I've never loved potatoes. Never really cared for them much but I think I have a growing appreciation for them. They are filling, low fat, have a decent amount of fiber and protein, etc.

So I go to Costco and they have a 20 lb bag of russet potatoes, the bag contains about 20 potatoes (averaging 1 lb per potato). Displayed prominently on the bag and on the bin with the bag of potatoes is the nutritional information. "Only 100 calories!" and the nutritional chart that shows that 1 potato equals 100 calories. Ok I know a normal potato may be 100 calories, but these jumbo potatoes? I think not.

So I cook a few of them and weigh them and get my calorie counts. One of the smaller potatoes actually weighed 8 ozs. The others I've been cutting in half and eating half.

Calorie count of one of these potatoes (or the smallest in the bag)? 200 calories. So it does make sense that 4 oz of potato equals 100 calories. These are 1 lb potatoes for the most part equaling a hefty 400 calories per potato. Now 400 calories for these large potatoes (or even 200 for half/small one) isn't bad but the fact that they are trying to predominantly display the fact that 1 potato equals 100 calories seems deceptive.

That is all

I am loving the introduction of potatoes into my diet though.

I hate this sort of thing.

One time I went to Trader Joe's and they had these apple and almond stuffed pork chops. The nutritional information was given in calories per piece, with a piece defined in grams (I think it was 100 or 150 grams). The pieces were reasonable calorie-wise, and I thought, wow, what a great way to try something new.

Turns out the piece they calculated the nutrition facts on was LESS THAN HALF the size of a piece actually in the package. I feel like they at least should have put it into ounces (I could tell if the pork chop was 8 oz vs 4 oz, but I had no context for grams..). Made me batty.

Yikes! And the typical eater isn't paying much attention to the actual weights of each potato, and if they notice the 100 calories = 1 potato, they are surely thinking that's true.

That's my biggest problem with labeling. They make the serving sizes unreasonable. On regular chips and such here in Canada you get calories based on 50g. Chips and tostados we have in the house come in at 270 and 260 calories.

The baked snacks (although lower in fat content) that are sold as healthier alternatives are often shown with lower serving sizes. Crispers (a baked cracker) work out to 250 cals, but the bag shows 100 calories (for 20g). The Crispy Minis show only 60 calories, but that's for 14g (half an ounce). They're still 214 calories for the same 50g serving.

Now, to be fair, the baked snacks and the Crispy Minis generally weigh less for a visually larger amount. However, they cost a lot more, and people likely buy them just for the idea that they are so much lower in calories.

RealCdn,

I bought some european chocolates and was amazed that the nutritional information was based on weight and had really nothing to do with what was in the package. I thought it was kind of cool that it was consistent.

Labeling here is set by the government (USDA? not sure) so that all bags of potatoes would have the same listing, big or small. It is supposed to be consistent but sometimes it is very deceptive. A can of coke used to be 1.5 (or maybe 2) servings, but I think they fixed that.

I buy organic potatoes in 5 lb bags (we don't go through them very fast.) They are usually a little smaller in size then conventional ones. Most of them end up being in the 4-5oz range (I checked after reading this thread.) They don't have nutritional info on the bag either. The back of the bag says to go their website for nutritional info.

I do think that sometimes nutritional labels can be deceiving. You have to look very carefully at them. It's amusing sometimes to see what food companies perceive as a serving.

When I decided to count calories ( more worried about carbs and fat ) I started using fit day. Thanks to whom ever at this site told me about fit day. I noticed there is a great difference between what the serving size on a package is and what is considered a serving size to get one of the required amounts of the four basic food groups in. I measured everything for a whole weekend, still have to add things from time to time. Now my fit day reflects what a REAL serving size is. I think it is pretty deceptive that serving sizes on packages are not REAL serving sizes.

Or when they have an * after the fat count and you have to look down further on the package for the small print that tells you how much fat is really in their serving as prepared. What the heck do I care how much fat is in the package amount. I care what is in a serving after it is prepared. I think that is a bit deceptive too.

That really gripes me. It's why I always measure my produce by weight... because one person's "medium orange" might be very different from what I view as an average sized orange at the grocery store. I also hate it when they give you a volume measurement for something that clearly needs to be weighed... like strawberries. If they say a serving is one cup of strawberry halves, how you arrange them could vary the actual weight greatly. *sigh*

According to Walter Willett, MPH, of the Harvard School of Public Health (his book is Eat, Drink and Be Healthy), sweet potatoes are a healthier choice. White potatoes contribute toward insulin resistance--like white flour pasta compared to the whole grain kind.

This reply isn't about the size of the potato, but you're certainly right about that!

Personally,

I think white potatoes are a great food. I think they have been given sort of a bad rap being grouped with processed grains like white rice and white flour. Sweet potatoes (actually yams are much better than sweet potatoes) are a good choice but white potatoes have a good amount of vitamins, fiber and protein and are very filling. I eat both and i make sure I eat the skin of the potato as well.

I just saw something on the news that potatoes are a good carb and actually help your diet.

One sweet potato makes me feel full for at least 2-3 hours. I think the sweet potato is the PERFECT food and I eat one everyday. I usually eat one in the late afternoon when I am getting hungry for dinner. It keeps me feeling full until I get home and cook dinner and I don't feel that urge to pick on stuff.

I love potatoes. I don't have the same reaction to them that I have when eating white flour or sugar. Potatoes are a nutritious, healthy, natural food.

When you keep reading "potato potato potato potato potato" the word seems to lose its meaning. I love that effect.

But yeah I pretty much love potatoes, and they are my world. Well, not really, but they could be if they really tried.