You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

polymathwannabe comments on Stupid Questions April 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

7 Post author: Gondolinian 02 April 2015 09:29PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (145)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 07 April 2015 06:14:59PM 1 point [-]

More water will also absorb a greater portion of water-soluble vitamins.

Comment author: philh 07 April 2015 08:58:01PM 0 points [-]

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)?

Comment author: kalium 12 April 2015 08:12:17PM 1 point [-]

Water loss through boiling shouldn't make a difference, as the vitamins are not volatile and will not boil off with it.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 07 April 2015 09:30:44PM 1 point [-]

I'm not sure. The rice is supposed to absorb (most of) the water you cook it in, which complicates giving an answer.

to get something just as filling but less calorific?

I hear shirataki was invented specifically for that purpose.