10

votes

Why do some Paleo-ers think tubers aren't Paleo?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created November 27, 2011 at 7:31 PM

This is a slightly different question from "Are tubers Paleo?" ( http://paleohacks.com/questions/1023/are-tubers-paleo#axzz1eppVBla4 ), being that tubers ARE Paleo--no doubt about that. What I don't understand is why it's even up for debate in the first place. I can understand the distinction they make between American continental tubers vs. African/Asian/European species, but I've run across several hardcore Paleo eaters who exclude tubers from their diets altogether simply on the premise that they can't be eaten raw.

We have the AMY1 enzyme, so we can digest the starch. Antinutrients are in virtually all plant foods to varying degrees. So what gives?

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on February 20, 2013
at 02:15 PM

Agree 100%. The avoidance of tubers is misleading for people who don't need to follow a low-carb diet or don't need to lose weight. I'd waste away without starchy tubers.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 19, 2013
at 07:14 PM

Can't or won't. Big distinction.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 19, 2013
at 07:02 PM

A plant screams silently when it is eaten.

19ff515e8ec02d95e8f2cf68c3ec1373

(1207)

on January 26, 2013
at 09:14 PM

May explain why I exclusively crave plantains and not other starches.

Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

(2297)

on November 29, 2011
at 07:50 AM

I understood the question as "why people would consider not eating tubers", and gave possible reasons. I guess this would explain why my answer is rather different than everyone else's.

94a4a87e3d2e1e9160b6ed77678b4bea

(1311)

on November 29, 2011
at 03:30 AM

Thanks Melissa - this is interesting - we work with the Indigenous population from the Murray region today. There is some theory that because this region was so resource rich the populations did become more sedentary with less incentive/need to move around to hunt and gather (including their use of eel traps to provide a regular food source). What does Webb suggest the source of carbohydrates was?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 29, 2011
at 02:50 AM

I was reading Palaeopathology of Aboriginal Australians: Health and Disease across a Hunter-Gatherer Continent by Stephen Webb and he mentions that the people of the Murray region had higher levels of caries as they embraced sedentism/a higher-carb diet. I can send a few pages to you.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 29, 2011
at 12:10 AM

But again, that does not mean they're not Paleo, they're just not right for your individual needs.

94a4a87e3d2e1e9160b6ed77678b4bea

(1311)

on November 28, 2011
at 11:31 PM

Hi Melissa - can you elaborate please? I am not familiar with this research (although I don't really look at bones this is more for anthropology) - the only differences in teeth I am aware of are significant differences in crown diameters, tooth size and general cranial features (thus impacting on teeth) - and also use-wear on teeth owing to the propensity of the population to use their teeth as a tool (ie. to strip barks etc). I recommend watching 'Ten Canoes' - a film which shows some great hunter/gatherer moments - including one characters' lust for honey (so he might have had bad teeth)!

0efba407f0ff007b270d46b6c310b50a

(40)

on November 28, 2011
at 08:51 PM

I think it is important to know what your goals are. If weight loss or reduced inflammation is the goal, tubers are probably best avoided. Just because they were available to our H/G ancestors doesn't mean they won't be detrimental to your goals. They may be technically paleo, but not necessarily the smartest choice for getting your carbs. If you are aiming for a 30-40% carb ratio, potatoes will probably push you past that fairly quickly. And because they provoke a considerable insulin response, you might feel less sated, experience a sugar crash, and exacerbate inflammation.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 28, 2011
at 07:12 PM

Starch used to upset my stomach quite a bit, causing gurgling and all sorts of weirdness. I took probiotics for 3 months straight and so far have not had those kinds of issues with it.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 28, 2011
at 07:12 PM

Starch used to upset my stomach quite a big, causing gurgling and all sorts of weirdness. I took probiotics for 3 months straight and so far have not had those kinds of issues with it.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 28, 2011
at 07:07 PM

Yes, I think that the anti-tuber camp is projecting their own nutritional needs/goals onto the entire Paleo diet, which is intellectually dishonest and only serves to confuse newbies.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on November 28, 2011
at 05:22 PM

Mer, you seem extra happy today!

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 28, 2011
at 05:10 PM

The OP didn't ask whether they are bad or good, but whether or not they fall under the realm of paleolithic-style eating, which they definitely do

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on November 28, 2011
at 04:52 PM

I said that 'til yesterday, but guess what? I think I'm cured. I was in a restaurant and steak with potato was my only option. I slathered the tater with butter and ate some. Well, I felt totally crappy for two hours. My innards were very annoyed. That's the first time I didn't get cravings after eating potato. I suppose it could have been something they put on the steak, but I choose to blame the tuber. :-))

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on November 28, 2011
at 04:51 PM

I said that 'til yesterday, but guess what? I was in a restaurant and steak with potato was my only option. I slathered the tater with butter and ate some. Well, I felt totally crappy for two hours. My innards were very annoyed. That's the first time I didn't get cravings after eating potato.

Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

(2297)

on November 28, 2011
at 03:22 PM

@Nemesis - I'd say that we have to consider all plants as potentially harmful, and then go from there, but that's me. Once I know enough about a plant, predominately it's breeding history, then I'll eat it. But then I have been known to throw caution to the wind and eat what I feel like. People call this being human, haha.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 28, 2011
at 11:59 AM

Right I got ya, but if all plants have defense mechanisms, why exclude one over the other? Why eat goitrogenic broccoli but not a yam?

Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

(2297)

on November 28, 2011
at 07:44 AM

@ROB - the caffeic acid is found throughout the tuber, peeling the skins won't remove it. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16428835) @animalcule - prey animals can exhaust predators, but it's not everyday that they "critically injure" them. The payoff for eating animals is pretty good, and animals can't develop the same kinds of poisons that plants can, I'd rather eat an animal than a plant. But, different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

(2297)

on November 28, 2011
at 07:35 AM

@Karin - If you want to see into the future, all you need to do is eat 6 pounds of sweet potatoes at once. Good luck, haha.

Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

(2297)

on November 28, 2011
at 07:34 AM

@Nemesis - Yams (Dioscorea) have also toxic compounds that are often removed by boiling or some other treatment. What I'm trying to get at is the fact that plants have defense mechanisms, and that's why some people decide to limit their intake of certain plants. @Primordial - from I. purga roots "jalap" is prepared, otherwise most of the alkaloids are found in the flower/leaves/seeds, but I wouldn't put it past a plant to put some alkaloids in a tuber.

A65499f2f8c65602881550fe309cd48c

(3501)

on November 28, 2011
at 03:26 AM

I don't mind being....um. nevermind.

Cc69a51b427eaad36251cce9dcca4d3a

(1074)

on November 28, 2011
at 02:28 AM

yes, and why do some Paleo-ers think low-carb bars are Paleo -_-

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on November 28, 2011
at 01:45 AM

The Caffeic Acid in sweet potatoes is interesting. I had never heard about it, it's to bad I never eat the skins.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 28, 2011
at 01:22 AM

What do you think of the different caries rates in different paleolithic Australian populations?

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 28, 2011
at 01:11 AM

plus :)........

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on November 28, 2011
at 12:37 AM

Animals don't want to be eaten either; that's why they exhaust and often critically injure their predators. Bugs don't want to be eaten; that's why so many have poisonous bites, stingers or skins. Nuts and seeds don't want to be eaten; they contain compounds that taste bitter (tannins), or inhibit sprouting (phytic acid). Plenty of fruits are toxic. Almost everything omnivorous humans eat has some defense mechanisms that have an effect on us when we attempt to eat them. Tubers and roots are some the simplest foods to harvest and prepare; skinning them well and cooking them is all they need.

A65499f2f8c65602881550fe309cd48c

(3501)

on November 27, 2011
at 10:30 PM

my guess is the "air" we breathe isn't quite as paleo as it should be either...but i'm going to breathe it anyways.

E34fbfa1bca9ae970c9c7313bf9de9f8

(1436)

on November 27, 2011
at 09:54 PM

Animals don't want to be eaten either.

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 27, 2011
at 09:37 PM

As Meredith herself admits, she didn't answer the question at all - yet it's the highest rated response. I don't get it.

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on November 27, 2011
at 08:19 PM

do you know that the psychoactive compounds are located (if any, since I can't find information about the sweet potatoe being psychoactive) in the seeds?

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on November 27, 2011
at 08:14 PM

you know that the psychoactive compounds are (mostly?) in the seeds of the plant, not the tubers themselfs?

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on November 27, 2011
at 08:13 PM

you know that the psychoactive compounds are (mostly?) in the seeds of the plant, not the tubers themselfs.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 27, 2011
at 08:12 PM

Which is why I made the distinction between nightshades (potatoes) and the tubers found on the home continents. They are completely different species! For instance, why are African yams shunned along with white potatoes? Makes no sense to me.

Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

(2297)

on November 27, 2011
at 08:09 PM

One thing I forgot to mention, is that I do eat tubers, but predominately potatoes. Sweet potatoes tend to leave me with a rather full feeling, whereas potatoes leave me feeling "light". I also only eat 6 oz (two medium-small potatoes) a day, with an extra 6oz PWO.

  • 1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

    asked by

    (11157)
  • Views
    8.2K
  • Last Activity
    1380D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

9 Answers

best answer

17
94a4a87e3d2e1e9160b6ed77678b4bea

(1311)

on November 27, 2011
at 09:27 PM

Tubers are Paleo - I thought some people were only excluding them to lessen the starch - but I can't understand a statement which says they are not paleo.

I am an Australian archaeologist who works on a daily basis with paleolithic sites (being that the local Indigenous population never moved away from the hunter/gatherer lifestyle so essentially it is all stone tools and gathered/hunted food sources). One MAJOR staple in their diet was yams, corms, and roots and tubers - particularly tubers from various species of lily and orchids. The starchy stems were eaten RAW or were sometimes roasted.

94a4a87e3d2e1e9160b6ed77678b4bea

(1311)

on November 28, 2011
at 11:31 PM

Hi Melissa - can you elaborate please? I am not familiar with this research (although I don't really look at bones this is more for anthropology) - the only differences in teeth I am aware of are significant differences in crown diameters, tooth size and general cranial features (thus impacting on teeth) - and also use-wear on teeth owing to the propensity of the population to use their teeth as a tool (ie. to strip barks etc). I recommend watching 'Ten Canoes' - a film which shows some great hunter/gatherer moments - including one characters' lust for honey (so he might have had bad teeth)!

94a4a87e3d2e1e9160b6ed77678b4bea

(1311)

on November 29, 2011
at 03:30 AM

Thanks Melissa - this is interesting - we work with the Indigenous population from the Murray region today. There is some theory that because this region was so resource rich the populations did become more sedentary with less incentive/need to move around to hunt and gather (including their use of eel traps to provide a regular food source). What does Webb suggest the source of carbohydrates was?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 28, 2011
at 01:22 AM

What do you think of the different caries rates in different paleolithic Australian populations?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 29, 2011
at 02:50 AM

I was reading Palaeopathology of Aboriginal Australians: Health and Disease across a Hunter-Gatherer Continent by Stephen Webb and he mentions that the people of the Murray region had higher levels of caries as they embraced sedentism/a higher-carb diet. I can send a few pages to you.

14
0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 27, 2011
at 08:05 PM

For the first few million years of our evolution, we were chiefly gatherers and scavengers, subsisting on a varied diet. We obtained access to food by using digging and cutting implements, and we fostered our digestion of that food by cleaning, pounding, cooking, and otherwise preparing it. During that time we evolved an increased capacity to digest starches, probably from the consumption of underground storage organs, like cooked tubers. We evolved adaptations for walking efficiently and handling our tools effectively.

This quote is taken from Michael Rose's website. He is an evolutionary biologist.

You can hear him interviewed here and here.

He seems to be pretty keen on the idea that humans have been eating tubers for millions of years. I would guess, though, that these tubers were quite different from the ones we have these days. Maybe that's the rub? I dunno. I grow blue potatoes myself. :)

I actually don't think I've answered your question at all.
:)

9f54852ea376e8e416356f547611e052

(2957)

on November 27, 2011
at 09:37 PM

As Meredith herself admits, she didn't answer the question at all - yet it's the highest rated response. I don't get it.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on November 28, 2011
at 01:11 AM

plus :)........

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on November 28, 2011
at 05:22 PM

Mer, you seem extra happy today!

A65499f2f8c65602881550fe309cd48c

(3501)

on November 27, 2011
at 10:30 PM

my guess is the "air" we breathe isn't quite as paleo as it should be either...but i'm going to breathe it anyways.

5
Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

on November 27, 2011
at 08:05 PM

Plants don't want to be eaten. [except for their fruit]

I'd be advantageous for a plant to NOT have it's tubers eaten, so it would make sense if some kind of defense mechanisms would be present in tubers to deter things from eating them.

Potatoes contain Glycoalkaloids, and potatoes have been bred for lower glycoalkaloid content, but how do we know if there's not something else that potatoes have in them to deter eating them, some other compound?

Sweet potatoes are a part of the genus Ipomoea, or Morning Glories. Plants of the genus Ipomoea are used for their ethenogen content, or the fact that they contain psychoactive compounds. Sweet potatoes contain Caffeic Acid in their skin, which it turns out is just good for warding off cancer due to it's antioxidant properties, but what if there's something in sweet potatoes that affects the mood of the consumer?

So we've been domesticating potatoes and sweet potatoes since 8000 BC or so, but we've also been domesticating grains for that long to, and what did that get us?

Aside from sounding incredibly paranoid about plants (they're trying to kill us, man), this pretty much goes to show that you should consider plants to not be safe by default, but instead approach them with caution.

But that's just my two cents (on two tubers).

Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

(2297)

on November 28, 2011
at 07:34 AM

@Nemesis - Yams (Dioscorea) have also toxic compounds that are often removed by boiling or some other treatment. What I'm trying to get at is the fact that plants have defense mechanisms, and that's why some people decide to limit their intake of certain plants. @Primordial - from I. purga roots "jalap" is prepared, otherwise most of the alkaloids are found in the flower/leaves/seeds, but I wouldn't put it past a plant to put some alkaloids in a tuber.

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on November 27, 2011
at 08:14 PM

you know that the psychoactive compounds are (mostly?) in the seeds of the plant, not the tubers themselfs?

E34fbfa1bca9ae970c9c7313bf9de9f8

(1436)

on November 27, 2011
at 09:54 PM

Animals don't want to be eaten either.

Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

(2297)

on November 27, 2011
at 08:09 PM

One thing I forgot to mention, is that I do eat tubers, but predominately potatoes. Sweet potatoes tend to leave me with a rather full feeling, whereas potatoes leave me feeling "light". I also only eat 6 oz (two medium-small potatoes) a day, with an extra 6oz PWO.

Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

(2297)

on November 28, 2011
at 07:35 AM

@Karin - If you want to see into the future, all you need to do is eat 6 pounds of sweet potatoes at once. Good luck, haha.

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on November 27, 2011
at 08:19 PM

do you know that the psychoactive compounds are located (if any, since I can't find information about the sweet potatoe being psychoactive) in the seeds?

26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

(7967)

on November 28, 2011
at 12:37 AM

Animals don't want to be eaten either; that's why they exhaust and often critically injure their predators. Bugs don't want to be eaten; that's why so many have poisonous bites, stingers or skins. Nuts and seeds don't want to be eaten; they contain compounds that taste bitter (tannins), or inhibit sprouting (phytic acid). Plenty of fruits are toxic. Almost everything omnivorous humans eat has some defense mechanisms that have an effect on us when we attempt to eat them. Tubers and roots are some the simplest foods to harvest and prepare; skinning them well and cooking them is all they need.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 27, 2011
at 08:12 PM

Which is why I made the distinction between nightshades (potatoes) and the tubers found on the home continents. They are completely different species! For instance, why are African yams shunned along with white potatoes? Makes no sense to me.

Ec7cb2a7a68655954a01f03e95be1383

(1453)

on November 27, 2011
at 08:13 PM

you know that the psychoactive compounds are (mostly?) in the seeds of the plant, not the tubers themselfs.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 28, 2011
at 11:59 AM

Right I got ya, but if all plants have defense mechanisms, why exclude one over the other? Why eat goitrogenic broccoli but not a yam?

Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

(2297)

on November 29, 2011
at 07:50 AM

I understood the question as "why people would consider not eating tubers", and gave possible reasons. I guess this would explain why my answer is rather different than everyone else's.

A65499f2f8c65602881550fe309cd48c

(3501)

on November 28, 2011
at 03:26 AM

I don't mind being....um. nevermind.

Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

(2297)

on November 28, 2011
at 07:44 AM

@ROB - the caffeic acid is found throughout the tuber, peeling the skins won't remove it. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16428835) @animalcule - prey animals can exhaust predators, but it's not everyday that they "critically injure" them. The payoff for eating animals is pretty good, and animals can't develop the same kinds of poisons that plants can, I'd rather eat an animal than a plant. But, different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Db4ad76f6f307a6f577e175710049172

(2297)

on November 28, 2011
at 03:22 PM

@Nemesis - I'd say that we have to consider all plants as potentially harmful, and then go from there, but that's me. Once I know enough about a plant, predominately it's breeding history, then I'll eat it. But then I have been known to throw caution to the wind and eat what I feel like. People call this being human, haha.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on November 28, 2011
at 01:45 AM

The Caffeic Acid in sweet potatoes is interesting. I had never heard about it, it's to bad I never eat the skins.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 28, 2011
at 05:10 PM

The OP didn't ask whether they are bad or good, but whether or not they fall under the realm of paleolithic-style eating, which they definitely do

19ff515e8ec02d95e8f2cf68c3ec1373

(1207)

on January 26, 2013
at 09:14 PM

May explain why I exclusively crave plantains and not other starches.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 19, 2013
at 07:02 PM

A plant screams silently when it is eaten.

4
E167c0387a5f0b87bb1f2c3e6aec73a8

(1240)

on November 28, 2011
at 04:29 PM

I don't care if potatoes are paleo or not. When i eat them my hunger goes up and it stays there. Im never hungry with my personal _ potato free_ diet, so fk taters, def useless to me.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on November 28, 2011
at 04:51 PM

I said that 'til yesterday, but guess what? I was in a restaurant and steak with potato was my only option. I slathered the tater with butter and ate some. Well, I felt totally crappy for two hours. My innards were very annoyed. That's the first time I didn't get cravings after eating potato.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on November 28, 2011
at 04:52 PM

I said that 'til yesterday, but guess what? I think I'm cured. I was in a restaurant and steak with potato was my only option. I slathered the tater with butter and ate some. Well, I felt totally crappy for two hours. My innards were very annoyed. That's the first time I didn't get cravings after eating potato. I suppose it could have been something they put on the steak, but I choose to blame the tuber. :-))

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 28, 2011
at 07:12 PM

Starch used to upset my stomach quite a bit, causing gurgling and all sorts of weirdness. I took probiotics for 3 months straight and so far have not had those kinds of issues with it.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 28, 2011
at 07:12 PM

Starch used to upset my stomach quite a big, causing gurgling and all sorts of weirdness. I took probiotics for 3 months straight and so far have not had those kinds of issues with it.

1
Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 19, 2013
at 07:11 PM

Locally in the US PNW, lily-like corms and bulbs were staple foods. When Lewis and Clark arrived in the early 1800's they mistook a field of blooming camas for a lake. There's a reason why the native fritillaria species is known as rice root. Skunk cabbage is a close relative of taro. Etc.

Modern Paleos are not into subsistence, being rich enough to pick and choose among every food, grown under every condition. The aversion to tubers has a little bit to do with the genetic modification, a little bit to do with allergies (real or imagined), and mostly to do with carb avoidance.

In short, Paleos who avoid tubers are almost always low carbers. Atkins dieters in Paleo disguise.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on February 20, 2013
at 02:15 PM

Agree 100%. The avoidance of tubers is misleading for people who don't need to follow a low-carb diet or don't need to lose weight. I'd waste away without starchy tubers.

1
7a2d708a6bd724877b4038e44847b9ec

on February 19, 2013
at 04:15 PM

Also, those with blood-sugar problems today quite validly avoid tubers...but there were probably very few HGs with blood-sugar problems.

This was because of the overall context of their lifestyle - high exercise, no chronic stress, no refined carbs, no trans fats, no heavy metals (mercury leaching from their teeth, aluminium in their water), etc. Some tubers daily would not have tipped things out of balance, as they do today to those with impaired insulin metabolism.

Moderns who can't eat tubers can't do so not because tubers are not a natural part of the human diet, but because these particular moderns have damaged blood-sugar systems, and thus have impaired their ability to process them.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on February 19, 2013
at 07:14 PM

Can't or won't. Big distinction.

1
0efba407f0ff007b270d46b6c310b50a

(40)

on November 28, 2011
at 06:27 PM

I think that modern paleo dieters try to mitigate insulin response, and because potatoes are such a dense form of carbohydrates, they can be detrimental to that effort. But I don't think there is really any question that H/G's would have consumed them. However, H/G's had a different set of priorities than many of us, who may be concerned with weight loss/maintenance, inflammation, or athletic performance.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 28, 2011
at 07:07 PM

Yes, I think that the anti-tuber camp is projecting their own nutritional needs/goals onto the entire Paleo diet, which is intellectually dishonest and only serves to confuse newbies.

0efba407f0ff007b270d46b6c310b50a

(40)

on November 28, 2011
at 08:51 PM

I think it is important to know what your goals are. If weight loss or reduced inflammation is the goal, tubers are probably best avoided. Just because they were available to our H/G ancestors doesn't mean they won't be detrimental to your goals. They may be technically paleo, but not necessarily the smartest choice for getting your carbs. If you are aiming for a 30-40% carb ratio, potatoes will probably push you past that fairly quickly. And because they provoke a considerable insulin response, you might feel less sated, experience a sugar crash, and exacerbate inflammation.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on November 29, 2011
at 12:10 AM

But again, that does not mean they're not Paleo, they're just not right for your individual needs.

0
7a2d708a6bd724877b4038e44847b9ec

on January 26, 2013
at 09:01 PM

The impression I get is that tubers probably have been eaten by HGs for millennia (as they are by them today).

However today's greengrocer/supermarket tubers are judged non-paleo by some because they are extensively hybridised, and thus more sweet and starchy than the ancestral ones.

The hybridisation is beyond doubt, I think. Anyone know the extent to which this has affected their acceptability as paleo foods?

0
13a44ea00b0c9af0b6d0f3d5f5c2cfca

(7223)

on November 27, 2011
at 08:51 PM

I've never understood this either and I choose to eat potatoes. I lean towards sweet potatoes for regular usage, but I also buy some of the potato varieties available around here from local farmers (red, blue, pink, etc.) and have them once every week or two when they are in season. I eat a moderate carb diet so I don't like to overdo on the starchy veggies, but other than that I haven't seen any compelling reason not to eat them.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!