[QUOTE=Michgael;1133659]moderate safe starch is your friend. End of.[img]http://flash.eviziotvreviews.com/11.jpg[/img]
I got moderate to higher starch, moderate to lower safe fat.
Steamrolls is a bit of an overstatement don't you think?
So white potato has more calories, they are still both relatively decent foods as long as the white potato is organic which is not so easy to find everywhere in the country. If you have to go non-organic, I don't think it's even a contest.
If you are eating white potato, according to the USDA, you are eating more pesticides and other carcinogens (37) particularly if they are not organic - [url=http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/food.jsp?food=PO]What’s On My Food :: Pesticides on Potatoes[/url]
Versus the Sweet potato that has less carcinogens (8) [url=http://www.whatsonmyfood.org/food.jsp?food=SW]What’s On My Food :: Pesticides on Sweet Potatoes[/url]
I'll take the 25% less calories over potential hormonal disruptors, thanks.
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1133548]No, I'm not off base at all.
White potatoes are more nutrient-dense per calorie. Sweet potatoes are also more calorically dense per gram. Your source is wrong.
[url=http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2666/2]Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Sweet potato, raw, unprepared [Includes USDA commodity food A230, Sweetpotato][/url]
[url=http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2548/2]Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Potatoes, white, flesh and skin, raw [Includes USDA commodity food A215][/url]
100g of white potato contains 69 calories. 100g of sweet potato contains 86 calories. This makes a sweet potato 25% more calorically dense than a white potato. In addition, the vitamin A advantage is only for orange sweet potatoes. Take out that outlier and white potatoes steamroll sweets. Furthermore, it's beta carotene, which is mostly useless to the human body and has a terrible converstion rate. Eating a sweet potato for Vitamin A is like eating Frosted Flakes for protein.
Both are perfectly healthy foods and can be enjoyed as often as you'd like, but I stand by my original statement that white potatoes are superior to sweet potatoes from a health and nutrition standpoint.[/QUOTE]
Your argument is a logical fallacy. Whether or not conventional potatoes generally have more pesticides than conventional sweet potatoes is not an indictment of white potatoes. The fact still stands that white potatoes are more nutritious per calorie and are a generally superior food. Besides, white potatoes are also cheaper than sweet potatoes. You can get organic white potatoes for about the cost of conventional sweet potatoes.
The last batch of white potatoes I bought were not organic but they're sprouting just fine, indicating little to no pesticides used.
Sprouting makes them fine? Uh ..no. That's just one type of spray they use in the store. If you want to read in depth Michael Pollan's Botany of Desire covers it but if you'd rather not read it or watch the documentary - this blurb somewhat sums it up. You seem too close minded to be open to information so putting this mainly here for other stumblers and calling this thread quits.
The expert: Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board
The problem: Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes-the nation's most popular vegetable-they're treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they're dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. "Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won't," says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher of Prevention). "I've talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals."
The solution: Buy organic potatoes. Washing isn't good enough if you're trying to remove chemicals that have been absorbed into the flesh.
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1132657]Some of this statements in this thread are ridiculous.
Insulin is an anabolic hormone. Trying to limit insulin while getting stronger is like trying to ace a final exam by staying up all night and drinking the night before.
Carbohydrate is superior to fat for performance. If you want to get bigger, stronger and faster, cut fats and increase carbs.
Primal is not a low carbohydrate diet. There is no reason to eat <100g of carbs a day if you're a remotely healthy non-diabetic. Fat has no metabolic advantage over carbohydrate. Weight loss and gain is entirely caloric. If you want to lose weight, reduce your food intake. If you want to gain wait, increase your food intake. It's not the carbs or fats making us fat, it's the chronic caloric surpluses.
Glucose is more essential than fat. Your brain requires ~200g of glucose a day just to function. Even in full blown ketosis, you require about 50g of glucose a day. The argument that carbohydrate is not essential is ass backwards - glucose is SO essential to your body, your body has evolved ways to create glucose at the expense of its own lean muscle, bone and organs. It doesn't do that with fat because fat is not as essential as glucose and there is fat in literally every whole food.
Your body needs 50-200g of glucose a day to function. Your body needs around 1g of fat a day to function. I've skewed my fat intake down a lot to include more carbohydrate, and I sit on my butt at a desk 9 hours a day. Don't fear fruits and tubers. If you're trying to get strong, fruits, tubers, leaner red meats, eggs and whole milk are your best friends.[/QUOTE]
Caloric or not - Primal is about not having to count calories - which is usually insane!
And about fat intake over carb intake - that's pretty logical - it's really about satiety and therefore not having to "risk" to eat carbs...which we all know - most of them are BAD (eg : all grains for example - gluten and all the toxins they contain)
For now - the Lean Gains method with carb / fat juggling is the BEST way to achieve lean muscle while staying off the bulk and cutting phase.........
Happy with this :)
As for my question, after some research i've found the following foods to be optimal as carb-loaders :
brown / wild / basmati rice
sweet potatoes (hard to find in my country...)
kidney / black beans
The only non-fruit carbs I have is my meal after working out (not my post workout drink) which includes like half a sweet potato. I've noticed that my strength still increases, but I do seem flat. When I decide to carb load on a day, usually Leg workout day, I'll fill solid the next day. Once all that depletes, I'll feel/look flat again. By flat, I mean muscle-wise.
So, I'm not sure exactly what benefits comes from carb loading, but give it a shot and see what it does for YOUR BODY.
Personally I always go for sweet spuds, I prefer the taste, and I don't feel bloated after. I had 2 big spoonfuls of white potato yesterday and felt disgusting after, so so bloated.
From their book, "The art and science of low carbohydrate living," p154-7.
Drs Phinney and Volek articulate the poor basis for the carbo loading credo.
This is a summary of the second experiment they carried out.
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6865776]The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis w... [Metabolism. 1983] - PubMed - NCBI[/url]
The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric restriction: preservation of submaximal exercise capability with reduced carbohydrate oxidation.
Phinney SD, Bistrian BR, Evans WJ, Gervino E, Blackburn GL.
To study the effect of chronic ketosis on exercise performance in endurance-trained humans, five well-trained cyclists were fed a eucaloric balanced diet (EBD) for one week providing 35-50 kcal/kg/d, 1.75 g protein/kg/d and the remainder of kilocalories as two-thirds carbohydrate (CHO) and one-third fat. This was followed by four weeks of a eucaloric ketogenic diet (EKD), isocaloric and isonitrogenous with the EBD but providing less than 20 g CHO daily. Both diets were appropriately supplemented to meet the recommended daily allowances for vitamins and minerals. Pedal ergometer testing of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) was unchanged between the control week (EBD-1) and week 3 of the ketogenic diet (EKD-3). The mean ergometer endurance time for continuous exercise to exhaustion (ENDUR) at 62%-64% of VO2max was 147 minutes at EBD-1 and 151 minutes at EKD-4. The ENDUR steady-state RQ dropped from 0.83 to 0.72 (P less than 0.01) from EBD-1 to EKD-4. In agreement with this were a three-fold drop in glucose oxidation (from 15.1 to 5.1 mg/kg/min, P less than 0.05) and a four-fold reduction in muscle glycogen use (0.61 to 0.13 mmol/kg/min, P less than 0.01). Neither clinical nor biochemical evidence of hypoglycemia was observed during ENDUR at EKD-4. These results indicate that aerobic endurance exercise by well-trained cyclists was not compromised by four weeks of ketosis. This was accomplished by a dramatic physiologic adaptation that conserved limited carbohydrate stores (both glucose and muscle glycogen) and made fat the predominant muscle substrate at this submaximal power level.
Choco, thanks for the handy little graph. I love that I can eat MORE white potatoes, for less carbohydrate and more protein in the same amount of calories.
Reviving this thread to ask--I just tried a card re-feed and tracked my intake to see how it added up...and the fat was WAY higher than the 50g/day that Mark recommends. So what's a re-feed day menu look like, potatoes/sweet potatoes without butter, veggies without olive oil, less fatty meats? Doesn't sound as tasty as I usually eat!
Oh, and thanks for the IF calculator link, mikewootini, that was interesting and helpful.