drink

We’ve been hearing for years that adults don’t have to drink milk. The latest studies say the opposite.

by

For decades, milk was the undisputed pillar of any healthy breakfast. However, in recent years we have witnessed a real demonization of dairy products and we have heard practically everything, from being “unnatural” for adults, to being the culprit of increased cholesterol or even the risk of cancer. But we are faced with several myths that are important to deny. We are designed for it. One of the most repeated arguments is that we are the only mammal that consumes milk in its adult stage. The experts they explain that, although a part of the world’s population loses the ability to digest lactose after childhood, many others maintain this enzyme active throughout life thanks to a genetic adaptation. Therefore, there is no basis to recommend that all adults stop drinking milk because of this enzyme. Here science is quite clear, since a population study made in Galicia with 850 people showed that, although the alteration of lactose metabolism affects 38% of individuals, when normal physiological quantities are consumed such as a simple glass of milk or yogurt, symptomatic intolerance plummets to 2% for milk and 8% for yogurt. Mortality. Another of the most widespread myths is precisely that dairy consumption in adults increases the risk of mortality and cardiovascular diseases, but science says the opposite. Here, one monumental umbrella review of 2021 pointed out that the evidence does not support that milk is harmful and in fact, in most scenarios its impact is neutral, and in several it is clearly favorable. But if we want to sharpen our aim, a 2026 dose-response meta-analysis, based on 29 cohorts and more than 1.6 million participants, has drawn the exact curve of how dairy interacts with our life expectancy. The researchers found a “U”-shaped association, seeing that the optimal point of consumption is located between 250 and 300 grams a day. Cancer. The alleged relationship between dairy products and cancer is another of the great battlehorses on the internet. However, the most recent reviews they point in another direction, since it has been seen that dairy consumption reduces the risk of suffering from colorectal, bladder, liver, oral cavity and even ovarian and breast cancer. The calcium dilemma. With the rise of plant-based diets, it is common to hear that “spinach or oat drinks have as much or more calcium than milk.” This is where a crucial scientific concept that the nutrition label doesn’t cover comes in, which is bioavailability and the food matrix. We see this in a study published in 2024 that measured exactly how much calcium our body actually assimilates, and was seen that with the consumption of dairy products there was a bioaccessibility of between 19 and 34%, while the vegetable alternatives were 5 and 20%. And this is explained because the joint presence of lactose and casein peptides in milk acts as a “vehicle” that favors the absorption of calcium in our intestine. But in addition, many vegetables rich in calcium are loaded with phytates and oxalates, compounds that “sequester” calcium and prevent us from absorbing it. Your proteins. From a protein point of view, dairy products play in a higher league. If we use the DIAAS index, dairy proteins get scores higher than 1and this means that they provide an excellent amount of highly digestible essential amino acids, far surpassing most plant proteins. Images | Pixabay In Xataka | One in every ten liters of “milk” sold in Spain does not come from any animal: the unstoppable (and silent) growth of vegetable drinks

We believed that stress was only psychological. Science shows that it also depends on the amount of water you drink

by

We all know that facing a tight deadline, a job interview, or a heated argument trigger our stress levelsand it is nothing more than a basic evolutionary response. However, science is beginning to see that the intensity with which our body reacts to a stressor depends not only on our psychology, but on something as fundamental as the amount of water we drink throughout the day. It has been investigated. A recent study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology has put on the table the relationship that exists between the general state of hydration and the reactivity of cortisol to acute stress. In other words, a dehydrated body is a body that overreacts to the problems that may arise on a daily basis. Cortisol. To understand this finding, we must first look at the ‘place’ where our stress is regulated, which is the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis. This system is activated when we face a psychosocial threat that culminates in the release of cortisol, which is our main stress-related hormone and can be easily measured through saliva. Logically, cortisol at normal levels is necessary for survival, but the problem arises when it remains high for a long time, which begins to generate many problems in our body and also confronts us with anxiety disorders. Hydration. This is where water comes into play, since dehydration, even mild, is not just having a dry mouth but biologically, it is a major stressor. When we do not drink enough water, our blood volume decreases and its concentration increases. The body perceives this as a threat to homeostasis and responds by releasing hormones to try to compensate for this lack of fluid, such as vasopressin, which causes us to urinate much less to avoid ‘wasting’ water. Threats. What science demonstrates here is that when we subject a person who is poorly hydrated to psychological stress, the body experiences a double threat. Here the nervous system is already dealing with the physiological stress of lack of water and, if we add to that an external stressor, such as a work problem, the cortisol response shoots up much more abruptly than in a well-hydrated person. But we are not facing something completely isolated, but rather there are many studies who have found a relationship between state anxiety and hydration. If we go to the purest physiology, it makes sense, since the brain is made up of 73% water and that is why it is extremely sensitive to a drop in the amount of liquid drunk throughout the day. It is not the same for everyone. Human biology is rarely a simple equation, as the salivary cortisol response to psychosocial stress has high variability between people. Age, sex, coffee consumption, smoking or steroid levels act as modulators of this hormone, for example. However, the state of hydration is now emerging as one of the most easily modified variables by ourselves. We can’t change our age or erase a family problem, but we can make sure that our fluid intake doesn’t make things more difficult for our nervous system. Images | engin akyurt In Xataka | The myth of “two liters of water a day” collapses: a mistake from 1945 that science is now trying to correct

The people from Cruzcampo had to come to explain to us how to drink beer

by

There are few things more closely linked to summer than the gesture of taking a frosted glass out of the freezer and filling it with beer. And honestly, it’s fascinating. Not only because no one is quite clear why this movement has become so popular, but because for years sommeliers and brewmasters have said that it is not a good idea. The last one was Francisco Javier Soriano, one of the people behind the beer that grows the most in Spaindeclaring “totally enemy of the frozen glass because it breaks the cold temperature of the beer”. A lot of memes, a lot of jokes, but it happened: the people from Cruzcampo had to come and explain how to drink beer. Wait, wait… breaking the temperature of the beer? Here are at least three ideas complicating the physics of the matter. The first is obvious: the frozen glass supercools the beer. A priori, each formulation of this drink is optimized for a specific temperature and putting it in -18 degree glasses is something that no brewery takes into account. In a world like ours, where the temperature consistency of drinks in summer leaves much to be desired, the trend for frozen glasses is understandable. But it has costs: in the end, the TRPM5 taste receptor needs heat to activate. If the drink is very cold, we don’t feel it. The second idea goes hand in hand with the latter: the aroma also disappears. The colder the beer is, the fewer bubbles it lets out and that means there are less “organoleptic effluvia” traveling to our nose and rounding out the experience. The third was the one added by another brewmaster, Xabier Cubillo, when he said that “It is very refreshing, but the aromas are no longer noticeable and the foam falls off sooner”. “Let people enjoy things.” That’s clear: let everyone drink their beer however they like. Our intention, in addition to pointing out that “the more we know about alcohol, the more dangerous it seems”is simply inviting us to reflect on why we are drinking beer. Given that beer does not hydrate and is not healthyit is reasonable to think that we drink beer because we like it. That is, because we want to enjoy the flavor, aroma and texture of the product. And if so, we must keep in mind that “extremely cold” kills everything interesting that the drink may have. Now, if what we want is an extremely cold drink for the summer, there is not much more to add. Spain is, today, the second largest beer producer in the European Union. That was about 41.29 million hectoliters in 2024 and, when it comes to consumption, we drink 52.8 liters per person per year. And the market, little by little, begins to follow in the footsteps of wine trying to hide the risks of alcohol with culture. But if we want to follow that path, it wouldn’t hurt to be consistent. And, in that sense, frozen cane in summer is not a mistake. That’s why it doesn’t matter what sommeliers, brewers or journalists say. Frozen beer is a choice: one that prioritizes cold over flavor. And it is not a bad decision, as long as we do not fool ourselves and are aware of what we are doing and what we are losing. Image | CCALM 2016 Zombie Party In Xataka | Spain can tell itself as many times as it wants that it hates Cruzcampo. The figures say a very different thing

How much coffee can you drink a day? Science has a very clear limit to avoid its harmful effects

by

For many of us, the starter motor in the morning It has a dark color and a roasted aroma that characterize coffee so much. A drink that is one of the most consumed in the world, but with a popularity that has been accompanied by alarmist headlines about how bad it is to ingest it and the effects it can have directly on the organs. But the truth is that there are lights and shadows. There is good news. For those who love coffee, it will undoubtedly be a relief to know that the literature indicates that consumption is not as catastrophic as they want to sell. But, as in everything, excesses of something can always lead to problems, even if it may seem like something super healthy, such as water. And coffee, obviously, is not exempt. The limit. When it comes to establishing a red line for safe consumption, the clinical reference is not in the WHO, but in the FDA and the EFSAwhich are the food safety regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe, respectively. Here both point to the same figure in coffee consumption: 400 milligrams of caffeine per day. A very relevant figure, since for the vast majority of healthy adults, consuming up to 400 mg daily is not associated with harmful health effectshighlighting that this amount can be part of a perfectly healthy diet and lifestyle. How many coffees is this equivalent to? This is where things get complicated since talking about “cups” is an analytical error, because not all coffees are the same. That is why for the FDA a 355 ml cup, which is a standard size, can contain between 113 and 247 mg of caffeine. But all this depends on the type of preparation, the extraction time or the coffee used, because Robusta coffee has more caffeine than Arabica, for example. But generally speaking, that 400 mg is equivalent to about 3 or 4 cups of standard filter coffee per day. Organic damage. It is easy to see different alarming messages warning that coffee can damage our entire interior if a specific dose is exceeded. But the reality is that the WHO does not send this message to society, since it is too alarming and does not correspond at all to reality. What is true is that excessive daily coffee consumption has important effects on our body, but it will not ‘rot’ our internal organs. Among these stand out insomnia, nervousness, irritability, palpitations, muscle tremors, intestinal irritation, headache… This means that, although we talk about coffee not being contradictory for the population, logically, if there is an underlying problem, it may be better not to drink it, and even less so if it is taken in great excess throughout the day. It has benefits. On other occasions we have talked about coffee and its benefits, because it has more than just keeping us awake in the morning. Here different studies have already pointed out to us the cardiovascular benefits it can have or even improves sports performance. But the metabolism of each person is quite involved here, since there is no single metabolism. In this case, there are people who process caffeine very quickly and its effect disappears quickly, but there are other cases where they metabolize it slowly, so its effects remain in the body and they may, for example, have more problems with insomnia, nervousness or palpitations because they are more “sensitive” to caffeine. This is the explanation, for example, that a person can boast of having a coffee at night and being able to sleep perfectly. There are exceptions. Although we talk about a limit of 400 mg of caffeine, there are people who logically cannot reach this limit, such as pregnant women, where a maximum of 200 mg per day is recommended, since excess caffeine can cross the placenta and affect fetal development. But it also influences, for example, the cholesterol level, since here the Mayo Clinic points out that the consumption of unfiltered coffee, such as Turkish coffee, can raise cholesterol levels due to compounds such as cafestol. Images | Dragana_Gordic in Magnific In Xataka | If the question is “how much caffeine is in each cup of coffee or tea,” this graph offers insightful answers.

that “drink” fuel without stepping on land

by

In the 80s, during exercises in the Atlantic, several pilots British Harrier They confessed that one of the greatest tensions was not the combat itself, but rather the time to return to the aircraft carrier with fuel in the red, adjusting each maneuver so as not to run out of margin in the last minutes. On more than one occasion, that millimeter calculation turned the landing into a matter of well-timed seconds. The limit that was always there. The anecdote is not trivial, since for decades the Harrier fighters of the Navy have operated with a clear restriction that conditioned each mission: their fuel dependency available when taking off from the ship. This limitation marked the time in the air, the radius of action and the ability to sustain operations far from the starting point, forcing each flight to be planned carefully. very tight margins. Let’s think that we are talking about an environment where projection and persistence are increasingly determining factors, which is why this barrier had become one of the most difficult factors to overcome. Without depending on land. That scenario has now changed with a milestone that, although seemingly technical, has quite profound operational implications: for the first time, a Spanish Harrier has been refueled in flight for a A330 MRTT of the Air and Space Army. The maneuver not only demonstrates compatibility between platforms, it also opens the door for these fighters to stay in the air much longer without needing to return to deck. In practice, it means that the Harrier can continue operating, surveilling or attacking without the fuel clock marking the end of the mission. A range and time multiplier in combat. The announced in-flight refueling completely transforms the aircraft’s operational profile, and it does so because expands its radius of action and allows you to stay in the area for much longer periods. This is especially relevant for a carrier-based fighter, an aircraft whose natural environment imposes obvious logistical constraints. In other words, with this capability, the Harrier can get further away from the shipcover more space and respond more flexibly to changing situations, something key in both defense missions and projection operations. Interoperability: two armies in one. Beyond refueling itself, the Spanish exercise represents a leap in integration between the Navy and the Air Forceby coordinating different systems (the Harrier boom and the A330 basket) in a joint operation. Plus: this type of capabilities reinforces the idea of ​​a more connected force, capable of operating in coordinated and efficient manner in complex scenarios. Furthermore, the A330 MRTT establishes itself as a central piece, capable of supplying multiple platforms and acting as a true force multiplier. Extend the life of a “veteran”. It is the last of the legs to analyze, because the context is key to understanding the importance of the advance: the Harrier continues to be a fundamental asset for the Spanish Navy, especially while its replacement by the F-35B. In the face of uncertainty, the strategy involves extend its useful life through maintenance, spare parts and improvements that maintain its operational relevance. The in-flight refueling capability fits perfectly into that goal, increasing its utility without the need to introduce a new system. Beyond a simple test. In short, what at first glance may seem like a technical test is, in reality, a paradigm shift on how Spain can use its embarked fighters. Allowing these planes to “drink” fuel in the air eliminates one of their main restrictions and brings them closer to a much more efficient operating model. more flexible and sustained in time. In a scenario where the speed of response and the ability to remain in the area make the difference, the advance redefines the role of the Harrier and expands the real scope of Spanish aerial projection. Image | Navy, Counting Stars In Xataka | Spain has a dilemma that is difficult to solve: call the US or be the last with a fighter jet in danger of extinction In Xataka | Spain has built a laser that shields the backbone of its Navy: the A400M is now ready for combat

Drink water right before going to sleep? Science has finally clarified whether it is a good idea or a terrible enemy of sleep

by

Before going to sleep, some people may have an almost standardized ritual in which they should drink one or two glasses of water, and also have a backup on the bedside table in case they get thirsty in the middle of the night. But there are also many questions about whether it is positive to drink water before sleeping for eight hours or if it is counterproductive by forcing us to get up in the middle of the night. And here science has something to say. It has benefits. What is clearly known is that during the night our body does not go into a total pause, but rather continues with an active metabolism even though it is attenuated. That is why we lose approximately half a liter of water simply due to evaporation when breathing and sweating, and to compensate for this, hydration can be the best ally. It is investigated. A Japanese studio published this same year analyzed a group of middle-aged men to conclude that drinking 280 ml of water just before going to bed significantly reduces morning depressive mood and improves well-being upon waking up. But it is not the only one, because a 2025 crossover trial with 15 healthy adults found a relationship between drinking fluids before sleeping and the duration and quality of sleep. REM phasewhich is what makes us truly rest. And it makes sense, because adequate hydration favors the release of vasopressin, a key hormone for regulating the biological clock and preventing tissue dehydration during deep sleep. And it is essential, because it can translate into less fatigue and headaches in the morning. He has problems. It will not always be beneficial to have this habit, since the main enemy of drinking water at night is nocturiawhich is the need to wake up to urinate during the night. And although the total time we spend awake is not drastically altered, because it is only a few minutes, there is an interruption in sleep. It depends on the quantity. Logically, drinking a glass of water is not the same as drinking a whole bottle before going to sleep. That is why when you go over half a liter of water there is a possibility that some pre-existing problems such as chronic insomnia will worsen or even increase the risk of falls when getting up in the dark. How to do it. There are a series of tips that we can follow to stay hydrated during sleep and they are summarized in the following points: You should limit yourself to drinking around a quarter of a liter of water in the final part of the day to avoid overfilling your bladder. The last glass of water should be drunk two hours before going to sleep. Maintain good hydration throughout the day to avoid reaching the end of the day with a major hydration problem. Images | krakenimages.com on Freepik In Xataka | There are people obsessed with magnesium as a supplement when the best way is to put it directly into your diet

Wild chimpanzees drink the equivalent of almost two glasses of alcohol a day

by

If we test chimpanzees for blood alcohol levels, we would most likely see that they test positive as sI would have had a drink or two. And here the fault is not in the fact that they have a hidden bottle of whiskey, but in the sugars present in the fruits they consume and their microbial fermentation. But from here on, science has debated whether our attraction to alcohol It is due to an ‘evolutionary accident’ or a direct inheritance from our primate ancestors. Something that has been determined now. A new study. Published by researchers at the University of California and which suggests that wild chimpanzees consume substantial amounts of ethanol in their daily diet. To demonstrate this, the team went to Kibale National Park, Ugandato be able to monitor several chimpanzees. And instead of doing a blood test, the researchers opted for a non-invasive method by analyzing the urine of the 19 wild chimpanzees. In this case, what was being sought was not raw ethanol, but a very specific biomarker called ethylglucuronide which tells us that ethanol has been processed. Your diet. As we have said before, the secret of this discovery is not in the alcohol that we know, but in the fruit. That is why during the research the chimpanzees fed almost exclusively on a species of canopy tree called the African star apple. When specifically analyzing this apple, it was found that it contained alcohol in a proportion of 0.09%, while in some harvests it could reach 0.4%. The results. After performing urine analyzes on the chimpanzees, it was possible to see that, of the 20 individual urine samples collected, 17 tested positive for ethylglucuronide, exceeding a threshold of 300 ng per milliliter of urine. But in addition, of a set of 11 of these positive samples, 10 tested positive again when subjected to a much higher clinical threshold of 500 ng/ml. The “drunk monkey.” The researchers point out here that this continuous intake of fermented fruit translates into an average dose of 14 grams of ethanol per day for the chimpanzees. In human terms, it is as if they had drunk one and a half drinks a day. These findings offer vital physiological support to the famous “drunken monkey” hypothesis which suggests that the attraction that modern humans feel for alcohol has its evolutionary origin precisely here: in an adaptation of our ancestors to locate, through long-distance smell, crops of ripe fruit and, therefore, more caloric thanks to the smell of ethanol. A mismatch. The problem is that this vestige of the past has gone down the wrong path, since the current problem lies in an evolutionary imbalance. While our ancestors chronically consumed ethanol in low concentrations through a fruit-centered diet, today humans have access to distilled alcohol in massive quantities and not through a survival system. Now, this discovery not only changes our understanding of primate feeding ecology, but opens the door to future research into how this natural alcohol consumption could affect the social behavior of chimpanzees, including factors such as aggression or reproduction. Images | David Trinks Brian Jones In Xataka | We believed that war was a unique and exclusively human invention. Until we look at chimpanzees

We have been telling ourselves since 1945 that we should drink “two liters of water a day.” Science is clear that this is not the case.

by

One of the most popular rules in popular health culturewithout a doubt it is in the amount of water you have to drink per day. An amount that is located in eight glasses a day or what is the same: the immovable figure of two literss. We see it in fitness applications, in influencers’ advice and we hear it repeated like a mantra, but the reality is that there is quite a myth behind this. We are different people. A very common phrase within medicine is precisely “there are no equal people”, and not only because of the external physique, but because of everything that is inside. This forces the medicine Focus towards a more individualized idea in your medical advice that have to be given, included in nutrition or water consumption. This forces us to have to personalize the amount of water that each person should consume, because a person who is 2 meters tall and weighs 100 kg with a large amount of muscle is not the same as an elderly person who has a much slower metabolism. Logically, the two liters of water mantra cannot be established here. The origin of the error. To understand why we drink (or think we should drink) so much, you have to travel back to 1945. According to key review by Dr. Heinz Valtin in it American Journal of Physiology 2002, the myth of the “8×8” rule, that is, 8 8-ounce glasses to have almost 2 liters of water, probably comes from a misinterpretation of a guide from the Food and Nutrition Board. A guide that indicated that it was always recommended to have an adequate intake of 2.5 liters of fluids per day. But most people ignored the accompanying sentence that said, “most of this amount is in prepared foods.” What the institutions say. So the question is quite clear: how much should we drink per day? In this case there are different official figures, but they have fine print. We have one of the examples in the European Food Safety Authority Panel 2010 established adequate water intake at 2 liters per day for women and 2.5 liters per day for men. But here’s the key: the EFSA specifies that this refers to total water, that is, the sum of drinks plus food. And there are many dishes that have a large amount of water, such as soup, although fruits also have a lot of water inside. Even in the United States. If we move to the recommendations made in the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the USA from 2005, suggests that the total water figures should be 2.7 liters per day for women and 3.7 liters per day for men. But again, it includes all the dietary intake that is made per day and not just glasses of tap water. The latest science. If we come more to the present, we also have scientific studies that have sought to dismantle a universal fixed figure set at two liters per day. One of the most important is the one published in Science in 2022 that used isotopes to measure water exchange in 5,604 people, and that showed that real needs vary enormously between people. One of the conclusions they addressed was that for most people in temperate climates and with sedentary lives, the real water intake needs are between 1.5 and 1.8 liters per day, far from the demands of wellness marketing. And it is reinforced. It is not a study that is isolated, but also in 2022 the magazine Scientific Reports, published research where this idea was reinforced: they predict necessary beverage intakes of about 1.6 L for women and 2.0 L for men, always depending on factors such as age, sex and body composition. Is more water better? One of the most repeated arguments by proponents of hyperhydration is that we should drink “before we are thirsty.” modern physiology, backed by scientific reviews and analysis of urinary osmolarity, refutes this fear that we may have. Specifically, the human body has an extremely sensitive osmoregulation system. When the concentration of solutes in the blood increases by only 2%well below clinical dehydration, the brain already activates the sensation of being thirsty and releases the necessary hormone to begin conserving water so that it does not ‘leave’ in the urine. There are exceptions. Unless you are an elderly person (whose thirst sensation is attenuated) or a high-performance athlete in the midst of intense effort, drinking when thirsty is the most accurate and scientifically validated strategy for maintaining water balance. When you should drink more water. That the “mandatory two liters” are a myth does not mean that water is not logically vital. The most recent systematic reviews and other clinical means confirm that increasing water intake has clear therapeutic benefits in very specific cases that are not universal. These can be the following: Having a kidney stone: here the “more, the better” applies since increasing urinary flow is key to preventing the recurrence of this disease. Urinary infections: a problem that mainly affects women, and that requires ‘overhydration’ to reduce risk of new episodes. Weight loss: Although the evidence is mixed, drinking water may help with satiety and, marginally, energy expenditure. Although it is not a magic solution against obesity. More common sense. The obsession with two liters is a perfect example of how an old and misinterpreted scientific recommendation becomes a cultural dogma. The reality, supported by decades of studies from Valtin to the latest isotopic analyses, is that we are not machines that need a fixed tank filling every 24 hours. In this way, our body’s water needs are dynamic. Water needs are dynamic. If you eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, work in an air-conditioned office, and don’t run marathons every day, forcing yourself to drink 2 liters of extra water will probably only do one thing: interrupting your work to go to the bathroom more times. The situation. In this way we can understand that … Read more

Science has something to say to all those who drink coffee as soon as they wake up

by

Having a coffee for many is something that It is essential to start the day. It is something that in our country has become a cultural habit, but it is also a very relevant pharmacological event. Since although many people’s day doesn’t start until this coffee, our body already has its own “start-up” system built in as standard that we could be affecting. A good debate. Recently has arisen an idea that has set a precedent: Ingesting caffeine immediately after waking up interferes with the body’s natural biology. Specifically, with cortisolwhich is the stress hormone that allows us to wake up in the morning and sustain us throughout the day. Given this, It is recommended to wait between 60 and 90 minutes to drink your first cup of coffee.. Although… How much truth does this have? If we analyze the most recent clinical literature and population studies, we discover that Coffee in the morning is, in fact, a powerful ally for cardiovascular healthbut its maximum effectiveness depends on fine synchronization with our hormones. Natural injection of energy. To understand the effect of coffee on our body, we must first understand what happens when you don’t drink it. When you open your eyes, your brain doesn’t turn on like a switch, but instead starts a chemical cascade known as Cortisol Awakening Response (CAR). This is essential, since upon waking up, cortisol begins to increase and reaches its maximum peak approximately 30 to 60 minutes after opening the eyes. A hormone that is essential to activate us, and that is released in large quantities, for example when we are stressed or there is danger. A limbo of signals. In this way, if we introduce caffeine right into the body when cortisol is rising, we may be generating unnecessary overstimulation, increasing nervousness or so-called jitters. Furthermore, caffeine (despite the fact that it hurts for some) does not provide real energy to our body, but what it does is block the adenosine receptors, which is responsible for making us feel tired. In this way, when we wake up, there is still some of this signal in the body and if we block it suddenly and too soon, when the effect of the coffee wears off, this accumulated adenosine suddenly binds to its receptors and causes the famous mid-afternoon fatigue. What science knows. To date, there are no controlled clinical trials that compare the long-term cognitive performance of a group of people who drink coffee immediately versus another who waits 90 minutes. But what we do know is that there is a tolerance effect. A study published in PMC points out that in regular coffee consumers, the cortisol response to caffeine is significantly attenuated. That is, your body has already gotten used to that morning “hit” and the hormonal interference is much less than in an occasional consumer. In this way, when we remove the morning coffee, it may be much more difficult for a person to properly start their body as they lack that ‘drive’ to which their body has become accustomed. The night battle. Where the science is clear is in the use of caffeine late in the day. A study in Science Translational Medicine showed that a double espresso three hours before bed delays the circadian clock by about 40 minutes, seriously affecting sleep quality. Is it worth waiting? If you are one of those who feel intense anxiety after the first coffee or if you experience an unbearable drop in energy at two in the afternoon, the recommendation to wait 90 minutes has physiological plausibility and can be a valuable personal experiment. By delaying caffeine, you allow cortisol to do its job and residual adenosine to be cleared more naturally so you don’t have that unpleasant mid-afternoon tiredness. However, for the healthy general population accustomed to coffeethere is no evidence that taking it as soon as you wake up is harmful. We are only left with that effect of dependence on coffee that interferes with the internal ‘caffeine’ of awakening that our body produces. This is why the 90-minute rule is more advice based on clinical observation and biological logic than on robust studies. In Xataka | We knew that coffee was good for our health, but now we have discovered that it is a great ally of our microbiota

It is now legal to bring your own food and drink into festivals

by

It is a battle for consumer rights that is receiving very notable attention, and there is nothing strange about it: it affects some of the most widespread forms of leisure, cinema and concerts, and at stake is the right of customers to bring drinks and food into the venues. FACUA has been filing complaints against cinemas and event organizers for years and today we have a resolution that could set a precedent that changes everything. What has happened? The Court of First Instance number 4 of Valencia has issued the first ruling in Spain declaring null and void the clauses of a festival that prohibited access to the venue with food and drinks purchased abroad. The judicial resolution affects the Madrid Salvaje festival, and considers these restrictions as abusive practices that violate consumer rights as reported by FACUAthe association that filed the lawsuit. The ruling also annuls the charge of three euros as “management expenses” that the organization applied to attendees who wanted to recover the unconsumed balance on the bracelets. cashless. The court expressly prohibits the promoter to reiterate these practices in future events and thus establishes a precedent that could affect future editions of festivals in Spain. Because. The sentence justify your decision in the impossibility of attendees doing without food during the long days that the festivals last. The magistrate emphasizes that requiring users to leave the premises to eat would mean missing part of the scheduled concerts, in addition to generating unnecessary inconvenience. The resolution concludes that this prohibition constitutes in practice a forced imposition of hospitality services that consumers have not requested. That is, preventing entry with food from outside is equivalent to forcing the audience to purchase products exclusively in the festival’s internal establishments, which represents an “unjustified contractual imbalance.” The ruling emphasizes that the fundamental purpose of these events is to offer musical entertainment, with the restoration being a merely accessory element that should not condition the enjoyment of the main show. Repeat offenders. This is not the first time that Madrid Salvaje AIE has faced sanctions for its trade policies. The Community of Madrid has already imposed a fine of 96,000 euros for irregularities committed during the 2023 edition of the Brava Madrid festival. That sanction responded to the imposition of the system cashless as the only form of payment within the premises, without the possibility of paying in cash. In addition, the organization established a period of only seven days to claim outstanding balances. FACUA maintains active complaints against the 2024 and 2025 editions of Brava Madrid. Legal precedents: cinemas. The judicial argument of the case does not arise from nowhere, but is based on precedents established around the film sector. The Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha established in a previous resolution that prohibiting the consumption of products according to their origin constitutes an irrational restriction of the consumer’s ability to choose. That ruling introduced the concept of “tied sales”, identifying how establishments use their dominant position to indirectly force the purchase of complementary services. The report prepared in 2016 by the then Spanish Agency for Consumer Affairs, Food Safety and Nutrition (Aecosan, today Aesan) was especially forceful when analyzing these prohibitions in movie theaters, concluding that the viewer was unjustifiably deprived of the main service they had paid for (watching the movie) when they were unilaterally imposed on them to use accessory services that they never requested, with the sale of food and drink being a secondary activity, not the essence of the movie business. The fines. These rulings regarding cinemas led to specific financial sanctions. The Basque Consumer Institute fined Yelmo Cines with 30,001 euros after a complaint from FACUA Euskadi for preventing access with external food. FACUA Galicia filed similar complaints against Cinesa in the Marineda City shopping center in A Coruña, while the Andalusian federation denounced five Yelmo establishments for repeating this policy after having been previously warned by the Junta de Andalucía in 2019. Implications. This court ruling sets a precedent of enormous relevance for the music festival industry in Spain, being the first resolution that specifically addresses these practices in events of this type. The ruling opens the door to possible retrospective claims by attendees who were affected by similar policies in past editions of Madrid Salvaje or other festivals that have maintained similar restrictions. It is an unequivocal warning about the illegality of such measures. The court decision significantly strengthens the position of consumer organizations, which have been fighting these trade policies for years. The court’s express order prohibiting Madrid Salvaje AIE from reiterating any of these clauses in future events also establishes a control mechanism that could be applied to other promoters. The cases pending resolution in courts regarding analogous situations—both in festivals and in other leisure spaces—now have a solid jurisprudential reference that will predictably influence the rulings. From now on, consumers have the right to freely choose where to purchase their food, which takes precedence over the commercial interests of the organizing companies, which redefines the relationship that existed to date between promoters and the public. Header | Colin Lloyd in Unsplash

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.