3 ms·

Is this trying to correlate people who eat mushrooms specifically or adding mushrooms independent of diet? To me, these clickbaity headlines always say "do X,

Is this trying to correlate people who eat mushrooms specifically or adding mushrooms independent of diet? To me, these clickbaity headlines always say "do X, not Y, and live Z years longer or get W% less cancer." PS: Mandatory - 2 mushrooms a day keeps the Goomba and oncologist away.

jillesvangurp 5y ago
I happen to have never liked mushrooms and don't eat them. I don't have cancer. At least not that I know off. Sample of 1, so obviously meaningless. And I might be wrong. Statistically, unless something else kills me first, I believe I have 100% chance of getting cancer and dying of it. Just to put the overall claim a little in perspective. It's more a matter of when than if. 45% sounds overly assertive; so does the very specific number of two mushrooms. Not one, not three: two! Reminds me a bit of a certain scene in Monty python and the holy grail. Anyway, what did they do to the poor control group that the cancer incidence (and I suppose mortality?) were so high? Were there other factors they did not consider? Etc. This article raises more questions than it answers. The answers are probably quite a long winded way of saying that generalizing these conclusions to the overall population of humanity would be premature based on the inevitably small subset of it that they had to work with. At best the conclusion should read as "mushrooms probably not horrible to add to your diet if you can stand them".
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  Who cares if you don't like mushrooms or not, how is it relevant? If you don't like them and this study were true, and even if it's not, I'm sure supplement makers will miracle-up a "mushroom life-extension" pill. How do you know that you don't have cancer? Most of us have a few pre-cancerous and cancerous cells in our bodies most of the them, but our immune system kills them or the cells die because they're incompatible with continued survival. And, as we age, the rate of cancerous cells production increases and the immune system's ability to fight them decreases. Even with healthy lifestyles and barring no other major diseases, most of us, statistically, will die from either cardiopulmonary insufficiency, cardiorespiratory failure, pneumonia, or cancer. "100% chance of getting cancer and dying from it" is then an invalid assumption. What does "overly-assertive" mean? Do you mean "overly-optimistic?" On what basis do you have any way to measure or judge the results of the study without any data? Another couple of nits for future reference: "long winded" is hyphenated and "At best" needs a comma.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

I happen to have never liked mushrooms and don't eat them. I don't have cancer. At least not that I know off. Sample of 1, so obviously meaningless. And I might be wrong. Statistically, unless something else kills me first, I believe I have 100% chance of getting cancer and dying of it. Just to put the overall claim a little in perspective. It's more a matter of when than if. 45% sounds overly assertive; so does the very specific number of two mushrooms. Not one, not three: two! Reminds me a bit of a certain scene in Monty python and the holy grail. Anyway, what did they do to the poor control group that the cancer incidence (and I suppose mortality?) were so high? Were there other factors they did not consider? Etc. This article raises more questions than it answers. The answers are probably quite a long winded way of saying that generalizing these conclusions to the overall population of humanity would be premature based on the inevitably small subset of it that they had to work with. At best the conclusion should read as "mushrooms probably not horrible to add to your diet if you can stand them".

failwhaleshark 5y ago
Who cares if you don't like mushrooms or not, how is it relevant? If you don't like them and this study were true, and even if it's not, I'm sure supplement makers will miracle-up a "mushroom life-extension" pill. How do you know that you don't have cancer? Most of us have a few pre-cancerous and cancerous cells in our bodies most of the them, but our immune system kills them or the cells die because they're incompatible with continued survival. And, as we age, the rate of cancerous cells production increases and the immune system's ability to fight them decreases. Even with healthy lifestyles and barring no other major diseases, most of us, statistically, will die from either cardiopulmonary insufficiency, cardiorespiratory failure, pneumonia, or cancer. "100% chance of getting cancer and dying from it" is then an invalid assumption. What does "overly-assertive" mean? Do you mean "overly-optimistic?" On what basis do you have any way to measure or judge the results of the study without any data? Another couple of nits for future reference: "long winded" is hyphenated and "At best" needs a comma.