cooked vs. raw shrimp
- Thread starter turkeyboy85
- Start date
ewurm;2300815; said:
let me start.
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2e.shtml
As you can see, 1-2 minut coocking of shelled shrimps dont really have any effect on the nutrition value.
Overall vitamin losses due to cooking are relatively modest. While there are a few inconsistencies in the above tables due likely to differing samples, globally we see that, on average, cooking does destroy vitamins, but the consequences are not catastrophic. Average vitamin losses after correction for water loss range from about 10 to 25% in most cases. Also, vitamin losses correlate with what our textbook by Kreutler et al. [1987] said, but not precisely, so obviously heat is only one of the many factors which affect vitamin content.
csx4236;2301010; said:
You said it yourself: Modest.
Also i have a friend that works with measuring nutrition in food. All food products have to undergo tests like this.
And i talked to him about the shrimp issue cos i feed coocked shrimp myself.
He said that they had made tests for a new company. This company sold diffrent shrimp products. Among them, raw and coocked shrimp (Pandalus borealis).
He found the old test results. And we found out that the diffrence was only around 1%.
The shrimps were build with their shell still on.
This just show that a 1-2 minut boil dont have any real effect.
Thats why i know.
But if you're buying pre-cooked shrimp, who's to say that they were only cooked for 1-2 minutes? I find the pre-cooked ones are always way overdone, and were most likely cooked for much longer to avoid possible lawsuits from someone eating raw shrimp that they assumed were cooked.
