On Sunday, July 27, 2014 2:41:21 PM UTC-7, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Brooklyn1 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:11:05 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson

wrote:



Recently read that potatoes with "yellow" flesh are more nutritious.

At Farmers

Market yesterday, asked potato guy. He agreed, but added that the

MOST nutritious (can't remember what is the good stuff) were the

purple fleshed ones.



Is this similar to Nature's continuum in leafy vegs? The darker the

better?



(I bought a few just to see if I would get turned off by purple

potato flesh. Not yet eaten. Stay tuned g).



HB



Regardless the color if you pare away the skins essentially all the

nutrition remaining is starch. And since other than starch potato

nutrition is for the most part in the skin flesh color is meaningless.



Seems about right. Some definition of 'nutritious' would also be helpful.

Is the one with the most vitamins and minerals, most starch or lowest GI
the most nutritious?

Been trying to remember what potato guy said. ISTR it was anti-oxidant (sp) content? Would that make sense?

That's why I asked y'all if there was a parallel with green veg - supposedly the darker the better. Sounds like your answer is No. ?

potato peel, if most nutrition is in the skin -- you said rest of potato is largely starch -- most potatoes are HEAVILY treated (see link) and most pesticide ends up in the skin, is there any percentage in buying "organic"??

\http://rocketswag.com/gardening/Pest...Pesticide.html

HB