food....I guess.

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

I mentioned this on a thread before. To test something, you can only change one variable at a time. Now all these people responded with scientifically sounded nonsense about not doing this.

So that is when I quoted with links around 7 different sites the scientific method stating that. Then there was no more arguments offered. These sites were like for kids. It is the first thing you learn about scientific testing.

I think Elucidiate was asking if the experiment had proper controls -- did they control for things like lighting variations? And more importantly, did they test a statistically significant number of plants? There is a lot of uncontrollable variation in living things, and thus you need to perform enough trials to achieve a desired confidence interval or P-value (usually at least .05).

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

I think Elucidiate was asking if the experiment had proper controls -- did they control for things like lighting variations? And more importantly, did they test a statistically significant number of plants? There is a lot of uncontrollable variation in living things, and thus you need to perform enough trials to achieve a desired confidence interval or P-value (usually at least .05).

That's exactly what I meant. Didn't think it was that cryptic...I asked a pretty simple question.

Gingko seemed to trail off onto a pretty vague sounding , totally different wavelength to where I was heading with my question...almost with a defensive tone to his post?? Not sure why?

If radiated water was added to plants that weren't receiving enough light, then there may have been "óther factors"as to why they died. That's all I'm saying.

[Artelus]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Consider that scientific theory after scientific theory is being dis-proven or changed, why would you even bother taking "real" scientists at their word? Would you like me to name all of those theories that have been changed, or would you like me to show you a list of all the theories that have 50% of scientists agreeing and 50% disagreeing?

Yes, a lot of theories have been disproved. One such theory that has been disproved over time is spontaneous generation.

The violent change that microwaving causes to the food molecules forms new life forms called radiolytic compounds.

- Crazy person.

Theories made by non scientific crazy people are less creditable than fallible scientists. I would only consider it when they provide credible evidence that is as unbiased as it is objective.

[Zaphod]

Heh, just stumbled onto this image.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Hulbert Lee

Hi, I know this is probably a dumb question but I am trying to change into a raw food person, however I'm finding a hard time trying to eat hot food, which I enjoy.

I know cooking food sucks up its nutrients such as they do at fast food restaurants, but I was wondering does microwaving food have the same effects?

I like to microwave pancakes in the morning and I don't want to give that up.

Yah, I like microwave food too.. I mean burger king microwaves everything (mostly..)

I stopped eating microwave food cause this is what "metatron" said about it.. but I still miss it and I acknowledge I can go back..

Question to AA Metatron: How does one recognize auric bleeding?

AAMetatron: First by understanding certain conditions that can create energetic imbalances and auric energetic diffusion. Those we have listed in the above discourse... The human EMF has certain built in defenses. Just as your skin has 3 levels of sheathing, so to speak, your auric fields have twelve layers on the earth dimensions. The outer 3 levels are where most of the energetic diffusion takes place from electromagnetic waves, microwaves can affect you on much deeper levels.

Micro waved food reverses the molecular polarity of the food substance being heated. This is a recognized fact within some of your mainstream academia. When this is taken in the body, circuitry within the digestive system and bowels are effected, both on the physical and energetic bodies.

Now the precondition recognition is essential, first by knowing within what situations auric interference from opposing energy fields can occur. Sensory indications can be quite subtle. The first sensory indicators are emotional lows, a sense of being tired and out of sorts. Humans rarely connect this to EMF loss, because it occurs quite commonly due to the fact that most homes contain interfering fields, and the stress of life within families, jobs and daily life have their stressful aspects. Aspects that are indeed in part due to energy loss from the taut hectic pace, worsened by lack of exercise and healthy diet.

In addition science has already figured out some of this.. there are study's that say "microwave food is not good" so is my understanding..