Science

We have been believing for years that intermittent fasting is the definitive weapon to lose weight. Science has another idea

by

During the last years, the intermittent fasting has gone from being something exceptional to becoming a nutritional strategy that there is more and more talk and that it has more followers behind it. And it is no wonder, since the promise is quite seductive as it does not focus on what you eat, but on when you eat, activating different metabolic switches to accelerate fat burning. Although there are also detractors behind. New data. The Cochrane library, considered a great world reference, published a few days ago a great review about intermittent fasting that acts as a bucket of cold water, since it suggests that this diet does not offer superior benefits to conventional weight loss diets. The backup. We are not talking about a small study whose validity can be questioned, but in this case the Cochrane researchers analyzed 22 randomized controlled trials that added up to a total of 1,995 participants. overweight or obesity. The objective here was to compare different fasting modalities, such as going 16 hours without being able to eat with eight hours of eating, fasting on alternate days or 5:2 diet compared to classic calorie restriction or inaction. What they found is that, when pitting intermittent fasting against regular dietary advice, the difference in weight loss is virtually zero. The data. Getting into the matter, when intermittent fasting was compared With standard calorie-restricted diets, the mean difference in weight change was a minuscule -0.33%. This difference can translate into that intermittent fasting may result in little to no difference in weight loss with the traditional method. Regarding quality of life, such as the feeling of energy, no difference was seen and, regarding the levels of total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, fasting did not prove to be a panacea either, yielding results of “little or no difference” compared to the control diets. The small print. One of the most critical points of the Cochrane review is the certainty of the evidence, which they rated mostly as “low” or “very low.” This does not mean that the studies are poorly done, but rather that there are important limitations, such as risk bias, inconsistency in results, and lack of precision. But there is one fact that should worry anyone who decides to opt for this diet independently, without medical advice, since, although the evidence is uncertain, some studies pointed to associated side effects specifically to fasting. These include headaches, nausea, cold intolerance or even insomnia and lack of concentration. What is not yet known. Perhaps it is the most revealing thing about this scientific study, since there are still many unknowns surrounding intermittent fasting that invite further research. In this case, none of the 22 studies included data on “patient satisfaction,” which is important because we don’t know if people prefer to go hungry for a few hours in exchange for eating more later, or if they hate the process. And being comfortable with a diet is essential so that you don’t abandon it halfway through. In addition to this, none of the studies pointed to the relationship that may exist in chronic diseases that require significant dietary control, such as diabetes, and which is very common in the population. But one of the big problems in science today is duration, since most studies lasted less than 12 months. We don’t know if fasting is sustainable or safe beyond a year. It is not a miracle diet. What we do know is that intermittent fasting works, but the key point is that It is not superior to the tools we already had as a calorie restriction accompanied by a balanced diet and exercise. For the average patient, this is actually good news: it means that the The best diet is the one you can stick to. If someone finds it easier to skip breakfast with a 16:8 fast than to count calories at each meal, fasting is a valid tool. But if fasting causes headaches, you’re not missing out on any “magic” metabolic benefits from eating three times a day. Although in this process the most important thing is always to be advised by personnel who are qualified in nutrition to be able to have the best dietary plan, to have real objectives and, above all, not to get frustrated along the way. Images | VD Photography In Xataka | We believed that a vegetarian diet guaranteed longevity. In extreme old age, the data says just the opposite

Science had been looking for an alternative to laboratory mice for years without success. Until he found the moths

by

In the world of science, the mouse has been for decades the undisputed king of the laboratory. However, it is an expensive, slow and, above all, ethically complex reign. That is why we have been looking for alternatives for years, and the answer may not be in a silicon chipbut an insect that you have probably seen eating the wax of a beehive. The advance. This is what researchers at the University of Exeter have arrived at, who have achieved a milestone that promises to change the rules of the game in the fight against superbacteria: They have genetically “hacked” dinner moth larvae to function as real-time biological indicators. The most impressive thing is that they even have a very visual indicator: they shine when you get sick and go off when the medicine is working correctly. The biological traffic light. The study, published this week in Naturedetails how the research team has achieved what seemed impossible: applying tools of genetic editing advanced these moths with unprecedented precision. And I know this is very important, since using insects to model human diseases had limitations, but this team has combined two key techniques. The techniques. The first of them is the system PiggyBac to be able to insert genes that produce fluorescent proteins into these moths, so they have basically gone from having larvae to biological “neon lights.” In this way, if bacteria or fungi are injected, fluorescence makes it possible to monitor the infection in vivo under the microscope. In addition, the famous technique was also included CRISPR-Cas9 to deactivate specific genes in the insect’s body. This is a tremendously positive thing, as it allows scientists to manipulate the larva’s immune system to see how it reacts to different pathogens, mimicking complex human conditions. The key data. The bottom line is that the modified larvae allow us to see if an antibiotic is working in real time. The indicator we have is fluorescence, which if it decreases indicates that the bacteria is dying from the antibiotic and the larva is surviving. All this in a visual, fast and cheap way. Why the moth. It may sound strange to compare a moth with a mammal such as the mouse, which may be more like us, but the Galleria mellonella He has an ace up his sleeve: your body temperature. Unlike the fruit fly, these larvae can breed and survive comfortably at 37°C, the average human body temperature, which is crucial because many human pathogens only activate their virulence genes at that temperature. Furthermore, their innate immune system is surprisingly similar to that of mammals in terms of structure and function of phagocytes, the cells that literally ‘eat’ pathogens that enter the body. Furthermore, with this animal model the use of 10,000 mice per year in the United Kingdom alone can be avoided. Against the clock of the resistance. The context of this advance is not trivial, since we are facing a race against the resistance of bacteria to our antibiotics. We need at this moment test thousands of new compounds fastand doing it in mice is a brutal bottleneck both because of the time it takes and the ethical questions that arise. On the other hand, these transgenic larvae allow for massive screening. Instead of waiting weeks to see results in mice, scientists here can test hundreds of compounds in larvae and get immediate visual readings on toxicity and efficacy. Images | Wikipedia Kalyan Sak In Xataka | Researchers removed Instagram and TikTok from 300 young people to see if their anxiety decreased. The results speak for themselves

science has already achieved it

by

The idea of ​​controlling what we dream or using downtime to solve complex problems may sound like science fiction in fairly iconic movies like Inception. However, the “dream engineering“has ceased to be a fantasy since science confirms that not only can we influence the content of our dreams, but doing so can improve our mental health and cognitive ability. The device that whispers. The technique is called Directed Dream Incubation (TDI) and the most recent results, published in 2025, suggest it could be the key to treat chronic nightmares and increase our sense of control over the subconscious. The key is that, unlike spontaneous lucid dreams, this technique uses technology to detect specific phases of sleep and send auditory stimuli. A recent study published in Sleep Advancesput this system to the test with surprising results. And using a device called Dormiothe researchers monitored the sleep phase N1that is, the transition stage between when we are awake and asleep and which lasts approximately between 1 and 7 minutes. How it was done. The experiment was simple but effective, since the participants only had to lie down and take a nap. At that moment, upon detecting the onset of sleep, the device the instruction whispered “Think of a tree,” and then the subject had to be awakened briefly to ask for a verbal report and then he was allowed to sleep. The result was overwhelming: 92% of the participants incorporated the “tree” theme in their dreams. Subjects reported everything from visions of forests and roots to more abstract transformations related to vegetation. Control as therapy. What was truly revolutionary about the 2025 study wasn’t just getting people to dream about trees, but what happened afterward. The researchers here discovered a significant increase in Dream Self-Efficacy (DSE), which is nothing more than an individual’s belief in their own ability to control or influence their dreams. Having this sense of being able to control your sleep is crucial for treating disorders such as trauma-related nightmares that are common in post-traumatic stress disorder. Solving problems. Although the study of Sleep Advances focuses on mental health, other parallel investigations explore the productive aspect. In these experiments, puzzles were used that are difficult for anyone to solve, and that is why while people were sleeping they were induced to dream about this puzzle. The result was that 42% of participants Those who were induced to dream about the puzzle managed to solve it when they woke up, compared to only 17% of those who did not dream about the problem. This suggests that the brain, when given the right stimulus, can continue to process logical and creative information in the background, a phenomenon that technology now allows us to systematize. Sleep therapy. Although the aforementioned study had a preliminary sample of 25 people (almost half of whom suffered from frequent nightmares), the data point to a paradigm shift. Until now, we slept “blind”, but tools like Dormio and protocols like TDI suggest a future where sleep is not a passive period, but an active state that we can program. Whether it is to overcome trauma, as they suggest, or to find the solution to a creative problem, technology is beginning to illuminate the darkness of our dreams. Images | iam_os In Xataka | If you fall asleep in less than five minutes, you don’t have a “superpower”: it’s a warning signal from your brain

Science and longevity experts are clear about what time you should wake up

by

For years, the culture of effort and extreme productivity has sold us the “five o’clock club“like him Holy Grail of successtaking as examples to CEOs, influencers or personal development gurus who point out the need to wake up at five in the morning. However, science focused on aging has a very different message: waking up too early is not only not productive, but it can shave years off our life. The experts. Sebastian La Rosaa doctor specializing in longevity, already pointed out that the optimal time to wake up is in a very specific window: between 6:45 and 7:00 in the morning. And the reality is that the scientific literature supports its claims based on clinical experience quite well. Without going any further, an analysis that lasted for 20 years in large groups of people revealed that the lowest point of mortality risk is exactly around seven in the morning. From this point on, extremes (as often happens in biology) are quite expensive. The extremes. Get up constantly after 8 in the morning raises the risk of mortality from all causes by a staggering 39%. But being a night owl and waking up super early every day isn’t good for your health either. This is what they saw from the data extracted from the UK Biobankwith a sample of more than 433,000 people, showing that the evening chronotype (going to bed late and getting up late) has a 10% higher risk of mortality total compared to early risers, impacting more harshly on people over 63 years of age. More tests. On the other hand, a massive study from the University of Exeter found that people who wake up naturally between five and seven in the morning reduce their risk of premature mortality by between 20 and 25%. This fits perfectly with the recommendation to go to sleep between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. to achieve 7 or 8 hours of restful sleep and protect, in the process, cardiovascular health. The golden rule. While 7:00 a.m. seems like the evolutionary magic hour, researchers at Harvard and other pioneering institutions have reached an even more important conclusion: consistency is the most important factor. In this way, having irregular sleep schedules, such as going to bed and getting up at very different times each day, increases the risk of mortality between 20 and 48%. In fact, the regularity of the sleep-wake cycle has been shown to be a stronger predictor of mortality than the total number of hours slept. This forces the scientific consensus to establish that sleeping between 6 and 8 hours is ideal, with exactly 7 hours being the figure linked to greater survival in large population cohorts. But if we choose to sleep less than seven hours or more than eight hours, the body can become unbalanced and increase the risk of death. Hacking the internal clock. Behind all these statistics there are pure cellular mechanics. In animal models, it has been proven that having “high amplitude” circadian rhythms, with very marked differences between daytime alertness and nighttime rest, directly correlates with greater longevity. When this biological clock is altered by living behind sunlight, we alter metabolic pathways critical for aging such as via mTOR, sirtuins or IGF-1. Exposing yourself to natural light as soon as you wake up around seven in the morning is the signal that the brain needs to set this complex hormonal mechanism in motion, mitigating oxidative damage and preventing cardiovascular diseases and cancer. Images | muntazar mansory In Xataka | If you fall asleep in less than five minutes, you don’t have a “superpower”: it’s a warning signal from your brain

Productivity science says it’s not just inches that matter

by

It has happened to me and it may happen to you too: you have a monitor and you notice that it is no longer enough. You could take a leap and swap it for something a little larger, but just adding inches to the equation isn’t going to change things too much. To change our experience, we need something different, like opting for an ultrawide monitor or adding one more monitor to our setup. What is the best option for you? Both are great, but both may not suit your needs in the same way. For this reason, we are going to take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of these two configurations so that you know what to choose according to your priorities. Choosing an ultrawide monitor An ultrawide monitor is larger than a conventional one, but we cannot stop at that alone. These monitors usually have a 21:9 format, which means they are wider. This means that we have a longer horizontal space, which is a wonder for productivity. And not only that: being a single screen, there is no type of barrier or frame that cuts off the visual experiencesomething ideal for working with long lines of code or spreadsheets with countless columns. Also three windows with documents or applications open at the same time. Your entire workspace, without interruptions. And for gaming, they are the best because you have a larger field of vision and the immersion they provide is not comparable to that of a normal monitor. To this elongated screen we must add another factor, which is the curvature. There are options for flat ultrawide monitors, although if you dare to take the leap, I would recommend opting for a curved one. The reason is very easy to understand: the small curve of the monitor helps you see the entire thing at a glance. What does this imply? You don’t have to turn your headsomething you will appreciate when you finish your day. In addition, the ultrawide allows you to work centered and with a straight spine. With two monitors, your “center” will be the frames of both. Therefore, more neck movements. Another element that works in favor of the ultrawide: Fitts’ Law. This, in short, predicts that the time needed to move to a target depends on its distance and size. And how does this apply to monitors? With two of them, we will have the frames as a “barrier” separating them both. that the brain will understand as an interruption. That does not happen with the ultrawide, since the mouse and everything will move fluidly across the screen. Without constantly jumping from one monitor to another, the cognitive load is reduced and that is great for less fatigue. It is not the main reason to choose one of these monitors, but I have friends who have opted for an ultrawide because they prefer a more minimalist and tidy space. In the end, it is a continuous visual experience that you place on your desktop, which, of course, also has its downside: you need a large desktop background. I will leave for last two more cons that, without being a drama, I would value a lot before opting for this option. Since it is a screen, if one day you start the computer and the monitor does not turn on, you will be left with nothing (having two monitors clearly wins there). In addition, by having many more pixels than a traditional widescreen monitor, you are going to need a medium powerful graphics card if you don’t want your games to drop below 60 FPS. Choose two monitors The other side of the coin: two monitors, side by side. If I had to define this setting in one word, it would be versatility. To build a setup with two screens, we can go ahead and buy them both or simply purchase one and add it to the one we already have, whether identical or of a different size and characteristics. And not only that: we can also change its height as we wish or rotate one of them to make it vertical. The latter is great for reading long documents or taking a look at social networks while, at the same time, you have another horizontal screen for a normal experience. I have been working with two monitors for years and it is my choice because it offers the feeling of having two separate spaces. For example, I usually have a document open on one screen where I write and email or Slack on the other. In return, there is one thing in which the ultrawides win by a landslide: you are going to find a frame in the middle and you are going to have to move your neck more. I’m going to stop at this last point for a moment. It is very necessary that the two monitors are well placedsomething that is not as simple as it sounds. If they are identical it is easier, but it can be an odyssey as they are different sizes or manufacturers. If possible, I would pull a monitor standalthough that adds to the bill. And it is better not to skimp there, since they will have to support the weight of the monitors all the time. The good and the bad of both options, face to face ultrawide monitor two monitors THE GOOD 🟢 You work without frames in between. It is ideal for editing video (infinite timeline) or having 3 legible columns of text, and it helps you avoid straining your neck. Allows you to have two separate workspaces THE BAD 🔴 They are not for all desktops: you need a robust stand, table background and a good graphics card They involve more neck movement and there are black frames in the middle Ideal for: Have all your documents or apps on the same screen to see them at a glance More versatility: you can put one vertically (ideal for … Read more

Science knows that rain is ruining our health

by

We carry a great spell of rain and overcast skies in much of Spain, and this also translates into a strange sensation in our body when we feel stuck in the chair, depressed and even taciturn. And it’s not that we’ve suddenly become lazier or sadderbut it is pure and simple biology that has humidity, microbiology and brain chemistry as triggers. Our ideal humidity. To understand why we can feel so bad, we have to understand what our body needs. Here science already pointed out many years ago that our body is designed to ‘function’ in a narrow range in terms of relative humidity.: between 40 and 60%. In this case, when we are outside this range for a long time, which is typical with these rains where the humidity shoots above 70%, it is when everything changes. And above all it affects those people who are not used to so much humidity and who have not adapted to it, such as those who live in areas that are traditionally very dry. What happens. In these cases, when we are in a situation of very high humidity, science suggests that the defenses let their guard down. Above all, it affects the mucous membranes, which are our body’s first defense barrier, which is compromised. In this case, while very dry air can crack the mucous membranes that require a certain humidity, when you have air with a lot of accumulated humidity, a ‘party’ is organized for the pathogens. The scientific reviews point here that excessive humidity favors the survival of bacteria and viruses, increasing the environmental viral load. The effects at home. If we suddenly feel short of breath or that the asthma that had been controlled has returned, the fault lies precisely in what we do not see. The WHO itself and the CDC have established direct links, since they suggest that structural and environmental humidity turns the house into an incubator. The attack of mold and mites. One of the most important points is in the miteswhich are microscopic organisms that do not drink water, but rather absorb moisture from the air. In cases where humidity exceeds 70%, their population explodes and, according to evidence, this can trigger allergic exacerbations in those more sensitive people. Mold is also one of the main protagonists in these cases, and you just have to see how easily it can appear in bathrooms without ventilation. And even if black spots are not seen, the spores can be in the rooms of the house. The science here is clear: exposure to moisture and mold in the home increases the risk of developing asthma by 30-50%. The effect on the brain. But what we notice most every day is that feeling of being “moody” or “stuck.” And here the person responsible is the lack of light due to being cloudy all day. The neurochemistry here is quite important, since without bright light to tell your brain “it’s daytime”, your body continues to produce melatonin, which is the sleep hormone, during the day. The result here is in fatigue throughout the day and apathy that makes us not want to leave the couch. There are also deficits. But in addition to melatonin, the lack of sunlight in those areas where it is not usual produces a decrease in the production of serotonin, which is one of the neurotransmitters responsible for mood. Less light equals less “fuel” to feel good. AND We must not forget about vitamin D either.which depends on sunlight to maintain optimal levels. Although supplementation has mixed results, observational studies are clear: there is a direct correlation between rainy months, low vitamin D and irritability or depressive symptomsknown as Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD). What can we do? Although it may seem counterintuitive, the European Lung Foundation point because you always have to ventilate the house a little even if it is raining. The accumulation of internal humidity from our own activities such as cooking, breathing or showering, added to the external humidity, creates a toxic environment. That is why maintaining air circulation and, if possible, using dehumidifiers to try to return your home to that sacred 40-60% range, is the only way to mitigate the impact on some part. Images | Adrian Swancar In Xataka | We say we are “depressed” beyond our means: where does the illness end and where does the illness begin?

This Star Trek movie was canceled in 1977 because science fiction had no future. Two weeks later Star Wars premiered

by

In the mid-1970s, ‘Star Trek‘ was experiencing a unique phenomenon in the entertainment industry. The original series, canceled in 1969 after three seasons of discreet audiences, had found an unexpected second life. Continuous reruns and fan enthusiasm (the first phenomenon of its kind to develop pop culture) encouraged Paramount to extend the original mythology. In 1976, a full-page advertisement appeared in ‘The New York Times’ proclaiming the imminent production of a Star Trek film: ‘Planet of the Titans’, and which aspired to take the franchise into uncharted cinematic territories. The origin. Producer Gerald Isenberg assumed executive control of the project in July 1976, intending to transform ‘Star Trek’ into a first-rate cinematic event. To direct, Paramount hired Philip Kaufman, a filmmaker whose profile was unconventional for a franchise. Kaufman would direct acclaimed works such as ‘Chosen for Glory’ and would delve into a science fiction very different from ‘Star Trek’ in the remake of ‘Invasion of the Ultracorps’ in 1978. But by 1976 he had already directed the western ‘No Law or Hope’ and the arctic adventures of ‘The White Dawn’. Chris Bryant and Allan Scott, British writers of the superb and extremely rare ‘Shadow Menace’, were chosen as scriptwriters. The conceptual basis of the project was nourished by ambitious sources: Kaufman and Isenberg structured the narrative inspired by the novel ‘The Last and the First Humanity’ by Olaf Stapledon, which traces human evolution over billions of years. As a scientific advisor, Paramount hired Jesco von Puttkamer, a NASA engineer. Ralph McQuarriewhose conceptual work for ‘Star Wars’ was then in full development, would do the designs. The conflicts. Creative tensions quickly emerged. Kaufman aspired to create a cinematographic work that would dialogue with ‘2001: A Space Odyssey‘ in visual and philosophical complexity. Gene Roddenberry, creator of the original series, defended its essence. Bryant and Scott they were trapped between these two incompatible visions, trying to balance the artistic ambitions of one and the fidelity of the other. The budget, initially set at three million dollars, rose to 10 million. What was it about? Captain James T. Kirk has disappeared three years ago, during a rescue mission near a black hole. The Enterprise remains operational, but Spock has returned to Vulcan. When Starfleet detects anomalous energetic emissions coming from the same black hole where Kirk was lost, Spock rejoins. They discover a planet trapped inside the black hole, the mythical home of the Titans, an ancient civilization possessing technology superior to that of humans. The planet is being inexorably sucked into the black hole. Spock locates Kirk, scarred by years of isolation and transformed by cosmic forces. The planned outcome was the most radical bet: to escape collapse, the Enterprise deliberately enters the black hole, emerging not in its time, but in our prehistory. The crew discovers that they themselves are the Titans of mythology. Kirk is Prometheus, the bringer of fire to early humanity. The script does not clarify whether the crew would finally manage to return to their time or would be trapped observing the slow development of human history that they themselves had started. Kirk is dead. But… why make a movie in which the legendary Kirk is practically absent? William Shatner’s contract with Paramount had expired, leading Bryant and Scott to develop a first draft that eliminated Kirk. After several weeks of work, the studio informed them that an agreement had been reached and that Kirk should be reinstated as the lead. This twist forced a substantial rewrite of the material. And the situation with Leonard Nimoy was even more complex: the actor withdrew from the project due to a conflict over the unauthorized use of his image as Spock in a Heineken advertisement, but an agreement was finally reached. The cancellation. Bryant and Scott submitted their first completed draft on March 1, 1977, after months of intense creative negotiations, but ultimately walked away from the project. Kaufman personally took on the rewrite of the script. His version intensified the role of Spock and developed the dynamic with a Klingon played by none other than the legendary Toshiro Mifune. Just when he was convinced he had found the definitive story, he was told that Paramount had canceled the project. This happened in May 1977, just seventeen days before the premiere of ‘Star Wars’. Kaufman would always remember the phrase that a studio executive told him as justification for the cancellation: “there is no future in science fiction.” Why was it cancelled? They converged different factors: the increase in costs, the fear that ‘Star Wars’ would saturate the science fiction market and the belief that they had distanced themselves too much from the original series. When ‘Star Wars’ grossed more than $775 million worldwide, Paramount pitched ‘Star Trek: Phase II,’ a television series planned as the flagship of a new company television network. It would also be cancelled, although one of its scripts would eventually become the basis for ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’, released in December 1979. The legacy. ‘‘Planet of the Titans’ was not the first failed attempt to bring ‘Star Trek’ to the cinema, but rather one more link in a chain of frustrated projects that reflected Paramount’s uncertainty about how to capitalize on the franchise: there are cases as popular as the legendary and disturbing film ‘The God Thing’, written by Roddenberry himself in 1975, or the many attempts to recruit science fiction authors to contribute ideas for films, as happened with Harlan Ellison in the late seventies. And although something remained from the film in the future after the cancellation of ‘Planet of the Titans’ (for example, the concept designs They were reused in 2017 in ‘Star Trek: Discovery’), this cursed movie is the perfect example of what ‘Star Trek’ has always been. A sign that there are more ways to do science fiction outside of spectacle pulp of Star Wars and, at the same time, the confirmation that it is very complicated to do so. In Xataka | More and more … Read more

More and more athletes are drinking pickle juice to avoid cramps. This is what nutritional science says

by

For a few days now, there has been no other topic of conversation in the world of elite sports: athletes like Carlos Alcaraz or Tadej Pogačar have exchanged the most advanced isotonic drinks in the world for something much simpler and pedestrian: pickle brine. When we talk about elite sport, the line that separates brilliant ideas, absurd fashions and the most delusional superstitions is very finite. So we’ve asked ourselves… Does all this make sense? But let’s explain it well. In endurance and high-performance sports, the idea of ​​always carrying “pickle juice” (the brine from pickles) or other products inspired by it has become popular to “cut off cramps when they have already started.” And it makes sense that it has caught on. To begin with, because cramps associated with exercise are one of the most frustrating things there is. Furthermore, for years, we have missed the mark: we thought they were a product of dehydration and lack of salts, but everything seems to indicate that They are something much more multifactorial than it seemed. In fact, everything seems to indicate that the main problem has more to do with altered neuromuscular control than anything else. And in this context pickles arrive. Because yes we have evidence (somewhat limited, it’s true) which shows that brining works. Although not because of what we usually believe: researchers realized that the mechanism works too quickly for it to be a matter of electrolyte replacement. There is simply no time for physiology to do its job. So? The truth is that the mechanism in question is still mysterious. It seems that the hypothesis stronger right now is that these liquids play with the oropharyngeal reflex: a very acidic/irritant/aggressive taste could stimulate certain receptors and, as a consequence, trigger a neurological reaction that resets and adjusts neuromuscular control. And this is important because, if so, they do not replace (strictly speaking) to isotonic drinks if they are necessary. At least, not in the short term. Does it make sense? On a purely scientific level, I think the most reasonable thing to do is to think that we have some evidence to suggest that it works in some people. However, let’s not fool ourselves: to date we have no evidence that it is more effective than the traditional approach (mechanical measures such as stretching or load change). In this sense, it is worth remembering that superstition plays a key role in elite sport. Superstition? What superstition? Thanks to the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, Kinesio tapes became popular. Some brightly colored ribbons that say they can be used for almost everything but whose effects are not proven at all. At the 2016 Rio games, the boom was taken by cupping. As I argued then, athletes are tremendously superstitious beings. A lot. And they are because it works for them.. From the eightieswe know that sports rituals have a positive impact on their execution. And, curiously, increasing ‘perceived self-efficacy’ It is usually related to increasing effectiveness in actual execution. Ultimately, what studies tell us is that these rituals “helped strengthen feelings of control and confidence that were otherwise lacking” in times of great stress. It doesn’t matter if they are lucky underwear or a lump of brine: they are things that function beyond their physiological plausibility. The problem, as always, is another. Whether we like it or not, athletes are role models for the general public. With these fads, they are spreading pseudoscience beliefs in society and generating business in companies with few scruples. Something, in itself, much more dangerous than drinking pickle juice. Image | Ketut Subiyanto In Xataka | Why are the best athletes in the world getting bruises on their skin?

Science now suggests that caffeine could be a “shield” against dementia

by

For years, the debate about whether coffee is a hero or a villain for health has swung like a pendulum between one position and another. However, science has now given a good reason for the most coffee lovers to drink even more coffee. The reason is in a new study published in JAMA which has put evidence on the table that is difficult to ignore: moderate caffeine consumption not only keeps us alert today, but could be protecting our brain for tomorrow. The data. We talk about how this is evidence that is difficult to ignore precisely because it is not a one-time survey from a weekend, but rather a Harvard research team. analyzed more than 130,000 people for four decades. Specifically, the sample that has been handled in this case has been 131,821 participants, which included health personnel, and a follow-up of up to 43 years was carried out during the years 1980 and 2023. At the end of the study, 11,033 cases of incident dementia were documented, which is what had to begin to be studied. With your diet. Once all this information is available, researchers have had to begin to cross-reference the dietary intakewhich have been updated every four years, with medical histories. Here the primary objective was to look for a pattern that related something in the lives of patients with dementia to their illness. And the truth is that they saw a fairly clear pattern: those who consumed caffeinated coffee had a lower risk of developing dementia compared to those who barely ate it. Something that other studies in the past also pointed out. Neither little nor too much. Logically, the study does not suggest that we should start drinking coffee as if it were water, since the effects of caffeine in large quantities are very harmful to health. Science suggests in this case that the greatest benefit was observed in those who consumed approximately 2 to 3 cups of coffee a day. In concrete figures, it was seen that this consumption reduced the risk of having dementia by 18% and also showed in patients a lower prevalence of subjective cognitive impairment and better scores on objective memory tests. Drink more coffee. According to this specific study, the benefit stabilizes, meaning that it does not improve further, but it does not worsen drastically in this group of patients. But other meta-analyses suggest that with consumption of more than 4 or 5 cups, the benefits can be reversed and generate other problems. Caffeine is key. One of the most interesting findings is the chemical distinction that is made, since researchers separate people who drink caffeinated coffee and those who drink decaffeinated coffee. Here the results were quite clear: decaffeinated coffee consumption is not associated with a decreased risk of dementia or better cognitive performance. This suggests that the neuroprotective effect does not come only from the antioxidants or polyphenols of the bean (which are also in decaffeinated), but caffeine is the active agent main in this equation. The effect of tea. There is a large group of people who do not depend on caffeine to stay awake, but on the caffeine in tea. In this case, tea consumption showed coffee-like associationssince drinking 1 to 2 cups a day was also linked to a reduced risk of dementia and better cognitive function. This is something that reinforces the theory that caffeine and other compounds such as L-theanine play a protective role in our nervous system. Why does it work? Although in this case the study is not focused on telling us the reasons, the authors propose a series of biological mechanisms to understand it. The first of them is that caffeine blocks adenosine receptors in the brainwhich not only makes us more awake, but could reduce the accumulation of beta-amyloid, the protein associated with Alzheimer’s when it is in large quantities. In addition to this, caffeine is also believed to reduce pro-inflammatory cytokines in the brain, mitigating neuroinflammation that precedes cognitive decline. And if we lacked reasons to defend caffeine, it is added that it improves insulin sensitivity and vascular function, two factors that, when they fail, open the door to dementia. The small print. Although variables such as tobacco, exercise and diet were adjusted for, it cannot be definitively proven that coffee causes brain protection. It may always be the case that people with early cognitive decline give up coffee because it makes them sick, but the researchers tried to control for this by excluding the first few years of follow-up. Furthermore, it must be taken into account that the participants were mostly health professionals with higher education, so the results could vary in populations with other lifestyles or genetics. Enjoy, but don’t force yourself. The person who already enjoys 2-3 cups of coffee a day has one more scientific reason to do so without guilt in this case, since it is in the “sweet spot” of neurological protection. But if there are people who do not like coffee or it makes them very nervous, there is no need to force it, since the quality of sleep and the exercise They remain the undisputed kings of brain health. Images | Fahmi Fakhrudin In Xataka | We believed that the early onset of dementia was due to genetic causes. we were wrong

the minimum dose of exercise that science points to changing the health of those over 60 years of age

by

In the 1980s, gerontologist Robert N. Butler launched a phrase that has become in a mantra of modern medicine: “if exercise and physical activity could be packaged as a pill it would be the most widely prescribed and beneficial medication for the population.” Forty years later, science has stopped treating that phrase as a metaphor and turned it into a mathematical calculation. The ROI of the force. Until now, we knew that sport was healthy, but data on its direct clinical profitability were lacking. The GENUD research group, led by José Antonio Casajús, published in Experimental Gerontology at the end of 2025 one of the strongest evidence to date. The essay, carried out with 123 people over 80 years oldprescribed a treatment of three weekly supervised exercise sessions for six months. The clinical results were clear: improvements in functional capacity, reduction in frailty and increase in quality of life. But the data that has aroused the interest of health managers is economic. The conclusion here was that while the cost of the intervention was only 164 euros per person, The savings to the system exceeded 1,000 euros. The clinical squat. If exercise is the ideal drug, clinical evidence points to the squat being the most important active ingredient here. Many studies have precisely validated this movement, which can mean the world to some people, not as a gym exercise but as a diagnostic and treatment tool. Biomechanics is key. Why is the squat so important to medicine? First of all because it is an exercise that demands more on the hip extensorsvital for an elderly person to be able to get up from a chair or bed without help. But in addition, it also activates the quadriceps and plantar flexors more. At the metabolic and cardiovascular level, the impact is systemic. The venous compression that occurs during the squat increases venous return and cardiac output, acting as a natural pump that combats orthostatic hypotension. Even in post-stroke patients, fast squats have been shown to activate the injured rectus femoris, correcting asymmetries and improving postural control. How long. You don’t have to work hard, since a recent study showed that a program of just one minute a day, that is, about thirty seconds of squats and thirty seconds of push-ups, is enough. This is something that was seen with prescription by primary care physicians, improving physical performance in patients over 60 years of age with excellent adherence at 24 weeks. Anti-cancer effect. Beyond the effect on adults, important implications of physical exercises in pediatric cancer have also been seen. This was evidenced by Carmen Fiuza-Luces, from the Physical Exercise and Pediatric Cancer group, who directs the “La Aceleradora” project of the Unoentrecienmil Foundation. And contrary to the belief of having “absolute rest” when you have cancer, the evidence shows that exercise during treatment of pediatric solid tumors It achieves what no drug can. For example, it reduces the side effects of chemotherapy, protects the heart from the toxicity of the treatment or prevents atrophy in sick children. The problem is not the drug. The problem with prescribing exercise in consultation is lack of knowledge about the ‘dose’ that should be given. Just as a doctor does not say ‘take an antibiotic’ without a clear duration and frequency, the same thing happens with sports. You can’t say ‘do sports’. In these cases, exercise requires a dose in the form of frequency and duration, the intensity that must be personalized to each patient and, above all, monitoring with adaptation to the patient’s pathology. Looking for the front door. The Health and Sports Working Group of the Collegiate Medical Organization, coordinated by José Ramón Pallás, is pushing for integrate exercise into the National Health System as a therapy equivalent to drugs. The goal is for the “3 sets of 10 squats” recipe to be as official and binding as any blood pressure pill. In this way, science has done the numbers and all that remains is for the administration to make a move. Images | Victor Freitas In Xataka | Neither 10,000 steps a day nor killing yourself in the gym: the “sweet spot” of exercise according to science is 30 minutes

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.