These two popular case studies are used everywhere to illustrate how great Lion's Mane 's potential is .
I think they are both flawed and unsuitable to base hard conclusions on. Here is why I think that way:
They used non-extracted ground Lion's Mane. A few people can digest that well, some can digest that a little bit, some can't digest that at all because chitinous food is not common for most people so the enzyme chitinase is either missing or not active in the stomach. Only an extract is bioavailable for everybody the same way. This was not taken into account, they used Lion's Mane as if it were some product with well-defined fixed properties. It isn't, like all herbs and mushrooms it is a natural product and properties will be affected by strain, cultivation, storage and processing.
Also, no objective standard was available / used to determine results. The results were therefore likely to be affected by 'confirmation bias'. Both research reports should be classified as 'anecdotal' at best I think.
Dosage should be based on the active compounds in the mushroom supplement. To be credible as scientific research the researchers should first identify the active compounds in the mushroom, using accepted lab-standards (= science), and then use that same product with people using a scientific method of dosing and observation / reporting.
That way you can show and prove correlation and causality in a scientific way. Most 'natural products research' unfortunately is flawed that way.
Edited by Vlad, 29 August 2018 - 03:22 PM.
