4 ms·
The article overlooked one essential macro-nutrient: fiber. Definitely lacking in a regular potato, even if one eats the skins. Also, sweet potatoes are not po
by fractallyte 4y ago
The article overlooked one essential macro-nutrient: fiber. Definitely lacking in a regular potato, even if one eats the skins.
Also, sweet potatoes are not potatoes - different families, and different nutritional profiles. The former is considered a root, the latter a tuber.
A well researched diet should be aware of these points.
- zerohp 4y agoFiber is not a nutrient.
- fractallyte 4y agoFiber is increasingly being recognized as essential to gut health, so arguably it should be considered a nutrient. Classifying it differently risks omitting it from discussions (as we see in the article) and - vitally - food labeling. Here's a discussion: https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)01743-8/fulltext https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)01743-8/ful...
- ravenstine 4y agoFiber is only "essential" in the context of eating food that isn't appropriate for our digestive system. Eating an appropriate diet primarily of meat requires no fiber whatsoever. The idea that fiber is necessary for anything but mitigating some effects from an inappropriate diet comes from the American dietetics association's desire to push a plant-based diet despite all the evidence contrary to plant-based diets.
- kuhewa 4y ago2200 kcal of potato gets you over 60 grams of fibre, I don't reckon that is the issue with an all potato diet.