= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
philh comments on Stupid Questions April 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (145)
If I cook a fixed amount of raw rice (or couscous, or other things in that genre) in a variable amount of water, what difference does the amount of water make to calories, nutrition, satiety, whatever?
For example, if I want to eat fewer calories, could I cook less rice in more water to get something just as filling but less calorific?
This doesn't answer your question, but if you conclude that adding water is likely to make rice more filling per calorie (I have no idea whether it will), the dish you want is called congee, and searching for that should yield many delicious recipes.
I don't know about varying the amount of water. But if you want to eat fewer calories of rice, there was an article that came out recently saying that the method you use to prepare it could affect the amount of calories your body actually absorbed from it.
More water will also absorb a greater portion of water-soluble vitamins.
Does that mean I get more vitamins (e.g. because the vitamins were biologically unavailable in the rice, but available in the water) or fewer (e.g. because the reverse, or if a significant amount of water boils off)?
Water loss through boiling shouldn't make a difference, as the vitamins are not volatile and will not boil off with it.
I'm not sure. The rice is supposed to absorb (most of) the water you cook it in, which complicates giving an answer.
I hear shirataki was invented specifically for that purpose.