"eliminating benefit of vegetables"
That's a pretty wild jump.
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2026
59 points (95.4% liked)
Science
22471 readers
90 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
yes that confused me.
Could be some translation error
well in that context at least, it does look like mushrooms are just really good for you
For "...an older Japanese population"
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?
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.
Alternatively, have I just shit the bed?
All valid questions I'm curious about myself
I’m glad we’re on the same page.
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.
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?
I’m not sure from skimming the page—did they explicitly give different groups different diets, or did they just measure their ergothioneine levels and conclude that they must have eaten more mushrooms?
Could it just be that dementia-prone people have differences in their metabolisms that cause them to process ergothioneine differently?
"...in an older Japanese population"
Edit: that is to say, they probably just surveyed instead of giving anyone any particular diet.
Genuinely, how much can we trust a US government website on anything claimed to be health information given who their health secretary is?
This study has been running since 1961 in Japan.
Long before both countries became openly fascist.
And like all good articles it has appropriate sources and references
Japan was openly fascist before the article was written too, but you might mean not including the period before US occupation?
Yes that is exactly what I mean.
Even if they technically didn't have a fascist party the first time
Wouldn't put it past them to fabricate sources, they're routine liars after all.
nih.gov