Is nutritional values difference between uncooked and cooked (in water) food only due to the additional water absorbed?

Question

I noticed that there is a substantial difference between the nutritional values of some uncooked and cooked food.

For example, 100g of uncooked quinoa has:

• 368 kcal
• Carbohydrates 64g
• Fat 6g
• Protein 14g

while 100g of cooked quinoa has:

• 120 kcal
• Carbohydrates 21g
• Fat 2g
• Protein 4g

If I cook 100g of quinoa, the final weight will be maybe 300g because of the water absorption. But what about the nutrional values ? Will they decrease after the cooking ?

In other words, is the difference in nutrient content shown above due to a loss of nutrients or simply the weight change due to water absorption?

Answer 1

You can see that 100 g of uncooked quinoa has about 3 times as much of everything (calories, carbs, fats and proteins) as 100 g of cooked quionoa, so you can assume that the difference is due to water absorption.

A small amount of carbs, fats and proteins can be lost in the cooking water.

A significant amount of vitamins can be destroyed by cooking and a lot of minerals can be lost in the cooking water (NutritionData).

Answer 2

This is entirely due to the fact that when you cook quinoa, it absorbs lots of water and weighs more.

If you start with 100g of uncooked quinoa, and cook it, that same amount will now weigh about 300g.

Therefore, it takes 300g of cooked quinoa to have the same nutrients as 100g of uncooked quinoa. On paper, this looks like it has 1/3 the nutrients, but in reality it's the same number of grains of quinoa, they're just much plumper now that they've absorbed water.