Last year, Gina Kolata, in her shamelessly underthought review of Good Calories, Bad Calories, asked why, if low-carb was such an effective weightloss and management mechanism, had it not any effect on obesity rates.

The easy answer to that question was that while low fat had enjoyed massive governmental and medical support, low carb had experienced just the opposite: hostility, or at best, cautious ambivalence.

So to connect that back to reality, I noticed the handout my daughter (who is now in Kindergarten, and was a baby when I started low carbing) came home from school with a calendar of menus for September. There was a "Pyramid Puzzler" article that asked "How many pounds of potatoes does it take to make a pound of potato chips?" (the answer: 4).

It goes on to say that "Potatoes are one of the healthiest things you can eat, but potato chips are one of the least healthy."

So, right in the schools, at a very early age, they're being taught that potatoes are a highly healthy food (nutritionally that's not even close to correct, even if you aren't a low carber - potatoes bring little to the table but empty calories).

The day that low carb is being promoted in the schools for 2-3 decades, and has failed to the degree that low fat has, Kolata can write what she wrote. Right now, to low-carb, one must get support from the grassroots and actual dieters. Few public figures will endorse it, even when study after study after study confirms it as safe and effective.

They link to this website to back it up. It pimps grain, villainizes fats, the usual tap dance.

yeah, the school my son used to attend told us that french fries and corn were two vegetables served together most days. How can anyone justify french fries as a vegetable serving? The school dietician sure tried!

That's not even close to being true.





http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?...odspice&dbid=48

I agree with your point here that low fat and low carb do not get compared on the same terms. What bothers me is that since information can change with new evidence, and there is no absolute evidence about the healthiest diet for all human beings, I don't think they have any grounds upon which to be handing out apparent facts about what is healthy to small children. Plus if her father has improved his own health by ignoring the suggestions that she is being taught...how confusing is that?

The first part of the sentence is missing, I am filling it in with "Compared to cardboard, potatoes as a very good source of vitamin C, a good source of vitamin B6, copper, potassium, manganese, and dietary fiber."

Seriously, there are other veggies out there that have much higher nutrients and don't carry the health risk that potatoes do.

Sarcasm is not the best approach to defend your beliefs.



http://www.runnersworld.com/article...12052-0,00.html

Oh for Pete's sake... compared to pasta I think the cardboard would win. They even spray nutrients on the grains they make the pasta out of and a potato still beats it?

Sarcasm has more vitamin C, potassium and manganese than absurdity.

You do realize this is a low carb forum, dontcha?

Potatoes are a healthy food if you don't have blood glucose problems, or obesity. I give my 91 year old mother-in-law anything that has calories, and especially carbs - she could stand to gain 4 or 5 pounds.

Yup!

I'll eat a baked white potato once in a while now that I'm not looking for weight loss any longer.

But ....sweet potatoes are much better than their starchier cousins!!

After all, this is a low carb forum!!

If I want a treat I sometimes make potato skins (very, very scraped first ).
But no, potatoes are hardly healthy. They are more nutritionally void than all other veggies. Go to the usda nutrition database and compare potato with, say, steak. It's a real eye-opener.

The potato people want you to think you're getting lots of vitamin C in a potato, but the fact is that you wouldn't need the C if you weren't eating the potatoes in the first place!

Exactly! LOL

I didn't mean to start the potato war, but it's just impossible to say that they bring much to the table from a pure nutritional standpoint. They are definitively NOT one of the "healthiest things you can eat." They don't even come close to that.

They aren't as nutrient-empty as a sugary drink, or a cookie, but they are lacking in comparison to vegetable alternatives.

They shouldn't be promoted as something they aren't. They are not terrible (as long as you're no planning to lose weight) but they are severely lacking compared to the multitude of alternatives.

That said, I"ll stand corrected that they bring nothing to the table. They bring nothing to the table compared to most alternatives. So yeah, I think it's nuts that schools are promoting them as nutritious.

Carbohydrates drive insulin drives fat accumulation. This means potatoes bring about blood glucose problems and obesity. Your argument sounds like this: Poison is safe as long as we don't get sick from it. But once we do, poison is no longer safe.

http://www.runnersworld.com/article...3-1X2-3,00.html

I disagree. Potatoes are in fact very nutritious.



http://www.runnersworld.com/article...2-1X2-3,00.html