Potatoes or Sweet Potatoes page

[EatFatLoseFat]

New here so excuse me if it's a dumb question, but I can't find any info about this. I have seen mark constantly write about how sweet potatoes are a good carb source for those of us that need carbs. I have also seen a post of his saying potatoes are good, but it doesn't compare the two. Anybody have any advice? I need carbs and want to cut grain/legumes so I am going to go potatoe route, but sometimes I need 250g of carbs a day and if I do 200 of them in sweet potatoes that seems like a lot of sugar compared to the rolled oats and rice I used to eat 200g of. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks in advance

[magicmerl]

Here's a discussion between Chric Kresser and Mat Lalonde that talks about them (among other things).

Mat Lalonde: Oh, yeah! That’s another one of my favorite, and you know, this one fits this “Well, it wasn’t available before the advent of agriculture, so we probably be shouldn’t be eating it,” again assuming that we cannot find a better source of food compared to what was in the Paleolithic. And this is another one where I covered it at length in my AHS talk, showing the actual molecular structures of these molecules. So some of them are glycosides. They’re either terpene glycosides or they’re alkaloid glycosides. So they’re called saponins or glycoalkaloids, and Cordain makes this huge, huge deal about them, saying that they cause intestinal permeability and whatnot. If you look at those permeability studies, they are all in vitro. And my problem with them is that if you’re a chemist and you look at these substances. They’re like, wow, there are glycoside bonds all over the place. This is gonna fall apart during digestion. Sure enough, it does. Sometimes you can find certain metabolites of it in the bloodstream, but you rarely find that compound itself. It has never been shown in a human being that consuming a lot of this stuff is going to increase intestinal permeability. The only studies that I find where this stuff can be problematic is where they use mice models of intestinal bowel disease, where there’s some kind of genetic manipulation that was done, and they feed those mice models fried potato skins ad libitum. And they’re fried in polyunsaturated oils, by the way.

Chris Kresser: Right, so you take the part of the tuber that has the highest concentration of toxins, which is the skin, and then you fry it in seed oil.

Mat Lalonde: Yeah, in a mouse model of IBD. And if you do that, you see inflammation, biomarkers of inflammation increase. So if, and this is a big if, that translates to human beings, all you’d be able to say is that people with irritable bowel disease should not be eating fried potato skins ad libitum. If you think that’s a ridiculous statement, you’re right.

The chief difference between them is that potatoes are a nightshade (as are capsicums). So if you are sensitive to nightshades then potatoes go to the doghouse for you.

[bob loblaw]

If you need 250g of carbs per day, then white potatoes are just fine. (Provided you don't have any bad physical effects from them.)

In fact, they are arguably just as healthy as sweet potatoes. I think the main issue for many is that most of us are more likely to overeat white potato dishes. However, you have a high carb limit, so you should be fine.

[Owly]

I eat white potatoes almost daily (sometimes more than once a day) and do quite well with them. If you want/need more carbs and don't have issues with nightshades, they can be a good option. I get them in my CSA every week and quite enjoy them.

[ChocoTaco369]

Here is a chart I made comparing 300 calories of white potatoes versus 300 calories of sweet potatoes:



They are equally nutritious. White potatoes are a nightshade and sweet potatoes are not, so people sensitive to nightshades may want to stay away. Also, there are mild toxins in the skins, so you're technically best off peeling your white potatoes. I leave the skins on because I think they are delicious and the toxin load is low. However, I only leave the skins on if the potatoes are fresh, smooth and unblemished. If the white potatoes have "eyes" - lumps/growths on the skin - those need to be taken off. That's where the big toxin load will come - if the potatoes are sprouting eyes.

Right click on the image and click VIEW IMAGE to see higher resolution. As you can see, white potatoes and sweet potatoes are equally nutritious. Enjoy both. They are both real, nutritious foods.

[Neckhammer]

Wow that's quite a lot of carbohydrate a day to "need".....how you figure your needs?

[Picaro]

If the glycemic index is something that needs consideration for an individual, sweet potato is slow and white potato is fast.

[bob loblaw]

If the glycemic index is something that needs consideration for an individual, sweet potato is slow and white potato is fast.

It depends a lot on how you eat them. If you are eating your potato with fats and protein (which most probably are), then the glycemic numbers are very different. That's why the glycemic index can be very misleading, because who eats foods in pure isolation?

[Picaro]

Yes, I was trying to remember something I had heard along those lines. Something about potato, butter and cinnamon being ideal as they work together.

[ChocoTaco369]

Wow that's quite a lot of carbohydrate a day to "need".....how you figure your needs?

Not sure what's meant by this. What defines a carbohydrate "need"? What defines fat "need"? What defines protein "need"? Why would you think your body cares if you ingest carbohydrate, fat or protein? Neither is healthier than the other. It always depends on the source, and it comes down to overall nutrition. A diet full of potatoes is going to be a lot healthier than a diet full of coconut because potatoes are more nutritious on the whole.

Let's take a look at 300 kcal of raw coconut meat.



That's pretty lame compared to a white potato or sweet potato. Even with all those scary carbs, you're probably going to be a lot healthier stuffing your face full of potatoes than comparatively "empty" coconuts. Perspective is important.