Skip to content


    Attention All WebMD Community Members:

    These message boards are closed to posting. Please head on over to our new WebMD Message Boards to check out and participate in the great conversations taking place:

    Your new WebMD Message Boards are now open!

    Making the move is as easy as 1-2-3.

    1. Head over to this page:

    2. Choose the tag from the drop-down menu that clicks most with you (and add it to any posts you create so others can easily find and sort through posts)

    3. Start posting

    Have questions? Email us anytime at [email protected]

    Anon_605 posted:
    Are they healthy or not?What is everyones opinion?

    Please back up your opinion.
    Anon_605 responded:
    Could not sign in. Crow
    max9821 responded:
    potatoes have sustained entire civilizations. In forty years after the introduction of the potato the Irish population doubled. I am diabetic. I eat potatoes. This morning my fasting sugar was 81. I eat them plain or with some salsa or fat free tomato sauce or make a fat free potato salad. They are not the center of my diet but I eat them without worry.

    jc3737 replied to max9821's response:
    Dolores you are absolutely correct about potatoes.There are cultures that eat a diet of mostly potatoes and are the healthiest people on the planet.They are the single most nutrient packed food in existence matched only by leafy greens.

    In my book potatoes are a cure (at leat for many people) for hypertension.They are also a cure for GERD.I think the mistake in downgrading potatoes comes from the fact that they are high glycemic....but that index has been shown (in many cases) to be irrelevent.Jeff N as well as Essee and McDougall all mention this.
    max9821 replied to jc3737's response:
    They might be high glycemic but they do not raise insulin in proportion to the rise in blood sugar. Beef, on the other hand, does not raise blood sugar but does raise insulin quite a bit. Way out of proportion to the practically zero rise in blood sugar. So many anti carb diet gurus have criticized starches because they prevent good control of insulin but they are wrong. Studies as far back as the 1920's and 1930's have shown that it is fat that causes insulin resistance, not carbs.

    Yesterday had starches in the evening. This morning my blood sugar was 79. If we could test easily for insulin the way we do for blood sugar I think people would be in for some surprises.

    jc3737 replied to max9821's response:
    I agree,... the data clearly shows its fat that causes insulin resistance.The downgrading of potatoes on the basis of the glycemic index ignores the research.

    And what about the real world experience of cultures around the world that thrive on high glycemic starches.Dr McDougall got this one right when he said the index is not valid in many cases.....certainly not for those cultures and for those on the plant based diet.

    But it does have some limited validity for those who eat a lot of junk carbs and sugar....which is why the research will sometimes show correlation of high glycemic foods and health issues....but clearly not for those on starch diets like the Mcdougall style diets.
    jc3737 replied to max9821's response:
    ATHENS, GREECE — There is no real "debate" over the dangers of dietary salt as a cause of cardiovascular disease, and physicians need to take a more active role educating the public, supporting high-quality science, and participating in initiatives to reduce salt intake at the population level.
    Those were the key messages of a no-holds-barred session on dietary sodium and hypertension earlier this week at HYPERTENSION 2014 , the joint conference of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and theInternational Society of Hypertension (ISH).
    Any "controversy" over whether dietary salt is a cause of heart disease and stroke is the result of weak research methodology or commercial interference, Dr Norm Campbell (Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta, Calgary) and DrGraham MacGregor (Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London, UK) argued here.
    "One of the challenges," said Campbell, "is to recognize that most of the effort to reduce dietary salt is not based on 100% conclusive data from multiple randomized trials, with hard outcomes, as we might expect from the pharmaceutical industry. It's an incomplete database, and that allows fertile ground for controversy. . . . In addition, because there is so much salt in our environment, we don't have a lot of studies where people are consuming less than 2300 mg of sodium per day."
    Related to that, he added, is the glut of low-quality studies that have relied on flawed measures of sodium consumption. Both Campbell and MacGregor roundly dismissed the use of spot urine analyses as a hopeless means of estimating sodium consumption, coupled with the difficulties of accurately measuring blood pressure in large population studies.
    When a member of the audience pointed to the PURE analysis showing that most of the world eats much higher levels of sodium than those recommended by most international organizations, MacGregor and Campbell leaped on this as an example of a study that had radically failed to measure salt in an appropriate fashion, even devising a new "formula" to estimate salt intake because even spot urine testing had been inadequate. "Please let [PURE principal investigator Dr> Salim Yusuf [McMaster University, Hamilton, ON> know that he should stop using spot urine analysis," MacGregor said curtly.

    Poor-Quality Studies Often Reflect Commercial Meddling
    "It's also important that we recognize the extent of commercial interference," Campbell continued. "This is a growing area of research. There are some academics who have financial interests in the salt and food industries [who have published misleading papers>, and we have very prominent journals, I'll mention JAMA in particular, that publish studies that probably would have [never been printed> if a medical student had tried to publish them" and that appear to be hoping to increase citations and publicity by publishing contradictory papers.
    But in fact, when international and national organizations have done rigorous reviews of the literature, omitting low-quality data, they've come up with recommendations that clearly support lowering salt intake to prevent stroke and cardiac diseases, Campbell said. Doctors have a responsibility to acquaint themselves with these recommendations, then educate their peers and patients, he added.

    Spotlight: Member Stories

    My name is Ashley, I'm 20 years old. (5'6, 159 lbs). My interest in nutrition/living healthier started when at the age of 53 my father passed ...More

    Helpful Tips

    Zeal for Life
    I couldn't find my old post so I'm not sure what happened to it. I have back problems, panic issues and anxiety disorder since childhood. ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    5 of 5 found this helpful