0

What are some of the benefits of a Pressure Cooker over a Slow Cooker (crock pot) besides that it's much faster, less nutrient loss (maybe) and less heat in the kitchen?

Clay Nichols
  • 713
  • 4
  • 8
  • 14
  • This may have the information you are looking for https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/81997/35357 – Debbie M. Nov 23 '18 at 04:33
  • Very closely related to https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93384/is-there-any-advantage-to-cooking-beans-in-a-pressure-cooker-besides-saving-tim/93385#comment147850_93385 – rumtscho Nov 23 '18 at 08:42
  • Updated my question. Looking for benefits other than those from the answers cited. – Clay Nichols Nov 23 '18 at 10:33
  • 2
    The nutrient loss from any means of cooking is going to depend on whether you consume the cooking liquid or not. Pressure cooking is often used to boil before draining, unlike (my) slow cooking. This introduces an additional variable that's hard to control for – Chris H Nov 23 '18 at 12:31

2 Answers2

1

I do not know that there are any benefits aside from what you have already mentioned. Pressure cooking is a technique, like using the slow cooker. It is similar to a debate on broiling vs. pan-searing. They both do something similar in slightly different ways.

The only other (and totally subjective) advantage I have seen, since I primarily use the pressure cooker for stocks, is better gelatin extraction from the bones and tendons with the pressure cooker. My stocks are thicker than the old-school "simmer it all day" approach, but it may just be I'm getting better at making stock since I gave up using anything but a pressure cooker for stock years ago. Therefore my case series is a retrospective review and subject to inherent biases from the study methodology.

RudyB
  • 1,071
  • 7
  • 16
-3

Pressure cooking preserves more nutrients, especially heat sensitive nutrients,it uses less heat and the heat is used more efficiently which is why you have a shorter cooking time.

Here is 1995 study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7792260

Basically,

Boiling food had up to a 60% loss of nutrients. Roasting and steaming 10% - 50% loss in nutrients. Pressure cooking 5% - 10% loss in nutrients.

RLicens
  • 19
  • 2
  • 4
    You are repeating the study linked in Wikipedia. That study 1) only measured 2 nutrients, provit. A and vit. C. 2) only measured 2 foods, spinach and amaranth. 3) It found that after 10 minutes of pressure cooking, there is more retention when compared to 30 minutes of frying. But if you fry for shorter times, or boil the food, there is more retention. So, you are making sweeping conclusions based on very narrow data, which are not even unequivocal. – rumtscho Nov 23 '18 at 08:56
  • 1
    And the key point of pressure cookers is *raising* the heat. – Stephie Nov 23 '18 at 10:14
  • 2
    I would also classify pressure cooking as a form or boiling/steaming. It is simply done under pressure which permits it to be at a higher temp than "normal" water based cooking as @Stephie is implying. This tends to be an example of why allowing nutritional type discussions here is a very slippery slope. It lead to too many unsupportable or unsubstantiated claims and conflicting arguments. The claims in many cases may even be correct, but not studied and consistent enough to not be disputed. Higher nutrient retention may be true, at least for some nutrients, but such claims are disputed. – dlb Nov 24 '18 at 05:42