Eating two mushrooms a day nearly halves cancer risk, study finds
June 2, 20215 min read, 991 words

Eating two mushrooms a day nearly halves cancer risk, study findsEating two mushrooms a day nearly halves cancer risk, study finds

Published: June 2, 2021  |  5 min read, 991 words
Eating 18 grams of mushrooms a day could lower the risk of cancer, a new study suggests. Individuals who eat two medium-sized mushrooms daily have a 45 per cent lower risk of cancer compared to those who do not eat mushrooms, according to Pennsylvania State University research, p...
Eating two mushrooms a day nearly halves cancer risk, study finds Read more

Scores for this article.

Percentage of critic and public trust in this article.
critic score
critic reviews: 0
public score
public reviews: 3


There don't seem to be any reviews yet.


Science Misrepresented
Jun 3
While one study found that to be true more testing and concentrated study is require to elicit such a headline.
Jun 3
Is this helpful?
Correlation w/o Causation
Jun 3
Uggh. On the plus side. this article DOES quickly say, “scientists caution against the idea of ‘miracle foods’.” And a smart source notes that “those who ate no mushrooms at all were quite likely to eat fewer vegetables overall,” which could explain the effects. On the minus side, the article fails to dig into anomalies reported in the original paper. To wit: (1) the researchers are focused on the amino acid ergothioneine as the reason, but the study found NO DIFFERENCE between people who ate varieties of mushrooms that are high or low in it. (2) the study was a “meta-analysis” of earlier work, and there was statistical significance only for breast cancer. But enough of the studies looked at breast cancer that they said that “all cancers” were cut. (3) a strong “non-linear” association was found, which I inferred to mean that advantage was seen only in a smaller number of (women?) who reported eating very large quantities. (4) The paper did NOT apparently admit to the limitation that the SCMP source cautioned on, that the mushroom-only focus could hide other important dietary differences between those who ate mushrooms and those who did not. The caveats rescue this from being an awful article, but the headline “…lower cancer risk by 45 per cent” snatches defeat from the jaws of victory.
Jun 3
Is this helpful?
Jun 3
This article's headline is a blatant abuse of sensational language as a tactic to entice readers, and doing so with content related to cancer is especially egregious. I still gave the article 3.5 stars because once reading the piece, there is a lot of expectation tempering and sources commenting on how this is an unproven hypothesis and might even just be correlation without causation.
Jun 3
Is this helpful?