Low Carb Potato?

Low Carb Potato
Nine years of breeding has produced a potato with up to 56% less calories than other spuds and 38% fewer carbohydrates, probably none too soon for the much maligned potato.
I can see it now.  There will be a run on aluminum foil as these hit the markets (my Big Agro sponsors have been waiting for this sort of thing for years now).   Sous Vide Supremes that have been collecting dust in the corner will be converted into expensive helmets.  Still too many carbs to be low carb friendly.  All that breeding certainly not "paleo", surely paleo dude's tubers were even more bereft of carbs.  The only hope for this spud is that it room can be made for it in the primal kitchen.  There's always that 20% fudge factor.     Or perhaps Julian Bakery will come out with low carb Potato Rolls.


MM said…
At first I thought this must be a joke, but I looked up Vivaldi potato and there are lots of links for it. I think it may have been bred more for high yield or flavor than being lower in carbs. http://www.theculinaryguide.co.uk/news/2006/0906/040906/vivaldi/vivaldi.htm

The lower carbs may be just a bonus feature. I think a potato that truly doesn't need butter is the bonus! :)
CarbSane said…
You're right MM!

I am obviously not a big potato shopper but I do make herb roasted potatoes with Yukon golds. I would think Vivaldis should be nearby and I don't recall ever seeing such where I shop.

Odd, though. Where an ultimately "less nutritious" product would be heralded.
Gotta confess I don't give a naked rat's patootie about calories or carbohydrates in my potatoes, and I've never been a heavy-butter person, anyway, but if it tastes good, count me in!

Of course, I never met a potato I didn't like, so my opinion probably isn't worth much.
bentleyj74 said…
Odd, though. Where an ultimately "less nutritious" product would be heralded.

Exactly. Oh look, we've made a food with less food in it...yay? Now you can eat this whole potato and it's just like eating half of a regular one!

I wonder how many millions went into that project.
CarbSane said…
In their defense, as MM points out, the breeding was intended to improve taste/texture and as my link shows reproducible size/shape etc. I guess it just so happened to have less carb.

I don't know your age bentley, but I grew up in an era when real poverty meant pictures of truly starving children with distended (not fat) bellies w/no knowledge where their next meal was coming from.

Now the WHO is worried about a global obesity epidemic from excess and yet there are still truly horribly impoverished populations out there. While billions go to develop -- perhaps not this potato -- but olestra, carb and fat blockers, etc. and many low carbers eat glycerin.

I'm as guilty as anyone on this count through the years folks, so don't think for a minute I'm judging anyone.
bentleyj74 said…
Yeah, I think this one might be a tough sell for any of the populations currently experiencing starvation conditions. Good thing we put nine years or so into developing it.
How does it compare nutritionally to other, non-potato, staples? Because if it's still more nutritious than, say, maize, wheat flour, or white rice, then complaining that it's less nutritious than other potatoes is sort of pointless. It would still be an improvement over the starches on which many places like Somalia already rely.

Not that anyone is forcing us to provide them to famine-plagued countries, anyway. Why shouldn't we have different varieties of vegetable to serve different needs? They could be mixed with higher-nutrient potatoes so those could be eaten with less butter.
CarbSane said…
Good points LBC. It's not always about feeding the poor and if it's easier to grow/sustain that's a bonus too. I just wax poetic sometimes how prosperity has brought so many of us to a point where we would "forage" for foods that provide less *fuel* for the buck.