Red Potatoes vs Russet Potatoes – Which is Healthier?

Our Verdict

When comparing red potatoes to russet potatoes, we picked the russet.

Why?

In terms of macros, russet potatoes have more fiber, carbs, and protein; the ratio of fiber and carbs also gives them the lower glycemic index*, so really, a complete win for russets in the macros category.

*Glycemic index of potatoes change a lot depending on what you do to them, but this statement (about russets having the lower GI) continues to hold true on a like-for-like basis, i.e. assuming we continue to compare the potatoes having been cooked the same way as each other. They’re poisonous raw, so please don’t eat them that way. We right now are looking at stats for potatoes “flesh and skin, baked“, which is generally considered the healthiest way to eat potatoes. Obviously, if you make them into mash then the glycemic index will be sky-high, and if you make them into fries they’ll now have lots of fat added, etc. So let’s just stick to the baked potatoes for now.

In the category of vitamins, red potatoes have more vitamin C, while russet potatoes have more vitamin B6. All the other minerals are close enough between both potatoes to be within reasonable margins of variation/error (in particular, they are both fair sources of vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, and B9), so it’s really just between those two vitamins, so we’ll call this round a tie.

When it comes to minerals, red potatoes have more copper, phosphorus, and zinc, while russet potatoes have more calcium, iron, magnesium, manganese, and potassium. Thus, a win for russets here.

Adding up the sections gives an overall win for russets, but by all means, enjoy either or both; diversity is good!

Want to learn more?

You might like:

What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?

Enjoy!