Limiting potatoes in school lunches
Options
Replies
-
They wouldn't have to limit potatoes if they didn't serve them with macaroni and cheese and pizza. But when that is what comes on the lunch tray, OF COURSE they need to limit something.0
-
You do realize that the whole blood sugar thing only applies if you eat potatoes, by themselves, with no other food with them. As soon as you mix different foods together it completely changes the way it's digested and processed.
Also, "cup for cup" beans have about 3 times more calories than potatoes, and 3 times the total carbs.
The same could be said of Coca Cola (what you consume it with) but no one argues that should not be limited or even eliminated from schools.
[/quote]
No, actually, it's not the same for Coca Cola. Coca Cola is a simple carbohydrate which means it doesn't really need to be broken down at all in the body to be absorbed and spike blood sugar. Potato is a complex carbohydrate which means that while it may digest fairly easily on its own, when you combine it with a fat or protein it will break down more slowly. Since the cola doesn't really need to be broken down, having other foods at the same time won't really bring the GI down significantly.0 -
Trying to equate a potato with a can of soda is a ridiculous straw man tactic that's only useful for arguing for the sake of arguing. Cherry picking data and intentionally ignoring relevant facts to push your viewpoint is not "reasonable discussion," it's arguing to prove yourself right.
First of all, I didn't make the comparison, the head of Harvard's school of nutrition did. And the comparison was glycemic index related ONLY. You could argue whether GI is important, but the fact that they are similar is not an opinion, it's a fact.Potatoes are a good source of vitamins and minerals, and while I do think it is a good idea to limit the fried potato, I think maybe the focus should be more on changing the preperation of it.
Gosh, I didn't realize so many people wouldn't read the article.
Excerpt:
Potatoes do contain important nutrients—vitamin C, potassium, and vitamin B6, to name a few. But the potato is not the only source of these nutrients, nor is it the best: Cup for cup, for example, broccoli has nearly nine times as much vitamin C as a potato, and white beans have about double the potassium. Yet a cup of potatoes has a similar effect on blood sugar as a can of Coca Cola or a handful of jelly beans. (10) That’s a high metabolic price to pay for nutrients that children can easily get from other sources.
You do realize that the whole blood sugar thing only applies if you eat potatoes, by themselves, with no other food with them. As soon as you mix different foods together it completely changes the way it's digested and processed.
Also, "cup for cup" beans have about 3 times more calories than potatoes, and 3 times the total carbs.
The same could be said of Coca Cola (what you consume it with) but no one argues that should not be limited or even eliminated from schools.
Bcattoes, I quoted this from a post you made, are you trying to say you didn't say this? You are trying to equate potatoes with soda, which is asinine, honestly. What does one have in common with the other? For one thing, the average can of soda, with a GI of around 59, is actually considered average GI (a low GI food is anything 55 or below, and high is over 70) so I'm not even sure what the point of the comparison is, that neither are actually that bad?
The post contained an excerpt from the article (labeled as such), which was on the Harvard School of Public Health website. The ONLY eqating of potatoes and soda was that they affect blood sugar in the same way (have similar GI). THAT is what they have in common. It is discussing the metabolic impact. Here it is again for clarification, with the link.
Excerpt:
Potatoes do contain important nutrients—vitamin C, potassium, and vitamin B6, to name a few. But the potato is not the only source of these nutrients, nor is it the best: Cup for cup, for example, broccoli has nearly nine times as much vitamin C as a potato, and white beans have about double the potassium. Yet a cup of potatoes has a similar effect on blood sugar as a can of Coca Cola or a handful of jelly beans. (10) That’s a high metabolic price to pay for nutrients that children can easily get from other sources.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu//nutritionsource/nutrition-news/potato-and-school-lunch/index.html0 -
They wouldn't have to limit potatoes if they didn't serve them with macaroni and cheese and pizza. But when that is what comes on the lunch tray, OF COURSE they need to limit something.
Well, the article and the proposal suggest that there is a need to limit potatoes, no matter what it is served with. In other words, they are saying that because of their high GI, potatoes should be eaten in moderation, not as a dietary staple.0 -
Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.0
-
Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.
It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.0 -
LOL - Thanks reese66
Your quite welcome.0 -
Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.
It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.
Your uninformed opinion does not change basic human physiology or biochemistry.
Unless you are a sedentary diabetic eating a hypercaloric, carb-dense diet, GI doesn't matter a whit.0 -
Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.
It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.
You know it's the insulin response from eating protein that keeps you feeling full, right? That's part of insulin's job, appetite suppressant.0 -
Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.
It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.
Your uninformed opinion does not change basic human physiology or biochemistry.
Unless you are a sedentary diabetic eating a hypercaloric, carb-dense diet, GI doesn't matter a whit.
So Harvard School of Public Health is "uninformed", in your opinion?
And the Mayo Clinic.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/glycemic-index-diet/MY00770
"Some food is thought to disrupt this natural balance by creating large spikes in your blood sugar level. When your blood sugar and insulin levels stay high, or cycle up and down rapidly, your body has trouble responding and over time this could contribute to insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is associated with a host of health problems..."
Feel free to insult me all you want. Some random poster on a website is not going to convince me that he's more informed that the people at these facilities.0 -
Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.
It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.
You know it's the insulin response from eating protein that keeps you feeling full, right? That's part of insulin's job, appetite suppressant.
Right, because it's a slower repsonse. That's what gives it a lower GI/GL0 -
If schools would change up how they prepare the potatoes instead of just doing FRIES everyday, then maybe this wouldn't be an issue.
My high school was ridiculous with school food choices. They did offer a salad/sandwich bar in addition to the scheduled hot lunch options. But they also had a pizza bar with stuffed crust pizza and fries. And there were milkshakes. Everyday.
This is also in addition to the little convenience cafe that offered junk food, candy, fried chicken sandwiches, nachos, etc, kind of like a gas station.
Plus the vending machines and warm cookies.0 -
Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.
It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.
You know it's the insulin response from eating protein that keeps you feeling full, right? That's part of insulin's job, appetite suppressant.
Right, because it's a slower repsonse. That's what gives it a lower GI/GL
Protein has been shown to spike insulin just as much, and just as fast, as high carb foods.0 -
Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.
It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.
You know it's the insulin response from eating protein that keeps you feeling full, right? That's part of insulin's job, appetite suppressant.
Right, because it's a slower repsonse. That's what gives it a lower GI/GL
Protein has been shown to spike insulin just as much, and just as fast, as high carb foods.
Hmm, I've not read that. Do you have a link or reference. Not to a study but some reputable source? Does that include all protein or just certain proteins or protein sources?0 -
Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.
It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.
You know it's the insulin response from eating protein that keeps you feeling full, right? That's part of insulin's job, appetite suppressant.
Right, because it's a slower repsonse. That's what gives it a lower GI/GL
Protein has been shown to spike insulin just as much, and just as fast, as high carb foods.
Hmm, I've not read that. Do you have a link or reference. Not to a study but some reputable source? Does that include all protein or just certain proteins or protein sources?
Full explanation and well referenced.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=3190 -
Instead of demonizing potatoes, why don't they encourage more physical activity in schools? It seems to me that it would be a more cost-effective way to curb obesity in children as well as help establish exercise habits.
^^^This!0 -
Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.
It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.
You know it's the insulin response from eating protein that keeps you feeling full, right? That's part of insulin's job, appetite suppressant.
Right, because it's a slower repsonse. That's what gives it a lower GI/GL
Protein has been shown to spike insulin just as much, and just as fast, as high carb foods.
Hmm, I've not read that. Do you have a link or reference. Not to a study but some reputable source? Does that include all protein or just certain proteins or protein sources?
Full explanation and well referenced.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
Okay, I see the confusion. GI and GL are measures of how food affects blood sugar, not of insulin production. The higher the GL the higher/faster the rise in blood sugar.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/index.html#glycemic-index0 -
Still doesn't matter to anyone who isn't diabetic.
____________________________________________________________________________________
GI & Obesity - Slim Chance For Correlation
A systematic review of human intervention studies comparing the effects of high and low-GI foods or diets arrived at the following results [13]:
• In a total of 31 short-term studies, low-GI foods were associated with greater satiety or reduced hunger in 15 studies, whereas reduced satiety or no differences were seen in 16 other studies.
• Low-GI foods reduced ad libitum food intake in 7 studies, but not in 8 other studies. In 20 longer-term studies (<6 months), weight loss on a low-GI diet was seen in 4 and on a high-GI diet in 2, with no difference recorded in 14 studies.
• An exhaustive assessment of these human intervention trials found no significant difference in the average weight loss between low & high GI diets. in conclusion, the current body of research evidence does not indicate that low-GI foods are superior to high-GI foods in regard to treating obesity.
More recently, Raatz & colleagues conducted a parallel-design, randomized 12-week controlled feeding trial, testing the effect of GI and GL on weight loss [14]. The controlled period was followed by a 24-week "free living" phase, in which subjects were instructed to continue their respective dietary treatments outside of lab-supervised conditions. Manipulation of GI & GL failed to make a dent in both experimental phases. As a result of the 36-week trial, the researchers conclude: "In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects."
_________________________________________________________________
http://alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html0 -
In other words, potatoes aren't the problem. :drinker:0
-
Still doesn't matter to anyone who isn't diabetic.
____________________________________________________________________________________
GI & Obesity - Slim Chance For Correlation
A systematic review of human intervention studies comparing the effects of high and low-GI foods or diets arrived at the following results [13]:
• In a total of 31 short-term studies, low-GI foods were associated with greater satiety or reduced hunger in 15 studies, whereas reduced satiety or no differences were seen in 16 other studies.
• Low-GI foods reduced ad libitum food intake in 7 studies, but not in 8 other studies. In 20 longer-term studies (<6 months), weight loss on a low-GI diet was seen in 4 and on a high-GI diet in 2, with no difference recorded in 14 studies.
• An exhaustive assessment of these human intervention trials found no significant difference in the average weight loss between low & high GI diets. in conclusion, the current body of research evidence does not indicate that low-GI foods are superior to high-GI foods in regard to treating obesity.
More recently, Raatz & colleagues conducted a parallel-design, randomized 12-week controlled feeding trial, testing the effect of GI and GL on weight loss [14]. The controlled period was followed by a 24-week "free living" phase, in which subjects were instructed to continue their respective dietary treatments outside of lab-supervised conditions. Manipulation of GI & GL failed to make a dent in both experimental phases. As a result of the 36-week trial, the researchers conclude: "In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects."
_________________________________________________________________
http://alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html
So, you are assuming that recommendation to limit potatoes is being made strictly for weight loss? I assumed it was for health, which would include, but certainly not be limited to weight loss. But even from a weight loss standpoint, almost half of results of those studies was bad (7 vs 8, 15 vs 16). That hardly seems an argument against it, especially in the face of widespread obesity and diabetes in American children.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 976 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions