i don't suppose this argument stems from a plausible misunderstanding over the nutrient post which started this.
i was assuming that the "nutrient" was referring to individual food items unaltered in anyway. example, a cricket eaten while living, unaltered.
a cricket eaten after being cooked, altered
a cricket after being added to something, altered
the whole bet as stated before is based on the human body not able to get enough moisture from just food. so in order to measure the moisture content of food you cannot have it changed from its original state. and thus my bet stands, and i can firmly say i would win as well. and i under that pretense can conclude that the human body cannot receive enough moisture from unaltered foods, aside from insects, that it will dehydrate.