# Sweet potatoes vs white potatoes



## alpacaspinner (Feb 5, 2012)

Can anyone explain to me in what way sweet potatoes are better for me than white potatoes? I am eating low carb. at the moment, so am not eating any potatoes for now, but would like to add them back in, slowly and in small amounts, later on. I keep reading that sweet potatoes are the way to go; they are _so much_ better for one than white potatoes - which makes sense, I suppose, just looking at the yellow color indicates more of certain vitamins. However, my research shows that 100 grams of sweet potatoes have 17 effective carb grams, a glycemic index or 8, and 86 calories. Whereas an equal quantity of white potato has 16 effective carb grams, a GC of 8, and 77 calories. Just comparing those 3 things shows that the 2 are essentially equal, but the sw. potato has more calories.

What am I missing?


----------



## Taylor R. (Apr 3, 2013)

The main difference, I think, is that white potatoes are almost empty calories. Sweet potatoes are not as starchy and much higher in fiber and vitamin content.

As for the calorie content, maybe that could be due to the more dense nature of sweet potatoes?

We avoid white potatoes in general at my house not because of carb content, but because they aren't exceptionally nutritious.


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

I eat both. I just don't eat fries or chips as a rule that are fried in who knows what kind of oil. If my husband gets fries in a restaurant, I just taste one of his. I love potatoes baked or roasted using a bit of olive oil.

Actually, "white" potatoes are a good source of vitamin C, pretty good on iron and protein also. I grow the "yellow" variety of regular potatoes and also grow sweet potatoes.


----------



## alpacaspinner (Feb 5, 2012)

I found a site that gives nutritional data for all sorts of foods, in an easily understood way. According to this site here are a few items picked out more or less at random (same place I got the numbers I quoted in the OP) (numbers based on 100g of potato):

Sw. Potato: Wh. Potato

Starch - 12.7g 13.5g
Sugars - 4.2 g 1.2g
Vit. A - 14185 iu 8.0 iu
Vit. C - 2.4 mg 19.7mg
Omega 3 - 1 mg 10mg
Omega 6 - 13 mg - ratio 13:1 32mg - ratio ~3:1

According to Mercola's site the ideal ratio between Omega 6 & Omega 3 should be between 1:1 and 5:1 

So, the clear winner, as far as I can see, is Sw. potato for Vit. A, and Wh. potato for Vit C and Omega 6/3 ratio. 

So I still don't see why the white potato is vilified, and the sweet shown as the better alternative. Sweets, I'll grant you, taste better on their own. But whites are more versatile, in my opinion.

This is the site I referenced; there is a search function to get results for other foods:

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2666/2


----------



## katydidagain (Jun 11, 2004)

White potato IMO is vilified because they're generally not eaten plain. Fried, buttered up, lots of goodies and salt. Sweet potatoes are often served with just butter. I could be wrong and probably am.

I like them both; I don't eat a lot of either so I don't eat them plain.. I do not add marshmallows and such to sweet potatoes--I either have them oven fried or baked with butter but I consider white potatoes, baked, to be the base for you name it if it's not what you should eat on a regular basis.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

You can and should eat both

*Myth #2: **"Sweet potatoes are better for you than white potatoes."*

*The origin:*Because most Americans eat the highly processed version of the white potato&#8212;for instance, french fries and potato chips&#8212;consumption of this root vegetable has been linked to obesity and an increased diabetes risk. Meanwhile, sweet potatoes, which are typically eaten whole, have been celebrated for being rich in nutrients and also having a lower glycemic index than their white brethren.

*What science really shows:*White potatoes and sweet potatoes have complementary nutritional differences; one isn't necessarily better than the other. For instance, sweet potatoes have more fiber and vitamin A, but white potatoes are higher in essential minerals, such as iron, magnesium, and potassium. As for the glycemic index, sweet potatoes are lower on the scale, but baked white potatoes typically aren't eaten without cheese, sour cream, or butter. These toppings all contain fat, which lowers the glycemic index of a meal.

*The bottom line:*The form in which you consume a potato&#8212;for instance, a whole baked potato versus a processed potato that's used to make chips&#8212;is more important than the type of spud.


----------



## alpacaspinner (Feb 5, 2012)

emdeengee said:


> You can and should eat both
> 
> *Myth #2: **"Sweet potatoes are better for you than white potatoes."*
> 
> ...


Thank you for this. That sort of says what I have been thinking. Although, on the site I looked at, it says the glycemic index is actually exactly the same for both - 100 grams of raw potato, either kind, has a GI of 8. 
Thanks for all the replies. I intend to go easy on the potatoes in future, but shall eat both, in moderation.
But I am still curious as to why the sweet potato has trumped the white potato in "health circles".
As a side note: I remember reading about the Irish potato famine in the 1840s. Before the blight destroyed the potatoes many poor Irish lived on the potato to the exclusion of practically anything else, and got by quite well under the circumstances - no great nutritional deficiencies, and still able to do a full day's work. The loss of the potatoes was devastating, causing the deaths by starvation of more than a million people, and halving the population (from 8 million to 4 million) through death and emmigration.


----------



## alpacaspinner (Feb 5, 2012)

Well, I haven't found the answer to "why?", but I did find another person with the same question, and the same conclusion that I came to.
http://primaltoad.com/potatoes/


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

More fiber in a Sweet tater.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I just read this and found it interesting


While there are over 100 varieties of edible potatoes that range in size, shape, color, starch content and flavor, the sweet potato is not one of them. These two root vegetables are in fact from two completely different families. The potato's scientific name, _Solanum tuberosum_ reflects that it belongs to the _Solanaceae_ family whose other members include tomatoes (who knew???), eggplants, peppers, and tomatillos. 

The sweet potato, on the other hand, belongs to the _Convolvulaceae_ plant family and is known by the scientific name of _Ipomoea batatas_. The well-known flower called "Morning Glory" belongs to the same botanical family as the sweet potato.


----------



## alpacaspinner (Feb 5, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> More fiber in a Sweet tater.


Not according to the sites I linked to above. The one says that each have 7g. of fiber (it doesn't specify per how much potato though; I am guessing 200g, as he uses that as a measurement elsewhere in the article). The other says 4g for sweets, and 2 for whites, at 100g for raw, flesh and peel - so 8g and 4g, compared to the other source. OK, twice as much, according to one, but neither is a whole lot.



emdeengee said:


> I just read this and found it interesting
> 
> 
> While there are over 100 varieties of edible potatoes that range in size, shape, color, starch content and flavor, the sweet potato is not one of them. These two root vegetables are in fact from two completely different families. The potato's scientific name, _Solanum tuberosum_ reflects that it belongs to the _Solanaceae_ family whose other members include tomatoes (*who knew???*), eggplants, peppers, and tomatillos.
> ...


 

Gardeners know.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I'm a gardener and have been for decades but I did not know this just as I did not know that cashews were in the same family as mangos. Live and learn.


----------



## alpacaspinner (Feb 5, 2012)

emdeengee said:


> I'm a gardener and have been for decades but I did not know this just as I did not know that cashews were in the same family as mangos. Live and learn.


Oops! I'm sorry. The little smiley was to indicate a humorous response, but maybe it didn't do its job very well. 
And I wasn't aware that cashews and mangoes were related. As you say, live and learn. <looking for the 'hug' smiley, but can't find it>


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Supposedly sweet potatoes blunt the body's insulin response as they are digested slower than white potatoes. So my blood sugar doesn't rise as quick or as high with sweet potatoes, but it stays higher longer. The last time I did a test, white potatoes w/ butter raised my bs. 57 points and I fell back to normal in 3 hours. Sweet potatoes w/ butter raised me 46 points, but it took 4 hours to get back to normal. So for me, it is a wash. Neither are on my eating plan except for special treats, and then I go for french fries I cook myself.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Belfrybat said:


> Supposedly sweet potatoes blunt the body's insulin response as they are digested slower than white potatoes. So my blood sugar doesn't rise as quick or as high with sweet potatoes, but it stays higher longer. The last time I did a test, white potatoes w/ butter raised my bs. 57 points and I fell back to normal in 3 hours. Sweet potatoes w/ butter raised me 46 points, but it took 4 hours to get back to normal. So for me, it is a wash. Neither are on my eating plan except for special treats, and then I go for french fries I cook myself.



YES I remember reading this somewhere. The SP are supposedly digested slower and do not cause an insulin spike. Anyone have any info on this?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

alpacaspinner said:


> Oops! I'm sorry. The little smiley was to indicate a humorous response, but maybe it didn't do its job very well.
> And I wasn't aware that cashews and mangoes were related. As you say, live and learn. <looking for the 'hug' smiley, but can't find it>


Ooops right back at you. I need to use icons because I did not intend to sound huffy at all. I laughed when I read your post thinking jeepers! I am a gardener (or at least thought I was!) and did not have a clue about this or mangos. Literally live and learn every day.


----------

