The Mario games knew all this time.
Higher Mushroom Consumption Associated with Lower Cancer Risk
41–48 of 48 posts
Re: Higher Mushroom Consumption Associated with Lower Cancer Risk
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are a common exception. I wouldn't eat them raw though.
Portabellos and button mushrooms are the same damn thing.
And they are both currently, wide spread exceptions. Food safety bodies do not require them to be cook, their raw use is widespread, some mushroom experts still say it is ok, etc. The status quo has not yet changed.
Re: Higher Mushroom Consumption Associated with Lower Cancer Risk
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
As per reddit, so take it with a grain of redd salt: "What he doesn't want to say out loud in plain English is that agaratine containing mushrooms LIKE PORTABELLOS when consumed RAW are highly CARCINOGENIC while some compounds in white button mushrooms can help prevent and treat breast cancers agaratines can cause cancer, they are heat unstable so if cooked it's not a big risk but raw like they are served often in sa…
> "... If someone like Stamets came out and said that point blank he could be sued for making radical claims..." By... who? The mushrooms, for libel? (Also, what on earth is going on with r/mycology? Impressive amount of conspiracy theory nonsense voted up there.)
As the reddit comments state, "big portabello." Mushroom farming is a big business, even for Stametz, and widespread, predictably alarmist media coverage about the yes but no nature of carcinogens in criminis wouldn't be good for business. So he did a less than optimal job of steering clear of the issue on Rogancast. And everyone picked up on it, except for news media, so far...
Re: Higher Mushroom Consumption Associated with Lower Cancer Risk
#44I understand an observational study is the best you can get, but self-selection on mushroom consumption seems an impossible to correct variable. My stereotypes would expect elevated-mushroom eaters to consume more raw food, salads, etc.
Also probably spend more time outdoors/hiking
Re: Higher Mushroom Consumption Associated with Lower Cancer Risk
#45These kinds of associations can easily be, and frequently are, spurious. Unless someone can find a reason why mushrooms might prevent cancer, I don't think the result is helpful.
Re: Higher Mushroom Consumption Associated with Lower Cancer Risk
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "... If someone like Stamets came out and said that point blank he could be sued for making radical claims..." By... who? The mushrooms, for libel? (Also, what on earth is going on with r/mycology? Impressive amount of conspiracy theory nonsense voted up there.)
As the reddit comments state, "big portabello." Mushroom farming is a big business, even for Stametz, and widespread, predictably alarmist media coverage about the yes but no nature of carcinogens in criminis wouldn't be good for business. So he did a less than optimal job of steering clear of the issue on Rogancast. And everyone picked up on it, except for news media, so far...
I mean, scientists, public commentators, regulators have been calling out agribusiness over tobacco, sugar, meat, alcohol for over a century at this point. It slightly stretches credibility to imagine that someone complaining about mushrooms on a podcast would be the breaking point.
Re: Higher Mushroom Consumption Associated with Lower Cancer Risk
#47Re: Higher Mushroom Consumption Associated with Lower Cancer Risk
#48I would like to see alongside the results of all corresponding "Higher X Consumption Associated with Lower Cancer" metastudies, where X is every other healthy food infatuation over the ages (Vitamic C, Mediterranean diet, Spinach, Broccoli etc). For sure there might be some benefit for some types of cancer or other diseases, but the constant barrage of marginal results about different food categories does not help cr…
It's self-reinforcing. Because there is a subset of the population that reads health news and acts on it, they both: A: exercise, sleep 8 hours, avoid ultra-processed foods B: take whatever the latest anti-cancer fad supplement is Behavior A actually helps, while B is probably neutral. But studies will show that all the B behaviors will be associated with lower cancer risk, because they're also associated with A beha…
Unless you control for other variables which isn't outlandishly unlikely in a scientific study