I don't agree with putting Potatoes on the list. To the body glycemically they are no different than sugar. They shouldn't count as a vegetable serving - they have none of the micronutrients usually found in vegetables, they are mainly semi-complex sugars (short starches), which digest almost as fast as regular sugar.
Lentils and Beans (of any kind) should have been 1 and 2.
Unlike sugar-rich foods, though, potatoes don't contain many calories for how filling they are.
That's the problem with nutrition science as it is currently practiced (or rather, as it is currently used by non-scientists). Its conclusions are valuable to specialists, but it's not good enough (yet) to give much valuable advice regarding how people should actually eat. For example, according to the glycemic index, ice cream is better for you than potatoes, which is absurd.
Very nice essay :) I'm an immigrant and looking back at how my mother always frowned when I wanted biscuits, or chips or fruit bars - it was because she didn't have any of that when she grew up and for the better.
Actually, potatoes aren't as bad as people make them out to be. Some of the starches in potatoes are very similar to fiber, and they do contain quite a few vitamins and minerals (the article doesn't mention B6, thiamin, riboflavin, folate, niacin, magnesium, phosphorus, iron, or zinc that potatoes have). The important thing is to leave the skin on and not fry them.
Sweet potatoes are known to help stabilize blood sugar levels.
They do have fiber, and other vitamins. I'm not trying to say they are as empty as sugar candy. But compared to the other foods on the list they just don't fare as well. There are many other foods that should have taken their spot.
Lentils and Beans (of any kind) should have been 1 and 2.