Do Microwaves Degrade Food Nutrients?

OneWorld Progressive Institute, Inc

OneWorld Progressive Institute, Inc is a 501(C)3 volunteer organization serving Greater New Haven and the broader CT community since 1996. We welcome financial & technical support.

Many of us are confused by the contradictory information we often receive when it comes to what is good or detrimental to our health and well being.  The New York Times is a source of reliable information.  It is one of the sources OneWorld relies on for good health-related information. Below is an article by Karen Weintraub about the benefits (or not) of using the microwave to cook and/or warm food.

Ask Well: Do Microwaves Degrade Food Nutrients? 

Question: Are there any good quality studies regarding loss of nutrients due to heating (not cooking) food in a microwave?
Answer: The microwave has gotten a bit of a bad rap about its effects on nutrients. Cooking and heating food by any method can result in some degradation of nutrients. Vitamins C and B12, for instance, degrade quickly when a food is heated. But other nutrients may actually benefit from the rise in temperature. For example, carotenoids, the antioxidants found in colorful vegetables like carrots and tomatoes, increase when the proteins that bind them break down during heating, said Guy Crosby, the science editor for America’s Test Kitchen and an adjunct associate professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
The Harvard Health Letter recently concluded that microwaving may be preferable to other methods for heating food. “Because microwave cooking times are shorter, cooking with a microwave does a better job of preserving vitamin C and other nutrients that break down when heated,” it reported. “The cooking method that best retains nutrients is one that cooks quickly, heats food for the shortest amount of time, and uses as little liquid as possible. Microwaving meets those criteria. Using the microwave with a small amount of water essentially steams food from the inside out. That keeps more vitamins and minerals than almost any other cooking method.”

However, Ashim Datta, a professor of food engineering at Cornell University, cautioned that because microwaves heat food unevenly, nutrients are more likely to be broken down in spots that get extremely hot. In some cases, Dr. Datta said, microwaving could lead to more degradation over all than another warming method.

To help avoid these problems, put a lid on food in the microwave to retain moisture, and keep the power relatively low to ensure that food is cooked rapidly, but not overheated, said Rebecca Solomon, director of clinical nutrition at Mount Sinai Beth Israel hospital in New York City.

But for people who eat a balanced diet, microwave heating is unlikely to have a meaningful effect, positive or negative, on nutritional intake.

Do you have a health question? Submit your question to Ask Well.

A few other resources can be found here: Healthy Recipes for Your Microwave

  1. /healthy_recipes_for_your_microwave
  2. Easy Microwave Recipes –

We are a very small group of committed volunteers trying for almost 20 years to make positive contributions to the Greater New Haven as well as the broader community. Please visit our links.

If you like what you see, please “LIKE” our FB page and please SHARE us with others.

  • Healthy Microwave Meals:
  • We at OneWorld Progressive Institute, Inc invite you and other members to visit OneWorld Progressive Institute’s web site;
  • Our YouTube channel is at: and
  • Our Face Book is here: 

Read More      No Comments

Danny Has Been the Biggest Loser In More Than One Way

OneWorld Progressive Institute

OneWorld Progressive Institute, Inc is a 501(C)3 volunteer organization serving Greater New Haven and the broader CT community since 1996. We welcome your support.

The New York Times has again done a great   public good in bringing to our attention what scientists are learning from the former NBC  Reality TV program called The Biggest Losers. The article is linked below; OneWorld has listed a few highlights, and encourage visitors to read the complete article.  Millions of Americans and people across the world struggle with extra pounds.  Some of us are on a constant diet.  Many of us just want to lose a few pounds and cannot seem to get that accomplished.  We think this article shed important light that might help us to lose weight and keep it off permanently.

Obesity is a major health problem in the USA.  Get some helpful facts.

  • Danny Cahill won Season 8 of NBC’s reality television show The Biggest Loser.”
  • He went from 430 to 191 at the end of the Season- an astonishing 239 pounds in 7 months.
  • According to the NY Times article, to date he has regained more than 100 pounds. His resting metabolism has been affected.
  • What does this mean for his overall health, and that of the other contestants, going forward? This article contains important health information we should all learn from the scientists.
  • Many of the 16 contestants for that season have regained most of the weight they had loss. Some are even heavier now! Anyone who struggles with weight should know this and understand why.
  • “Yet their experiences, while a bitter personal disappointment, have been a gift to science. A study of Season 8’s contestants has yielded surprising new discoveries about the physiology of obesity that help explain why so many people struggle unsuccessfully to keep off the weight they lose.” Scientists have been following these former weight loss contestants for the past 6 years. Find out what they have learned.
  • “It is frightening and amazing,” said Dr. Hall, an expert on metabolism at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which is part of the National Institutes of Health. “I am just blown away.”

OneWorld Progressive Institute, Inc is a very small group of committed community volunteers.   We have been producing and presenting information programs on Health Literacy, Education and Civic Engagement since June 1996.   When resources allow we also sponsor oratory and essay competitions for middle and high school, critical-thinking teen forums and information community engagement forums.  We are doing less of these as we have no funding.  We invite you to visit our web site at and our specialty areas  such as:, and, to see some of the remarkable programs we have done.  See our YouTube channel at:   Face Book is here:  If you like what you see, please “LIKE” our FB page and please SHARE us with others.  We are all about good information and building a POSITIVE community.  Thanks again. We hope you will “Like” our work.   We welcome donations to pay for video production, editing and web maintenance.  Contributions can be made to OneWorld, Inc. P. O. Box 8662, New Haven, CT 06531.

We are a 501(C)3 organization.  All donations are tax deductible. 

N’Zinga Shäni, M.Sc., MBA

Executive Director & Program Manager

Read More      No Comments

Supreme Court 4/4 Limbo Is A Travesty Of US Justice System

OneWorld Progressive Institute When will the Supreme Court return to full strength with 9 justices? 

In the USA, the claimed world leader of justice, fairness, etc, Americans should be outraged at what is happening with the nomination of a 9th justice to the United States Supreme Court.  President Obama made that nomination of Judge Merrick Garland on March 17, 2016:

Unfortunately, most people’s attention is taken up with the current political campaigns, while the outrageous injustice of not holding hearings for the confirmation of Judge Garland goes on. What the Republicans are doing is unethical; it is unjust; it is a very bad example for the rest of the world. It sends the wrong message.  It seems to say: America can dictate to other countries about principles of democracy, but in America the Republicans and the powerful can do as they damn well please, whenever they are pleased, and there is nothing that can be done about it.  The Editorial Board of the New York Times has published an editorial about this.  Please read the complete editorial below.

Rescue the Supreme Court From Limbo

“Eight justices heard oral arguments in the final case of the Supreme Court’s term on Wednesday. When will the court return to full strength?

“That question is as urgent today as it was immediately after the death two and a half months ago of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the initial wave of outrage at the Senate Republicans’ hard-line refusal to consider replacing Justice Scalia has ebbed, making it that much easier for Republicans to keep the seat empty through the presidential election. If they succeed, the court will go nearly two terms, and possibly longer, without a ninth member.”

“The consequences of the impasse have been growing graver by the day. Already the justices have split 4 to 4 in two cases, leaving important legal issues unresolved. In one, the court failed to decide a major labor case involving the longstanding right of public-sector unions, which represent millions of American workers, to charge collective bargaining fees to nonmembers. By the term’s end in late June, it’s likely that several more cases will have ended in tie votes, including possibly the fights over abortion restrictions in Texas, access to birth control and President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

“It could get worse from here. So far, the justices’ docket for the term beginning in October is smaller than usual, and the eight-member court may hesitate before taking on high-profile cases on controversial topics that are more likely to result in split votes. Already, major cases involving restrictive voting laws in North Carolina and Texas, pharmacists who want the right to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions for religious reasons, and Mr. Obama’s efforts to reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants are before the court or could be soon. All could languish in legal limbo.”

“Republicans haven’t been satisfied simply to hobble the court’s ability to function. In recent weeks, they have gone to remarkable lengths to impugn the integrity of the justices and thus the legitimacy of the court. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has attacked Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who delighted conservatives at his own confirmation hearings by comparing judges to umpires calling balls and strikes. But last month, Mr. Grassley, who should be spending his time scheduling confirmation hearings, instead lashed out at the chief justice, claiming that “a number of his votes have reflected political considerations, not legal ones” — presumably referring to Chief Justice Roberts’s two votes upholding aspects of the Affordable Care Act.

“Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, who is challenging Mr. Obama’s immigration actions, also complained about the court, saying that because it “has shed its clothing as being guardians of the law,” it “deserves to be swept up into the political process.”

“None of this has anything to do with the qualifications of Mr. Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, whom conservatives have long praised as someone they would happily confirm. The battle is purely about ideological control of the court, which has had a conservative majority for decades.

“How does the insanity end? If the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and Mr. Grassley hold to their promise not to give Judge Garland a hearing or a vote, it will probably take a president and Senate of the same party to nominate and confirm a new justice after Inauguration Day in January. But if the president and the Senate are of different parties, there is every reason to believe that the current blockade will continue indefinitely. If Donald Trump wins the White House, even Mr. Grassley admits that his Supreme Court nominee would be “a gamble.”

Mr. Grassley and his fellow Republicans gambled that anger over their inaction would fade as the news cycle rolled on and the public’s attention turned to the presidential campaign. Maybe Republicans are willing to take such gambles because they believe they don’t have anything to lose. But the American people do.”

Read More      No Comments

Age-Related Debilitation Is Not Inevitable For Everyone

This story is remarkable.  You CAN benefit from this blog.  We implore you to read and share it for inspiration and wisdom. Is age-related debilitation inevitable? Ida Keeling (born May 5, 1915) is still competing in races. Keeling has set previous records for her age group. In 2011, at 95 years old, Keeling set the world record in her age group for running 60 meters at 29.86 seconds at a track meet in Manhattan.

Ms. Keeling, 100, holds a record for the 60-meter dash for American women ages 95 to 99.This is Ida Keeling in 2016 at age 100!
After her husband died of a heart attack at 42, she was left to raise their four children on her own.
She moved the family into a one-bedroom apartment in a Harlem housing project and took up work sewing in a factory. She did all kinds of hard menial work to support her family.
She contended with the abuses and indignities endured by black women in mid-20th-century America. Of course, some of those abuses and discriminatory practices continue today.  We can only imagine how difficult they were 70 plus years ago when she was working and trying to raise four children on her own. 
As the civil rights movement took shape, Ms. Keeling became an active demonstrator, shuttling her children to Malcolm X speeches and boarding a predawn bus for the 1963 March on Washington.
As a poor black woman, Ida Keeling knew it was better “to die on her feet rather than live on her knees.” After losing her two sons to the scourge of drugs, she went into a depression.
At the urging of her daughter, she took up running at age 67!
Today she lives alone and says self-sufficiency is a key to her longevity. Time marches on and she still runs at age 100! The complete article in the NY Times is linked below.  What’s written above are the highlights.  We strongly encourage visitors to read and share the article.

Shelley Keeling, left, and her mother, Ida Keeling, on a balcony in the Riverdale section of the Bronx.…/at-100-still-running-for-h…/?

Mrs. Keeling warms up before a run.  Her 64 y-o- daughter, Shelly Keeling, is a lawyer and real estate investor who coaches Ida and has coached for a local high school team.  These days when Mrs. Keeling participates in competition, she is most often the only participant in her category; there are no runners over the age of 100. She will be 101 in May 2016.  A stretch to improve Ms. Keeling’s blood flow and flexibility.

Additional Health information and links:

OneWorld Progressive Institute, Inc is committed to seeking out and providing the Greater New Haven and southern CT community reliable and informative health literacy, education and civic engagement information. An array of television programs can be found on OneWorld’s YouTube channel.  We encourage readers to visit, share and “like” our video programs.  A full 1-hr DVD is available by placing an order through our web site, or by mailing a check to and an order request to:  OneWorld, Inc.  P. O. Box 8662, New Haven, CT 06531

Improving Your Overall HealthRegular exercise is one of the best things that you can do for your body.  Not only can it increase your longevity, but it can additionally increase your quality of life as well.  Below is a list of just some of the many benefits that exercise can provide your body:

Regulate Your Weight – Weight gain occurs when you are consuming more calories than you are burning every day.  While diets can help reduce some weight, there is only so much we can reduce our caloric intake until we are left hungry all the time.  Exercise, on the other hand, gets our body burning more calories each day, allowing us to not have to worry as much about the calories we consume, while helping to regulate our weight.  Many professionals state that as little as 3 hours of regular exercise per week can have a dramatic impact on both physical appearance and overall health.

Strengthen Muscles and Bones – One of the consequences of aging is the weakening of muscles and the decrease in bone density.  By exercising, it helps the body to counteract these side-effects of aging, helping you to maintain muscle (and thereby strength and endurance), as well as maintain bone density.  This can help in staving off conditions such as osteoporosis and other conditions associated with muscular weakness and bone degeneration.  (Read more at the link below)

OneWorld Progressive Institute, Inc., is a small group of committed volunteers who produce community information and education television programs on health literacy, education and civic engagement.  We also find good information and post informative blogs about issues we believe shine light and are beneficial to many in our communities.  Learn more about us at our web site:  and visit our web health section at: 

Read More      No Comments

Supporting Sanders Should NOT Be The Same As Hating Clinton

We at OneWorld Progressive Institute,  Inc., represent a small, 100 percent volunteer organization that brings the Greater New Haven community television programs, forums and blogs pertaining to health literacy, education and civic engagement.  We think it is important that — as Americans– we engage in thoughtful, meaningful, informed and constructive conversations and activities about improving our local, state, regional and national communities.  As Americans, we prodly proclaim ourselves world leaders.  Of course, there are many ways in which (as a society) we are not leading positively; however, providing we are engaged meaningfully we can improve.  This blog is about meaningful and constructive engagement.  It centers around an article published on March 22, 2016 and written by Melissa Hillman, a well informed and civically engaged American who lives in CA.

Liking one doesn’t have to mean hating the other. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee)

“The latest installment of “The Internet Explodes with Hatred for Hillary Clinton” happened earlier this month. The Democratic presidential candidate, whose own record on AIDS research and funding is better than any other candidate, mistakenly said that former US first lady Nancy Reagan was a key supporter of AIDS research. Reagan was, in reality, horrible about AIDS in every possible way. Clinton immediately apologized, then apologized again, at length. Yet we’re still seeing a wagonload of “I’ll never vote for her” claims from progressives, as if her words about Reagan trump–and I’m using that verb deliberately–her actual record on AIDS research and funding. Why?

Clinton’s stellar record on AIDS is ignored while people indignantly attack her for making an inaccurate statement. I like Bernie Sanders. I really do feel the Bern. But I see Democrats brush aside things that he and other male politicians have done while raining fire on Hillary for the exact same thing–or something much less.

 This happens all the time. Clinton is flamed for being a “career politician” and an “insider” when Sanders has been in political office much longer than she has. (Clinton was first elected to political office in 2000; Sanders was elected to his first office in 1981 and his first national office in 1991.) People flame Clinton for speaking in favor of the omnibus crime bill in the 1990s when she was first lady, a position with no political power. But Sanders, as a member of Congress, actually had the power to enact it into law, voting in favor of it despite the fact that many of his colleagues did not.  (HR 3355 = Omnibus Crime Bill . If you want to pass informed judgement, take the time to understand what the vote meant at the time and now).

 I’m not here to argue about Clinton versus Sanders. I genuinely like them both. I’m here to say that I’m sick of seeing her reviled for the same things people forgive easily when they’re done by men, and that the stakes are too high this election cycle to indulge that or leave it unexamined. If you’re reviling Clinton for saying something racist and stupid in 1994 in favor of a crime bill that turned out to be a very bad idea, but you’re not reviling Sanders for actually using his political power to pass that very bad crime bill law, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is. If you’re reviling Clinton for campaign contributions made by banks, but did not revile Barack Obama for the same thing, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is.

Those of us who are old enough to remember what it was like to live under the Reagan and the Bush administrations remember how bad it was. How much better almost everything–including the economy and job growth—got under Bill Clinton and Obama. I lived through this, and I would support half a Snapple as the Democratic nominee rather than go back to the policies of Reagan or (any) Bush.

I see people swear up and down their hatred of Clinton isn’t because she’s a woman, or doesn’t stem directly from decades of vicious, lying conservative propaganda they will swear it!–and then immediately turn around and eviscerate her for something Sanders did (or is) himself, or call her a “crook,” or say nonsense like, “She doesn’t have an honest bone in her body.” Conservative copywriters, whoever you are, I applaud you for your success in taking a complete and total fabrication and successfully integrating it so far into the American consciousness that there are people who agree with nearly every policy position Clinton has today, yet will still claim that she’s “dishonest.” That’s some impressive chicanery, and I mean that.

We should be closely examining all candidates for office, and balanced, honest criticism of a candidate’s record and policies is crucial. Respectful debate about the candidates is necessary and healthy. But supporting Sanders should not be the same as hating Clinton. Too many people are not debating the candidates and their various records or platforms logically, instead viciously reviling Clinton–often in misogynistic terms–for things they routinely excuse in male politicians. And I have to say, the level of unfocused, irrational vitriol feels an awful lot like what conservatives have been doing to Obama for years.

There’s not a thing wrong with choosing Sanders over Clinton, or disliking Clinton’s current policy proposals. However, the out-and-out hatred we’re seeing from some Sanders supporters (and about which I am hardly the first person to write) bears some serious scrutiny. While the Sanders campaign has made real efforts to deal with the worst of it–the “Bernie Bros” acting as a misogynistic mob, attacking Clinton and her supporters Gamergate-style; the “Bern the Witch” controversy–there’s still far too much active hatred, and far too much of it is misogynistic or coded misogyny.

Far too much of it stems from willing belief in conservative propaganda about Clinton that has been debunked over and over.

  • I think we all expected it, but I did not expect it from our side.

  • It’s one thing to prefer one candidate over another. That’s healthy. That’s admirable. It’s another to actively hate a candidate for doing exactly the same things as the last three men you voted for, despite her liberal record

  •  Let’s think practically about the election in November.

If Donald Trump gets elected, how many vulnerable people will be hurt, how many programs cut, how bad will the the economy get under conservative policies? How much damage will be done if Trump, an open racist and misogynist, is empowered to command our military, veto bills, and nominate people to the Supreme Court, impacting life in the US for decades to come?

Trump exhorts his followers to attack protestors at his rallies (“The next time we see him, we might have to kill him,” a follower said after punching a black protestor at a rally.) Trump excuses his followers who attack a homeless Hispanic man on the street, claims that Mexican immigrants are rapists, refused to distance himself from the Ku Klux Klan, supports banning Muslims from entering the US, advocates killing the families of terrorists, and is openly sexist. Trump is the worst America has to offer.

 How privileged do you need to be to imagine that it’s a good idea to risk the actual lives of vulnerable Americans because you “hate” Clinton so much that you vow to stay home if Sanders doesn’t get the nomination? How protected from the consequences of a Trump presidency do you need to be to think your hatred of Clinton constitutes, as I saw someone say earlier this week, an “inviolable principle,” meaning that it’s more important than the lives of vulnerable Americans? That all applies equally to any Clinton supporters saying the same about Sanders. (We have yet to see the full weight of American anti-Semitism aimed at Sanders, and if he wins the nomination, we most certainly will.)

Vote for whoever you like in the primary. But let’s step away from vicious attacks and hatred. Let’s step away from buying into debunked conservative propaganda about Clinton’s trustworthiness. Let’s look at the candidates’ actual proposals and weigh those proposals’ actual strengths and weaknesses. Let’s respect each others’ choices in the primaries.

And whoever becomes the Democratic nominee, the stakes are far, far too high for us to selfishly stay home because we didn’t get our first choice. I will happily, proudly vote for either Clinton or Sanders, and I hope you will do the right thing and join me.

 This post originally appeared on Bitter Gertrude. We welcome your comments at

OneWorld Progressive Institute, Inc., is a small group of committed volunteers who produce community information and education television programs on public access. See Health Literacy:     

We focus greatly on education at every-level:

Learn more about us at our web site:   Visit our Civic & Community Engagement section at:

OneWorld’s YouTube is here:  Visit OneWorld on Face Book here:  If you like what you see, please also LIKE our FB page.  Join us. Thanks

Read More      No Comments