Why do white potatoes have such a bad Rep?

245

Replies

  • halimaiqbal00
    halimaiqbal00 Posts: 288 Member
    *shoulve
  • halimaiqbal00
    halimaiqbal00 Posts: 288 Member
    Gosh, *SHOULD HAVE. Sorry, it's been a long day
  • jmp463
    jmp463 Posts: 266 Member
    If you dont over-eat them they are fine in simple baked or mashed form. However the problem once you start to say this is ok and oh some pasta wont hurt and some rice - before you know it you have a diet very high in carbs. Which is fine if you can balance it and not gain weight - but I offer as evidence majority of our population which seems to have a problem with the balance part. Everything is fine in moderation. But most people tend to suck at the moderation part of that statement. Otherwise this site and this thread would not exist.
  • cathipa
    cathipa Posts: 2,991 Member
    The only bad foods are the ones that have a funny odor or are past their expiration. If it fits your macros/calories then eat it. If comparing, for example white rice to brown rice, then yes one has more nutritional value, but neither are bad.
  • rsclause
    rsclause Posts: 3,103 Member
    They are calorie dense, and that's before I put sour cream and butter on them. If you eat a half of a potato you can cut the calories in half so that's what I try to do if I have one. For me I don't go on a all out ban but try to reduce the amount of potatoes, breads and pastas I eat. I do eat more sweet potatoes than I used to and once again I cut them in half too.
  • halimaiqbal00
    halimaiqbal00 Posts: 288 Member
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    White rice and brown rice have a pretty similar nutritional profile.

    And I hate the "not as healthy" label. There are people like me where white bread and white pasta are "healthier" than whole grain

    Seriously?

  • LAWoman72
    LAWoman72 Posts: 2,846 Member
    I don't know, because actually, potatoes are indeed nutritious. :)

    I think they became the devil in the 70s when everyone was avoiding "starches," with all sorts of mythology attached. I don't know why that has never died down, but it hasn't.
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    It's not so much that potatoes are bad, but the process of converting potatoes into a pile of salty, fatty calorie bomb decadence that engenders so much hate.
  • crzycatlady1
    crzycatlady1 Posts: 1,930 Member
    jmp463 wrote: »
    If you dont over-eat them they are fine in simple baked or mashed form. However the problem once you start to say this is ok and oh some pasta wont hurt and some rice - before you know it you have a diet very high in carbs. Which is fine if you can balance it and not gain weight - but I offer as evidence majority of our population which seems to have a problem with the balance part. Everything is fine in moderation. But most people tend to suck at the moderation part of that statement. Otherwise this site and this thread would not exist.

    Excess carbs aren't the problem, excess calories are. Weight gain/loss/maintenance are about calories, calories and yep-calories :)
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    edited November 2016
    zyxst wrote: »
    halimaiqbal00 wrote: »
    Why are white pasta and white rice bad? Because they're stripped of their nutrients but I shouldn't worded that better-I mean they're not as healthy as their wholewheat and wholegrain counterparts

    The brand of white bread I bought has nearly identical nutrition info as the whole wheat counterpart, aside from the whole wheat having 1 gram more of fibre and half gram less of fat. The only difference between the same brand of white pasta and whole grain pasta I buy is the whole grain has 1 gram more of fibre. Totally stripped of nutrients.

    These days, they're better about putting nutrients back into white flour but originally white flour had no fibre or protein (so that it would have a long shelf life because bugs wouldn't want to eat it since it would have no nutritional value to them). Modern nutrition labeling laws actually originated because companies were selling white flour that had no nutritional value (including insufficient calories). So, they made laws making it illegal to sell food without telling people what was actually in it. This is also why companies have more freedom to understate calorie content than to overstate it.

    So, the anti-white-starch sentiment originated when white flour really was nutritionally void. Now that people are reading nutrition labels, they're putting protein and fibre back into white flour products. Personally, I'd still usually rather have the whole grain version, but we're at a point where it's mostly down to personal preference.

    And potatoes are great as long as we don't pretend they can replace every other vegetable on the plate.
  • workinonit1956
    workinonit1956 Posts: 1,043 Member
    I love potatoes! I eat them pretty much every day.
  • GiddyupTim
    GiddyupTim Posts: 2,819 Member
    edited November 2016
    I believe part of the reputation comes from the fact that potatoes are considered to have a pretty high glycemic index. That is, a potato makes you blood glucose level spike. (The degree of spike depends a bit on the type of potato and the way it is cooked -- a boiled potato is not so bad, a baked Russett is the worst.)
    Diabetics are often told to avoid potatoes, at least somewhat, for this reason.
    A recent study, however, suggested that potatoes are not diet busters, and may even be helpful to efforts to lose weight.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2793831/you-eat-potatoes-slim-dieters-ate-spuds-lost-weight-long-stuck-calorie-controlled-diet.html
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    SusanMFindlay wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    halimaiqbal00 wrote: »
    Why are white pasta and white rice bad? Because they're stripped of their nutrients but I shouldn't worded that better-I mean they're not as healthy as their wholewheat and wholegrain counterparts

    The brand of white bread I bought has nearly identical nutrition info as the whole wheat counterpart, aside from the whole wheat having 1 gram more of fibre and half gram less of fat. The only difference between the same brand of white pasta and whole grain pasta I buy is the whole grain has 1 gram more of fibre. Totally stripped of nutrients.

    These days, they're better about putting nutrients back into white flour but originally white flour had no fibre or protein (so that it would have a long shelf life because bugs wouldn't want to eat it since it would have no nutritional value to them). Modern nutrition labeling laws actually originated because companies were selling white flour that had no nutritional value (including insufficient calories). So, they made laws making it illegal to sell food without telling people what was actually in it. This is also why companies have more freedom to understate calorie content than to overstate it.

    So, the anti-white-starch sentiment originated when white flour really was nutritionally void. Now that people are reading nutrition labels, they're putting protein and fibre back into white flour products. Personally, I'd still usually rather have the whole grain version, but we're at a point where it's mostly down to personal preference.

    And potatoes are great as long as we don't pretend they can replace every other vegetable on the plate.

    How did they take the protein out of white flour? Do you mean the fiber? I'm pretty sure the gluten and gliadin remained.

Categories