Science

We have been vaccinating our dogs and cats every year all our lives. Science is seeing that it is not the most correct

by

When you have a pet in your care, visits to the veterinarian are mandatory almost every year to receive a check-up and also a vaccination reminder to be completely calm about its health. However, there are some voices that already suggest that we are overvaccinating too much in our country, since applying vaccines year after year is not only unnecessarybut it can pose a risk to the animal. A new paradigm. To understand the problem, we must look at the guides of the World Association of Small Animal Veterinarians (WSAVA) and the Latin American Committee on Vaccinology in Companion Animals (COLAVAC-Iberia). Both institutions have updated their guidelines with a clear message wanting to abandon systematic vaccination schedules and opt for personalized medicine. Two groups. Now the guidelines are to differentiate vaccines into two large groups, the first of which is the “essentials” which are those of distemper, adenovirus and parvovirus in dogs, and panleukopenia, herpesvirus and calicivirus in cats. On the other hand, there would be non-essential ones, which would correspond to leptospirosis. Here, science suggests that essential vaccines generate much longer immunity than we thought, making animals have defenses against these pathogens for a long time. For example, after vaccination in puppies and their first booster, the animals maintain levels of protective antibodies for at least three years, and in many cases it can last up to 9 or 14 years. This means that if we vaccinate every year we are literally ‘pouring’ immunity where there is already a good amount of it. A legal labyrinth. If science seems to have it so clear… What is happening in Spain? Here, most of the autonomous communities only provide that the rabies vaccine is mandatory, making vaccination against parvovirus or distemper only recommended because they logically cause fatal diseases. If we focus on numbers, a recent study Regarding the national protocols, a devastating fact stood out: only 28.6% of the vaccines available for dogs and 42.9% for cats are “adequate” according to WSAVA standards. And the reason is that the industry markets combined vaccines; That is, to give the dog the annual leptospirosis vaccine, the veterinarian uses the viral one that includes parvovirus and distemper, forming overvaccination. A personal solution. To avoid needlessly pricking the animals, what is proposed is that, instead of blindly setting a reminder, a blood test is performed to determine the amount of protective antibodies in the blood. In this case, if the animal has adequate levels, it is not vaccinated that year, and if not, it should be vaccinated. The problem is that this is more expensive than directly giving the vaccine, so the most convenient, fastest and cheapest option is chosen. More personal. The conclusion here is that experts point out that a booster should be applied to essential vaccines every three years, preserving the rabies vaccine, which is the only one legally required and whose deadlines comply with local legislation. Images | freepic.diller on Magnific In Xataka | We have been using our pets to relieve our anxiety. And now the stress is on them

More and more people are looking at invasive species as the new big culinary goldmine. Science has something to say

by

Honolulu, Hawaii, is famous for its beaches and the kind of paradise landscapes you dream of when planning your vacation. A few weeks ago, however, one of its most picturesque beaches hosted a contest that sounded like anything but paradise: “Eat the Invaders” (“Eat the invaders”). Although the title may be shocking macabre, in reality it was a fishing tournament in which participants had to capture three invasive species. Then a chef was in charge of preparing them to demonstrate that, in addition to being a huge environmental problem, fish ta’ape, to‘ouch either roi They can be a delicacy. It seems like an anecdote, but that Honolulu tournament is just part of a much bigger problem: the ‘invasivorism‘. What the hell is ‘invasiveness’? The word is confusing, but it refers to a very easy concept to understand: the ‘invasiveness’ It consists of neither more nor less than consuming invasive species. Exactly what encouraged to do a few weeks ago in Honolulu: stop seeing ta’ape or roi as simple invasive species and understand them as something more, an ingredient for delicious dishes. In theory, this does not mean that we give up eradicating them or ignore the damage they cause to local ecosystems. It is simply encouraged to go further and turn the problem into an opportunity. Does it only happen in Hawaii? Not at all. Honolulu residents haven’t invented anything new. Not even the slogan of “Eat the Invaders”, which is actually the title of a series from the ABC network that explores precisely the culinary potential of Australia’s invasive species. In 2025 even the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) used that same hook (“Eat the invaders”) to launch a campaign that encouraged taking advantage of species introduced by man and that now threaten native diversity. “Consumption of invasive species can help protect native fauna and flora. By trapping, trapping and consuming them we can reduce their population and the damage they cause,” claims an article signed by Erin Huggins, from the FWS communications area, which details half a dozen species that represent a problem in the US and “should be considered”: Myocastor coypus, Channa argus, iguana iguanasilver carp and Sus scrofacreatures from other areas of America, Asia or Europe. Sounds good, right? That’s the crux of the matter. At first glance it seems like squaring the circle: an invasive species is combated and in the process a benefit is easily transferred to the entire population. The idea is so powerful that in 2013 even the FAO encouraged fighting jellyfish plagues with a similar slogan: “If you can’t fight them, eat them.” The problem is that there are experts who believe that invasiveness is actually a trap that is tantalizingly easy to fall into. At first it seems like the perfect solution, but it often ends up aggravating the invasions. The issue is of sufficient concern that a group of scientists from several countries, led by the Doñana-CSIC Biological Station, has published an article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in which he questions the basic argument of invasiveness: that the consumption of invasive species is an intelligent strategy, especially if it ends up turning the capture and exploitation of those same species into a lucrative business. “Encouraging commercialization can create incentives to maintain them instead of eradicating them.” What do they say exactly? That what at first seems like a solution can end up becoming a problem. “Invasivorism is usually presented as a strategy win-win (mutual benefit) based on the idea that the consumption of an invasive species generates wealth while minimizing its impacts”, recognize Fran Officialdegui, researcher at the Doñana-CSIC Biological Station and main author of the article. “But the reality is much more complex, and in many situations, when the problem becomes a business, a resistance to ending it arises.” “What is not often said is that the objectives of commercial exploitation and management of invasive species are, in most cases, opposite,” affects the researcher before warning of the greatest risk: that a market will be generated around foreign species. When this happens to the interest in eradicating them, another that pulls in the opposite direction can be added: the interest in conserving them. Can that really happen? It has already happened, in fact. In their article, the researchers recall the case of the Kamchatka crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus). Although it is a species native to the North Pacific, about 60 years ago the USSR decided to introduce it to the Barents Sea, in the Arctic. There these crustaceans found a place where they could easily expand and ended up becoming a pest. Also in something else: the engine of a prosperous business that over time led to overexploitation. What did the authorities do when fishing threatened to eliminate the theoretically invasive species? Catch limits were set to guarantee the business that had been created. Why are they issuing the warning now? Because, as they remember from the Doñana-CSIC Biological Station, the discourse of invasiveness seems to be settling little by little. And in part this expansion is due to campaigns promoted by companies, administrations and even conservation organizations that are carried away by the motto of “If you can’t beat them, eat them!” that already used years ago the FAO. Officialdegui also warns that what happened in his day with the Kamchatka crab could be replicated in Spain with the Callinectes sapidusor blue crab, a invasive species whose goodness culinary now they start promoting themselves. In fact it is easy to find recipes that explain how to prepare it with rice. “It is very likely that scenarios similar to that of the Kamchatka crab will occur on the peninsula when, once the commercial exploitation of the blue crab is established (Callinectes sapidus), there are declines in its population”, keep it up Officialdegui. In his opinion, invasiveness can help raise social awareness about the risk of exotic species, but that cannot mislead us. “Addressing biological invasions requires long-term commitment, scientific knowledge and coordinated … Read more

The science behind the “sixth vital sign”

by

If we observe the traffic on a street, it is easy to see that each person has a speed when walking very different. This is something that may seem like a fact without much relevance, except that going slower can annoy someone who is behind or cause them to let’s lose less fat. But the reality is that science found a correlation between walking speed in middle age and the state of the brain. It has been investigated. Here is a great study published in JAMA in 2019 changed our perspective on how and when we begin to age neurologically. To look for this relationship, the researchers focused on New Zealand, where the development of 904 participants from his childhood until reaching the age of 45. Just when they reached middle age, the researchers measured the subjects’ walking speed at a normal pace, performing a simultaneous cognitive task and maximum speed. And from here all that was left was to cross-check the information. The results. Here it could be seen that the participants who walked slower at age 45 presented accelerated biological aging, evidencing deterioration in multiple organic systems. In addition, these slower walkers also showed worse brain integrity, causing them to have a smaller volume, as if they had aged much earlier. The link with childhood. Surprisingly, neurocognitive dysfunction detected when participants were just 3 years old already predicted slower walking speed in their midlife. In fact, a difference of between 12 and 16 points of IQ between the group of the slowest walkers and that of the fastest. A deterioration sensor. All of this strongly supports the idea of ​​the brain-body nexus, since the relationship between worse cognitive function in childhood and a slow gait at age 45 suggests that the brain acts as an early “sensor” organ for systemic decline driven by genetics, aging, and environmental factors. In this way, walking speed in middle age is no longer seen only as a symptom of old age frailty, but as a true “summary index” of cumulative aging and brain health over a lifetime. It has implications for the future. The preventive potential here is incredible, since an extraordinarily simple evaluation such as timing how long it takes a patient to walk 4 to 6 meters could become a standard tool in medical consultations to assess the patient’s cognitive status. Something that can also be standardized with the use of smartwatches, which today make very precise measurements of the movement we do daily. This would allow specialists to identify people at risk of experiencing accelerated aging and cognitive decline long before reaching old age or meeting the criteria for classic frailty. And having this information is essential to anticipate, for example, the onset of dementia. Images | Drazen Zigic in Magnific rawpixel.com on Magnific In Xataka | Dementia is devastating largely because it arrives without warning: some researchers already predict it seven years in the future

science explains what happens to your body (and your brain) depending on the time you choose

by

In social circles, the truth is that there are sometimes very interesting debates about common customs, such as whether it is better to shower first thing in the morning or just before getting into bed. Here, while there is a group of people who defend tooth and nail the revitalizing power of water in the morning to “start” the day, others say that there is nothing like hot water at night to conclude sleep. And here science has something to say. It makes us sleep better. If you have trouble falling asleep, the science here suggests that a nighttime shower may be a good idea, and explained in a meta-analysis published in 2019 in the magazine Sleep Medicine which analyzed 17 different studies. Here it was concluded that bathing or showering with hot water between one and two hours before going to bed reduces the time to fall asleep by approximately 36%. Because? Here hot water is our main ally, since it warms the skin and, therefore, increases blood flow to the extremities such as the hands and feet. From here, when you get out of the shower, that heat dissipates quickly, causing a drop in the body’s core temperature. And this is the key, because this thermal drop mimics the natural cooling that our body experiences before sleeping, which sends an unequivocal signal to the brain to release melatonin, which is the sleep hormone, and reduce levels of cortisol, which is related to stress. It depends on the time. From a psychological point of view, morning and night showers fulfill completely opposite functions and it depends precisely on the time at which we take them. In the case of the morning showerthe goal is increase performance with the activation of the sympathetic system by stimulating muscle tone and, above all, preparing us for the stress of the day. In the case of the night shower, as we have said before, an attempt is made to activate the parasympathetic system with a longer and more leisurely duration of the shower with the aim of reducing the accumulated physical and mental tension, fulfilling the function of an authentic ritual of transition and disconnection. According to psychology. Here we enter territory that is not so clear, but which indicates, for example, that people who prefer a shower at night do so because they have a lower tolerance for dirt, which is why they prefer to remove all the sweat of the day before going to bed. But it is also noted that people who prefer solitude tend to prefer nighttime showers, precisely because, after a day full of stimuli, the bathroom becomes a capsule of sensory disconnection. In the end, it is a way to relax from everything that has happened throughout the day. Images | freepik In Xataka | Cooling down is the forgotten step in our exercise routines. And that affects how we shower

Barbacid’s promising cancer study has been withdrawn. The reason is not science, it is a “hidden” spin-off

by

Last December, the team led by the prestigious researcher Mariano Barbacid filled the headlines of the main media with great news: had found a triple therapy to eliminate pancreatic tumors in animal models. Very relevant news because of how deadly pancreatic cancer is and how it affects our society, but now this euphoria has hit a wall after the decision of the US National Academy of Sciences to remove the item from PNAS magazine. The context. The original article, published on December 2 of last year, was not just another publication, but described the results of administering three drugs in 45 mice who had pancreatic cancer. And although it was a preclinical study that had not been tested in humans and was the expected next step, it generated great expectation. The promise of a cure, even if it was in the animal phase, propelled intense fundraising campaigns to be able to start a clinical trial with humans as soon as possible. In this way, foundations such as CRIS against cancer achieved raise 3.7 million euros in the heat of these advances and thanks to the media showcase that was given to them. And now they withdraw it. The first thing to keep in mind when faced with so many alarmist headlines is that it is not removed from the PNAS magazine because the results have been invented or exaggerated, but rather the reason lies in the omission of important information regarding to conflict of interest. In this case Mariano Barbacid, taking advantage of his status as a member of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, used a “fast track” of publication that is reserved for academics of this institution. The problem is that this privilege requires scrupulous and impeccable transparency. Data omission. As detailed by El Paísthe alarms went off in February 2026, when the academy received notices about possible conflicts of interest that have now led to the sudden retraction of the article. The problem is that Mariano Barbacid, along with researchers Carmen Guerra and Vasiliki Liaki, are co-owners of Vega Oncotargetsa spin-off which was born in the ecosystem of the National Cancer Research Center (CNIO) with the aim of developing and marketing therapies against pancreatic cancer like this one. This is why informing the journal that the authors had a direct economic and business interest in the success of the study is a violation of the most basic transparency regulations in scientific publication. It always happens. When a researcher wants to publish the results of his or her research, a lot of data must always be provided, both about the method that has been followed and everything behind it, such as the source of financing or the conflicts behind. For example, if a researcher owns shares of a large pharmaceutical company and studies one of its drugs, logically good results will benefit him because the value of the company will increase. And this is something that should always be reported so that anyone reading the research knows if the researcher may have been influenced by an economic component. And in this particular case, the fact that there is already a company that will commercialize the future therapy that is being investigated is logically something that must always be specified, because if the study goes well, it logically benefits the company enormously. There are already answers. As we say, PNAS sanctions bad practice when it comes to being transparent, but in no case does it indicate that the research is poorly done. Along these lines, Carmen Guerra has already admitted the error, as El País points out, and has confirmed that the team has resubmitted the article with this correction, detailing that they do have participation in Vega Oncatargerts. The problem is that now they are going to have to go through the entire standard review process and the republishing will not be fast. Images | UPV brgfx on Freepik In Xataka | Mice today, hope tomorrow: researchers have managed to attack pancreatic cancer before it forms

We already knew that we ate plastic. Now science has discovered the exact chaos it causes in our intestines

by

We have long realized that we are surrounded by microplastics, both in the water which we take as in food or even the air that we breathe, causing them to appear even in the human placenta. However, there are still many questions about the consequences of having these microplastics in the body, although science continues to take steps to give us an answer about them. how it can alter our general healthand the last thing we know is related to the effect on our digestive system. Ground zero. Something that is already known by almost everyone is that the intestine is full of billions of microorganisms which are essential for our immunity and also for metabolism, making its alteration related even to issues in the central nervous system. But now, science suggests that microplastics can drastically alter the composition and diversity of this ecosystem by destroying some of the bacteria that we harbor inside us to create a completely different environment that can affect our digestion, but also other parts of the body. How it has been seen. To understand how this happens in real time, CSIC researchers developed a sophisticated patented digestion simulation system known as SIMGI. This is mainly based on introducing artificial particles formed by the typical plastic of water bottles into the stomach and colon and observing how it affected bacterial diversity. From here, different investigations have seen that families of beneficial bacteriaas Lachnospiraceae, Oscillospiraceae and Ruminococcaceaeplummet, while the growth of groups that can generate disease is favored. And we must understand that ‘good’ bacteria occupy a space in our intestine so that nothing else can ‘germinate’ there. But logically, if they disappear, they leave their ‘hole’ for other bacteria to pass through. It goes further. But beyond a bacterial imbalance, there is different research that already points to how microplastics destroy the physical barrier we have in our intestine. In this way, scientists have detected that these tiny fragments cause the generation of oxidative stress and, therefore, the overproduction of reactive oxygen species, which only generates great damage to the tissues. But this chemical attack also adds to mechanical damage, which some experts categorize as ‘sandpaper’, since together they manage to reduce the expression of proteins that are key to maintaining the union structure that characterizes the cells that exist in our intestinal wall. The result. If we destroy the scaffolding that maintains the ‘walls’ of our digestive system, the only thing that will be achieved is that increase intestinal permeabilityso any toxin or bacterial molecule will be able to pass from the intestine to the bloodstream, since there is no ‘wall’ that blocks the access of agents that are not wanted in our body. Logically, the passage of toxins without the control of this intestinal barrier activates our immune system defenses, which results in inflammation maintained over time that favors the destruction of tissues and also progresses in important chronic diseases. There is more. As if that were not enough, it is known that microplastics are excellent transport vehicles, since when they come into contact with our biological fluids they become covered with a “protein crown”. This is something really important, since this layer literally camouflages the microplastic and makes it easier for it to adhere to our living cells. But added to all this, we also see that they can act as the perfect support for bacteria and form what is known as biofilms. In this way, microplastic can be seen as a vehicle for external and potentially dangerous microbial communities directly to our tissues. Where are they going? If microplastics alter our barriers, logically the plastic has a free way and that is why it is capable of traveling to different organs such as, for example, the liver, kidneys or brain. And once here, research already indicates that its accumulation is related to DNA damage, deregulation of the immune system or alterations in our entire hormonal system that can lead to chronic diseases. Images | rimufilms on Freepik In Xataka | Researchers analyzed 280 samples of bottled water. Only one of the brands was free of microplastics

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

by

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

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

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.