On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:30:42 -0500, Jim Swayze <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

 And, aside from the bad stuff in the skin and particularly the eyes of the
potato, we know that the human body isn't meant to handle the highly
concentrated carbohydrates in a cooked potato.  As someone else said, might
as well just eat a cup of raw sugar or down an Orange Fanta soda.
>--
>_______________________________________________
>Get your free Verizonmail at www.verizonmail.com

If it's true that the human body isn't meant to handle concentrated carbs,
someone better clue those long lived Japanese in on that fact because
tubers are a staple of their traditional cuisine.  Of course their tubers
are different than what we typically think of as a potato here -- I don't
know how many carbs versus ours, but they definitely look very different.
I think comparing a tuber (of which there are many many varieties) to
eating a cup of sugar or downing pop is overly simplistic.  Last time I
checked, a cup of sugar and pop don't have fiber, vitamin c, protein,
thiamin, b6 and iron like the "lowly" potato. As far as bad stuff in the
skin and eyes of the potato -- well, there's plenty of "bad" stuff in
brocolli such as thryroid hormone blockers as do most cruciferous veggies.
Does that mean I wouldn't eat brocolli?  Of course not -- it just means
that there are good and bad aspects to almost every food item.  And by the
way -- cooking brocolli thoroughly helps inactivate those pesky thyroid
blockers -- so it's also a good example of a food that can be eaten raw but
is healthier eaten cooked. You may very well be correct that the human body
isn't designed to handle concentrated carbs such as those found in an Idaho
potato -- and if that's the case, more power to those attempting to create
a lower starch variety.