We have been using the excuse of hunger for years to justify our bad mood. Science has just proven us right

There are people who when they are hungry seem to completely lose control and jump at the slightest, making it difficult to approach them. And it is not a lack of patience for waiting for lunch or dinner, nor is it a personality trait, but rather It’s pure biology. Here society has even given it a name to explain this phenomenon that relates quick anger to the desire to eat: ‘Hangry‘, a fusion between hungry (hungry in English) and angry (angry in English). The definitive experiment. Although this attitude has been internalized in society as a personality trait, like someone who wakes up and can’t have a conversation, science has a lot to say. Specifically, a study published in the journal PLOS ONE in 2022 continued to 64 adults for 21 days to see what happened. Using an app, participants recorded their levels of hunger, anger, irritability, pleasure and arousal five times a day, accumulating more than 9,100 observations. And here the results, the truth is, were devastating: being hungry was directly associated with negative emotions, such as anger or being irascible. A great anger. If we go into detail, the feeling of hunger It was able to explain 34% of the cases of anger, 37% of the cases of irritability and also a 38% drop in the feeling of pleasure. But the most important thing is that this correlation remained firm even after scientists controlled for variables such as age, sex, weight, or even personality traits when not hungry. Because? The answer to these mood changes seems to lie specifically in what we need to ingest: glucose. And it makes a lot of sense, because this carbohydrate acts as the main fuel for our brain and its scarcity generates a true energy crisis that forces the body to draw energy from other places, such as ketone bodies. The brain here is a really demanding organ, since, although it only represents 2% of the body weight, it consumes around 20% of the energy, and in these situations it is noticeable. And it is proven. Without going any further, a study published in 2014 analyzed 107 couples for 21 days, measuring their blood glucose and measuring aggression. The best thing is that they quantified it with a voodoo doll that represented their partner and a pin cushion. From here it was seen that the lower the glucose levels were at the end of the day, the more pins were stuck in the doll. The conclusion seemed very clear: glucose acts as the “fuel of self-control.” Without it, the prefrontal cortex, which is in charge of regulating impulses, loses its ability to stop the amygdala, which is the center of primitive and less rational emotions. What happens. When the brain detects this lack of “fuel”, it does not interpret it as “the restaurant reservation has been delayed”, but as a vital threat that there is a lack of food in the environment. That is why to compensate, the adrenal glands release both cortisol and adrenaline, which are involved in the stress situation. Logically, an increase in these hormones generates irritability that is typical of hypoglycemia. Although if we go further, there are studies that suggest that the brain, in emergency situations such as hunger, prioritizes survival over patience or social courtesy, making us ‘jump’ at any interaction. The good news. Here, being aware of what is happening to us and that it is related to hunger is the most valuable thing to avoid getting angry with our partner or friend. Logically, this makes the brain understand that it is not in the middle of the jungle and that it needs to look for food as soon as possible, but it will only delay a little returning to the glucose levels to which it is accustomed. Images | freepik In Xataka | We thought that quenching hunger with Ozempic was the definitive remedy against obesity. Until we look at the muscle

Airlines justify price increases with additional premium services. All except one: Ryanair

The increase in operating costs It is making it increasingly difficult for airlines to offer low-priced flights. The low-cost They are becoming less and less, and with each passing year the prices of their tickets increase. Airlines have found a simple way to justify that increase: offer more comfort with wide seats and extra services that sound like luxury. Ryanair, however, does the opposite. Although the Irish company is forced to raise the price of its tickets, the company is reluctant to include any “luxury” options to justify the price increase. The boom in “premium” seats. As and how he published The New York Timestraditional airlines are dedicating more and more space on airplanes to seats for “premium” tourist class, with larger seats and improved services. This allows them to charge much more for those seats, while maintaining the number of passengers. The data they point because tickets for these “premium” tourist zones cost up to five times more than a normal one and represent close to 15% of revenue per passenger. According to data of Financial Timesuntil 2028, the number of seats of this type will grow by 11% each year, while the basic economy class stagnates in terms of sales. With this new “premium” tourist model, airlines earn more for each person who travels, without having to squeeze passengers into increasingly tight seats. The low-cost ones join the cart. Such is the success of this model, that even low-cost airlines have begun to offer packages with more services and, of course, with a higher price. Companies like EasyJet or Frontier Airlines They sell “premium” options with priority boarding, seat selection or even complete vacation packages. This adds extra costs to the way you work. The problem is that these added services make the ticket more expensive, so now they depend more on charging for the large baggage check-in or reservation changes. This makes them lose their price advantage and brings them closer to traditional airlines. Their response has been to stop competing for passenger volume at a low price, and now they seek to offer prices equivalent to a single ticket on a conventional airline, but with extra amenities. Ryanair does not take the bait. Ryanair has already announced that the price of your tickets will increase up to 9% in 2026. The company has achieved keep your costs very controlled placing its expenses per passenger and kilometer at only 4.5 euro cents, compared to more than 7 cents for rivals such as EasyJet or Eurowings, or 9 cents for British Airways. Keeping operating expenses low is what allows Ryanair to continue with its low pricing policy without having to offer “premium” features. Something in which its CEO seems not to give in one bit, judging by the clash in X between Elon Musk and Michael O’Leary for connectivity WiFi on airplanes. Musk claimed that more and more airlines were offering WiFi connection packages on their flights as a “premium” option, and criticized Ryanair for not including it. The response from the controversial CEO of Ryanair was immediate, ensuring that he was not going to offer anything that would increase the operating costs of his planes, and the installation of a Starlink antenna increased fuel consumption. That ignited the spark of a small brawl in which Musk threatened to buy the airline but O’Leary knew how to take to his field. Costs are the key. As demonstrated by the latest financial balance of the Irish airline, savings and containment of operating costs are the secret of Ryanair’s success which, with its refusal to pay the increase in Aena rates and at the price of fuel, it recorded profits of 2,540 million euros in the last half of 2025. While the rest of the airlines must resort to “premium” services to justify their price increases. Ryanair seems to be comfortable with its role as stingy in services to its passengers, and prefers to continue betting on a strategy of low prices and moving a highest percentage of passengers. For now, that model works for them. In Xataka | The CEO of Ryanair would govern a country like his airline: a “low cost” state with millionaire politicians and cuts in services Image | Ryanair

We criticize the EU a lot with its obsession with regulating Big Tech. There are at least two examples that justify this obsession

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the AI Law They are two of the great exponents of something that the European Union is highly criticized for: his regulatory obsession. It is true that these regulations restrict companies and can slow down European innovation – this has happened with AI – but these worrying side effects are accompanied by others that are much more welcome. Especially because this regulation has made the world a little more interoperable. There are two great examples of this. First example: USB-C. The adoption of the USB-C connector as the mandatory Being able to charge mobile devices and other hardware products is undoubtedly positive for users. Although the standard has its own problemsits use as a universal connector has avoided the use of proprietary connectors that made interoperability difficult and caused greater problems for the environment in the form of electronic waste. Second example: Universal AirDrop. We have also recently seen how Google offered support on the Pixel 10 to be able to transfer data to an iPhone or iPad thanks to AirDrop support in QuickShare. That support will be extended to other Android phones soon, and that improves interoperability between both platforms. From now on it will be much easier to transfer photos directly from mobile to mobile (be it iPhone or Android) wirelessly, and there we have to thank the European Unionwhich forced Apple to modify the way AirDrop works to comply with the DMA. And there is still more. These efforts to improve interoperability will soon be even more rewarded. Google and Apple have announced their collaboration in making portability between different platforms much easier. Thus, changing from an Android mobile to an iPhone or vice versa it’s going to be easier thanks to the efforts that both companies are making. Why have they made that decision? Again, due to the “regulatory obsession” of the EU. The EU sticks out its chest. Euroregulators in fact celebrated this decision by Google and Apple these days, and affirm that the renewed interoperability “is an example of how the Digital Markets Act (DMA) offers benefits to both users and developers.” That same regulation was what allowed iOS 26 to add support to transfer an eSIM to and from an Android mobile, for example. The EU against (almost) everyone. The EU’s regulatory obsession may often be criticized, but the truth is that it is the great reference when it comes to confronting the unlimited ambition of Big Tech. It has done so in the past with the RGPD or with the DSA and the DMAand now with the AI ​​Law. In all of them the ultimate goal is normally reasonable, although it often happens that the regulation ends up being exaggerated or, as with AI, comes too soon. The last chapter of obsession. European regulators suspect that Google is using content from news publishers and other creators to train their generative AI without permission and without offering compensation. These practices may constitute an abuse of Google’s dominant position in the market, which would negatively affect both competition and content publishers themselves. This research also affects “AI Overviews,” which extract and summarize information from other websites, potentially reducing traffic to those original sources. Brussels Effect. The application of these regulations in a market like the European one causes the so-called “Brussels effect”. For large technology companies such as Apple or Google, it is more efficient and profitable to adopt a single standard for all their products worldwide than to design specific versions only for the European market. Thus, this obsession not only benefits us European citizens (when it does), but also ends up becoming the de facto standard worldwide, as has happened with the USB-C connector. This regulation ends up becoming a powerful engine of global change. It is not perfect by any means, and we are seeing it with the AI ​​Law or the cookie nightmare, but even in those cases the EU seems to have realized and is trying to change things. The challenge of the AI ​​Law. If the DMA pursues interoperability, the AI ​​Law seeks transparency and compensation to prevent these monopolies from consolidating in this era of generative AI. The investigation into Google is not only a defense of copyright, but a preventive measure against competition. Meanwhile, the US and China seem turn a blind eye and we have even seen how the leaders of big technology companies They ask that copyright laws not be applied arguing the famous “fair use” of those contents that have little de jusot, at least for content providers. In Xataka | All the big AIs have ignored copyright laws. The amazing thing is that there are still no consequences

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.