To investigate the association between serum ergothioneine and risk of developing dementia and its subtypes in a community‐dwelling older population. In this prospective longitudinal analysis of participants enrolled in the Hisayama Study, 1344 ...
i am being generous and taking a wild guess, but it is probably trying to say that it decreases the risk of dementia on par with the decrease in risk associated with eating vegetables regularly
Not quite. The way I read it, the editorialized title (wrongly) says that mushrooms give +75% dementia resistance but that the effects do not stack with vegetable intake’s unspecified x%.
Meanwhile the study only goes as far as to say the dementia risk remains reduced even in people with an already high vegetable intake.
In other words, add mushrooms to your present diet - don’t replace all your veggies with mushrooms (assuming you take the results at face value).
Hold on, I just smoked and I’m probably missing something blatantly obvious. If so, I apologize for polluting your visual and prefrontal experience with my blasphemy or otherwise uncultured vomit of ramshackle word salad topped with cheap vape oil.
Meanwhile the study only goes as far as to say the dementia risk remains reduced even in people with an already high vegetable intake.
If vegetables have x% reduction quality while mushrooms have y%, and we know x<y, then shouldn’t it make sense that the addition of mushroom into a high vegetable diet at most/least stands to produce a benefit of the delta (d, where d=y-x). The person with the vegetable diet could theoretically (after introducing mushrooms) experience a change of d, from x to y.
If that holds, they did experience a a reduction of value d.
Presumably, if we question whether it stacks, we don’t know the target (t, where y <= t <= x+y).
But did you see any reason to question whether it stacks?
All valid questions I’m curious about myself, but from my cursory look at this specific study, they only took a very broad look at vegetable intake involvement, specifically along the lines of “Does the reduction in dementia risk hold true even for people with a high veg vs low veg diet?”
So even if your hypothesis seems reasonable, I’d hesitate to make any assumptions without research backing it up. Not to mention I don’t even know if the present study even holds water, considering the number of such studies that end up being ‘tabloid’ level research.
Hold on, I just smoked and I’m probably missing something blatantly obvious. If so, I apologize for polluting your visual and prefrontal experience with my blasphemy or otherwise uncultured vomit of ramshackle word salad topped with cheap vape oil.
Shit this is how you sound fucked up? How do you sound sober?? Been reading older literature and this sounds like something that would come out of that. Aka it sounds pretty good to me.
i am being generous and taking a wild guess, but it is probably trying to say that it decreases the risk of dementia on par with the decrease in risk associated with eating vegetables regularly
Not quite. The way I read it, the editorialized title (wrongly) says that mushrooms give +75% dementia resistance but that the effects do not stack with vegetable intake’s unspecified x%.
Meanwhile the study only goes as far as to say the dementia risk remains reduced even in people with an already high vegetable intake.
In other words, add mushrooms to your present diet - don’t replace all your veggies with mushrooms (assuming you take the results at face value).
Hold on, I just smoked and I’m probably missing something blatantly obvious. If so, I apologize for polluting your visual and prefrontal experience with my blasphemy or otherwise uncultured vomit of ramshackle word salad topped with cheap vape oil.
If vegetables have x% reduction quality while mushrooms have y%, and we know x<y, then shouldn’t it make sense that the addition of mushroom into a high vegetable diet at most/least stands to produce a benefit of the delta (d, where d=y-x). The person with the vegetable diet could theoretically (after introducing mushrooms) experience a change of d, from x to y.
If that holds, they did experience a a reduction of value d.
Presumably, if we question whether it stacks, we don’t know the target (t, where y <= t <= x+y).
But did you see any reason to question whether it stacks?
Alternatively, have I just shit the bed?
All valid questions I’m curious about myself, but from my cursory look at this specific study, they only took a very broad look at vegetable intake involvement, specifically along the lines of “Does the reduction in dementia risk hold true even for people with a high veg vs low veg diet?”
So even if your hypothesis seems reasonable, I’d hesitate to make any assumptions without research backing it up. Not to mention I don’t even know if the present study even holds water, considering the number of such studies that end up being ‘tabloid’ level research.
I’m glad we’re on the same page.
Shit this is how you sound fucked up? How do you sound sober?? Been reading older literature and this sounds like something that would come out of that. Aka it sounds pretty good to me.
To be honest with you, I had to google the right word. No idea what ramshackle meant before that comment. I also probably smoke a little too much.
so like, almost the opposite of the clickbait title?