How to cook healthy eggs?

D

dyinginadaydream

New member
Do you know how to cook eggs in healthy ways. For adults, boiling is the
best cooking method, but it's unfavorable to cook for a long time; 5-7
minutes is enough. Remember to take time in eating; otherwise, it will
affect egg digestion and nutrition absorbing. Different from adults,
steamed eggs and egg soups suit children, for such cooking ways make
protein easy to absorb for kids. Besides, fried eggs are likely to be
harmful to 'health' (http://www.weiku.com/catalogs/2317/Health_Medical/)
If an egg is fried with burning scorches on its edges, the white part
may become low molecular amino acids which can form toxic chemicals at
high temperatures.　




--
emmy007
 
emmy007 wrote:


Scrambled - put the eggs into a frying pan that's already got a generous
amount of oil, keep the heat medium-low or so, and after the eggs have
been in only a bit, add a lot of grated cheese - sharp cheddar and
smoked gouda are the current favorites here.

Don't know if it's healthy but it sure tastes good.

-S-
 
In article ,
emmy007 wrote:


No clue. It doesn't matter *how* I cook them, the eggs are never
healthy. I've never gotten a chicken out of one yet. I suspect the
cooking kills them.

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]
 
I don't know what preceded this; probably some folks I've added to the
blocked senders' list. BUT, I do know how to cook healthy eggs. At least
somewhat. We do everything we can to hold off on cholesterol but we do a
Sunday Morning very special breakfast.
I use two whole eggs, 4 egg whites. I add something such as a bit of
minced green onions and a hefty splat of Tabasco and some freshly ground
pepper. They are gently scrambled in our only spoonful of butter for the
week. How to make this look 'as good as'? I add a few drops of food
coloring so they don't look anemic. Maybe not as wonderful as real
scrambled eggs or a fine cigar on the deck of the Titanic. Polly
 
Polly Esther wrote:

My understanding of recent research is that there is very little, if
any, connection between dietary cholesterol and the level in one's
blood.

-S-
 
"Steve Freides" wrote:



The egg/cholesterol debate raging for so long is divided into equal
(just guessing) camps.

I'm leaning towards the cholesterol the body makes being largely to
blame.

When I was dieting (for 1-1/2 years), I switched to Egg Beaters (no
yolks) and it didn't seem to reduce my HDL level at all. A few other
reasons I decided on Egg Beaters are they taste exactly like full eggs
and, being pasteurized I figured that did away with any salmonella food
poisoning risk. Also, microwaving a tub of Egg Beaters or anything for
that matter, by molecular agitation, will kill bacteria (and nutrients,
or so I've heard).

Granted, I sure do miss sunny side up and over easy real eggs!

Andy
 
On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:54:57 -0500, "Polly Esther"
wrote:


"Very little" evidence becomes "enough to be cautious" about when
you're actually playing with your spouse's life instead of making it
an academic exercise.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On Apr 1, 9:56?pm, Mark Thorson wrote:

First, pluck, singe, and draw your spammer. Rinse the body cavity and
blot dry before salting and peppering. Insert as many bulbs of garlic
as the cavity will hold, then coat skin with peanut oil. Place on rack
in roasting pan in 325F oven, twenty minutes per pound.
 
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:12:54 -0500, "Polly Esther"
wrote:


It's personal for me too, Polly.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
sf wrote:

"Very little evidence" means you may be worsing your overall health by
not eating enough dietary fat. Please do not oversimplify the argument
to view those who eat dietary fat, including eggs, as being somehow
carefree - I am not. I make it a point to eat certain kinds of fat
precisely because they're good for me, good for my health, good for my
heart, and not because I happen to like the taste of a spoonful of
coconut oil in the morning.

If you or anyone else wishes to rest easy because you're following what
you think is the conservative course of action, "very little evidence"
should become "enough evidence with which to delude yourself." Read,
read, and read some more, and then undertake a careful experiment with
your own body - have blood work done, then alter your diet to include
healthy fats (and zero trans fats, partially and fully hydrogenated
oils, etc.) for a few months, then have bloodwork done again. See how
you feel, and see what your doctor says. Please post your results here
when you do.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com
 
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:13:21 -0400, "Steve Freides"
wrote:


I don't know why you took that to mean *no* fat. Just because you and
others have gone overboard on no fat diets doesn't mean everyone does
crazy things like that. People eat far more than their recommended
daily allowance and that's a fact; otherwise there wouldn't be so many
morbidly obese people walking around (and posting to rfc). I am
talking about limiting saturated fats to the 20 or so mg that a
healthy diet allows and not going over it. If you want to waste part
of your saturated fat intake on a gratuitous spoonful or coconut oil
or translate what I said into some crazy no fat diet, knock yourself
out.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
sf wrote:

I have not gone overboard, I don't diet ...


.... I'm not obese, I don't have a weight problem.


Your choice of words suggests a lack of information. Again, please read
on this subject.

Saturated fat is far from monolithic. There are good saturated fats and
bad saturated fats, and the goods one ought to be encouraged, not
limited, because we don't get enough of them in a typical Western diet.
You sound like you're blindly following your own, questionable
interpretation of an already questionable dietary guideline. What
you're suggesting as moderate is an immoderate limitation on foods that
help improve health in measurable ways like improving cholesterol
profiles.

I've got nothing new to add - the Internet is full of good information
on this topic. The last word is yours if you wish it.

-S-
 
In article ,
"Steve Freides" wrote:


Standard recommendation for normal people (those not on drastic diets)
is to keep total fat calories at 30%, and 10% of total calories for
saturated fats.


I like the taste, and consume it in moderate quantities. However, it is
a saturated fat, and it is recommended to limit consumption of saturated
fats, as they are linked to heart attacks and strokes.

There is lots of information on the internet about the health benefits
of coconut oil. I haven't seen one yet that I trust or believe. There
are many saturated fats. They are all grouped together into the
category of "saturated fats". They are all different, but that doesn't
mean that they are better or worse.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]
 
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:29:03 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:


The standard recommendation for total daily *saturated* fat is 20g.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
In article ,
sf wrote:


And if you do the math, that's about the same.

Standard diet is 2000-2200 calories. 10% is 200-220 calories. Fat is 9
cal/g. So that's 22-24g.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]
 
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:25:20 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:


So, you're allowing yourself more immediately.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
In article ,
sf wrote:


These things are always somewhat approximate. Do you think a 98 pound
weakling should eat the same amount as a 240 pound wrestler who trains
several hours a day? 20g might be a lot for the first, but the second
might have trouble keeping it down to that unless they were vegan.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]
 
Back
Top