Trust me I have no interest in changing anyone's beliefs but just because this is a low carb forum does not change the fact that potatoes are an inherently healthy food. It's how you prepare them that matters.
Imho good nutrition involves eating a wide variety of veg and that includes potatoes!

No, This is why low carb has a hard time making headway...






Sorry but it's attitudes like these that are the real reason why low carbers are not taken seriously.

Potatoes are a high GI, high carb food. There are absolutely no nutrients found in them that cannot be found in other, lower carb, lower GI and therefore healthier foods.

So why praise such a high carb food on a low carb board?

Potatoes, how most people eat them the majority of the time(at least if they aren't going to process them further) Make sure half a cup is selected in the drop down, because, IIRC, that's a serving.

Broccoli. Half a cup again.

No commentary needed except there definitely is a reason why spinach, broccoli, or something like kale or chard is almost always included in "diet" plans, especially in showcase examples.

ETA: Just for the sake of illumination and good will to low carb foods:
Spinach
Swiss chard (you can't select 1/2 a cup for greens some reason)
Kale
Tomatoes

Avocados too.... can't select 1/2 cup, but if you look at 1 cup and cut all the values in half, it still beats the potato.

I've always hated potatoes anyway. f'n peasant food.

Ok, I am not on Atkins, maybe I missed something. Are there many Atkins dieters here that agree with this humble opinion? Do the Atkins books make the claim that good nutrition involves potatoes?

Not on Akins either but as far as I recall the books don't advise eating pots. Actually pretty sure you can't unless you're on or approaching maintenance

If he's incorporating lots of pots, perhaps that's why cqo is 30 lbs over his start weight.

I've met very few low carbers who think potatoes are a veg, full stop. I know of a few low carbers who do eat sweet potatoes, but they are usually in maintenance or on the higher carb plans.

It's easy to get confused when you rely on adjectives to quantify things. Even if you add skins into the equation, I wouldn't consider white potatoes as particularly nutritious. If the folks at that magazine want to consider them a good source for this or that, all power to them. As a low carber, I get fewer carbs and more nutrients from other sources.

When considering a food source as healthy, you should look at the micro-nutrient makeup, including any anti-nutrients as well as the macro-nutrient balance. I really can't see how anyone, especially those who are cutting their dietary sugar intake, can justify this low nutrient dense food as healthy.

But to each his or her own. You're just not really entitled to your own data is all.

ETA:
Jacket potatoes, skins eaten For the curious. Unfortunately, it didn't give skins and flesh eaten without salt. You can look at them separately if you want. It's not a good trade-off for low carbers, especially considering the wealth of more nutritious foods we have that are on our plans.

You may well find that exactly because this is a low carb forum, the majority of people here are not going to accept your claim that potatoes are an inherently healthy food is a fact.

Sadly a lot of people seem to think this. Happily, unless they can control what goes in your kitchen, on your plate, and into your mouth...you can act on your own data where it really matters.

Just, wow - so a message board is the culprit, and not 40 years of low fat misinformation from the government, agricultural industry, and nutritional establishment? No one here understands the power we have, if that's the case. Seriously, that is the least logical thing said in years on this forum - maybe ever.

Do you think potatoes are one of the healthiest things you can eat?

Yeah. And attacking the person instead of the argument is such a better attitude to take...

"We suggest the following definitions:

The ADA designates low carbohydrate diets as less than 130 g/d or 26% of a nominal 2000 kcal diet and we consider this a reasonable cutoff for the definition of a low-carbohydrate diet. Carbohydrate consumption before the epidemic of obesity averaged 43%, and we suggest 26% to 45% as the range for moderate-carbohydrate diets. The intake of less than 30 g/d, as noted above should be referred to as a very low carbohydrate ketogenic diet (VLCKD). The term Ketogenic Diet should be reserved for the therapeutic approach to epilepsy." http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/9

It appears that what many of you are defining as "low carb" is actually "very low carb ketogenic".

According to the definition provided by the signers of this review -- Richard K Bernstein, Annika Dahlqvist, Richard D Feinman, Eric C Westman, Jay Wortman and Mary C Vernon among them -- eggs and bacon for breakfast, fish and salad for lunch, steak and potato for dinner = low carb. If people choose to eat a potato (or ice cream) instead of cups of greens vegetables...well, their choice, isn't it?

I think what the OP was referring to in his remark about this board is that representing "low carb" as ONLY synonymous to "very low carb ketogenic" (less than 30 gm/carb per day) is doing an injustice to the overall concept which might appeal to more people if they were aware that their low carb diet wouldn't be as limited as that.

Or maybe not.

The awful truth is that most people fail at changing their diets enough to achieve and maintain weight loss -- whatever the change is.

AA built its reputation through "attraction". It worked for many people when the efforts of doctors and others mostly failed and then the treatment centers followed.

Atkins has been around for 30+ years now. If the millions who had bought the book back then, had followed it, and kept their weight off for the last few decades, we wouldn't be discussing "why low carb has a hard time making headway".

JMO

And it's been attacked since day one. It's been attacked in the press, in scientific journals, in research papers, in our homes, etc. Don't you think that attitude toward the diet, and by extension toward the people who follow it, would be a significant factor in our decision to stick with it or not as the case may be? I think it would.