The magic of sweat potatoes

[Matt_1983]

Has anyone else discovered the amazing calming effects of sweat potatoes? Im obsessed with them at the moment and id say they lower my anxiety levels by about 5-10% for about a day after eating them. Id read that they were good for anxiety a while ago but didnt believe it until recently when i started eating them and ive definately noticed the effects. Im just worried now that im gonna get addicted and freak out if i go a night without some sweat potatoe!

[Tailgate]

I can't say as they've had a calming effect on me. Maybe one day they will

[little jon]

They give me wind

[alessia]

Originally Posted by matt25uk

Has anyone else discovered the amazing calming effects of sweat potatoes? Im obsessed with them at the moment and id say they lower my anxiety levels by about 5-10% for about a day after eating them. Id read that they were good for anxiety a while ago but didnt believe it until recently when i started eating them and ive definately noticed the effects. Im just worried now that im gonna get addicted and freak out if i go a night without some sweat potatoe!

How do you cook them? I want to try them too.

[Eraserhead]

Er....that's interesting. I don't think I've eaten enough at any one time to see the effects.

[Ankylopithekos]

Usually they put me in a fierce temper because they don't cook at the same rate as the other items I'm preparing and end up being too hard or too soft.

[png]

what's the best way to cook them? I did some in the microwave a few yrs ago and dint like them much that way

[Warmer]

I cant say I notice any effect on my mood after eating them.
But they are yummy .

[The Jerk]

..........sweat potatoes...........are they the ones you grow from not washing your neck?

[Pili-pala]

I guess you mean sweet potatoes lol, every now and then I go on a healthy stint and have these instead of normal potatoes, they are nice. They are good as mash and my little boy loves them. Havent noticed any difference with my SA though.

[Ankylopithekos]

Sweet potatoes aren't healthier than "normal" potatoes. What a load of nonsense!

[Matt_1983]

Originally Posted by Ankylopithekos

Sweet potatoes aren't healthier than "normal" potatoes. What a load of nonsense!

Well theres no need to get nasty about it, and im not an expert but id have said theyre slightly more healthy too. Some people.

[piesJoy]

are those the round skinned ones that you boil, and that come in a tin? I'm a mash potato man, personality, can't get enough of it when i start.....

[hgraham]

lol!!
sorry, couldn't resist. this made me laugh my effing ass off!

I think I have some growing in my armpits!!

LMFAO!!!

ok i'll stop now

[black_mamba]

LOL hgraham.

Here's a really good looking sweet potato recipe

I brought one sweet potato today and am gonna give this recipe a try.

[Warmer]

The Bible states sweet potatoes are vastly superior to normal potatoes. I dare you to prove me wrong.

[ShyDoll]

I love sweet potatoes but theyre too expensive!

Can't say i've ever felt calming effects from them though.

I think veggies can be comforting sometimes though - like a big bowl of soup is soo warming.. good comfort food!

[misfitlove]

I *love* sweet potatoes! I've never noticed a calming effect before but they are only something I used to have occasionally. I shall see next time, it's great that it works for you!

P.S ~ Sweet potato sushi rolls are yummmmmmmmmy! ***9829;

[Matt_1983]

Originally Posted by Lamb

Why have you called them sweat potatoes? It's in the title and first post so maybe i've misunderstood.

Anyway , I tried a sweet potato last year after reading that they were healthier than normal baked potatoes. It was nice but I have to eat low carb now so avoid potatoes as much as possible. It was orange inside and I added beans!

I know im stupid, im very embaressed now. Its weird actually cause i used to text my first girlfriend and say how "sweat"! she was, and she was too nice to tell my i was spelling it wrong. Im usually brilliunt with spelling.

[black_mamba]

Yeah no need to be embarrassed, it was just such a funny typo.

[Ankylopithekos]

Originally Posted by matt25uk

Well theres no need to get nasty about it, and im not an expert but id have said theyre slightly more healthy too. Some people.

I wasn't being nasty. :rolleyes:

[teal]

They are healthier if you are diabetic or want to lose weight or just want to maintain a steady blood sugar level, because, despite the name, sweet potatoes have a significantly lower glycaemic index than white potatoes and contain other good stuff that white potatoes don't. If you are counting your five a day veg they do count towards it unlike white potatoes which don't.

Maybe they are calming because they help keep your blood sugar level?

The way I cook them now is to peel, chop into chunks and roast with a little oil in the oven.

[Leah]

I had roast sweet potatoes today, i can't say i have noticed any calming effects but i don't really eat them very often.

[Lynchy]

Originally Posted by matt25uk

Has anyone else discovered the amazing calming effects of sweat potatoes? Im obsessed with them at the moment and id say they lower my anxiety levels by about 5-10% for about a day after eating them. Id read that they were good for anxiety a while ago but didnt believe it until recently when i started eating them and ive definately noticed the effects. Im just worried now that im gonna get addicted and freak out if i go a night without some sweat potatoe!

You mean Sweet potatoes I hope ? Or else I'm missing out on some new therapy whereby you stick a spud under your arm for a few hours then munch away at it to relieve nervousness ?

[Ankylopithekos]

Here are updated "glycemic index" values for a massive amount of different foods: studies on "healthy" subjects and studies on diabetics and those who have (or are "suspected" to have) impaired glucose tolerance. The values for potato varieties (of which there are tons) begin on page 50 of the first pdf, and are followed immediately by those for a small number of sweet potato varieties. Potato varieties (again followed by sweet potatoes) begin on page 15 of the second pdf.

Basically, the average GI values for sweet potatoes are a little lower than most categories of "white" potato, but there are lots of varieties of white potatoes and quite a bit of variety between them, and the GIs for sweet potatoes are themselves borderline high.

In fact, some of the white potato categories (e.g. "boiled/cooked white/type NS" and new potatoes) in the second pdf had slightly lower values than the average for the small number of sweet potatoes. But, basically, there's little difference between them and both of their values range from medium to high.

[teal]

Originally Posted by Ankylopithekos

Here are updated "glycemic index" values for a massive amount of different foods: studies on "healthy" subjects and studies on diabetics and those who have (or are "suspected" to have) impaired glucose tolerance. The values for potato varieties (of which there are tons) begin on page 50 of the first pdf, and are followed immediately by those for a small number of sweet potato varieties. Potato varieties (again followed by sweet potatoes) begin on page 15 of the second pdf.

Basically, the average GI values for sweet potatoes are a little lower than most categories of "white" potato, but there are lots of varieties of white potatoes and quite a bit of variety between them, and the GIs for sweet potatoes are themselves borderline high.

In fact, some of the white potato categories (e.g. "boiled/cooked white/type NS" and new potatoes) in the second pdf had slightly lower values than the average for the small number of sweet potatoes. But, basically, there's little difference between them and both of their values range from medium to high.

Wow! that's a pretty comprehensive list!
The same programme that told me sweet potatoes are better than white also told me that the more processed a food is the more easily/quickly the body processes the sugar which is why wholewheat bread isn't as good as granary. So (as you appear to have some knowledge/expertise in the area) is it better to serve potatoes boiled rather than mashed and fruit whole rather than juiced/smoothied or have I been misled?

[png]

Originally Posted by teal

... which is why wholewheat bread isn't as good as granary.

Hmm, I'd always believed wholemeal was better than granary since it contains the complete complex carb rather than being refined

[iloverain]

Potatoes do seem to have a calming effect on me yes.
Usually when I've eaten too many of the things.


*farts*

[teal]

Originally Posted by riverside

Hmm, I'd always believed wholemeal was better than granary since it contains the complete complex carb rather than being refined

As I say, this was on a programme (on Radio 4) specifically about low GI diets for controlling and preventing diabetes. I was surprised as well, but they said that there was no benefit, from the GI point of view, of replacing white with wholewheat and that what you should eat is bread with whole seeds and grains in.

Obviously, if the sweet potato thing wasn't right then this might not be either, but it kind of makes sense to me that if one type of thing needs more chewing than another then it will also take longer for the body to access all the sugars contained in it.

[Ankylopithekos]

Originally Posted by teal

Wow! that's a pretty comprehensive list!
The same programme that told me sweet potatoes are better than white also told me that the more processed a food is the more easily/quickly the body processes the sugar which is why wholewheat bread isn't as good as granary. So (as you appear to have some knowledge/expertise in the area) is it better to serve potatoes boiled rather than mashed and fruit whole rather than juiced/smoothied or have I been misled?

The starch from wholemeal bread (i.e. containing every component of the original grain but milled into tiny particles) will be more quickly metabolized into glucose than that from breads containing coarse grains (which will have to be broken down by the body's enzymes rather than by a mill).

The glycemic index is always calculated by comparison to the "standard" GI of both pure glucose and white bread. Both of the reference foods are given a value of 100 for comparison to other foods, but the standard white bread has a GI of 70 compared to the standard pure glucose. The first two columns in those tables give each food's GI compared to glucose and then white bread. Generally the "wholemeal" flour breads have GIs slightly lower than white bread, but they are in the high range and there'll be no difference in the real world. Some "wholewheat" cracker-type foods from the tables have GIs similar to "wholemeal" breads.

Another thing affecting the GI of starchy foods is the proportion of amylopectin starch compared to amylose starch. The former is more prevalent in most foods, and the latter is harder to digest. Both of them, however, are made up simply of combinations of maltose and maltotriose, and both of these are just complicated forms of glucose. According to the tables, maltose has a GI fractionally higher than pure glucose!

Other important things having an impact are how much a starchy food is chewed and how relaxed the person is when eating it. Chewing releases the enzyme amylase from the saliva (it is also released from the pancreas once the food has been swallowed), and being nervous/anxious/uptight inhibits salivary amylase and slows absorption.

Eating fat and/or protein with carbohydrate always slows the release of glucose into the blood - hence very low GI values for many forms of chocolate and ice cream.

In the first table, most of the many varieties of boiled potato have a GI very close to white bread, and the mashed potato varieties are generally just a fraction higher. Interestingly, most of the boiled versions seem to have lower GIs from the experiments on people with diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance, but the number of studies is a lot smaller and it could just be coincidence.

The notion that sweet potatoes have a lower GI than white potatoes might stem from one single experiment. Normally glucose or white bread is used as the reference food, but the sweet potato to which the lowest GI was assigned was compared to "potato". Since "potato" has GIs (compared to glucose) ranging from 24 to 118, it isn't very helpful to know that a particular sweet potato has a low GI compared to "potato"!

As for fruit, the values vary remarkably depending on the type and form. The sugars in fruit are in most cases a fairly even mixture of glucose and fructose, or are predominantly sucrose (which is simply an exact 50-50 mixture of glucose and fructose atoms). Fructose can be metabolized into glucose in the liver, but it always has to go through the liver first, and hence raises glucose levels a lot less rapidly. Glucose in the blood is transported into the muscles (helped by insulin) to be stored as glycogen, but there is a limited capacity to store glycogen and, if stores are full, a lot of glucose can end up entering the liver and being metabolized like fructose.

Apples have a high ratio of fructose to glucose, and have a low GI as would be predicted. Fruit juices are expected to have higher GIs than the intact fruit, but the GI for apple juice is (going by the small number of experiments recorded in the table) identical to that of an apple. Conversely, watermelon has a similarly high ratio of fructose to glucose, but it has (in intact fruit form) a GI fractionally higher than white bread! Dried apricots probably have a high ratio of glucose to fructose, but their GI is always very low.

The fact that fructose has a minimal impact on blood glucose levels doesn't give it a special status as "healthy". The metabolism of fructose in the liver wastes a lot of ATP (adenosine-tri-phosphate) that is crucial for energy production, and it also upregulates the process of "lipogenesis", the production of fat from carbohydrate. Some people claim that, because of this, fructose has a special ability to make people fat. That’s not really true: a person overeating via fructose won’t gain any more total fat than a person overeating via anything else, but fructose probably does influence the distribution of body fat (in men but not in most women) so that more of it is “visceral” fat around the liver and other internal organs (the type of body fat that is considered a hallmark of diabetes and the “metabolic syndrome”). Obviously it’s very hard to overeat fructose via intact fruit, but easy to overeat it from manufactured foods to which it has been added in large amounts in isolation.

Having said all of the above, the truth is that the glycemic index is near-useless! Why? Because: (a) the experiments involve people eating isolated 50g portions of carbohydrate from a single food, rather than as part of a meal; (b) the experiments are carried out in the fasted state. In real life, people rarely eat single foods in limited portions, and most of the time they eat when their bodies are still metabolizing vestiges of previous meals.

From a single meal in the fasted state, the GI response to 50g of carbohydrate in the form of a difficult-to-digest starch will be lower than that to 50g of carbohydrate from glucose or easily digested starch. Likewise, the GI response to 50g of carbohydrate even from glucose will be lower if it is eaten along with fat and protein, despite the much higher quantity of calories consumed. However, the glucose from a mixed meal or from slowly digested starch does become available eventually, which means that blood glucose levels will not have dipped dramatically by the time the next meal is eaten, and that the glucose from the new meal will top-up that still remaining from the previous meal – and so on. The total amount of carbohydrate eaten is a more important factor – hence the concept of the “glycemic load”, which is a calculation derived from the GI plus the total amount of carbohydrate eaten. The tables to which I linked also give the GLs of foods in the columns to the right.

Of course, having a fairly stable blood glucose level, rather than one that fluctuates wildly, will result in less ravenous hunger, and less impulse to eat another meal until the last one has been metabolized. In people with a low turnover of muscle glycogen, repeatedly eating large isolated quantities of glucose or quickly digested starch will result in blood glucose and hunger levels that are about as stable as a one-legged elephant walking a tightrope! On the other hand, people who have a very high turnover of muscle glycogen, such as competitive athletes who train for several hours on most days, would feel debilitatingly lethargic if they didn’t eat generous quantities of high-GI foods at least some of the time.

Then again, “high-GI” foods aren’t actually “high-GI” when eaten under such circumstances, because the glucose goes into the muscles as glycogen, and blood glucose levels actually remain fairly stable. Highly conditioned athletes eating nothing but “low-GI” foods will (if they eat enough food) have indigestion while trying to exert themselves! On the other hand, people who don’t like exercise could just eat one massive meal of carbohydrates (mostly “low-GI”) mixed with fat and protein, and that would take so long to metabolize that they wouldn’t want to think about eating again for another 24 hours!