potatoes

**snooks** · 05-24-2011 10:32 PM

Somewhere I read that the skins of potatoes don't actually have any more nutrient value than the flesh. I always peel my potatoes and would like this to be true - but is it? Can anyone advise please.

**ItsASecret** · 05-24-2011 10:44 PM

Not sure why it would make a difference. Either you like the skin or you do not. You can cut up a whole potato and roast it with some spices just like you can peel, cut, and roast it. It really makes no difference, if there is a nutrient level difference it is not some drastic amount as potatoes can still be prepared in healthy ways with or without the skin.

**snooks** · 05-25-2011 03:12 AM

Really just interested to see what I"M missing by not eating the skins. Not at all interested in changing this particular habit. A friend told me the skins were more nutritious, but I didn't know for sure and simply want to know if potatoes are like say, apples with a lot of goodness in the skin or if it really doesn't matter at all. Can anyone tell me please.

**Mes T** · 05-25-2011 03:17 AM

I just googled this and couldn't get a straight answer.

Grrr.

I bet there's nutrition it in, but nothing extravagant that you wouldn't find in the potato itself.

Speaking of potatoes, sweet potatoes are the most nutritious of the lot and my favorite. Nom nom nom.

**ItsASecret** · 05-25-2011 09:45 AM

Googled it. There is nothing special about potato skin. It contains fiber, about the amount of a slice of bread...so very little. Makes no difference as to whether the skin is there or not as the nutrition in a potato is evenly spread about between the flesh and the skin. So you are really not missing anything when you peel your potatoes tonight for dinner.