10 ms·
Higher mushroom consumption is associated with a lower risk of cancer
- Alex3917 5y ago> According to the findings, individuals who ate 18 grams of mushrooms daily had a 45% lower risk of cancer compared to those who did not eat mushrooms. Raw or cooked? I also wonder what the methodology is; it's pretty easy to eat 14 lbs of fresh mushrooms over the course of a year, but almost impossible to eat that weight spread out evenly over 365 days.
- gentleman11 5y ago45% is massive if it’s about getting cancer in your life, period. Unless the mushrooms are killing you with something else before you get cancer I suppose. They must mention effect on lifespan somewhere?
- Alex3917 5y ago> Unless the mushrooms are killing you with something else before you get cancer I suppose. Probably not unless you’re poisoning yourself with heavy metals, pesticides, or fertilizer. E.g. avoid the morels next to apple trees, giant puffballs next to highways, wine caps from the botanical garden, etc.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- fighterpilot 5y agoWhat's the % reduction for people that regularly eat vegetables in general, for comparison?
- n4bz0r 5y ago> but almost impossible to eat that weight spread out evenly over 365 days By impossible you mean impossible-impossible or too much of a hustle? In case it's former, I'm quite curious what makes it that way. It is not too troublesome to keep a sack of, say, dried shiitake. You can grab them as a snack or use them in cooking, but ... > Raw or cooked? ... that's a good question. > I also wonder what the methodology is Same goes for the scientists, apparently: > Future studies are needed too better pinpoint the mechanisms involved and specific cancers that may be impacted
- Alex3917 5y ago> By impossible you mean impossible-impossible or too much of a hustle? Too hard, in terms of finding and preparing them, but also in terms of finding something with mushrooms you'd actually want to eat every day. Unless you're going to count chaga lattes or something, which probably isn't environmentally sustainable unless you live in northern Canada or Siberia.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwaway481048 5y ago> A link to the Penn State article regarding this publication: https://news.psu.edu/story/655156/2021/04/21/research/higher-mushroom-consumption-associated-lower-risk-cancer https://news.psu.edu/story/655156/2021/04/21/research/higher... > Researchers found that people who incorporated any variety of mushrooms into their daily diets had a lower risk of cancer any variety of mushrooms Is it really this easy? My gut says no. Perhaps the (future) answer lies here: > Future studies are needed to better pinpoint the mechanisms involved and specific cancers that may be impacted
- rvba 5y agoIt would be nice to know what mushroom exactly. For example in pizza they often add something that seems to not even have a proper English name: white mushroom / common mushroom ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agaricus_bisporus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agaricus_bisporus ), which is cultivated. Then there are countries with a culture of collecting mushrooms (mainly Slavic countries?) which know a lot of varieties and use them for various sauces and condiments. Then there are various types of mushrooms used in Asian cuisine. It is easy to eat 18 grams of mushroom per day -> just some pizza... but I wonder if this really was the most common type, or rather some rarer mushroom. Perhaps something from Japan? Where people live longer.
- andrewljohnson 5y ago"Even though shiitake, oyster, maitake and king oyster mushrooms have higher amounts of the amino acid ergothioneine than white button, cremini and portabello mushrooms, the researchers found that people who incorporated any variety of mushrooms into their daily diets had a lower risk of cancer. "
- Alex3917 5y agoYeah I mean of course mushrooms that eat wood are going to have most of the health benefits.
- magneticnorth 5y agoThe English name for Agaricus bisporus is "white button mushroom". Unfortunately I don't have access to the full article, but the link from the paper leads to an abstract that describes this study as a survey of 17 other papers: https://academic.oup.com/advances/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/advances/nmab015/6174025?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/advances/advance-article-abstract/d... So likely they're not all based on US consumption of US-common varieties, but I do wish I could find more details.
- vidarh 5y agoBrown, chestnut, crimini, portobello and half a dozen other names are also Agaricus Bisporus.
- vericiab 5y agoDid they make risk adjustments for any confounding factors? It seems like all they found is correlation so it doesn't necessarily follow that eating mushrooms was actually the reason for the reduced risk.
- lioeters 5y agoMedicinal Mushrooms: Their therapeutic properties and current medical usage with special emphasis on cancer treatments https://фунго.рф/upload/files/_education_documents_Medicinal-Mushrooms-Therapeutic-Properties-Research.pdf https://xn--c1atere.xn--p1ai/upload/files/_education_documen... (PDF)
- eutectic 5y agoThis seems like exactly the sort of thing that would be susceptible to spurious correlation.
- robocat 5y agoProbably not worth bothering your elderly parents over. After 60 your risk of death from cancer starts declining, because other causes dominates your risk of death from cancer. By 90 the cancer risk is less than 10%. https://flowingdata.com/2016/01/05/causes-of-death/ https://flowingdata.com/2016/01/05/causes-of-death/ I would like to see the paper - there are so so many obvious confounding factors (age, tastes, diet, wealth, social group etcetera). Past experience about “miracle” antioxidants (ergothioneine in this case) has shown me how much bollocks there is in popularised science. I would also be interested how robust the results were to removing each dataset. One fraudulent paper could ruin their conclusions?
- stevesimmons 5y agoP(death|me) dominates P(death|population)! > After 60 your risk of death from cancer starts declining, because other causes dominates your risk of death from cancer. By 90 the cancer risk is less than 10%. This may be true at a population level. But only because the "average" person smokes, drinks too much, doesn't get enough exercise, has a poor diet, is considerably overweight, is poor, has poor access to healthcare, and may have worked in a job with exposure to occupational hazards or stresses which damage their body. If you, as an individual, have none of those, with no family history of early death from stroke or heart disease, then cancer will certainly dominate your risk of death.
- wavegeek 5y agoI don't put any credence on this. As the authors say this study merely suggests a possible relationship that needs to be investigated in a proper RCT. What I don't like 1. Passive observational studies only. Therefore a huge risk of confounders (e.g. people who generally live a healthy lifestyle). 2. The effect size is not very large, making it much harder to winnow out confounders. 3. Invariably attempts to 'control' for confounders use simple linear models that that come nowhere close to actually controlling for confounders. 4. They generally only control for known confounders. If there is an unknown confounder it will get through and mess up the results. 5. It is really hard to tell what is a confounder and what is a legitimate node in the causal chain. As a simplistic example consider 'controlling' for lung cancer in a study of whether smoking is bad for you. Of course this would take away much of the reason why smoking is bad for you. You need a proper causal model informed by data - something that is hard to do. See Judea Pearl "Causality". 6. Note the heterogeneity of results. This suggests that things are going on that are not captured by the studies. Note also that the types of mushrooms don't seem to matter - a strange thing if there were some magic factor in mushrooms, given how mushrooms vary greatly in nutrient content. 7. Misuse of the term "significant" usually a shorthand for statistically significant. A very different thing from "practically significant, large enough to matter".
- alexose 5y agoGreat analysis. I wonder, is there a ratings agency for scientific studies? It would be neat to see a score associated with experimental design.
- norswap 5y agoHow the hell do you get away with writing an article like that in 2021 and not make a single mention of "cofounders" or some such in the abstract (or in the news story, for that matter)??
- wavegeek 5y agoDaily reminder that inferring causation from correlation is a slippery business. Did you know the S&P500 stock index was highly and 'significantly' correlated with butter prices in Bangladesh for many years?
- orangegreen 5y agoCorrelation does not equal causation.
- broahmed 5y agoPaul Stamets has done some fascinating research around this. Turkey tail mushrooms seem especially potent against cancer. Here's the 2.5 minute story from his TED medical talk of his own mother's brush with late-stage breast cancer with less than 3 months to live and and subsequent recovery with Taxol, Herceptin, and turkey tail mushrooms: https://youtu.be/pXHDoROh2hA?t=540 https://youtu.be/pXHDoROh2hA?t=540 He's founded a company called Host Defense. The reviews on their turkey tail mushroom product are filled with stories of cancer recovery in both humans and pets: https://www.amazon.com/Host-Defense-Mushroom-Naturally-Digestion/product-reviews/B0053DR1EM/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews https://www.amazon.com/Host-Defense-Mushroom-Naturally-Diges...
- enchiridion 5y agoHe passively implied on Joe Rogan that there is a significant health hazard when eating undercooked portabellas.
- krrrh 5y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16866990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16866990
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoI recently started eating raw portabella mushrooms because they are mentioned in "The End of Alzheimer's" as the most potent mushroom species for neuroprotective effects. I had NO idea they can be cancerous. So thank you. The book does not mention if they should be cooked or not. I eat them raw for convenience. I'll stay cooking them now, will that help?
- pengaru 5y agoThey taste better cooked anyways, lots of umami once you get the juices collecting in the gills. It's a very steak-like experience...
- 5y ago
- jb775 5y agoThis will sound simplistic, but do hospitals/doctors conduct any type of general questionnaire about patient lifestyle details (general habits, type of food/drink consumed, sleep habits, type of shampoo/toothpaste/hand cream they use, where their drinking water comes from, etc) that could be used for cross reference in relation to whatever disease/cancer they have? I feel like given the sheer number of healthcare patients, we should be able to identify trends with a few simple Excel formulas. E.g. People are more likely to get ${disease} who drank well water from ${location} between ${yearStart}-${yearEnd} It's worth remembering that healthcare industry decision-makers (on the business side of things) aren't naturally incentivized to actually fix any major healthcare issues...their focus is how to maximize profit, and reducing the number of patients doesn't align with that. In other words, it feels like something there is ripe for disruption.
- lawwantsin17 5y agoThe disruptor corp would have to be worker owned or otherwise not interested in growth or they'd just be a distraction
- vlovich123 5y agoSelf-reported studies are bunk and relying on them is bunk science as far as I’m concerned. We know that non-response and outright lies are a problem. So you’ve got a garbage in garbage out scenario. There may be places where surveys are scientifically justifiable but I have yet to see such beyond basic preference ones. Even in simpler cases like political surveys there’s lots of problems and they fail us with regularity. Do you really think more complex applications somehow avoid the problems?
- jb775 5y agoRather than asking patients directly, they could at least use their previous addresses to deduce many things, such as water supply source, air pollution, etc (while keeping it anonymized). The govt could even run studies on cancer deaths cross referenced with location data from their tax returns, and their parent's tax returns (to figure out where they lived as a child). I'm just saying I've never heard this common sense approach actually discussed. It just seems like we often ignore the concept of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
- lykahb 5y agoIt is likely that people who eat more mushrooms also eat more vegetables. This correlates to an overall healthier lifestyle.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hiby007 5y agoI think this is because, mushrooms are known to increase levels of NAD+ in our body[1]. [1]https://www.springfieldwellnesscenter.com/mental-health-blog/how-to-increase-nad-levels-naturally/#:~:text=some%20varieties%20of%20fish%20like,in%20naturally%20boosting%20NAD%20levels%3F https://www.springfieldwellnesscenter.com/mental-health-blog...
- LegitShady 5y agothis does not look like a legit medical site with well referenced articles, and it's assertions don't seem to be backed up anywhere else. Cancer tends to increase NAD levels in the body as well, does that make cancer good?
- stewbrew 5y agounless there is a clear indication they controlled for bmi, meat consumption, alcohol consumption, body fat, I wouldn't waste much thought about such nutritional studies.
- oblib 5y agoThere may not be any strong correlation but I think it's always best to look at things like these with the intent to learn what you can as opposed to looking for flaws. Now, that doesn't mean you dismiss what flaws you find, just don't let those get in the way of what might be learned or what deserves more attention. I've not read the article, just the comments here, but I have grown my own shiitake mushrooms, and a lot of them. So I've eaten a lot of them too. I think most people probably don't pay much attention to how foods makes them "feel", but I do and I have for a very long time. Shiitake make me feel good.
- Andy-AO 5y agoMaybe it's just because people who love to eat mushrooms have better health habits.
- nikolay 5y agoA salad with mushrooms?! Where's the science in this?! It is strange that scientists suggest eating raw mushrooms, which contain toxins, one of them being agaritine, which is easily deactivated by heat. In addition, mushrooms accumulate radioactive elements. It's very unscientific tog generalize mushrooms, when they are greatly varying in terms of nutrition and benefits! In Bulgaria, where I'm originally from, people eat a lot of mushrooms, but we never eat them raw! A lot of people in America believe that eating raw foods is healthier! I suggest to those brainiacs to start eating raw potatoes or soybeans!
- JohnJamesRambo 5y agoI eat raw potatoes and love them. Raw mushrooms are great too, what are you on about? Learn about dosages. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7089/are-raw-button-mushrooms-unhealthy-especially-carcinogenic https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7089/are-raw-bu...
- nikolay 5y agoA quote from Google search: "The main source of concern when it comes to raw potato consumption is a toxic compound called solanine, which can cause headaches, nausea, diarrhea, and even death in extreme cases."
- JohnJamesRambo 5y agoYes I'm aware, but I don't eat green potatoes. Solanine is near the skin on green potatoes. It's that weird off taste. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/solanine https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/solanine Solanine isn't even removed by boiling. You are eating the same amount in your boiled potatoes.
- nikolay 5y agoThat's not true as back in Bulgaria we had a trick - you want to get a fever and skip school, you eat a raw potato. And you can't skip school eating a baked one - that's for sure!
- sriku 5y agoWhat I don't like about statements of this kind is that they're couched in apparently careful language of "being associated with" while implying that mushroom consumption reduces cancer risk .. i.e. a causal mechanistic connection exists between them. If we make that jump ourselves, they can weasel away with "we didn't say that". But then what are they exactly saying? "We just say it is associated with"? .. so if I am supposed to use this information correctly, how should I go about it? ... No I can't do anything with it .. except maybe if I'm a doctor assessing the cancer risk of a patient and I ask "how many mushrooms do you eat per day?" and use the result to adjust the risk. The patient may just ask back "what kind do you use?".
- futevolei 5y agoI’m tired of studies like this. More of this, less of that, a glass of this…