Are mushrooms considered vegetables?

[Cagey Drifter]

My gut sense tells me that mushrooms don't really fit in well in the 4 food groups, but looking at the (newly designed) food pyramid (http://foodpyramid.gov/), it seems that the "vegetables" category is the best place for them. However, something is keeping me from accepting that completely and without reservations. Are mushrooms really considered vegetables? If not, what are they, and what food group do they share the most in common with nutritionally? What's their nutritional value anyway?

[silenus]

The government considers them "other vegetables," and equates them serving to serving with all others. Mushrooms are a great source of goodness. :D

From here: (http://www.mushroom-uk.com/mushroom_nutrition.htm)

NUTRITION OF THE WHITE MUSHROOM
FOOD VALUE per 100g
Energy 13 kcals (55kJ)
Protein 1.8g
Carbohydrate 0.4g
(of which sugars) 0.2g
(starch) 0.2g
Fat 0.5g
(of which saturates) 0.1g
Fibre 2.3g
Sodium 5.0mg

[davenportavenger]

I know some vegetarians consider them a protein-rich food, thus lumping them in with the meats, but non-vegs can probably count them as a vegetable.

[Cliffy]

Biologically/taxonomically, fungi are a kingdom of life separate from both the plant and animal kingdoms. But in the nutritional sense, they're vegetables.

--Cliffy

[Mangetout]

They don't belong to either the plant or animal kingdoms, but since the context of the term vegetable here is probably the culinary one, they're vegetables - because they grow in the soil, they don't run away from you when you approach them and they don't shriek when you slice them.

[MLS]

I'd been wondering the same thing myself. Nice to know (from silenus's source) that they have several minerals and b vitamins, too. I don't see any mention of the normal "green and leafy" or yellow vegetable vitamins, though, so I guess we still need to eat our green beans and squash.

[Excalibre]

I'd been wondering the same thing myself. Nice to know (from silenus's source) that they have several minerals and b vitamins, too. I don't see any mention of the normal "green and leafy" or yellow vegetable vitamins, though, so I guess we still need to eat our green beans and squash.
Note that that's a 100g serving, which is like 4 ounces. Not an enormous amount, but still quite a bit. And you don't get much in exchange. Don't give up the broccoli just yet.

[antechinus]

I thought mushrooms would be closer to fruit, since they are the fruiting body of a fungus.

Similar to a lemon being a fruiting body of a lemon tree and an egg being the fruiting body of a chicken.... are eggs chicken fruit? mmm I suppose not, since they dont grow in the soil (application of the Mangetout premise).

[Tom Carroll]

Are carrots and potatoes vegetables too? They are actually roots, right? Are onions vegetables too? Onions are roots too, right?

I think we should just call them plants or something. Wait, a mushroom isn't a plant though.

I love avacados. Are they fruits?

[Excalibre]

Are carrots and potatoes vegetables too? They are actually roots, right? Are onions vegetables too? Onions are roots too, right?

I think we should just call them plants or something. Wait, a mushroom isn't a plant though.

I love avacados. Are they fruits?
A vegetable refers to any plant or part of a plant. Why shouldn't roots count? We accept stalks, leaves, shoots, and just about anything else as vegetables. Roots certainly are as well. Fruits, under this (biological) definition, are a subset of vegetables. Mushrooms, however, still are not, as they just plain aren't plants.

Fruit refers to fleshy material surrounding a seed. So an avocado is definitely a fruit, as is a tomato, a green bean, a squash, or a pepper. Of course, all of those things are used in cooking (at least in this culture) as vegetables, and not fruits, and under that idea of customary uses, mushrooms are a vegetable as well.

[groman]

Is it me or does the new pyramid look even more ridiculous than the last?

I might be unique, and I've never really discussed this with my doctor, but it seems that for me grains or cooked starchy veggies = almost instant gastric upset. I like to eat them, but I pretty much have to treat breads, cereals, pastas, rice as if they were ice cream cake(i.e. a tasty treat you get once in a while) and generally have to subsist on raw vegetables, fruit, dairy and meat. Mushrooms never cause problems though, so to me, mushrooms are a "green" vegetable like broccoli (even though they aren't actually green).

[Askance]

for me grains or cooked starchy veggies = almost instant gastric upset.

You may be slightly celiac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celiac). It'd be worth your while getting it checked out.

[ratatoskK]

They don't belong to either the plant or animal kingdoms...
If a mushroom isn't a plant, then what is it?

[One And Only Wanderers]

a fungii

[foxx89]

they probably would be considered a vegitable though they are a fungus. :confused:

[Excalibre]

they probably would be considered a vegitable though they are a fungus. :confused:
Like I said before, botanically, they are not, since they are fungus. A fungus is not a plant. Culinarily, they are usually regarded as vegetables.

[Cagey Drifter]

Like I said before, botanically, they are not, since they are fungus. A fungus is not a plant.

I always thought that the living world could be safely divided into flora and fauna. Is that not true?

[Tamerlane]

I always thought that the living world could be safely divided into flora and fauna. Is that not true?

Nope. Fauna, flora and mycota :).

Actually people frequently speak of "mycological floras" but the above term is the correct one. And as is pointed out above there are actually mutiple kingdoms beyond that ( I was taught a standard five, with debate up to 20-odd ).

- Tamerlane

[Surreal]

I'm unable to find it now, but if I recall correctly there was a similar thread a couple of years ago where Colibri stated that mushrooms are more closely related to humans than they are to green plants.

[Excalibre]

I always thought that the living world could be safely divided into flora and fauna. Is that not true?
I think when my dad was in elementary school they still taught the two kingdom model - was your basic biology education a long while back? Now the standard model is five kingdoms - animals, plants, fungi, protista (protozoa), and monera (bacteria). One system proposes a superclassification into two empires: eukaryotes (lifeforms with nucleated cells) and prokaryotes (no nuclei - that is, bacteria), and a more recent one uses three domains: eubacteria (true bacteria), archaebacteria, and eukaryotes.

Wikipedia link: Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_%28biology%29)

[Excalibre]

I'm unable to find it now, but if I recall correctly there was a similar thread a couple of years ago where Colibri stated that mushrooms are more closely related to humans than they are to green plants.
So I've always heard - fungi are closer to animals than plants. I'm not sure how that's known.

[Tamerlane]

I'm unable to find it now, but if I recall correctly there was a similar thread a couple of years ago where Colibri stated that mushrooms are more closely related to humans than they are to green plants.

This is technically correct, though it is such a huuuuuuge distance from both it is a pretty moot point :).

- Tamerlane

[Cagey Drifter]

I think when my dad was in elementary school they still taught the two kingdom model - was your basic biology education a long while back?Er... not really. I'm 26 now. :smack:

Now the standard model is five kingdoms - animals, plants, fungi, protista (protozoa), and monera (bacteria). Yeah, that sounds familiar. I just forgot about it. I guess I was thinking of one level broader than Kingdom, even though none is scientifically recognized-- at least not to my recollection.

[Biffy the Elephant Shrew]

This is technically correct, though it is such a huuuuuuge distance from both it is a pretty moot point
I know a few people where the kinship is clearly evident.

[Excalibre]

Yeah, that sounds familiar. I just forgot about it. I guess I was thinking of one level broader than Kingdom, even though none is scientifically recognized-- at least not to my recollection.
Uh, did you finish my post? :) Maybe not they're not universally agreed upon, but the various superkingdom category schemes are not crazy-ass fringe ideas.

[Cagey Drifter]

Uh, did you finish my post? :) Maybe not they're not universally agreed upon, but the various superkingdom category schemes are not crazy-ass fringe ideas.

Oh, oops. I read it, but somehow it went by me without my noticing-- probably because I associate "prokaryotic" and "eukaryotic" with microscopic organisms.

[kanicbird]

Aren't beans considered a meat?

[smiling bandit]

The category vegatable can include things which are not plants. Many people consider tomotaoes a vegetable, though it's technically a fruit. Same with mushrooms, basically.

[Excalibre]

Aren't beans considered a meat?
No. Meat is animal flesh. Beans grow on plants. "Plant" and "animal" are mutually-exclusive categories.


The category vegatable can include things which are not plants. Many people consider tomotaoes a vegetable, though it's technically a fruit. Same with mushrooms, basically.
And, as has been mentioned several times already in this thread (more than once by me even! :)) there are two ways to make a distinction. You can either use a technical biological definition, in which all parts of a plant are vegetables, fruits are a subset of vegetables, being fleshy plant material covering seeds, and fungi are neither. Or you can use the cultural, culinary definition, which basically limits fruits to those botanical fruits which are predominantly sweet or sour in flavor, most commonly served in sweet dishes, and vegetables include things like mushrooms but exclude cereals.

But equating "mushroom" to "tomato" makes zero sense, as by either definition, tomatoes are vegetables. Whereas mushrooms are vegetables under one definition and non-vegetables under the other.

I guess I don't see what you were trying to ask or state with your post - it didn't seem to cover any ground that hadn't been thoroughly covered already in the thread.

[wolf in second hand clothing]

I was told that the chitinous cell walls of fungi are indigestible like fiber, so in that regard they serve the same dietary role as vegetables. Although we get most fiber from whole grains... this just gets harder and harder. But yes, the chitin relates them closer to insects than plants.

[Tom Carroll]

Fruit refers to fleshy material surrounding a seed. So an avocado is definitely a fruit, as is a tomato, a green bean, a squash, or a pepper. Of course, all of those things are used in cooking (at least in this culture) as vegetables, and not fruits, and under that idea of customary uses, mushrooms are a vegetable as well.

A strawberry is seeds surrounded by a fleshy material. Would a strawberry be the anti-fruit? (- fruit) ? NOR Fruit?

[Larry Mudd]

Aren't beans considered a meat?They were by the Pythagoreans, but that view has largely gone out-of-fashion in the last couple of millennia. :)

There are some interesting rationales for this belief posited in classical writings. The most commonly cited (in modernity) is that flatus produced by the eating of beans is evidence that they are ensouled. ("Spiritus" = "breath/life".)

Aulus Gellius held that beans resembled testicles too closely to be proper eating, and, similarly, Antony Diogenes observed that chewed beans smell an awful lot like semen, and ought not to be swallowed on that account.

[Larry Mudd]

No. Meat is animal flesh.Of course, one could choose to be all smart-assy and use the older sense of "meat" as "fit to eat," and say that beans are meat.

"I have given you every seed and herb -- to you it shall be meat," and all that.

In the context of a sorting out meat vs vegetable, however that would be a bit silly. :D

[Excalibre]

A strawberry is seeds surrounded by a fleshy material. Would a strawberry be the anti-fruit? (- fruit) ? NOR Fruit?
It's botanically not a fruit, that's for sure. I've read that it's just a specialized bit of stem. Obviously it performs an identical function to that of fruits in other plants, but the underlying biology is different.

[Askance]

Aren't beans considered a meat?

They are in the same category in the new food pyramid, but that doesn't mean one is the other.

[Excalibre]

They are in the same category in the new food pyramid, but that doesn't mean one is the other.
As I believe they were in the old one. Legumes are one of the more protein-dense options in a vegetarian or vegan diet. They still are not nearly as protein-rich as meat or eggs. But like you say, it's a major stretch to call them honorary meats.

[smiling bandit]

But equating "mushroom" to "tomato" makes zero sense, as by either definition, tomatoes are vegetables.

IIRC, tomatoes are considered fruits, scientifically speaking, and is not that distantly related to some of the citrus plants.

[Excalibre]

IIRC, tomatoes are considered fruits, scientifically speaking, and is not that distantly related to some of the citrus plants.
I have explained this multiple times already in this thread. Either read what I have posted, or please bow out. smiling bandit, I even took the time to explain it for you specifically one time. If you have some sort of question or problem with what I'm saying, state it directly. Please do not keep repeating the same things over and over, especially since (as you indicate with your "IIRC" above) you don't actually know what the terms "fruit" and "vegetable" mean anyway.

Tomatoes are, botanically speaking, fruits. If you had taken the time to read the definition of "fruit", which I have taken the time to specify more than once in this thread, this would be obvious. It would not be a matter of "recalling" anything. All fruits, once again, are vegetables. The category "fruit", scientifically, is a subcategory of "vegetable". I'm sorry you don't understand that. But I have explained it more than once. The term "scientifically considered" has absolutely no relevance here whatsoever, since the scientific definition of "fruit" is not in dispute, and thus the tomato's status as a fruit need not be considered at all. It either is a fruit, or it is not. There is no "consideration" involved in making the determination.

Whether they are closely related to citrus or not is obviously irrelevant (and I can find no evidence to suggest it's true, so cough up a cite) since all sorts of plants that are not particularly closely related bear fruit. Tomatoes' nearest relatives are the potato, whose domestic varieties at least do not produce fruit at all, and deadly nightshade, which produces small berries. Even closely related plants, then, vary in whether or not they bear fruit.

I really don't see why you feel the need to inject barely-remembered cereal box science into this thread, when every point you raise has been thoroughly addressed prior to your posts. If I wrote something that you don't understand, quote it and ask me to explain it. If someone else in the thread confused you, I'm certain they would be willing to do the same.

[Larry Mudd]

IIRC, tomatoes are considered fruits, scientifically speaking, and is not that distantly related to some of the citrus plants.Tomatoes are solanaceae -- like tobacco, datura, chili peppers, and deadly nightshade.

They are in the same class as citrus trees, Magnoliopsida (or Dicotyledoneae.) Their practical relation is that they both bear seeds that contain two germinal leaves. "Not that distant," except that they're not in the same family or the same order. :D

*previews*

Oh, hi, Ex.

[Larry Mudd]

Well, that was weird. I would have sworn that Excalibre's post wasn't there when I started to reply, but based on the time, it must have been. I guess I just stopped reading when I got to the bit about tomatoes not being distant from citrus.