Potatoes are rich in nutrients especially if you eat them whole. They are also rich in fiber and starch as a complex carbohydrate takes a long time to be broken into glucose and therefore is not prone to spiking glucose.
There is a reason potatoes have been a staple food for such a long time. If you don't eat them over processed, it's a cheap and relatively healthy food. The whole low-carb diet thing really is a fad.
Cheap proteins remain available in the form of chickpeas and lentils. Avocadoes are just inherently costly to produce and hard to store.
Generally speaking, yes absolutely. What happens in a case like this article, though? Is the 50% increase in biomass matched by an increase in nutrient uptake from the soil/growth medium? What are the chances these bigger potatoes are actually less nutrient dense?
Add climate change and the story may change a bit. Its a good thing to be better at making foods that are the backbone of (many people's) diets. We need other things too, but that doesn't make this less beneficial.
[0] https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/bmi_asia_strategi...
We have been galloping into the "obesity is a bigger problem than starvation" territory for decades and we are not far from the end position. Everywhere but Subsaharan Africa, an obesity pandemics is raging. We should not ignore its cost, either human or financial. A wealthy society which suffers from a lot of obesity is de facto impoverished, too.
I would like us to concentrate on lowering the price of foods that contain more nutrients. Things like avocados have become less available to the poor in the last decades, thus stripping them of valuable source of protein, fat and vitamines.