Fact Check: Is sweet potato healthy?

Published July 2, 2025

•by TruthOrFake

✓

VERDICT

True

# Is Sweet Potato Healthy? ## Introduction The claim that "sweet potato is healthy" has gained traction in discussions about nutrition and dietary ch...

Is Sweet Potato Healthy?

Introduction

The claim that "sweet potato is healthy" has gained traction in discussions about nutrition and dietary choices. Proponents often highlight its rich nutrient profile and potential health benefits, while skeptics may question the extent of these claims. This article aims to explore the available evidence surrounding the health benefits of sweet potatoes, critically evaluating the sources that discuss their nutritional value and health implications.

What We Know

Sweet potatoes are widely recognized for their nutritional benefits. They are rich in vitamins, particularly vitamin A, which is essential for eye health and immune function. According to a source from WebMD, a single sweet potato can provide 102% of the recommended daily intake of vitamin A, along with significant amounts of vitamin C and manganese [8].

Additionally, a study published in the journal Nutrients highlights sweet potatoes as an excellent source of dietary carotenoids and polysaccharides, which are associated with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties [1]. The Franklin County Center also notes that one medium sweet potato contains about 100 calories, 2 grams of protein, 25 grams of carbohydrates, and 4 grams of fiber, making it a low-calorie, nutrient-dense food [2].

Medical News Today corroborates these findings, stating that sweet potatoes are a good source of fiber, potassium, and various essential nutrients, which may contribute to overall health and wellness [6].

Analysis

While the nutritional benefits of sweet potatoes are well-documented, the reliability of the sources varies.

Peer-Reviewed Research: The article from Nutrients is a peer-reviewed study, which generally indicates a higher level of credibility due to the rigorous review process it undergoes. However, it is essential to consider the specific methodologies used in the study and whether the findings are applicable to the general population [1].
Extension Services: The Franklin County Center is an extension service of North Carolina State University, which typically provides research-based information. However, extension services may have a bias toward promoting local agricultural products, which could influence the presentation of information [2].
Health Websites: Sources like WebMD and Medical News Today are popular health information platforms that aim to provide accessible health advice. While they often cite scientific studies, the articles may sometimes oversimplify complex nutritional science for a general audience, which can lead to misinterpretations of the data [6][8].
Potential Conflicts of Interest: Some sources may have implicit biases or conflicts of interest. For example, organizations promoting sweet potatoes as a crop may emphasize their benefits while downplaying any potential drawbacks or limitations of their consumption.
Methodological Considerations: Many studies and articles do not specify the population studied or the conditions under which the benefits were observed. This lack of detail can make it difficult to generalize the findings to all consumers of sweet potatoes.

Conclusion

Verdict: True

The claim that sweet potatoes are healthy is supported by a substantial body of evidence highlighting their rich nutrient profile, including high levels of vitamins A and C, fiber, and other essential nutrients. Peer-reviewed studies and reputable health sources consistently affirm the health benefits associated with sweet potato consumption, particularly in relation to antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.

However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations in the available evidence. Some sources may have biases or conflicts of interest, and the methodologies of studies can vary, which may affect the applicability of findings to the general population. Additionally, while sweet potatoes are generally considered healthy, individual dietary needs and health conditions should be taken into account.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information regarding nutrition and health claims, considering both the evidence presented and the potential biases of the sources.

Sources

Laveriano-Santos, E. P. (2022). Sweet Potato Is Not Simply an Abundant Food Crop. Nutrients. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9495970/
Franklin County Center. (2025). Nutritional Benefits of Sweetpotatoes. Retrieved from https://franklin.ces.ncsu.edu/2025/05/nutritional-benefits-of-sweetpotatoes/
Healthline. (2023). Sweet potatoes: Nutrition and Health Benefits. Retrieved from https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sweet-potato-benefits
Medical News Today. (2023). Sweet potatoes: Health benefits and nutritional information. Retrieved from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/281438
WebMD. (2023). Health Benefits of Sweet Potatoes. Retrieved from https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/benefits-sweet-potatoes

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:

"Coffee helps you live longer"

✓100% Free

✓No Registration

✓Instant Results

Comments

Loading comments...

Check another claim

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

True

🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Are sweet potatoes healthy?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Are sweet potatoes healthy?

May 9, 2025

Fact Check: The mother of Goliath's hatchling, Sweet Pea, is estimated to be between 85 and 100 years old.

True

🎯 Similar

Fact Check: The mother of Goliath's hatchling, Sweet Pea, is estimated to be between 85 and 100 years old.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The mother of Goliath's hatchling, Sweet Pea, is estimated to be between 85 and 100 years old.

Jun 15, 2025

True

🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Is potato a vegetable?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Is potato a vegetable?

Jul 1, 2025

True

Fact Check: Is tzatziki healthy?

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Is tzatziki healthy?

Jul 2, 2025

🔍

Partially True

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025