Dog Ma 1 wrote:

Thanks for the link. Looking at the phosphorus and potassium numbers,
it appears they are analyzing the nutrition of _raw_ rice. Check out
the differences between raw and cooked brown rice at the site I
mentioned earlier, and you'll see that phosphorus, magnesium, and
potassium drop to about one-fourth in cooked:

Since minerals like that are non-volatile, cannot be decomposed and are
unlikely to be irreversibly chelated, and assuming that the rice isn't
boiled and drained, they must be comparing equal weights of raw and cooked
rice w/o compensating for water.

This makes sense. I found what appears to be a more valid comparison of
assorted long grains:

http://www.rebeccablood.net/domestic/rice.html

Note that regular unenriched white is the third column from the left.

--crymad