[WA]

And unfortunately, many nutrition studies are garbage as well.

From the link, first sentence:

> Next time you make a salad, you might want to consider adding mushrooms to it. That's because higher mushroom consumption is associated with a lower risk of cancer

Who writes garbage like this? They say it’s "linked" but draw causal conclusions anyways.

[egman_ekki]

What do you think would be a correct statement?

"If you're the kind of person who adds mushrooms to their food, you might or might not have lower probability of getting cancer"?

It always drives me crazy, because I'm not sure if I'm that kind of person. Am I a person who doesn't smoke or who only doesn't because it's unhealthy? Am I a person who doesn't eat butter or just avoid it because it might be bad for me? I genuinely think I can't know.

[ekianjo]

> What do you think would be a correct statement?

"because this is not a properly designed study and there is so much chance that this is pure coincidence or related to a non-captured factor, we don't recommend you do anything about your diet. And you can skip reading this paper as well."

[PeterisP]

That's kind of the whole point - the study should explicitly state that the new findings (as of now) do not provide any diagnostic about your personal chances of getting cancer, and do not provide any dietary recommendation whatsoever.

It's an interesting finding that may motivate further, more specific studies that can result in something actionable, which has value for researchers in the field but (as of now) it should not be used by general public for analysing their diet.