Thread: Potatoes as a carb source?

White potatoes are wonderful for you. Perfect choice for carbs. Eat up!

Originally Posted by Built

White potatoes are wonderful for you. Perfect choice for carbs. Eat up!

Oh built 85% of the time you make my life so much happier =)

The other 15% - what makes that part happen? I want to PERFECT that part!

Originally Posted by Built

The other 15% - what makes that part happen? I want to PERFECT that part!

the other 15% is not your fault, it is science's fault so I don't blame you =).

1. You cannot build muscle and drop fat at the same time
Personally, I think god screwed up on this one, I mean come on, who doesnt want to build massive muscle and drop fat all at the same time? haha

2. Too much weight training and cardio will not help you build muscle... Sadly, I LOVE doing Cardio and LOVE weight training. SO basically if it were a perfect world for me I would gain more muscle and look better the more I train because well... i like it....

Scratch that last point... if it were a perfect world I could eat like Michael Phelps (13,000-14,000 calories a day is what I hear he eats), and look like Hugh Jackman when I am 90 years old.

So as you can see built, I don't blame you. Science is just not on my side haha

Originally Posted by Built

The other 15% - what makes that part happen? I want to PERFECT that part!

It involves chocolate sauce, whipped cream, and a lot of drinking beforehand

Try putting a sweet potato in a toaster on 350 degrees wrapped in tin foil with a bit of olive oil on it. Leave it in for 1-2 hours.

It takes a LONG time, but if it's done right the insides will be SO delicious (outside will be browned/blackened).

Originally Posted by danzik17

It involves chocolate sauce, whipped cream, and a lot of drinking beforehand

that too, I just wasn't prepared to go there

Originally Posted by GOtriSports

the other 15% is not your fault, it is science's fault so I don't blame you =).

1. You cannot build muscle and drop fat at the same time
Personally, I think god screwed up on this one, I mean come on, who doesnt want to build massive muscle and drop fat all at the same time? haha

2. Too much weight training and cardio will not help you build muscle... Sadly, I LOVE doing Cardio and LOVE weight training. SO basically if it were a perfect world for me I would gain more muscle and look better the more I train because well... i like it....

Scratch that last point... if it were a perfect world I could eat like Michael Phelps (13,000-14,000 calories a day is what I hear he eats), and look like Hugh Jackman when I am 90 years old.

So as you can see built, I don't blame you. Science is just not on my side haha

1. God wasn't obviously concerned with "aesthetics" more so than he was with survival...yet people still don't like evolution as part of our past.

* I just saw Michael Phelps say in an interview that it was a myth that he ate that much. He said he ate about 7 to 8 thousand. I never believed he was putting down 12 or more. Thats almost impossible as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by Merkaba

1. God wasn't obviously concerned with "aesthetics" more so than he was with survival...yet people still don't like evolution as part of our past.

* I just saw Michael Phelps say in an interview that it was a myth that he ate that much. He said he ate about 7 to 8 thousand. I never believed he was putting down 12 or more. Thats almost impossible as far as I'm concerned.

Really all that matters is that I cannot eat all the fatty foods I want, train as much as I want, do as much cardio as I want, or be as lazy as I want. It is terrible. All I want is to do whatever I want and look like Arnold... is that too much to ask for?

Originally Posted by GOtriSports

Really all that matters is that I cannot eat all the fatty foods I want, train as much as I want, do as much cardio as I want, or be as lazy as I want. It is terrible. All I want is to do whatever I want and look like Arnold... is that too much to ask for?

...Why yes, it certainly is!

from what i understand new potatoes and sweet potatoes are the best choice in terms of their glycemic index value

i just genuinely prefer the taste of sweet potatoes over white potatoes these days... never thought that would happen :P

Potatos aren't so bad, it's all the cheese and other crap we tend to stuff em with that getchas.

I loved a baked spud but damn they take too long. Microwave is vastly quicker but just not the same

Worst is when you wait for freakin' hours with the oven, only to realise as you tuck in they're not quite done. Then you microwave the thing and it's just like you only microwaved it in the first place




B.

Originally Posted by Skib

from what i understand new potatoes and sweet potatoes are the best choice in terms of their glycemic index value

i just genuinely prefer the taste of sweet potatoes over white potatoes these days... never thought that would happen :P

GI is an outdated paradigm. Very few of us eat our foods in isolation, and the combined GI of foods is different from their individual GIs - case in point, a Mars bar has a lower GI than brown rice.



An interesting index I'm looking at is the satiety index. Potatoes, in addition to being the "right" type of carb (ie glucose polymers aka "starch") for our purposes also score very highly on this index - so if you need a carb choice for dieting, white potatoes are the BOMB!

PS Skib, I have a real fondness for sweet potatoes myself. So awesome with seasoning salt and bbq sauce. Oh, and a steak!

There's so many things wrong with the GI thingy I wince whenever I hear the term.

I first became convinced it was a complete waste of time due to bran flakes. High in fiber and low GI right? BS.

I ended up eating quite a lot of bran flakes, for the fiber, and noticed something on my graphs. I was gaining weight.

Did not compute.

Fiber shouldn't be making me fat so I looked into this bran flake crap and the GI thing. Sure, they have a low GI - because blood sugar is measured up to 2 hours after consumption.

Bran flakes whack your body with so much blood sugar so quickly you get a major insulin spike, meaning by the time the GI testing is done, they're "low"!!!!

It's complete garbage. Done with the best of intentions perhaps but so flawed as to be worse than useless, like an inaccurate map.


B.

You were gaining weight because you were eating over maintenance.

Nobody gains weight because of insulin spikes.

Originally Posted by Built

You were gaining weight because you were eating over maintenance.

Nobody gains weight because of insulin spikes.

this can be explaned like this

take a maint diet with high GI versus a maint diet of low GI

20 cals of high GI (represents spike)
- 20 cals of energy expended (represents cals burned before next meal)
= 0 cals weight gain


1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 of low GI (represents gradual digestion into glucose)
-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 energy expended (represents gradual energy burned)
= 0 cals of weight gain



in all honesty
i find HIGH GI better on a cut
and LOW GI better on a BULK

opposite of what most of us learned early on...

Obviously but my point was I thought it was a "safe" carb because it was "low GI".

In truth they were no better than a bowl of crunchy nut honey cornflakes - in fact worse, because I wouldn't eat that but did end up eating bran flakes, thinking they were "good for me" and "low GI".

Insulin spikes are great with the right timing, not so good otherwise.



B.

i wouldnt say "not so good otherwise"

it depends on the total cals...

an insulin spike could be detrimental to one with diabetes... but for the rest of us... not so much...

Originally Posted by Ben dur

this can be explaned like this

take a maint diet with high GI versus a maint diet of low GI

20 cals of high GI (represents spike)
- 20 cals of energy expended (represents cals burned before next meal)
= 0 cals weight gain


1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 of low GI (represents gradual digestion into glucose)
-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 energy expended (represents gradual energy burned)
= 0 cals of weight gain



in all honesty
i find HIGH GI better on a cut
and LOW GI better on a BULK

opposite of what most of us learned early on...

I do too, actually. I target what little carb I eat to the meal before and or after I train. "Fast" carb clears the system faster. More comfortable, and I get it in when it really needs to be there. Simple logistics, really.

Originally Posted by Biggly

Obviously but my point was I thought it was a "safe" carb because it was "low GI".

In truth they were no better than a bowl of crunchy nut honey cornflakes - in fact worse, because I wouldn't eat that but did end up eating bran flakes, thinking they were "good for me" and "low GI".

Insulin spikes are great with the right timing, not so good otherwise.



B.

Why were the bran flakes worse than crunchy nut honey cornflakes?

Originally Posted by Ben dur

i wouldnt say "not so good otherwise"

it depends on the total cals...

an insulin spike could be detrimental to one with diabetes... but for the rest of us... not so much...

The only way a type I diabetic gets an insulin spike is from an overdose. That would harm anybody.

The transient post-pradial increase we secrete won't kill us.

Might interfere with satiety though. If you're free-eating, this could be a problem.

On equal calories, not so.

Thing is I sacrificed protein and good fat cals for them, relied on em for fiber (useless) and ate heartily thinking they wouldn't spike insulin leading to fat storage, sleepiness, hunger pangs shortly after and all the other things associated with a high carb diet.

But I got all of those things in spades because far from some benign 'harmless' carb the things are so sugary they spike blood sugar higher and faster than more obvious stuff you'd avoid.

Why worse? See above.

It's not so much that bran flakes are a bad and evil thing per se, more that the so called GI thing is an utter waste of time, actually more misleading than helpful.

The CONCEPT sounds good, especially for diabtetics which it was designed for, but the actual meausring methods and resulant scale are complete crap.


B.

Originally Posted by Biggly

Thing is I sacrificed protein and good fat cals for them, relied on em for fiber (useless) and ate heartily thinking they wouldn't spike insulin leading to fat storage, sleepiness, hunger pangs shortly after and all the other things associated with a high carb diet.

But I got all of those things in spades because far from some benign 'harmless' carb the things are so sugary they spike blood sugar higher and faster than more obvious stuff you'd avoid.

Why worse? See above.

It's not so much that bran flakes are a bad and evil thing per se, more that the so called GI thing is an utter waste of time, actually more misleading than helpful.

The CONCEPT sounds good, especially for diabtetics which it was designed for, but the actual meausring methods and resulant scale are complete crap.


B.

You know nothing as good as bran flakes or the like would be that great for you. Its marketing. "low fat, high fiber" You know things like spinach and broccoli are the way to go. Avocados are an acquired taste but I could eat fresh homemade guac everyday. Some of the highest fiber content in the veggie world. But high in fat so calories are up there for a veggie. I think this is on of the few angles the "RDA" hasn't screwed up. If you eat 4 or 5 servings of fruits and veggies a day youre gonna get some fiber.

I agree with the GI stuff though. I mean if you ate a steak then ate bran flakes the bran flakes GI impact would be greatly different.

Yep, broccoli does it for me, along with beans and that red fruity thing that I've forgotten the name of...

And never forget prunes, they rock.


B.

I was about to get some prunes the other day but figured I would just go for plums. Way more palatable for me.

I just bought a huge bag of small white potatoes. Breakfeast tomorrow is going to be 1.5 cups liquid egg whites with a diced potato cooked in. And probably an apple. I am so excited