Pritikin convinced many of us as to the value of potatoes which he deemed a complex carbohydrate. I for one did exceedingly well on the Pritikin regimen. Now we learn of a glycemic index and the assertion that white potatoes are "simple" carbohydrates, much like white bread and even sucrose. What are your opinions? Jack
[email protected] (BroJack) wrote in news:[email protected]: > Pritikin convinced many of us as to the value of potatoes which he deemed a complex carbohydrate. > I for one did exceedingly well on the Pritikin regimen. Now we learn of a glycemic index and the > assertion that white potatoes are "simple" carbohydrates, much like white bread and even sucrose. By the technical definition, starches are complex carbohydrates (note that potatoes are not carbohydrates; they're food that *contains* a large amount of carbohydrates). However, many of them [1] behave metabolically pretty much the way simple carbohydrates do. The moral of the story is that the chemical distinction between "simple" and "complex" carbohydrates is too, well, simple to apply to nutrition. [1] Starches consist of long chains of monosaccharides (usually glucose). Some of the chains are straight; others branch like trees. Starches that consist mostly of straight chains are called amyloses; starches that consist mostly of branched chains are called amylopectins. Digestive enzymes break down any starch (well, almost any starch; there are some "resistant starches") into their constituent monosaccharides, which are then absorbed into the bloodstream. The enzymes work by removing monosaccharide units from the ends of chains, and take a small but finite amount of time to remove each monosaccharide. That means that amylopectins are broken down much more quickly than amyloses, because their chains have many ends and several enzyme molecules can be working on one starch molecule at the same time. Amyloses break down more slowly because they have only a few ends (in the extreme, some amyloses have only one chain, so only two monosaccharides can be removed simultaneously). And that means that the more amylopectin-like a starch is, the faster the resulting influx of glucose into the bloodstream from consuming it. Note, though, that some foods (like whole grains) can contain amylopectins and still not produce a fast glucose influx. The reason is that the starch is tied up in fiber and it takes some time for the digestive process to extract it. Thus while the starch is converted quickly, only small amounts of starch at a time are being converted.
BroJack <[email protected]> wrote or quoted: > Pritikin convinced many of us as to the value of potatoes which he deemed a complex carbohydrate. > I for one did exceedingly well on the Pritikin regimen. Now we learn of a glycemic index and the > assertion that white potatoes are "simple" carbohydrates, much like white bread and even sucrose. > > What are your opinions? I don't eat potatoes - but at least on the plus side there is the fact that they are quite fibrous and satiating. Still - try sweet potatoes, taro, jerusalem artichokes and yams instead. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:55:08 GMT, [email protected] (BroJack) wrote: >Pritikin convinced many of us as to the value of potatoes which he deemed a complex carbohydrate. I >for one did exceedingly well on the Pritikin regimen. Now we learn of a glycemic index and the >assertion that white potatoes are "simple" carbohydrates, much like white bread and even sucrose. > >What are your opinions? > >Jack Many foods with a high glycemic index cause a hypoglycemic reaction in me but potatos and rice do not. This has always been a mystery to me.
[email protected] (BroJack) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > Pritikin convinced many of us as to the value of potatoes which he deemed a complex carbohydrate. > I for one did exceedingly well on the Pritikin regimen. Now we learn of a glycemic index and the > assertion that white potatoes are "simple" carbohydrates, much like white bread and even sucrose. > > What are your opinions? > > Jack I've been low-carbing for 3 years. I still eat potatoes. BUT... I eat them in much smaller quantities. Less volume of potatoes than meat on the plate. And I slather it in butter to help keep the total GI values down. Fat (or butter) will slow down the absorption of the carbs in teh potato. TC
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau rambled on about "Re: Are Potatoes Getting A Bum Rap?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >I still eat potatoes. BUT... Hello, Mr. Potato Head .... Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
On 16 Feb 2004 13:22:26 -0800, [email protected] (tcomeau) typed: Less volume of potatoes than meat on >the plate. And I slather it in butter to help keep the total GI values down. Fat (or butter) will >slow down the absorption of the carbs in teh potato. This interests me. My digestive system can't seem to tolerate a high carb diet, but I lose too much weight on a low carb. I would like to start getting more calories from fats, but I'm afraid that my cholesterol will rocket if I'm not in ketosis.
> start getting more calories from fats, but I'm afraid that my cholesterol will rocket if I'm not > in ketosis. In fact, some kinds of fat should even decrease your LDL levels. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.html Mirek
Joe <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > On 16 Feb 2004 13:22:26 -0800, [email protected] (tcomeau) typed: > > > > > Less volume of potatoes than meat on > >the plate. And I slather it in butter to help keep the total GI values down. Fat (or butter) will > >slow down the absorption of the carbs in teh potato. > > This interests me. My digestive system can't seem to tolerate a high carb diet, but I lose too > much weight on a low carb. I would like to start getting more calories from fats, but I'm afraid > that my cholesterol will rocket if I'm not in ketosis. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Specifically regarding cholesterol and ketosis. Can you clarify this TC
>I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Specifically regarding cholesterol and ketosis. Can >you clarify this > My simplistic understanding, probably way off mark, is that if the body is using carbs as its energy source then some of the excess fats consumed end up in the blood stream. So, my thinking goes, if I'm in ketosis my body is utilizing fats for energy, and my blood stream, therefore is not clogged up with fats.
Joe <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > >I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Specifically regarding cholesterol and ketosis. Can > >you clarify this > > > My simplistic understanding, probably way off mark, is that if the body is using carbs as its > energy source then some of the excess fats consumed end up in the blood stream. So, my thinking > goes, if I'm in ketosis my body is utilizing fats for energy, and my blood stream, therefore is > not clogged up with fats. Ketones are broken down fat molecules and will be washed away in the urine. It has no relation to blood cholesterol. Blood cholesterol is not related to ketosis nor is it related to a high-fat or high-cholesterol diet. It is produced by the body as a result of a diet too high in refined carbs and too low in fat. That is why blood cholesterol levels improve on a low-carb diet. Most people, including the medical community believes that cholesterol in food causes high blood cholesterol and that high-fat foods cause obesity. They are wrong on both counts. TC
