Dumb question. I know. But wouldn’t it be great if we could have chips (fries) mash, crisps (chips) that were carb free and still tasted right?
I just saw a report the other day (it was, I think, on FoxNews) about researchers trying to develop a low-carb potato.
A ‘low carb’ potato will still fundamentally be a carboydrate food. If it wasn’t, it would not be a potato. Likewise for pasta (no, anything not made from wheat is not pasta, even if they’re legally allowed to call it such 
)
Wouldn’t it be great if we could all eat a great-tasting well-rounded diet without Atkins bullshit?
The problem is that the carbohydrates are what you are tasting. That is what taste is for – detecting the presence of food.
What you really want is to fool the sense of taste into perceiving carbohydrates when there are none. Unfortunately, the sense of taste is very discriminating. There are very few things that have the texture and taste of carbohydrates with no other nasty tastes mixed in, that are not actually carbohydrates.
Maybe you will have to wait until they can connect electrodes directly to your brain stem and electrically simulate the sensation of potatoes.
couldn’t agree more, this is ridiculious low carb coke and vitamins. I refuse to buy anything low carb
I like a good T-bone, with lots of fat. I kinda think that’s low carb. I may be mistaken.
I have seen ‘low carb pasta’ sold before. Since it was next to the regulatr stuff, I looked at the labels on each. Sure enough, the low carb version had about 30% fewer carb grams per identical serving. The list of ingredients was the same.
Anyone have any insight into this?
There’s a music store here in town with a sign advertising “lo carb guitars”. I will show my solidarity with you guys by refusing to buy one. 
I read in the paper about the same potato, appearently it is 33% lower in carbs.
Usually lower-carb grain products substitute soy flour or wheat bran or some other lower-carb, higher-fiber grain for your standard wheat flour. If the list of ingredients on the two boxes of pasta was really the same, I suspect futzing with the portion size. Was the serving size given in weight (e.g. ounces) or in noodles (e.g. “one serving = approximately 10 noodles”). If the latter, I would guess that the noodles are simply smaller. If the former… I have no idea.
As jawdirk said, a low-carb potato would basically not be a potato. It would be a potato-shaped object that smelled and tasted like a potato, but would be composed of some non-potato substance.
Wouldn’t it be great if an OP could ask a GQ about low-carb foods without having a bunch of people come in and blather about how Atkins sucks?
I would venture that the feeling of carbs in the stomach is as important as the taste in your mouth. Diet sodas: even if you could find an artificial sweetner that tasted exactly like sugar, you still won’t get that rush a couple of minutes after it hits your stomach.
I’m not sure exactly how many grams of carbohydrates a typical Atkins dieter is allowed to eat per day, but it seems to me that it would be very difficult to fit even low-carb versions of inherently carbohydrate-rich foods like potatoes and pasta into the program. My understanding of the theory behind Atkins suggests that it only works if you eat very low amounts of carbohydrates. So is it really possible to include ‘low-carb’ potatoes or pasta (say 30% less carbs than normal) in the diet? Or are these foods just intended to market to those who aren’t really following Atkins, but are just trying to ‘cut back on carbs’?
Unless someone manages to invent a synthetic starch-like molecule that just happens to be indigestible to humans, then somehow engineers potato plants to make it, I can’t see real low-carb potatoes (30% less is still a lot of carbohydrates) being a practical possibility. Also bear in mind that potato plants make carbohydrates because they are useful to potato plants - the plant doesn’t store food in the tubers to be nice to humans, but because this is the food resource for the next season’s growth - if we were to engineer the plants (assuming that is even possible) to produce pseudostarches, we’d also have to engineer them to use pseudostarches, which is a much bigger task.
Pasta might be closer to being possible because the thing that makes the pasta really work is the gluten(protein) and pasta is a processed food (that whirring sound you can hear is Dr Atkins spinning in his grave) - assuming that some other substance can be found that suitably mimics starch in this application (perhaps cellulose?), carbohydrate-free pasta might actually be possible.
Probably. Low-carb is the thing to do nowadays, and these people aren’t going to waste time actually reading books and figuring out how the Atkins Diet works.
Besides, doctors who’ve studied the Atkins Diet suggest that it’s the monotony of the diet that results in weight loss. Even if you could have everything you eat now with no carbohydrates at all, you’d probably be just as fat.
From here. The incessant capslock is obnoxious, but just to give an example.
Eat less … to lose weight … what a novel idea!
Yes. I don’t prescribe to Atkin’s method, or any kind of diet for that matter, but the OP is just asking a question. I am sure everyone has heard these anti-Atkins rants before. They are quite tired by now, and obviously not changing much of anything.
Unless you are a physician or medical researcher with data at hand to share with us, your assertion that Atkins is bullshit seems more Pit than GQ.
Huh. Must not be made of wood.
Low-carb starches? What’s next? Fat-free oil? Protein-free meat? Water-free water?
Well, you could probably soak your tater chips in a vat of fluorine saturated dichlormethane, and convert all the starches to a non-nutritive form, but I doubt that consumers would go for such a product.
Here’s one for starters: Low Carb Research & Studies - Atkins Responds to American Heart Association
(Mind you, I didn’t realise we needed to have professional qualifications to back up our comments.)