3 ms·

Note, however, that the methodology of this particular study may have contributed to an artificially high satiety value for potatoes. Per the study's design, th

by NoPiece 12y ago

Note, however, that the methodology of this particular study may have contributed to an artificially high satiety value for potatoes. Per the study's design, the participants were separately fed 220-Calorie servings of each food. A 220-Calorie serving of plain potatoes is larger and much less palatable than the other foods studied. The size of this serving may have influenced a repulsion to this test food that goes beyond the normal satiating response. http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/fullness-factor http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/fullness-factor

imanaccount247 12y ago
See my other response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8744945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8744945 Summary: "I don't like the evidence so I'll ignore it" is not compelling. Being a low calorie, high volume food is not "artificial" satiety, it is satiety.
- kyllo 12y ago
  It's arguing that poor palatability may have been confused for high satiety. Have you ever eaten a boiled potato with nothing else on it? It tastes terrible. After a couple of bites, you don't want any more. That is not the same thing as satiety. The starch in potatoes is also digested very quickly, so it doesn't keep you satiated for long unless consumed with fats.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    >It's arguing that poor palatability may have been confused for high satiety. I know that. And I am saying they are basing that on nothing. They just said "the data is less important than what we think the data should look like based on our feelings". >Have you ever eaten a boiled potato with nothing else on it? It tastes terrible Yes, they taste fine. Obviously they taste better with salt and pepper and butter, but they are not unpalatable without them. Have you ever eaten boiled pasta with nothing else on it? How is that more palatable?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    220 calories of potato is one medium potato - maybe 300 grams. I find it hard to think that amount causes a person to avoid potato. Did the researcher actually notice potato-aversion, or are they (and this is not a bad thing) speculating?

by NoPiece 12y ago

imanaccount247 12y ago

See my other response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8744945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8744945 Summary: "I don't like the evidence so I'll ignore it" is not compelling. Being a low calorie, high volume food is not "artificial" satiety, it is satiety.

kyllo 12y ago
It's arguing that poor palatability may have been confused for high satiety. Have you ever eaten a boiled potato with nothing else on it? It tastes terrible. After a couple of bites, you don't want any more. That is not the same thing as satiety. The starch in potatoes is also digested very quickly, so it doesn't keep you satiated for long unless consumed with fats.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  >It's arguing that poor palatability may have been confused for high satiety. I know that. And I am saying they are basing that on nothing. They just said "the data is less important than what we think the data should look like based on our feelings". >Have you ever eaten a boiled potato with nothing else on it? It tastes terrible Yes, they taste fine. Obviously they taste better with salt and pepper and butter, but they are not unpalatable without them. Have you ever eaten boiled pasta with nothing else on it? How is that more palatable?
- DanBC 12y ago
  220 calories of potato is one medium potato - maybe 300 grams. I find it hard to think that amount causes a person to avoid potato. Did the researcher actually notice potato-aversion, or are they (and this is not a bad thing) speculating?