Are potatoes Veeky Forums approved? Or should I go for sweet potatoes instead?

Are potatoes Veeky Forums approved? Or should I go for sweet potatoes instead?

Sweet potatoes have more nutrients regular potatoes are all starch no nutritional value

The broscience is strong in this one.

Sweet potatoes are supposedly better for you, but regular potatoes are more versatile from a culinary standpoint

Both are good for you, though, if you're clean bulking/maintaining. I'd probably cut them out if I were cutting, but that's just me

They're both good, calories and macros are the same but sweet potatoes have better micros in certain areas and vice versa. I alternate each week between the two, more variety nutrition wise and taste wise that way.

Sweet potatoes are healthier by far. The huge amount of beta carotene they have is a big edge over white potatoes.

enjoy your solanine poisoning.

Both are good if you can handle high GI carbs. Sweet potatoes are slightly more nutritious.

Sweet potatoes aren't high-GI under most cooking conditions

GI doesn't even really matter unless you're diabetic and eating foods in isolation.

Even then, there was a study recently showing that the GI of foods varies massively between individuals. Not only is it irrelevant, it's inaccurate.

If you're lean and active and healthy, you don't need to worry about the GI of whole, real foods

The broscience is strong in this thread!

Any vegetables are good, depending (to some extent) on your training and nutrient goals. But ...

100 grams of potato has 21 grams of carbs, 3 grams of protein, and a glycemic load of 10.

100 grams of sweet potato has 20 grams of carbs, 4 grams of protein, and a glycemic load of 9.

In very general terms, sweet potato is the slightly better choice of the two ... depending on your goals.

I'm a fat fuck who is lifting heavy and doing lots of jump roping cardio, 4x a week. Combined with healthy eating, I've dropped 35lbs to weigh 225.

I've switched up my routines and have seen increases in strength. I'm not strong yet (I can dumbell chest press 70lbs for about 8 reps) but I noticed my weight has been stalling for a few weeks now. I've been working out for around 7 months now.

I usually eat about a potato and a half chopped up and fried with olive oil and pepper in the morning. Is this too much? I'm wondering if the carbs are why I'm not losing additional weight. I usually eat some eggs mixed with vegetables. I try not to eat potatoes at dinner time and only in the morning.

Manelt also, at 5'9.

Best post-workout carb hands down.
I go through 2kg of tatters in a week.

Fried?

A better option would be a quick spray of olive oil ... a better option still would be to microwave your potatoes.

And an even better option would be to go for more green vegetables instead ... broccoli, broccolini, spinach, kale, etc

Experiment ... see what works for you.

bruhh i read an article somehwere on the internet that said you're wrong

I don't fry them like french fries where I sink them into a pool of oil. I basically just sprinkle a drizzle of olive oil into a pan and cook them like that. Actually, more often than not I bake them in the oven (also with olive oil).

And hmm, that is true. I've just picked up my intake of vegetables this week - before I wasn't eating nearly enough.

Thanks.

If you continue to use the olive oil method (no biggie) heat your pan first ... you'll use less oil.

That's a shit way to compare foods

No way! Really?! Damn, good to know man lol. I guess I have been doing it wrong for a while.

Eat both of them, all the time or regularly but you could just as easily drop them for more proper vegetables and you wouldn't notice anything

same with rice (not that they are a vegetable)

Neither you stupid fatty. Unless you want cancer, dementia, diabetes, and a heart attack. Carbs are fucking horrible for you.

1. That's a basic summary that meets the needs of most people

2. Go fuck yourself

...

>the needs of most people

Most people on Veeky Forums don't have (pre)diabetes. That's the only population with actual clinical data behind it to show some benefit of low GI and GL diets.

>low carb, high fat
>consumed by humans for over 50,000 years

Outside of the arctic circle, there's no place where humans have ever lived where fat was that abundant or carbs that scarce

I wasn't proposing that OP go on a low GI diet. I'm more concerned with the macros, but I threw in the GI given the shit posting by others in the thread and to show that there is minimal difference overall (macros and/or glycemic load).

Thank you for adding no value to the OP's question.

Now go fuck yourself with a sweet potato or a potato ... your choice.

>I'm more concerned with the macros

Still a shit way to compare foods, without taking into account other nutrients or bioactives.

Sweet Potatoes have Vitamin A

but other than that they're pretty similar...

>eating carbs in the morning
breakfasts are a meme in the first place

if you've been the same weight for a month, you're probably eating at maintenance
cut down on the carbs

eat the skins

eat both kinds so it doesn't get boring.
I for one like Sweet Taters better tastewise, only problem is that I can't get them all year round were I live.