Unlike sugar-rich foods, though, potatoes don't contain many calories for how filling they are.

That's the problem with nutrition science as it is currently practiced (or rather, as it is currently used by non-scientists). Its conclusions are valuable to specialists, but it's not good enough (yet) to give much valuable advice regarding how people should actually eat. For example, according to the glycemic index, ice cream is better for you than potatoes, which is absurd.

Here's a good essay about this: http://www.michaelpollan.com/article.php?id=87

Very nice essay :) I'm an immigrant and looking back at how my mother always frowned when I wanted biscuits, or chips or fruit bars - it was because she didn't have any of that when she grew up and for the better.

Actually, potatoes aren't as bad as people make them out to be. Some of the starches in potatoes are very similar to fiber, and they do contain quite a few vitamins and minerals (the article doesn't mention B6, thiamin, riboflavin, folate, niacin, magnesium, phosphorus, iron, or zinc that potatoes have). The important thing is to leave the skin on and not fry them.

Sweet potatoes are known to help stabilize blood sugar levels.

Sweet potatoes and potatoes are quite different.

They do have fiber, and other vitamins. I'm not trying to say they are as empty as sugar candy. But compared to the other foods on the list they just don't fare as well. There are many other foods that should have taken their spot.

If you're on a low-carb diet, potatoes are verbotten, but for most people, a nice baked potato eaten with skin, and a very small amount of fat, is quite healthy. http://nutrition.about.com/od/askyournutritionist/f/potatoes...

I've never seen anyone eat potatoes as is. Sour cream, bacon, cheese, and chili: a proper baked potato.

Americans ;)

Verboten!

Alas, no German spellcheck on my firefox! :)

Strangely enough, sweet potatoes/yams break down much slower. Yummier too.