Re: Re: 'Waxy Potatoes - was - Carbs and Physical Activity

[Guest guest]

here's a link explaining the different types of potatoes (inc. waxy

potatoes) and what they can best be used for.

http://www.ochef.com/167.htm

Dedy

-- Original Message -----

From: " skroyer " <scott@...>

< >

Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 4:25 PM

Subject: Re: Carbs and Physical Activity

>

> > ->Sheila, that's probably because 'wax' is a lipid - it's *fat*

> > which slows

> > down the digestion time, hence probably lowers the postprandial

> > blood sugar spike.

>

> " Waxy " , as a description of texture in potatoes, doesn't have

> anything to do with lipids. Rather, the form of carbohydrate is what

> underlies the textural difference just as it does with " sticky "

> rice. Carb form impacts the GI both in terms of solubility as well

> as how quickly and completely the particular starch can be reduced to

> glucose in the body. So a " waxy " potato is not really waxy, it just

> has a " waxy " texture because of the form that the carbs are in.

> Potatoes that are considered " waxy " are fingerlings and red potatoes

> (including " new " potatoes). Medium-waxy are all of the rest except

> russets. Russets are considered the most starchy. In

> general, " waxy " potatoes are most appropriate for boiling and

> roasting. Starchy potatoes are most appropriate for baking and

> mashing. Medium-waxy (or medium-starchy) are basically dual purpose

> (this includes yukon golds).

>

> With that said, waxy or not, I don't think that potatoes are bad for

> people unless they eat them to the exclusion of foods that supply

> needed nutrients not supplied by the potatoes. I think that high GI

> as a pathogenic feature of diet is simply the other side of the

> excessively linear, reductionist coin.

>

> If it's a whole food, and it's being eaten in a proportion to the

> remainder of the diet of whole foods that doesn't prevent the person

> from meeting their nutritional needs, it *will* be good for you.

> That's true whether it's white rice, potatoes, white bread, pasta, or

> dumplings. It's *probably* even true for sugar.

>

> There is clear evidence, in my opinion, that demonstrates that a high

> GI is not a pathogenic feature of foods. Asia's consumption of white

> rice, even in those areas known for exceptional health, is quite

> high. White rice is, in most of it's forms, anywhere from medium-

> high to extremely hign on the GI...and very similar in GI to

> potatoes. People in areas with diets very high in rice, still manage

> to thrive in general. Why/how? Seafood, sea vegetables, and very

> nutrient dense land vegetables. They are able to supply their

> nutritional needs in a very small number of calories, so they can eat

> more " empty " high GI carbs and not experience problems.

>

> If high GI is so bad for us, we should at least see high incidences

> of diabetes in asia. The fact that we don't is telling.

>

> If we ignore contradictory evidence such as this and/or make up all

> sorts of " reaching " excuses for the discrepancies, we will simply be

> the replacement for the currently misguided anti-cholesterol warriors.

>

> Remember, it's not what's *in* the foods that's the problem; it's

> what's *NOT* in the *diet* that's the problem.

>

>

>

>

>

>