Diet potatoes

Published on February 19th, 2013 | by George Conte


White, sweet and carisma potato nutritional value and glycemic index

Potatoes are one of the tastiest foods for many people. Unfortunately some people can’t eat them because of health problems like diabetes. This happens because the regular white potatoes have a high glycemic index. Other people avoid eating them for weight loss reasons because of the high amounts of calories and carbohydrates they contain.

A quick solution to the problems mentioned above where the other healthier version of potatoes, the “sweet potatoes”. Sweet potatoes had lower glycemic index and where considered a good alternative. Unfortunately their taste wasn’t as good as white potatoes’ for many people (including me). Finally there is a new version of potatoes available now, the Australian Carisma potatoes that are supposed to be even healthier that sweet potatoes due to lower glycemic index and also containing even fewer calories and carbohydrates making them ideal for weight loss.

Let’s find out more details about the nutritional information of each type of potato per 100 grams:

Regular white potato nutritional value

white potato nutritional value

As you can see regular white potatoes contain about 104 calories manly from carbohydrates (about 19 grams). They have minor amounts of fibers (2 grams), protein (2 grams) and fat (2 grams). Potatoes also contain small amounts of the recommended daily values of most minerals and vitamins. The glycemic index of white potatoes depends on the cooking method; it could be 82 for boiled potatoes (high) or 111 for baked potatoes (very high).

Sweet potato nutrition facts

sweet potato nutritional value

Sweet potatoes contain about the same macronutrients and micronutrients with regular white potatoes. The big difference that makes them a healthier choice is their lower glycemic index.

According to way you prepare sweet potatoes makes a difference in their GI. The GI of a 150-g sweet potato, boiled with its skin for 30 minutes, is 46. That number rises to 94 if the same sweet potato is baked for 45 minutes. These dramatic differences come from the way the starches in sweet potatoes gelatinize during cooking.

Carisma potato nutritional value

 As we can see in the table above the carisma potatoes contain about half of the calories that white and sweet potatoes have. The reason for that is their low amount of carbohydrates (9 grams). Their glycemic index (if prepared appropriately) is 53 so it is very low. According to

“To ensure a low GI result when you cook your Carisma potato, simply follow this method: Wash potatoes. Do not remove skins. Chop potatoes into 1 cm thick slices. Place sliced potatoes into hot (not boiling) water. Then bring water to the boil. Cook potatoes until ‘al dente’.  Potatoes should be firm but cooked through. Season to taste and serve immediately.”

The conclusion

Personally, I rarely eat potatoes because there are many other healthy and tasty choices for carbohydrates like fruits. For people that absolutely love the taste of potatoes and can’t or don’t want to stop eating them there are other solutions.  If you want to have the benefits of low glycemic index along with low calorie and carbohydrate amounts then the Australian charisma potatoes are a great option you should consider adding to your diet plan.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

About the Author

George Conte is a student of Nutrition and Dietetics, a fitness and healthy living enthusiast. After seven years of personal experience with weight loss, exercise and a total body transformation where he managed to burn 121+ pounds of fat he became the founder of A website dedicated to help you overcome obesity and transform your life the same way he did!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Back to Top ↑