Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

2

I currently have neither and just make it on the stove, but for every year my daily consumption of magical bone-broth is adding to my life, it is taking at least that much away from my husband's due to his anxiety that I will start a grease-fire with my 24-hour+ simmers and burn the house down. Plus the smell kills him and I have promised to do something about it.

In a recent question I asked about how long people simmer their broth and several people mentioned both slow-cookers and pressure-cookers. I like the idea of the stuff being contained and of not spending a ton on electricity (as it seems making it on the stove does), but I am conflicted about which way to go. On one hand, the speed of the pressure-cooker is very appealing, especially since it seems the odds of one blowing its top are quite small. On the other hand, I can't shake the feeling that the pressure-cooker is just not paleo...by which I mean, it is creating a very artificial situation that might be changing the nutritional status of the food, much like some people believe a microwave does. Does anyone know if there is a nutritional downside to cooking with a pressure cooker and beyond that, if you use either, which do you prefer and why.

Thank you...I just want to make the right decision before I part with more money.

flag	asked Jan 17 at 20:29 tbunchylulu 1,566●1●1●10

OK, so I somehow missed this whole (recent) thread: paleohacks.com/questions/170115/… If you responded there, I have read your answers and comments. My apologies if this question is redundant. – tbunchylulu Jan 17 at 20:34

jstew · Answer 1 · 2013-01-18 14:43:56Z UTC

I have had a slow cooker for years, and a pressure cooker for a week. My first batch of chicken broth in the pressure cookers was WAY better than the slow cooker. I don't think I will ever bother with the slow cooker method again. I let the pressure go for about 40 minutes, and the smell was minimal.

Tamanduá · Answer 2 · 2013-01-18 13:05:19Z UTC

Hi, I think I responded to your earlier thread. I endorse the pressure cooker. And of course, if you get a pressure cooker you will be able to use it for a lot of other things as well. e.g. vegetables, braised meats, etc...

Re: nutrients, take a look at this site:
http://www.hippressurecooking.com/2012/09/pressure-cooker-nutrients.html

andrew · Answer 3 · 2013-01-18 09:33:51Z UTC

I've been making bone stocks in a slow cooker for YEARS - and it works well. 24 hours with enough water to cover, the juice of a lemon to leach minerals out of the bones, and a few bay leaves - to make the smell a lot better!

But about 3 months ago I dug out my pressure cooker and used it to make stock out of chicken bones. 40 minutes instead of 24 hours, and the stock was AWESOME. The gel set was incredible; far firmer than I have EVER got with the slow cooker, and the flavour was AMAZING. Again, far better than I have ever had from the slow cooker. And no need to use lemon juice - the extra heat makes the bones soften well so I am sure all of the minerals are in the broth.

I have now been using it for all of my stocks except one, and it performs really well. The only stock I now make in the slow cooker is when my (organic) butcher gives me BIG beef bones which won't fit in the pressure cooker. Yes, I could find a way to smash them up (a nice stone axe would be very primal!) but I don't.

Otherwise, pork knuckle stock, chicken carcass stock, lamb bone stock, chicken foot stock - they are the best I have made in 40 years of cooking.

I want a BIGGER pressure cooker!!

AmandaLP · Answer 4 · 2013-01-18 04:00:19Z UTC

I use a slow cooker, but it it totally about my being lazy than about flavor or "real stock."

I can throw bones and water into the slow cooker, and then ignore it for hours and never deal with it. With stovetop or pressure cooker methods, I have to be home and babysit it.

It does create a smell (my previous roommate hated the smell, so I had to do the broth in my bedroom, which was annoying.) If the smell is an issue, get a pressure cooker so it can be over and done with quickly.

Bonus? Slow cookers are amazing, and any sort of low and slow cooking is great in it. Pork shoulder, brisket, osso bucco, whatever meat, delicious with little work.

Kelleil · Answer 5 · 2013-01-18 01:06:34Z UTC

3

I have some classical french training and I would NEVER EVER use a slow cooker. A good stock should never boil, keep it at a very low simmer. It should take hours. My veal stock can easily take 24 hours. A slow cooker is simply too hot, even on its lowest setting.

Now the Modernist Cuisine people love the pressure cooker for stock. Even the amazing Heston Blumenthal supports the use. I now use the pressure cooker for chicken, beef and pork stocks. I still use the over night, very slow method for veal.

More from the Modernist Cuisine people: http://modernistcuisine.com/2012/10/the-amazing-pressure-cooker/

answered Jan 18 at 1:06

Kelleil
1,328●2●10

	Thank you for the link and recommendation. – tbunchylulu Jan 18 at 2:17
	I'm confused... you say a stock should never boil, but pressure cookers heat things up above boiling. – Chris Jan 18 at 13:53
	Yes, indeed. But for some reason the pressure cooker increases the maillard reaction against all probability, so Blumenthal et al prefer it for that reason, even tho it is going over the boil point. But with that said, I never pressure cook my veal stock because I need the subtlety, clarity, and delicate flavors, which aren't so needed for most chicken, pork and beef stock. Boiling kills clarity so if you are doing high end cooking with veal as a base, its best avoided. Otherwise, for the average home cook, pressure stock is fine. – Kelleil Jan 18 at 17:40
	I have a very old slow cooker - wedding gift 42 years ago and still going strong! The low setting barely simmers is - I leave my bone broth on that setting for a couple of days. But my sister's slow cooker, which is new, seems to be much hotter. So, I think an old slow cooker would do the trick – Carol Hall Apr 26 at 19:54
	Old slow cookers are WAY better than modern ones. Old ones for sure. – Kelleil May 2 at 20:10

Daniel · Answer 6 · 2013-01-18 01:04:40Z UTC

2

I think you would be best served with a pressure cooker, considering one of your concerns was your husbands adverse reaction to the smell, a slow cooker will not help that.

answered Jan 18 at 1:04

Daniel
230●6

	Oh, I didn't realize that a slow cooker wouldn't also contain the smell. – tbunchylulu Jan 18 at 2:18
	The slow cooker does a better job of containing the smell than on-the-stove does. I will throw a towel over my slow-cooker lid, and that seems to "seal in" some of the smell. – Chris Jan 18 at 13:52
	a slow cooker has a very loose lid, which allows steam to escape. I dont have first hand broth experience with it, but I know my house smells like the food I am making when I use it. – Daniel Jan 19 at 5:50
	Towel over slow cooker? Don't make me call the fire marshal ! – CaveMan_Mike Jan 20 at 15:04

JayJay · Answer 7 · 2013-01-17 21:40:54Z UTC

3

I used my pressure cooker this week to make it. Came out quite gelatinous and the bones were falling apart (good indicator all the goodies are in the broth IMO). All that in under two hours. I think I'm a fan so put me down for the PC.

answered Jan 17 at 21:40

JayJay
18.6k●6●28

	It has taken me all of an hour of cruising around online to get the model Stephen Guyenet has: Instant Pot pressure cooker with slow cooker option. I was pretty swayed by some stuff on Nom Nom Paleo as well as Guyenet's endorsement. And I have never had bones falling apart even after simmering 36 hours on the stovetop. – tbunchylulu Jan 17 at 22:01
	Yeah, lol...he does seem to have the deluxe model. I just got a stovetop 4 quart deal. It did the job just great though! I have to beware how much water was actually evaporating though... – JayJay Jan 17 at 22:10

VB · Answer 8 · 2013-01-17 21:06:46Z UTC

1

Definitely a slow cooker. I am not even sure pressure-cooker is healthy.

answered Jan 17 at 21:06

VB
12.2k●1●7●40

	Why wouldn't they be? – MathGirl72 Jan 17 at 21:07
	I just found this link from Nom Nom Paleo addressing some health concerns. foodrenegade.com/pressure-cooking-healthy I agree the method seems artificial, but she makes some good arguments and I am being swayed in that direction. At least the model I settled on (see above) can be used for both. – tbunchylulu Jan 17 at 22:07
	I think the best way to test pressure cooking is not by the vitamins this method retains but by taste. I have never liked the taste of things cooked in a pressure cooker (my mom used it). As far as I know, our taste buds is the best way for our brain to determine what is best for us in terms of cooking. – VB Jan 18 at 8:05

Patty · Answer 9 · 2013-01-17 20:54:01Z UTC

1

If you're going to buy a pressure cooker just for that I would go with a slower cooker. I made my first batch last week in my slow cooker and I'm addicted. I think ill throw a weekly batch in on Friday nights.

I want a pressure cooker and its great but I'm trying to save money right now so slower cooker it is.

answered Jan 17 at 20:54

Patty
268●7

So I just followed a link to Whole Health Source and it seems there is a genre of appliance that can be programmed to be both a slow-cooker and a pressure-cooker....so you don't have to decide! wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/06/… – tbunchylulu Jan 17 at 21:00

For the bone-broth obsessed: Slow-cooker vs. Pressure-cooker?

9 Answers