Stupid question about the 5+ (or 9-12) a day

A place to get your questions answered from McDougall staff dietitian, Jeff Novick, MS, RDN.

Moderators: JeffN, carolve, Heather McDougall

Stupid question about the 5+ (or 9-12) a day

Postby karin_kiwi » Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:40 pm

OK, at the risk of being forever shunned for stupidity, can I please ask for clarification of exactly what counts and doesn't count as a fruit/vegetable in the 5+ (or 9-12) a day? :?

I hear you all laughing. But I suspect there are others here who aren't sure and I know for certain that people out in the regular world don't know.

Fruits pretty obviously count as fruit. Given what Jeff has posted about the marginal differences between fresh, frozen and even canned fruits, probably all of these count.

We all know that the salad-type veggies count: carrots, lettuce, celery and other "rabbit" food. Tomatoes would be counted here or as fruits.

It's my understanding that grains (wheat, rice, oats, etc) are not counted as a vegetable, however healthy they might be. Although since wild rice is actually a grass seed, I wonder if that makes a difference...? :)

But what about the tubers and winter squashes and corn and peas? I've had a nutritionist tell me that my potatoes and corn don't count in the 5+ a day because they're starches, not vegetables. Taking that stuff out means I would rarely get to 9 servings of fruit/veg a day. I would include these as part of the veg group, myself.

And legumes? On the back of my trusty standby baked beans tin, it says it counts for 2 of my 5 servings. Huh? There ain't enough tomato in it to explain that - so they must be counting the beans. Although this is a place where a tablespoon of ketchup counts as 1 serving, so maybe it is the tomatoes?

This 5+/day guideline is a specific one that is frequently referred to without explanation of exactly what is and is not included. It would be nice to know if I really should be upping my fruit and salad veggies enormously to achieve the fruit/veg levels that are associated with good health as discussed in the latest article by Jeff (Triage).

And while I'm doing this, what's with serving sizes for fruit/veg? I've heard the "fits into the palm of your hand" rule, but also others that vary quite a bit from that.

I shall now go and sit on a stool in the corner with my Dunce cap on. :P
User avatar
karin_kiwi
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Stupid question about the 5+ (or 9-12) a day

Postby JeffN » Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:46 am

Hi Karen

Not a stupid question at all and there is a real god reason why all the confusion exists and that is we have different definitions dependant on what system we are talking about.

Loosely speaking, vegetables are the edible part of plants.

In the world of science and botany, there technically is not a category called "vegetables". There are leaves, roots, buds, seeds, bulbs, stems, ovaries, etc.

However, the world of culinary arts and the world of nutrition has classified certain foods as vegetables, though they may differ on their classifications. And many cultures refer to many foods as vegetables. However, even in the world of nutrition, there is some confusion as some guidelines (and even some studies) classify root vegetables, and starchy vegetables differently, with some counting them as "vegetables" and some counting them as "complex carbohydrates"

Now, in regard to your question,

1) a serving of fruit or vegetable is generally the equivalent of 1/2 cup edible portion

2) the 5 a day came from the old USDA Dietary guidelines that recommended a minimum of 3 servings of vegetables a day and 2 serving of fruit a day. Hence the 5 (or more) a day.

3) the 9 a day now comes from the update 2005 USDA Dietary guidelines that recommends 5 servings of vegetables and 4 servings of fruit.

In this system, root vegetables and starchy vegetables do not count in the "vegetable" category. However, many of the root vegetables have the same nutrients and benefits (though slightly higher in calorie density) than the other vegetables, so to me, it is splitting hairs, where you count them in regard to meeting your needs

I am sure I have completely confused you now. :)

BTW, there was actually a legal court case about this many years ago.

Quoting...

"In 1887, U.S. tariff laws that imposed a duty on vegetables but not on fruits caused the tomato's status to become a matter of legal importance. The U.S. Supreme Court settled the controversy in 1893 by declaring that the tomato is a vegetable, based on the popular definition that classifies vegetables by use, that they are generally served with dinner and not dessert (Nix v. Hedden (149 U.S. 304)). The holding of the case applies only to the interpretation of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, and the court did not purport to reclassify the tomato for botanical or other purposes other than paying a tax under a tariff act "

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby karin_kiwi » Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:28 pm

Thanks Jeff.

So, if I were to read your Triage post (as I have) and set myself a goal of 9-12 servings of fruit/veg a day, as far as you are concerned you personally would count potatoes (sans oils and the other bad stuff) and corn (ditto) as meeting that criteria for the purposes of trying to achieve good health? In other words, that I do not necessarily have to get 5+ servings each day of specifically the salad-type or cruciferous etc vegetables (although of course I recognize that they're an important part of a healthy diet, too).

My philosophy had stemmed from science - you know, animalia, plantae, funghi, monera, protista - and I figured that anything from ye olde plantae kingdom was the important criteria for healthy nutrition (assuming it's not adulterated with fats and other junk). Mushrooms counting as vegetables....?

As an aside, it seems that our tradition of ignoring basic science in favor of expediency and financial or political gain has a long tradition and goes beyond the current administration. :rolleyes:
User avatar
karin_kiwi
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Simplicity

Postby JeffN » Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:20 pm

PS do not get caught up in the "counting" of servings.

Just as I do not recommend counting calories, I do not recommend counting serving sizes.

These guidelines of how many servings to consume are guidelines put out by the Government to get people eating typical American diets that are based on refined and processed foods, to have some guidelines to encourage them to eat better. However they are not recommendations on how to consume a ideal diet.

If you follow the guidelines and principles recommended here, you will cover the basics without having to count servings.


Let me expound on this.

If you follow a starch based diet with the addition of fruit and green and yellow veggies at each meal, and consume enough to maintain your healthy weight then your day "may" look something "generically" like this...

(using averages for calories and serving sizes)

Breakfast:
Whole Grains (2 cups) 320 calories
Fresh Fruit (1 cup) 120 calories

Lunch
Starchy Vegetable (2 cups) 320 calories
Legumes (1/2 cup) 120 calories
Veggies (2 cups of salad, soup and/or steamed veggies) 100 calories
Fruit (1 serving) 60 calories

Dinner
Starchy Vegetable (2 cups) 320 calories
Legumes (1/2 cup) 120 calories
Veggies (2 cups of salad, soup and/or steamed veggies) 100 calories
Fruit (1 serving) 60 calories


Thats 12 servings of Starchy Veggies/Whole Grains and 960 calories
Thats 3 servings of Legumes and 240 calories
Thats 8 servings of veggies and 200 calories
Thats 4 servings of fruit and 240 calories

thats 12 servings of fruits and veggies but only 1640 calories.

Of course, you could adjust the fruits, veggies, starchy veggies, etc up or down somewhat to fit your own preference, but the end results would be fairly similar.

And for those who want, add in a serving of nuts/seeds or avocado and that's another 175 calories and you are at ~1800 calories.

Not bad! And simple and easy.

BTW, those are also some fairly large sized and filling meals. :)

In Health
Jeff

PS when neighbors, friends and families ask me how many servings of fresh fruits veggies, starchy veggies, intact whole grains and legumes they should eat or feed to their children, my answer is always the same ...

...as much as you can. :)


In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Stupid question about the 5+ (or 9-12) a day

Postby JeffN » Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:52 am

JeffN wrote:Loosely speaking, vegetables are the edible part of plants.

In the world of science and botany, there technically is not a category called "vegetables". There are leaves, roots, buds, seeds, bulbs, stems, ovaries, etc.

However, the world of culinary arts and the world of nutrition has classified certain foods as vegetables, though they may differ on their classifications. And many cultures refer to many foods as vegetables. However, even in the world of nutrition, there is some confusion as some guidelines (and even some studies) classify root vegetables, and starchy vegetables differently, with some counting them as "vegetables" and some counting them as "complex carbohydrates"

......

BTW, there was actually a legal court case about this many years ago.

Quoting...

"In 1887, U.S. tariff laws that imposed a duty on vegetables but not on fruits caused the tomato's status to become a matter of legal importance. The U.S. Supreme Court settled the controversy in 1893 by declaring that the tomato is a vegetable, based on the popular definition that classifies vegetables by use, that they are generally served with dinner and not dessert (Nix v. Hedden (149 U.S. 304)). The holding of the case applies only to the interpretation of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, and the court did not purport to reclassify the tomato for botanical or other purposes other than paying a tax under a tariff act "



Great article on the topic of what counts as a vegetable

Do vegetables really exist?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150917 ... ally-exist

Name a vegetable. It’s easy right? Sweet potatoes and carrots are vegetables, obviously. Onions perhaps? But what about lettuce, for example?

And we have all met those who insist that a tomato is a fruit. Then there are others who argue that because it’s not sweet in the same way as an apple or a pear, a tomato is more properly categorised as a vegetable.

To get some clarity, we asked the audience of BBC Earth for some help.

“You're BBC! Why are you asking us if this is a vegetable?” wondered Kimberly A. Brooks. “Is that the best you can do? Disappointed.”

If we apply such fruit-based logic, then we would have to banish dozens of other kitchen staples from the vegetable drawer
“Ummmm,” replied Leah Kimmet. “It is a question posed to stimulate discussion because it is one of those debates that has never been conclusive.”

“This is the most interesting comment thread I’ve ever seen,” said Harry Trevva-Taylor Blake.

Precisely. Our question was particularly pertinent for Marc Trevelyaи, who was in the midst of eating a salad comprised of lettuce, carrots and apples.

As this is BBC Earth, I put the question to Wolfgang Stuppy, research leader in Comparative Plant and Fungal Biology at the UK's world-renowned Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew & Wakehurst Place.

On the little question of whether vegetables really exist, he could not have been clearer: “No, not botanically,” he says. “The term vegetable doesn’t exist in botanical terminology.” Tamara Kershner’s comment echoes this edict: “Vegetable is a general term that doesn't exist in the biological world.”

From a biological perspective then, there is no such thing as veg. There are just plants.

I throw some hypothetical vegetables at Stuppy to see how he responds. But the radishes and carrots on sale at the greengrocers are not vegetables to a plant scientist, they are merely the roots of radishes and carrots. Botanically speaking, onions and garlic are bulbs. Potatoes and Jerusalem artichokes are tubers. Asparagus are stems. Lettuces are leaves. Cauliflower and broccoli are inflorescences. Apple and pears are fruit.

So is that it? Vegetables do not really exist?

Not quite, because veggies might have a place in the kitchen. “Vegetable is a culinary term,” says Joshua Sammy. I refer to On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee, something of a holy book for foodies. “Vegetable took on its current sense just a few centuries ago and essentially means a plant material that is neither fruit nor seed,” he writes.

If you put your botanist’s hat on they are fruits. If you put your chef’s hat on they are vegetables
Yet even here, within the culinary sphere, the definition of vegetable seems to rest on the definition of a fruit. A fruit, says Stuppy, is “any structure produced by a plant that does or is meant to contain seeds.” So according to McGee, the tomato does not qualify as a vegetable (as most of you knew).

But if we apply such fruit-based logic, then we would have to banish dozens of other kitchen staples from the vegetable drawer, including cucumbers and courgettes (Pierre G. Bélance), squash and pumpkins (Brock Burch), peppers and corn (Ali Ware), beans and aubergines (Lee Chi Pan Mark) and so on. Mushrooms aren’t even plants so they can’t be vegetables either. The same for seaweed.

Andrew Schaug has a useful way of looking at the tomato: “It’s technically a fruit because it contains seeds. It’s a vegetable because it’s part of a plant and used as a savoury ‘vegetable’ in cooking,” he says. Several others – DS Deopa, Stephen Olsen, Mahendra Bishnoi, Alan Hutchinson – expressed a similarly practical position: there are some plants that are fruit but are used as vegetables. “If you put your botanist’s hat on they are fruits,” says Stuppy. “If you put your chef’s hat on they are vegetables.”

So ask a botanist to define a vegetable and they will say they cannot, as such a definition does not exist.

Ask a chef, and they might define a vegetable as plants that are neither fruits nor seeds.

Ask a lawyer, however, and they might say it depends where you live.

That’s because the existence of vegetables has been accepted in law – and all because of that age-old dilemma of whether a tomato is a fruit or not.

More than a century ago, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the status of the tomato in the infamous case of Nix versus Hedden.

Live outside the US, and things again become confusing
Several of you, including Lester Chasteen, Benny Thomas and Andrew Schaug, were aware that the Tariff Act of 1883 decreed that imported vegetables, but not fruit, should be subject to tax. With a financial interest in tomatoes, the Nix family argued along botanical lines, that the tomato is a fruit so they were exempt from duty. The court begged to differ, siding unanimously with federal officer Edward Hedden: the tomato is a vegetable.

But live outside the US, and things again become confusing, as this is not the judgment of lawyers in the European Union, at least in respect of European Union Council Directive 2001/113/EC. This ruling, on the content of fruit jams, jellies and marmalades, clearly states that tomatoes “are considered to be fruit,” as are rhubarb stalks, carrots and sweet potatoes.

As a result, a jar of rhubarb, carrot or sweet potato jam – none of which contain any botanical fruit - must state the percentage of fruit they contain.

Which brings us full circle. Do vegetables exist?

Botanically no.

Culinarily, yes.

Legally, maybe.

Easy, isn’t it?
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am


Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.