Science

Science suggests that heat does not eliminate the toxin from potatoes with sprouts

by

Being in the kitchen, opening the pantry and finding some potatoes at the back that we had forgotten about is a scene that can be common in Spanish kitchens. As time goes by, it is common for ‘eyes’ or small sprouts appear on the tubers with greenish areas. And this is where we divide ourselves into two banks: those who cut the ugly piece and cook the rest, and those who throw everything away out of fear. The risk. In order to know which side is the most suitable, in this case, you have to understand the chemistry that the potato hides inside. The tuber naturally produces compounds called glucoalkaloids, mainly two: α-solanine and α-chaconine. They are not compounds that are there to bother us humans, but rather they are an evolutionary defense system that it has. The problem is that under certain conditions of stress this concentration skyrockets and that is where is becoming a red flag for humans. The stress. Among the stimuli that can increase the production of these stimuli we find light, which stimulates chlorophyll synthesis, but also blows and cuts. But the most striking thing is the appearance of sprouts on the surface of the potato that mobilize these compounds. AND according to toxicological data While a normal potato has safe levels, green or sprouting parts can accumulate up to 1 mg of the compound per gram of potato. The dose makes the poison. Taking a little of this compound is not fatal, but the problem is reaching the toxic doses that It is calculated between 2 and 5 mg per kg of body weight. This means that for a 70 kg adult, the dangerous intake would begin between 140 and 350 mg of solanine. It seems like a high amount, but if we consume very green potatoes or those with many sprouts (where the concentration is maximum), it is not impossible to achieve it. And even when both compounds are combined, the effect is much more powerful than when they are ingested separately. The symptoms. Most mild poisonings go unnoticed because they are confused with common gastroenteritis. And it is quite similar because the symptoms appear between 30 minutes and 12 hours after ingesting this compound, presenting nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain. However, in high doses, solanine is a neurotoxin and that is why we have documented cases where serious neurological disorders or cardiovascular complications have occurred. And it is no wonder, since the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) places special emphasis on the vulnerability of children, since due to their lower body weight, reaching the toxic threshold is much easier for them with few potatoes. The boiling myth. This is perhaps the most important point and where the most people make mistakes. There is a belief that by boiling or frying the potato, we “kill” the poison and the short answer is no. The reason centers on the great stability of solanine against the high temperatures of domestic cooking. This is why boiling a potato with sprouts will not degrade solanine, although frying at very high temperatures can partially degrade it. But in no case is it a guarantee of total security. What should be done. What you should try to do in these cases is quite clear.: If the potato is hard and the sprouts are incipient, it can be consumed. Although logically you have to remove the sprout and the surrounding area generously. But the problem comes when there are green spots on a large part of the potato, it has large sprouts or it is very wrinkled. Here you have to throw it away, since the solanine could have spread throughout the tuber and the risk is not worth it in these cases. Especially when we talk about the little ones in the house. The flavor rules. And although it is something strange to see in our society, there is the possibility of detecting the presence of a large amount of solanine thanks to its bitter taste. Here, if when you taste a dish of potatoes you notice a persistent bitterness, it is best to stop eating immediately. Images | Bekky Bekks In Xataka | Restaurants in half of Spain are giving us scallops for scallops. And Galicia has tired of fraud

Science says that eating three oranges is health and drinking them is a mistake

by

One of the most characteristic images of the ideal breakfast is undoubtedly the freshly squeezed orange juice that They try to place us in any cafeteria thanks to being an icon of health and vitamin C. However, in recent years it has been seen that the way to get the most out of this fruit is to leave it whole and without squeezing it. The juice is different. A juice, whether natural or bottled, It is not the same as fruit, no matter how much they try to sell it to us that way.. And the difference is precisely in what ends up in the trash, better known as food matrixwhich has a large number of benefits that we are constantly discarding. The matrix rotates. To understand why juice is not the same as fruit, we must understand how our digestive system works in the presence of food. In the case of eating whole fruits, what we eat is a complex “matrix” that has water and fructose ‘trapped’ inside. This is a network of insoluble and soluble fiber that forces our body to work a little to be able to absorb the nutrients that are in between. The fact of having to ‘search’ for nutrients among the fiber favors a much slower digestion that makes the sugars pass through the body in a more ‘controlled’ manner and not abruptly. But when you squeeze the fruit, this matrix ends up destroyed and the sugars are released from its prison, making it much easier for the body to trap them. The consequences. For the WHOintrinsic fructose, the sugar from the fruit itselfis now called ‘free sugars’ since they have nothing to hold them back. In this way, when drinking the juice, gastric emptying is very fast because there are no solids to process and the result is a large amount of glucose and fructose reaching the bloodstream. Something that represents stress for the body that is not prepared for it. The glucose curve. While eating whole fruit generates a much more moderate and sustained curve, juice causes an acute glycemic peak, followed by reactive hypoglycemia that awakens hunger shortly after. Although anyone in these cases may think that logically the amount of sugar in both the juice and the fruit is the same, so the behavior of the organism should be identical. But the reality is quite different, since science has been able to demonstrate that although the amount of sugar is identical, insulin response is significantly greater in the liquid version. For metabolic purposes, the pancreas does not distinguish much between industrial orange juice, homemade one or a sugary soft drink: it detects a flood of energy that it must manage immediately. What the data says. In this context, science already pointed out in 2014 a figure that should make us rethink breakfast: a higher intake of fruit juice was associated with a 14% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. On the contrary, the consumption of whole fruits (especially blueberries, grapes or apples) is systematically associated with a reduced risk. The fructose trap. Beyond glucose, which is like the main enemy against health that many of us have in mind, another enemy must be highlighted: liquid fructose. In this case, when it suddenly reaches the liver, it converts its excess into fat, generating uric acid as a byproduct, raising blood pressure and the risk of gout. In parallel, inflammatory pathways are activated that contribute to insulin resistance in the long term. But the key data is found in a 2025 Chilean analysis that concluded that, although 100% natural juices are “neutral” in small doses, They are consistently inferior to whole fruit in preventing major diseases. The satiety factor. There is a very interesting relationship between juices and obesity in the act of chewingas pointed out by different Japanese studies that have shown that the act of chewing not only crushes the food, but also sends satiety signals to the brain. But when we are drinking we skip these control signals to stop eating when the body says it is fine. If we start talking about figures, a glass of juice requires more or less 2-3 oranges (depending on the size), and it is very easy to drink it in forty seconds. But it is much more difficult to eat three oranges in a row, chewing slice by slice, since we are giving the body time to assimilate that sugar. It is not absolute evil. Obviously, juice is not poison for the body, but different nuances must be taken into account. Reviews published in 2024 and 2025 suggest that 100% natural juices may have a place in a healthy diet under very specific conditions. The dose in this case is very important, since It has been shown that small amounts (less than 150 ml per day) do not increase cardiovascular risk and they can provide vitamins. The problem is that the usual consumption size is usually double or triple that amount. Furthermore, the context matters since a high-performance athlete who takes that quick energy shot is not the same as a sedentary person already prone to diabetes. However, general public health advice increasingly aligns with the radical stance: if you have the choice, always choose whole fruit. Images | Mateusz Feliksik In Xataka | It turns out that a longevity expert has said something that makes sense. And the reason is the juices

Science has been measuring whether size matters for years. A study with 3D simulation has the most complete answer

by

It is probably one of the most recurring questions in the history of humanity and, yet, one of the ones that accumulates the most myths per square meter. Leaving aside popular culture and internet forums, scientific literature has been trying for years to quantify what is true about the importance penis size. Science to the rescue. A published study This year, PLOS Biology wanted to resolve a question that has undoubtedly generated many jokes and also some complexes in the male sex. And the truth is that the short answer to this question is that size does matterbut perhaps not for the reasons most men believe. The signal theory. Until now, many studies were based on simple surveys to answer this question. However, this study has gone one step further by using 343 3D figures to evaluate the response of more than 800 participants. The goal was to understand penis size not only as a reproductive tool, but as an evolutionary signaling trait. The results. In the investigationfemale participants rated men as more attractive, which combined three factors: greater height, a “V” shaped torso (wide shoulders and narrow hips) and a larger penis. But there is a very important nuance. Attraction doesn’t follow a line of “the more the merrier” ad infinitum. The study in this case detected diminishing returns, since after a certain size, attractiveness does not increase proportionally, but rather there is a ceiling. Competence. But men also went through this study to evaluate the size of other men. In this case, it was highlighted that they perceived those with larger genitals as more competitive rivals and with greater fighting capacity. This suggests that, evolutionarily, the size could have served as both sexual ornament and a signal of status or threat towards other males, similar to the antlers of a deer. What they prefer. If we move away from evolutionary theory and go to stated preference, the baseline study remains the one published by N. Prause in PLOS One in 2015. This work is key because it differentiated, for the first time with rigor, between the type of relationship sought. In this case, using 3D models on heterosexual women, a preference was specifically shown for a slightly larger size, averaging about 16.3 cm in length in an erect state and 12.7 cm in circumference. But in the case of stable couples, the preference dropped slightly to 16 cm and 12.2 cm in circumference. The key reading. The first point to note is that circumference matters more than length in visual choice. The second is that these measures are only “slightly” above the population average. A mechanical reality. This is where science busts most porn myths. A narrative review published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine in 2023 analyzed the existing literature To answer the million-dollar question: does a larger penis give more pleasure? The answer is a very nuanced ‘it depends’. Science points out in this case that there are few high-quality studies that manage to directly link size with the organism, and the results are heterogeneous. But if we draw a clear conclusion, the truth is that the quality of the relationship such as trust or communication correlates more strongly with sexual satisfaction than the size of the penis. Male anxiety. If female preferences are moderate and satisfaction depends more on technique than size, why is there still so much anxiety among society? The studies in this case They point out that there is a great disconnection between reality and male perception, since approximately 38% of men report some degree of dissatisfaction with their penis. However, the vast majority of couples have a positive view of their partners’ genitals. Images | Deon Black In Xataka | Desire in times of stress and screens: this is how the era of programmed sex was born

We have been relying on the Nutri-Score in stores for years. Science believes that its real impact is zero

by

He Nutriscore what we can see in some foods born with an ambitious promise: simplify the nutritional complexity of products into a code of easy to understand colors to know if a food is healthy or not. However, what on paper seemed like the definitive solution against obesity and poor diet is facing a much grayer scientific reality. His dark side. Although the idea seemed quite good, the reality is that new scientific reviews are setting off alarm bells. The conclusion being drawn is quite clear: the real impact on the shopping basket is minimal and the algorithm categorizes foods that are essential as something very bad. A good gap. One of the strongest arguments in favor of Nutri-Score comes from studies conducted in controlled environments, i.e. a laboratory. But what happens when we go down to the real, everyday world? This is what they wanted to analyze in a recent narrative reviewwhich evaluates consumer behavior in physical supermarkets and throws cold water on the system. And with this food color coding, the data shows that the improvement in the nutritional score of the purchase is only 2.5%. That is to say, it has hardly been noticed that a person begins to eat much more appropriate foods with this color code. Something that quite disagrees with the laboratory results that predicted that the effect was going to be much better. The real victim. The fact that some people’s shopping baskets have improved a little is the motivation that some producers of these foods have to change their ingredients to achieve a better Nutri-Score. as seen on Eroski. But this does not mean that citizens have changed the way they shop. The great blind spot. The fiercest criticism from the scientific field, highlighted by organizations such as the Puleva Nutrition Instituteis the omission of micronutrients. The current algorithm focuses almost exclusively on macronutrients, which are fat, sugars and proteins, but forgets other points that are fundamental. One of these points are vitamins and minerals, which are logically essential for the body, especially because some of them must be taken as they are not produced by the body. But polyphenols or bioactive compounds also stand out, which are essential antioxidants that can prevent chronic diseases. Unfair penalty. The system that is implemented right now also penalizes foods for their total fat content without differentiating whether they are healthy, something that has led to putting a bad score for olive oil. A paradoxical situation. The study from the University of Granada wanted to see the same thing about soluble cocoa to highlight these large discrepancies that force us to question Nutri-score. The result of the research team indicates that while pure cocoas with a higher bioactive profile can receive low grades such as C or D. But, on the other hand, others ultra-processed products with additives They achieve better scores, even A, simply by adjusting their sugar or fiber levels, without necessarily being healthier. Trying to correct it. The scientific community is no stranger to this problem and logically when something goes wrong you want to fix it to make it fit reality and that it truly fulfills the objective with which it was created. In fact, recent updates have already tried to correct the algorithm to better treat vegetable oils and nuts and penalize ultra-processed foods more strongly. However, the validations insist that, although there is an association between scores and macronutrientsthere remain huge gaps with comprehensive dietary guidelines. And we must keep in mind that the Nutri-Score measures “isolated nutrients” but not the overall quality of the food. ¿Where are we going? Science seems to indicate that the Nutri-Score is a useful but overly simplistic tool. By trying to condense health into a letter, nuances are lost that really make a difference in longevity and disease prevention. Although the algorithm is being refined to better align with European recommendations, the risk of the consumer blindly trusting an “A” for a processed product versus a “C” for a natural food remains present. Images | Franki Chamaki In Xataka | Ozempic’s “great rebound”, in figures: science reveals that the weight returns four times faster than with a diet

Science explains why the cure can be worse than the disease

by

At the time of want to lose a few kilos The truth is that many different strategies emerge, such as eliminate sweetsstart exercising more or eat much more protein. But, on the other hand, there are strategies that are really extravagant and that are spread by influencers of our society that do not have any solid foundation. The last one arrives from actor Matt Damon who claims to have lost a few kilos thanks to leaving gluten out of his diet. A discrepancy. And the reality is that science has a lot to say about this decision. Since the ‘gluten-free’ foods that now flood supermarkets were born as a medical necessity for 1% of the population. But now it has become a holy grail of weight loss following the following logic: ‘if I cut out bread and pasta, I lose weight. Ergo, gluten makes you fat.’ There is no evidence. Nutritional science has bad news for these peopleincluding the actor, since eliminating gluten does not have a specific slimming effect. In fact, if you do not have celiac disease or gluten sensitivity diagnosed, eliminating it can even be counterproductive for cardiovascular and metabolic health. It’s a calorie deficit. The first myth to debunk is that gluten, per sebe a metabolic villain that makes us accumulate fat. According to a systematic review published in International Journal of Cardiovascular Sciencesgluten-free diets are not associated with greater weight loss compared to normal gluten-containing diets in healthy adults. So… why do some people swear they lost weight by giving up gluten? The answer lies in the changes that accompany this diet, but not in gluten. And when you give up gluten, you automatically stop eating calorie-dense ultra-processed foods such as industrial pastries, cookies, refined pasta… In this way, you eat fewer total calories and this is what causes you to lose weight and not the absence of gluten. The effect of water. In addition to this caloric deficit, a pilot study in athletes noted that the rapid weight loss after six weeks without gluten was primarily due to loss of fluid and glycogen stores, not an actual metabolic advantage. Fewer refined carbohydrates mean less water retention. But if there was any doubt, another clinical trial in patients with a metabolic problem in their history detected reductions in waist circumference and triglyceridesbut without changes in weight. In this way, the researchers suggest that this is due more to better food selection and glycemic control than to a “fat-removing effect” of gluten. A flat stomach. Another of the great thoughts that can be heard in this sense is that people who do not eat wheat feel much less bloated. And this is real, but the culprit is not gluten, but from the fructans of wheatwhich is basically a type of fermentable carbohydrate that produces a lot of gas and bloating. In this way, the abdomen looks much flatter, but not because of a loss of fat. The cardiovascular paradox. But although gluten is seen as a demon, the reality is that it has several intrinsically good things. For example, gluten is often accompanied by whole grains, and whole grains are cardioprotective. This is evidenced in a study published in the BMJ with more than 100,000 participants who were followed for 26 years. This concludes that gluten consumption does not increase the risk of coronary heart disease. What’s more, when the data was adjusted, a higher gluten intake was associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease. That is why the authors warned: promoting gluten-free diets in healthy people can reduce the consumption of whole grains and, therefore, negatively affect cardiovascular health. And in diabetes. In this case they were three large studies that showed an inverse relationship: Those who ate the most gluten had a 13% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those who ate the least. The why? Again, the fiber and micronutrients associated with the cereal that contains gluten. The problem of the accused. When we see that something is ‘gluten free’ we may think that we are looking at something much healthier. But the reality is that sometimes, to compensate for the lack of elasticity and texture that gluten provides, The food industry often reformulates products by adding more saturated fat, more sugar and reducing the protein it contains. Furthermore, gluten-free diets in non-celiac people have also been associated with a lower intake of fiber, B vitamins and a worse long-term cardiometabolic profile. Who should give up gluten? Science is quite clear in this case: who needs it, that is, the 1% of the population with celiac disease. And logically also people with non-celiac gluten sensitivity who may have major digestive problems. For the rest of the population, eliminating gluten offers no clear nutritional benefits. On the contrary: there is a risk of spending more money on products with a worse nutritional profile, reducing the consumption of cardioprotective fiber and attributing to gluten a success that, in reality, simply belongs to eating less ultra-processed foods. Images | Wesual Click Towfiqu barbhuiya In Xataka | Food has been filled with contradictory messages: a sports nutritionist helps us understand what’s behind it

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

The “sweet spot” of exercise according to science is 30 minutes

by

For many years the goal of taking 10,000 steps per day has been the universal health mantrarepeating itself in medical consultations or being predefined in smart watches that monitor physical activity. But this mantra is evolving thanks to the latest evidence we know, since it is not just about how many steps you take, but how they occur. A sweet spot. For this science has identified the ideal when doing physical activity: 30 minutes of brisk walking (walk at a brisk pace) at a constant speed of 5 km/h. This habit is not only more efficient than taking random walks, but Delivers metabolic benefits previously only attributed to high-intensity gym workouts. An important threshold. The fact of having to exceed a speed of 5 km/h It is crucial when walking with the purpose of improving cardiovascular health. And for a walk to be considered “moderate intensity exercise”, it is not enough to move. Science in this case considers that there is a critical threshold that we must keep in mind when recommending doing the exercise: 100 steps per minute. That is what translates into this approximate speed of 5 km/h. And it is not something random, since it has been seen that at this speed there is a significant reduction in the glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) related to diabetes and systolic blood pressure (known as ‘high’). The secret is continuity. One of the most powerful findings from the studies It is precisely in the amount of time we invest in sport. And there is a big difference between continuous 30-minute sessions, in which we only walk, versus accumulated sessions, where we walk for five minutes and then stop continuing. In this case, the continuous 30-minute session is what has been found to be best for reducing insulin sensitivity, improving resistance, hip circumference, and also exercise adherence. And although it is good to move 5 minutes every hour to avoid a sedentary lifestyle, the reality is that it is best to dedicate only half an hour a day continuously. A shield against aging. For the middle-aged population, walking is literally life insurance. Different studies suggest that walking at 5 km/h for 30 minutes a day, for five days a week, helps reduce the risk of stroke (due to lowering blood pressure). But in addition to this, it also combats anxiety and stress, which is undoubtedly one of the big problems we have in today’s society with the stress hormone triggered and doing a lot of damage to our body. With all this, the increase in life expectancy is quite substantial compared to more sedentary people. Without forgetting strength exercises. Although walking is essential, we must not forget our muscles either. It is very important when you reach middle age do not neglect the development and maintenance of muscle, since there are many studies that suggest that it delays biological aging and even offers cognitive benefits such as protection against neurodegenerative diseases. In this way, in order to reach old age in optimal conditions, we must not forget to be mobile to reduce metabolic syndrome, but also to be attentive to our muscles. Images | Martin Dalsgaard In Xataka | The 11 best apps for exercising at home

We have been using ginger as medicine for 2,500 years. Science has just proven us right

by

Before pharmacies occupied every corner, ginger already existed. What for more than two millennia was the best kept secret of Asian pharmacies, today is undergoing the most rigorous examination of the microscope. This underground stem—technically a rhizome, not a root—has gone from being a simple cookie seasoning to becoming a protagonist in clinical nutrition. As Dr. Joshua Forman, a gastroenterologist in Maryland, says, in an interview with Washington Postsometimes we become obsessed with expensive and complex drugs while ignoring what is in front of us. “It’s funny how the simplest things go unnoticed,” reflects the expert. From the herbalist to the laboratory. “Popular wisdom” is no longer alone, science has taken over with force. A massive review of 109 clinical trials published in Nutrients confirms that ginger is not a placebo; It works, especially when the digestive system rebels. But the findings go beyond simple stomach relief. In fact, a meta-analysis in Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine has brought to the table something unthinkable years ago: its ability to help regulate blood sugar and protect the heart in patients with type 2 diabetes. What does the scientific verdict say? If we look at the evidence, ginger works with almost surgical precision on three fronts. First, in pregnancy; Just 1.5 grams can change a woman’s day with morning sickness. Furthermore, a study in it Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology even compared its effectiveness against menstrual pain with that of ibuprofen, with astonishing results. However, the most fascinating thing happens at the cellular level. Recent research in JCI Insight They suggest that ginger could “stop” the hyperactivity of certain body defenses, something key for those who suffer from lupus. Even in the brain, the magazine Frontiers in Nutrition points to a shield effect that could delay the progression of diseases such as Alzheimer’s by reducing inflammation of neurons. The chemistry of the rhizome. The secret of ginger resides in its compounds bioactives: gingerols, shogaols and zingerones. These compounds act on nerve receptors (such as 5-HT3 and TRPV1) that regulate pain and nausea signals. Additionally, ginger is a real accelerator. In the teststhe stomachs of those who took it took only 12 minutes to empty, almost half that of the control group. Of course, a warning for sailors: it is a master at relieving nausea, but if vomiting has already started, its effect is much less. It is not a “magic” solution for everything. Despite its rise on social networks like TikTok under tags like #GutHealth, experts warn: Be careful with him Ginger Ale: Dr. Forman warns in the post That most commercial ginger sodas contain corn syrup and artificial flavorings, but almost no real ginger. The ideal is a homemade infusion (grating the root and boiling it for 10 minutes). It is not a miraculous “detox”: there is no conclusive evidence that ginger “shots” on an empty stomach detoxify the body or lose weight on their own without a balanced diet. Dangerous interactions: Because ginger inhibits platelet aggregation, it should not be combined with anticoagulants such as warfarin, as increases the risk of bleeding. Science and nature, hand in hand. Ginger has gone from being a simple home remedy to becoming an “evidence-based supportive complementary option.” While it should not replace medical treatment in severe cases, science confirms that this rhizome is one of the few “superfoods” that truly lives up to its name, offering a low-cost and highly effective solution to improve daily quality of life. Image | Unsplash Xataka | There are people taking a “shot” of apple cider vinegar in the morning. Science has an opinion on this

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

Science has named what you feel when a Pixar movie makes you cry

by

Watching the end of a Pixar movie and witnessing an unexpected reunion at an airport can trigger something in some people: a lump in the throat, a warmth in the chest, and even watering in the eyes. And it is not sadness nor euphoric happiness, but a sensation that has received a name very recently. A problem. For years, psychology has had trouble categorizing this specific sensation. We call it “being moved”, “striking a chord” or having “mixed feelings”. However, for a decadea group of scientists from UCLA and the University of Oslo has given it a technical namea theoretical framework and an evolutionary explanation. Is called ‘Kama Muta‘, and it is the scientific label for one of the most powerful tools of our survival, which is sudden connection. Something that we can also feel on social networks when we see the video of a grandmother with her grandson, for example, in a very idyllic situation. Kama Muta. A term that comes from Sanskrit and literally means “to be moved by love” (or “to be filled with love”). And although the name sounds very mystical, there is a scientific part behind it that supports it, since it has been systematically studied. by Kama Muta Labled by anthropologists and psychologists. According to his founding article from 2016and later reviews in Annual Review of Psychologykama muta is not a “new” emotion in the sense that we have just discovered it, but rather that we have just classified it. That is, we had these localized feelings, but we didn’t know what name to give them. Its definition. A positive emotional response triggered by a sudden intensification of communal relationships. In other words: it is what your body feels when you perceive that a social bond is suddenly created, repaired or strengthened. A physical triad. Unlike other abstract emotions, kama muta has a very clear physiological signature that researchers have validated in cross-sectional studies. According to research by Zickfeld published in Emotionwhich spanned 19 countries and 15 languages, the universal symptoms are clear: wet eyes, goosebumps, and a feeling of warmth. A sensation of warmth that curiously centers right in the heart of the chest. Something that already says a lot about this new emotion. Why we are sorry. Why did evolution design us to cry and tremble when we see others hugging? The answer is in group survival. Science suggests that this emotion acts as a social glue, since by feeling physically rewarded by the connection (our own or someone else’s), we are more predisposed to take care of others and sacrifice ourselves for the group. In this way, it has the power to humanize “others.” In an experiment, showing moving videos that induced kama muta significantly increased the perception of humanity towards outgroups, reducing any prejudices one might have. It’s not just “feeling good,” it’s a biological mechanism to expand our circle of empathy. Climate action. The most interesting from recent research is that kama muta does not remain a passive experience, but predicts behavior as well. A 2023 study published in Frontiers in Psychology found that messages about climate change that evoked kama muta (focused on connection to the planet and shared responsibility) were more effective in predicting pro-environmental intentions than those based on fear or guilt. Images | Nik Shuliahin In Xataka | If the question is “where is the secret to happiness,” an expert believes it is hidden in these 15 statements

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.