Science

Science now suggests that it also improves mood (even decaffeinated)

by

For many of us, life doesn’t begin until we drink our first cup of coffee in the morning to receive the morning rush that we directly associate with the power of caffeine. But the reality is that this is not the culprit, but rather the coffee itself (even without caffeine) and its interaction with the microbiota It is our digestive system that is truly responsible for our high. What has been seen? A recent and exhaustive study published in the prestigious magazine Nature has shown than regular coffee consumption drastically modifies our intestinal microbiomewhich is increasingly beginning to have more relevance. And, through the well-known gut-brain axis, which can be imagined as a highway that connects both places, this drink is capable of improving our mood and reducing stress. An experiment. To reach this result, the research team recruited 31 regular coffee drinkers, who consumed between 3 and 5 cups a day. But at the same time they also needed 31 people not to drink any coffee. From here, regular consumers were subjected to what was probably the worst fortnight of their lives: two weeks without drinking any coffee. The good news is that, after this period, the drink was reintroducedbut in a controlled way, separating the subjects between those who drank normal coffee and those who drank decaffeinated coffee. The result. Through stool and blood analysis, along with psychological and cognitive tests, it was possible to see that when coffee was reintroduced, markers of perceived stress plummeted and mood improved. And since decaf achieved the same psychological impact, the researchers concluded that what is responsible for making us feel good is not (only) caffeine, but the bioactive compounds in coffee feeding our bacteria. Because? When we are drinking coffee, the reality is that we drink a powerful cocktail of polyphenols and chlorogenic acids that act as prebiotics, making them perfect food for certain beneficial bacteria that live in our colon. Here the study detected that coffee promotes the growth of some specific species such as Eggertella sp. as well as an increase in the Firmicutes family. Although they have very strange names (like almost everything in microbiology), these microorganisms are health factories, since when they digest the compounds, short-chain fatty acids such as butyrate are produced. And these metabolites travel from the intestine to the brain, reducing neuronal inflammation and modulating the production of neurotransmitters key to well-being. There are many tests. In addition to this study, there are other different ones, such as one published in 2024 that linked coffee consumption to an increase in bacteria Lawsonibacter asaccharolyticusa powerful butyrate producer strongly linked to intestinal and mental health. but another published in 2022 showed that both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee mitigated depressive behaviors and reduced pro-inflammatory cytokines, normalizing the microbiota deregulated by lack of rest. More than a stimulant. For decades, coffee’s relationship with gastrointestinal health has been a topic of debate that is often blamed on reflux. However, current evidence paints a very different picture in moderate doses, since here it is an active tool to maintain a diverse intestinal ecosystem and is also positive to protect us against other diseases. Images | prostooleh on Freepik In Xataka | If the question is “how much caffeine is in each cup of coffee or tea,” this graph offers insightful answers.

We have been believing for years that yogurt was the best probiotic. Science is now crowning kefir

by

In recent months there is a dairy product that has begun to become very popular, causing traditional yogurt to begin to falter from its ‘reign’ on supermarket shelves. We are talking about kefir, a product that is increasingly you are listening much more and which is registering a boom that is driven above all by social networks that have promoted some of the benefits it can have for the digestive system. A battle. For decades, yogurt has been the undisputed leader in taking care of our intestinal flora due to the ‘good’ bacteria it has in its composition. However, at a microscopic level, the battle is completely unequal, since, while conventional yogurt usually contains between 2 and 5 bacterial strains whose effects on the intestine are transitory, kefir is a massive symbiotic consortium and offers a better long-term result. We are talking about an ecosystem that houses between 30 and 50 strains of bacteria and yeast, and here the published reviews highlight that this overwhelming microbiological diversity allows kefir to survive stomach acids and ‘settle’ in the intestine in a persistent way. In this way, the bacteria are not passing through as can happen with yogurt, but rather kefir settles and transforms the bacterial flora. And more benefits. Its level of residual lactose here is significantly lower, so the bacteria and yeast in kefir “eat” much of the sugar in the milk during its fermentation, which explains why there are clinical trials showing that lactose intolerant They digest it without having as much reflux and also with less bloating. What does science say? Here there are different sources that can be consulted that suggest that the consumption of kefir reduces some of the bacteria that colonize our mouth producing cavities and is also a proven ally in the eradication of the dreaded bacteria. Helicobacter pylori (although strict antibiotic treatment is required to eliminate it). A recent meta-analysis published in 2025 indicates that kefir also reduces markers of general inflammation and oxidative stress, which are two of the great enemies we face when we talk about harmful agents for the body if they are maintained over time. Furthermore, its ability to reduce the fasting glucose and insulin resistancemaking it a food of interest for the control of type 2 diabetes. The small print. Like everything in nutritional science, the “how much” and the “what” are critical. Here studies indicate that to obtain these metabolic and anti-inflammatory benefits, doses of between 400 and 600 milliliters daily are required, maintained constantly for periods of 4 to 12 weeks. If taken in a ‘jumping’ manner and without consistency, no results should be expected. Which one to choose. Although it may seem like it, not all kefirs are the samesince a pilot trial in healthy men showed that traditional kefir (made from real nodules) reduces LDL cholesterol and inflammatory cytokines much more than hyper-processed commercial versions. The reason is quite simple: industrialization tends to simplify microbial diversity to sterilize the product, losing along the way part of this microbiological ‘magic’ that we appreciate so much. Images | freepik In Xataka | We have been assuming for decades that “skimmed” or “0% fat” yogurt is healthier. It’s time to rethink it

Science explains why you leave the gym a month after starting

by

The beginning of the year arrives, the gym fee is paid and you leave with great motivation religiously for several weeks. But a day appears where you can’t go due to overwork and, suddenly, you don’t play sports again for months. This is a description of what happens to many people, and although it is easy to blame a lack of discipline, the truth is that psychology points to the goals we set for ourselves. The culprits. As reported by El País, when we face To a new exercise routine, we set goals that are as rigid as if it were a new company we are creating. And this is a mistake, as a study published this year points out, showing that excessively rigid exercise plans encourage an “all or nothing” mentality. This means that if the goal is to “go to the gym 4 days a week for 1 hour” and one week you can only go two days for 20 minutes, the brain processes it as a total failure, which triggers dropout rates. But also, if they are very ambitious, great frustration can arise when you are not seeing the result because of how far away it is. The goals. We usually start the sport with a result in mind which can be “lose five kilos” or “get some good abs to go to the beach to show them off”, but science suggests that this is the wrong approach to adhering to this exercise plan in the long term. The evidence suggests that focusing on the process, such as proposing that tomorrow you will do a little more exercise than today, improves motivation. This is supported by self-determination theory, which shows that when exercise is associated with daily enjoyment and well-being, rather than achieving a number on a scale, it is maintained for longer. Flexibility. One of the great fitness myths is that you must reorganize your entire existence around your training routine to achieve results, and this can suffocate anyone. Here the science point because the goals must be individual and above all flexible in the event of an unforeseen work or social event, since sport can be seen as a real inconvenience. Autonomy. When exercise is perceived as a punishment or a medical obligation imposed to improve health, it has an expiration date that is very close. Here interventions reviewed by Infocop and publications of the Spanish Society of Primary Care Physicians (SEMFYC) they insist in the need for progressive adaptation and, above all, giving positive feedback. The WHO itself, in its guidelines on physical activityemphasizes that health promotion should not be obsessed with the “optimal goal” and maximum performance, but with the creation of a sustainable habit that focuses on doing a little exercise so as not to be sedentary. Because the reality is that with a small amount of exercise time, The benefits achieved are incredible. Rescheduling goals. In summary of all this, we must keep in mind that we must avoid strict numbers at the beginning, such as ‘lose 10 kilos in two months no matter what’, and above all be compassionate towards failure, since a day without training does not ruin progress. In addition, we must opt ​​for activities that really motivate us and not the exercises that appear on TikTok and that are fashionable. Images | freepik In Xataka | We have been debating for years whether we should exercise at night or in the morning. The answer is in our DNA

The science of learning dismantles the mathematical rule of the fashionable study method

by

When it comes to studying anything, almost all of us want to have a system that allows us learn quickly and efficient. This is where we can turn to the Internet, where there are numerous pages that promise us almost miraculous systems to pass easily, and one of them is the 2-7-30 method. But… What does science say about this system? What is it about? This method focuses on a system where you have to review the information exactly 2, 7 and 30 days after having addressed it on the first occasion. Something that is quite similar to what we want to achieve with the flashcards. Something that a priori seems quite simple to put into practice, but which can generate quite a bit of fear by leaving a topic shelved for so many days in the last round. It gives good results. But it is the best from the point of view of science, and to understand it, we have to go to the basics of how our memory works. And this method is based on the spacing effectwhich undoubtedly far surpasses the classic ‘binge’ the night before an exam, where you try to get all the data in in a matter of hours. Here, a classic meta-analysis published in 2006 in Psychological Bulletin, analyzed 839 measures in 317 experiments and confirmed that distributing practice over separate intervals dramatically improves retention. But even in the past, other studies suggested that repeating material over time consolidates memory much more efficiently. Recovery practice. There is no point in spacing out the reviews if, when day 2 or day 7 of the method arrives, we limit ourselves to passively rereading the notes. Here different studies have shown that actively trying to remember information produces much more lasting learning than passively re-studying it. In this way, forcing the brain to “rescue” that data strengthens neuronal connections, and science points to the advantage of active remembering over traditional binge-watching methods, such as making conceptual maps. The enemy to beat. The concept of reviewing in increasingly longer windows of time is born from the need to combat our natural decline in retention. This is where a work on the “forgetting curve” by Hermann Ebbinghaus comes into play, which demonstrated that we lose most of the newly learned information within hours or days if we do nothing to retain it. More modern replications of this idea confirm that this initial rapid forgetting is real and useful to contextualize the problem, although researchers depend on different factors and not only the strict passage of time. That is why the idea we should stick with is that every time we review the information, the forgetting curve resets and its slope becomes gentler so that it takes longer to disappear. The myth of exact numbers. Although it has been shown that spacing study days, in reality science does not identify 2, 7 and 30 days as a universally valid pattern for all learning and people, but will depend on many factors. Here, a study published in 2008 showed that the optimal interval between reviews depends on the retention interval we are looking for, but that the spacing changes radically if the objective is to remember something for an exam that is due in a week versus if we want to remember something in a year, as can happen in an opposition. In this way we get the following pattern: If the exam is in 1 week, the reviews should be separated by just 1 or 2 days. If the exam is in 1 year, Reviews should be spaced several weeks or even a month apart. Images | freepik In Xataka | SQ3R technique: the study method that helps you understand the subjects, not just remember them

Science has managed to turn off the extra chromosome of Down syndrome. It has also opened the great ethical debate on gene editing

by

In the complex genetic map that surrounds the known down syndromethe problem is not that there is a lack of information in our cells, but that there is an excess. The presence of a third copy of chromosome 21 It unbalances the entire cellular system that ends up generating an entire clinic that today did not have any type of cure. But thanks to clinical advances and revolutionary gene therapies, we have found a way to turn off this gene that is extra in the cells of people with Down. A natural switch. To understand this advance, we must look at how nature itself resolves its own genetic imbalances. And, for those who do not know, in human beings sex is determined by two types of chromosomes: X and Y. If you are a woman, you will have XX chromosomes, and if you are a man, you will have XY. The problem, boiling it down to its most basic, is that always one of the ‘X’ genes must be silenced so that the genetic load is compensated in humans. And this is something that is done thanks to the gene XIST which encodes an RNA molecule that covers the chromosome and alters its chromatin, silencing de facto their genes. Something that has been developed by nature itself in order to maintain the species, and then the question is obligatory: why not use this natural switch to silence the chromosomes that generate diseases as important as Down syndrome? It’s not something new. The idea of ​​using this “switch” to be able to alter the gene expression of the chromosomes that we have in excess is not new, since in 2013 the researcher Jeanne Lawrence demonstrated for the first time that this RNA could induce the silencing of the extra chromosome 21 in human cells that were in culture in a laboratory. Later, in 2020, it was applied to neural stem cells, but the historical problem has always been the same: the very low efficiency when integrating this gene into the affected cells.. A new milestone. This has changed radically, as a team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston has published a new article in PNAS with a solution to eradicate this bottleneck thanks to the tool CRISPR/Cas9. This system can be visualized as simple scissors that specifically cut into our DNA to eliminate something that was left over or altered. The problem is that it was not very efficient at integrating new genetic material, and to overcome this, scientists have developed a modified version of CRISPR/Cas9 that boosts the success rate of the integration of the XIST gene which will silence the third chromosome 21. Good results. Here we recognize how XIST has been integrated into 20-40% of cell lines that have trisomy 21. Furthermore, the method reliably affects only the extra copy of chromosome 21 without silencing other genes that can cause other diseases. There are problems. Despite the enthusiasm, the technique is far from being applied in humans, since one of the biggest challenges of CRISPR is the mutations off-target, That is, it acts on other genetic points that are its marked objectives. And this occurs when these ‘scissors’ cut a sequence of DNA that closely resembles its target, but which in reality is not. In this way, an error off-target It could trigger severe cellular problems or even cancer. Recent studies show that experimentation on embryos with these techniques often results in mosaicism with edited and unedited cells, as well as incomplete edits. This means that right now we have to work on having greater specificity in the genetic objectives of the therapy so that the consequences of using it are not much greater than the fact of curing a disease. Ethical shock. The controversy is served with genetic therapies in general, since right now one of the lines that are open is to eliminate this extra chromosome directly in a human embryo before implementing it in a woman so that she is not born with this disease. This is where bioethicists they point because experimenting with human embryos damages their physical integrity and poses irreversible risks for future generations. Furthermore, they underline the urgency of distinguishing between the use of CRISPR for purely therapeutic purposes, such as treating symptoms, and its use for “genetic improvement” or the selection of embryos that are much more advanced or genetically perfect. This is also added to the fact that genetic editing in embryos for reproductive purposes is currently prohibited in most countries. Images | Sangharsh Lohakare In Xataka | The surprising thing is not that we have sequenced the DNA of a Neanderthal from 11,000 years ago: it is what it has revealed

Science has managed to turn off the extra chromosome of Down syndrome. It has also opened the great ethical debate on gene editing

by

In the complex genetic map that surrounds the known down syndromethe problem is not that there is a lack of information in our cells, but that there is an excess. The presence of a third copy of chromosome 21 It unbalances the entire cellular system that ends up generating an entire clinic that today did not have any type of cure. But thanks to clinical advances and revolutionary gene therapies, we have found a way to turn off this gene that is extra in the cells of people with Down. A natural switch. To understand this advance, we must look at how nature itself resolves its own genetic imbalances. And, for those who do not know, in human beings sex is determined by two types of chromosomes: X and Y. If you are a woman, you will have XX chromosomes, and if you are a man, you will have XY. The problem, boiling it down to its most basic, is that always one of the ‘X’ genes must be silenced so that the genetic load is compensated in humans. And this is something that is done thanks to the gene XIST which encodes an RNA molecule that covers the chromosome and alters its chromatin, silencing de facto their genes. Something that has been developed by nature itself in order to maintain the species, and then the question is obligatory: why not use this natural switch to silence the chromosomes that generate diseases as important as Down syndrome? It’s not something new. The idea of ​​using this “switch” to be able to alter the gene expression of the chromosomes that we have in excess is not new, since in 2013 the researcher Jeanne Lawrence demonstrated for the first time that this RNA could induce the silencing of the extra chromosome 21 in human cells that were in culture in a laboratory. Later, in 2020, it was applied to neural stem cells, but the historical problem has always been the same: the very low efficiency when integrating this gene into the affected cells.. A new milestone. This has changed radically, as a team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston has published a new article in PNAS with a solution to eradicate this bottleneck thanks to the tool CRISPR/Cas9. This system can be visualized as simple scissors that specifically cut into our DNA to eliminate something that was left over or altered. The problem is that it was not very efficient at integrating new genetic material, and to overcome this, scientists have developed a modified version of CRISPR/Cas9 that boosts the success rate of the integration of the XIST gene which will silence the third chromosome 21. Good results. Here we recognize how XIST has been integrated into 20-40% of cell lines that have trisomy 21. Furthermore, the method reliably affects only the extra copy of chromosome 21 without silencing other genes that can cause other diseases. There are problems. Despite the enthusiasm, the technique is far from being applied in humans, since one of the biggest challenges of CRISPR is the mutations off-target, That is, it acts on other genetic points that are its marked objectives. And this occurs when these ‘scissors’ cut a sequence of DNA that closely resembles its target, but which in reality is not. In this way, an error off-target It could trigger severe cellular problems or even cancer. Recent studies show that experimentation on embryos with these techniques often results in mosaicism with edited and unedited cells, as well as incomplete edits. This means that right now we have to work on having greater specificity in the genetic objectives of the therapy so that the consequences of using it are not much greater than the fact of curing a disease. Ethical shock. The controversy is served with genetic therapies in general, since right now one of the lines that are open is to eliminate this extra chromosome directly in a human embryo before implementing it in a woman so that she is not born with this disease. This is where bioethicists they point because experimenting with human embryos damages their physical integrity and poses irreversible risks for future generations. Furthermore, they underline the urgency of distinguishing between the use of CRISPR for purely therapeutic purposes, such as treating symptoms, and its use for “genetic improvement” or the selection of embryos that are much more advanced or genetically perfect. This is also added to the fact that genetic editing in embryos for reproductive purposes is currently prohibited in most countries. Images | Sangharsh Lohakare In Xataka | The surprising thing is not that we have sequenced the DNA of a Neanderthal from 11,000 years ago: it is what it has revealed

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

They have kidnapped agents from Anthropic, Google and Microsoft for the sake of science. The three companies ended up paying

by

In some development teams it is already becoming common to rely on artificial intelligence agents to review incidents, analyze code changes and move through tasks that were previously left in human hands. The problem appears when these systems not only read information that may come from outside, but also operate in spaces where they coexist. sensitive keys, tokens and permissions. That is what recent research puts on the table: we are not simply facing a useful tool that can make mistakes, but rather an architecture that can also become dangerous if it is deployed without very clear limits. The alarm has been turned on Aonan Guan and Johns Hopkins researchers Zhengyu Liu and Gavin Zhong after demonstrating attacks against three agents deployed on the aforementioned platform: Claude Code Security Review, from Anthropic, Gemini CLI Action, from Google, and GitHub Copilot Agent, a GitHub tool under Microsoft. According to your documentation, The failures were communicated in a coordinated manner and ended in financial rewards paid by the companies, but what is relevant is that they point to a broader problem. This is how they managed to twist the agents from within The name that Guan gives to the discovery helps a lot to understand what this is all about: “Comment and Control.” The idea is simple to explain, although the substance is not so simple. Instead of setting up an external infrastructure to direct the attack, GitHub itself acts as an entry and exit channel: the attacker leave the instruction in a titlean incident or a comment, the agent processes it as if it were part of normal work and the result ends up reappearing within that same environment. Everything stays at home, and that is precisely the key to the problem. And that “everything stays at home” is not a minor detail, but the basis of what the research describes. The three agents share a very similar logic: they read normal content from GitHub, incorporate it as a work context, and from there, execute actions within automated flows. The clash appears because that same space not only contains text sent by third parties, but also tools, permissions and secrets that the agent needs to operate. The first case Guan details concerns Claude Code Security Review, an Anthropic GitHub action designed to review code changes and look for possible security flaws. Up to this point, everything is within what was expected. The problem, as the researcher explains, is that it was enough to introduce malicious instructions in the title of a pull requestwhich is the request that someone sends to propose changes to a project, so that the agent will execute commands and return the result as if it were part of your review. The team then managed to go a step further and demonstrate that it could also extract credentials from the environment. The interesting thing is that the same scheme also appeared in the other two services, although with nuances. At Google, Gemini CLI Action could be pushed to reveal the GEMINI_API_KEY from instructions snuck into an issue and its comments; In GitHub Copilot Agent, the variant was even more worrying, because the attack was hidden in an HTML comment that a person did not see on the screen, but the agent did process when another person assigned it to the case. In both scenarios, the background was the same again: apparently normal content that ended up twisting the behavior of the system until exposing credentials or sensitive information within GitHub itself. Guan assures that the pattern made it possible to leak API keys, GitHub tokens and other secrets exposed in the environment where the agent ran, that is, just the credentials that can later open the door to much more delicate actions. Who does this affect? Especially to repositories that run agents in GitHub Actions on content sent by untrustworthy collaborators and, in addition, give them access to secrets or powerful tools. The researcher himself clarifies that the risk depends a lot on the configuration: by default GitHub does not expose secrets to pull requests from forksbut there are deployments that open that door. And here another layer of the matter appears, less technical but just as important. As published by The RegisterAnthropic, Google, and GitHub ended up paying bounties for the findings, but none of the three had published public notices or assigned CVE at the time of that information. Guan was quite clear about this: he said he knew “for certain” that some users were still stuck on vulnerable versions and warned that, without visible communication, many may never know that they were exposed or even being attacked. So although there were mitigations and changes in documentation or in the internal treatment of reports, there was no equivalent public notice for all those potentially affected. Anthropic settled the case on November 25, 2025 and paid $100 Google rewarded the discovery on January 20, 2026 with $1,337 GitHub closed the case on March 9, 2026 with a payment of $500 What makes this case especially delicate is that GitHub does not seem like the end of the road, but rather the first visible showcase. Guan argues that the same pattern can probably be reproduced in other agents who work with tools and secrets within automatic flows, and there he mentions from Slack-connected bots to Jira agentsmail or deployment automation. The logic is the same again: if the system has to read external content to do its job and also has enough access to act, the field is fertile for someone to try to twist it from within. The conclusion that Guan reaches is not about selling a magic solution, but about returning to a fairly classic idea in security: giving each system only what is essential to do its job. If an agent reviews code, they shouldn’t have access to tools or secrets they don’t need; If you’re just summarizing issues, it wouldn’t make sense for you to write to GitHub or touch sensitive credentials. That … Read more

There are only 66 cases in the world and science is just beginning to understand it

by

Night rest can be interrupt due to many factorssuch as the need to go to the bathroom constantly to drink water before going to sleep, but there are other cases, such as painful sleep erectionswhich right now is emerging from ignorance, and that is why every time you get to know more of this problem which, fortunately, is quite infrequent. What is it? Although you may think that this is a problem related to the penis, the truth is that it is classified as a parasomnia. And it is no wonder, because what happens to the man here is that he has multiple erections during the night while he is in the REM phase of sleep that are so painful that it makes you wake up with a jump out of bed. But the curious thing is that the problem does not lie in the penis tissue itself, but rather clinical reviews point out that this disease is closely linked to hypertonicity or contracture of the bulbocavernosus muscles of the penis and the pelvic floor. Added to this are alterations in the central nervous system, such as instability during REM sleep, a peak in activity of the sympathetic nervous system and abnormal processing of pain and hormonal stress signals. It’s a challenge. At the level of cases diagnosed with this problem, the reality is that we speak of a “phantom disease” since it barely there are 66 cases documented worldwide, and there are almost no articles in the medical literature. This is something that translates into a situation of underdiagnosis, since in daily practice specialists see very few cases throughout their career. As a result, patients suffer a medical journey that delays diagnosis for years, and in desperation, and in the absence of answers, many end up assuming erroneous self-diagnoses based on chronic stress or prostatitis. Science tries to advance. Historically, the lack of cases made it difficult to create treatment protocols with the steps that doctors had to follow to solve the patient’s problem. However, recent clinical research has shed light on highly effective therapeutic approaches. That is why right now the use of muscle relaxants such as baclofen has proven to be a turning point for patients, since by relaxing the muscles of the penis an improvement is achieved in patients with this problem. In addition, diseases that are below this problem should also be looked for, such as sleep apnea or insomnia in general, which may be related to this pathology. Although there is still much to be done to investigate this disease, which a priori is quite unknown. Images | gpointstudio on Freepik In Xataka | Before colonizing other planets, humanity must solve a problem: erections in space

science is in the middle

by

In the crowded nutrition and supplements market, the collagen Hydrolyzed has emerged as one of the products that many people take daily with the thought that it will improve their joints and bones so that they become rejuvenated again. And it is no wonder, because there are promises of unbreakable articulations, eternally young skin and fracture-proof bones flooding social networks. But science has a lot to say here. Some statements. Skepticism can be maximum when taking these supplements that are sold to us as almost a miracle for health. In this way, there are some voices like that of Santiago Segura that they point to speeches of disappointment: “I was taking collagen for my bones, but I read that it’s like eating a computer to be smarter.” But… Are you right in saying that it is useless? The science here is quite clear: it is not a miracle, but it is not something harmless that we take every day. Collagen in the body. At a purely biological level, type I collagen functions as the main protein of the structural matrix of bone tissue, that is, as if they were the scaffolding for later bricks. Once we took this into account, science wanted to see how its construction works. The supplement problem. Within scientific logic, when we swallow a collagen pill and it reaches the stomach, it is literally broken down by stomach acids. In this way, when it is decomposed, it loses its main function, since it has to be absorbed into small amino acids that make up proteins such as collagen. The problem here is that the body does not know that we have taken collagen, but instead it detects that there are a series of amino acids that are like its bricks for future proteins. In this way, very varied proteins can be built in the blood, but it may not end up forming this collagen that we want to go to the bone or cartilage. And this is what explains why some are big detractors of taking collagen. What does science say? Here the studies have not been so catastrophic in pointing out that the body is capable of absorbing protein peptides in the intestine and they can act in target areas. Here the difference is that peptides are a small protein fragment of several amino acids, which does not resemble collagen, which is the complete protein, but it does something. We have an example in a meta-analysis published in 2025 which concluded that supplementation with hydrolyzed collagen significantly increases bone mineral density in critical areas such as the spine and neck of the femur. In the case of postmenopausal women. an acquaintance 2018 clinical trial showed that a dose of 5 grams per day of specific collagen peptides for 12 months managed to increase bone mineral density and improve biomarkers compared to a placebo group. This is something fundamental, because we are talking about a group of people who are very prone to bone problems. Furthermore, a 4-year follow-up published in 2021 confirmed these long-term effects in this same demographic group with osteopenia or osteoporosis. More evidence. A 2026 large systematic review on musculoskeletal health group tests pointing to consistent and clinically relevant benefits for both bone and muscle, although it warns that the level of evidence is intermediate. And once again we see that it is not at all a miracle for everyone, nor does it replace good treatment for bone problems. The small print. Despite these positive data, science also puts a handbrake on the excessive expectations that they sometimes try to sell us. In this case, many of the studies carried out to date are relatively small, of short duration or have a very heterogeneous design without focusing on a similar population. In addition to all this, we must remember that we are not dealing with a drug, but rather a dietary supplement. For health problems, once again we must remember that you should consult a doctor who will evaluate the medical treatments currently approved for osteoporosis, such as bisphosphonates. But ‘take for the sake of taking’ is not the best strategy, as with other supplements. A winning combo. If you are going to take collagen expecting real benefits in your bones, science indicates that it is not enough to take an isolated pill and wait for a miracle. In this case, it must be taken into account that the best collagen is the one that is specifically hydrolyzed, and its composition is also validated and supported. Patience is also essential here, since it has to be taken for several months and the positive effects are much more relevant when collagen is combined with a diet rich in calcium and vitamin D, added to physical exercise. Images | GRANAT In Xataka | There are people obsessed with magnesium as a supplement when the best way is to put it directly into your diet

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.