Science

We thought that the problem of insomnia was on the mobile screen. Science points to the harmless five o’clock coffee

by

There is a ritual that many of us follow without questioning it. We arrived at five in the afternoon with our brains fried, we ordered a coffee—or a tea, or a Coca-Cola—and we continued. It’s the push we need to get through the rest of the day. What almost no one knows is that that five o’clock coffee may be sabotaging your eleven o’clock sleep. What we usually do when we don’t sleep well is point to our cell phone, stress, late dinner, or looping thoughts. We rarely point to the cup. And yet, for doctor Pablo Ferrero, a specialist in sleep medicine, the answer is there: “Caffeine is the number one enemy of good rest.” The chemistry behind the problem. To understand why caffeine is so disruptive, you have to know adenosine. It is a substance that the brain accumulates during waking hours and that, when it reaches a certain level, gives us that feeling of tiredness, that it is time to stop. It is, in a certain sense, the biological alarm of sleep. What caffeine does is to block adenosine receptors: Silences the alarm without disabling actual fatigue. The body continues to accumulate fatigue, but the brain stops perceiving it. The problem is not just that it is difficult to fall asleep. It’s what happens inside while we sleep. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine found that a dose of 400 milligrams of caffeine consumed six hours before bedtime significantly reduced sleep efficiency. Other job in Neuropsychopharmacology was more specific: Consuming caffeine before bed reduces the amount of REM sleep, the phase in which the brain consolidates memories and regulates mood. More in depth. The numbers They are concrete and not very reassuring.: That dose can delay sleep onset by up to 45 minutes and reduce deep sleep—NREM phases 3 and 4—by up to 20%. Taken to everyday practice: if you have a coffee at 5:00 p.m. and go to bed at 11:00 p.m., your deep sleep can go from the usual 120 minutes to just 96. That’s 24 minutes less brain and physical repair. Nightly. But there is something even more disturbing: a scientific review published in the magazine Nutrients concluded that caffeine can reduce deep sleep even when the person sleeps eight hours continuously. That is, it is not enough to add hours. Quality does not always coincide with the perception of having a good rest. You can wake up thinking you’ve had a great night’s sleep while your brain hasn’t gone through the cycles it needed. Time matters. One of the most common mistakes is to think that afternoon coffee “no longer works” because you are used to it. Tolerance reduces the perception of the stimulus, but The half-life of caffeine in the body is between 4 and 9 hours: That means that half of what you drank at three in the afternoon is still active at eleven at night. And the problem is not limited to coffee. Caffeine is also present in some soft drinks, energy drinks, teas and chocolates, something that Ferrero expressly points out as a factor that goes unnoticed. It’s not just the breakfast cup: it’s the entire consumption circuit of the day. The broken clock. Caffeine, however, does not act alone. Ferrero points to another factor that can be even more decisive: schedule disorder. The body works through the circadian rhythman internal biological clock that regulates when we feel sleepy and when we are alert. When schedules constantly change—we go to bed at eleven Monday through Thursday and one o’clock on Fridays and Saturdays, and we get up three hours later on Sunday—that system loses synchronization. science back this up with data: Sleeping at irregular hours can cause insomnia, daytime sleepiness and alter hormone production, metabolism and eating habits, increasing the risk of diseases such as diabetes, obesity and depression. The impact don’t stop feeling tired Since while we sleep, the brain eliminates the beta-amyloid protein, accumulated during wakefulness and directly related to Alzheimer’s and other neurological disorders. Poor sleep is not just a tomorrow’s problem: it is a long-term investment—or debt. The motive is not innocent either. But the mechanism is more precise than is usually explained. The blue light emitted by screens suppresses the production of melatonin, the hormone that signals the brain it’s time to sleep. A study by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health warned that this overexposure directly alters the sleep-wake cycle. Just two hours of exposure to bright screens before bed can reduce melatonin levels by 20% or moreand the time to fall asleep can go from 15 minutes to more than an hour. Using a tablet before going to sleep can delay nighttime sleep by up to 96 minutes; that of a smartphone, up to 67. Harvard Medical School noted that “just a few minutes of screen stimulation can delay the release of melatonin by several hours and desynchronize the biological clock.” The problem is that we live in a society with increasingly irregular patterns: high light exposure at night, changing work schedules, screens until the last minute. We are sending our brain signals that it is still daytime when it is no longer daytime. So what works? Ferrero’s answer is not particularly glamorous, but it is supported by evidence. Going to bed and getting up at similar times every day—even on weekends—is the most basic and most ignored advice. Added to this is a dark, quiet and cool bedroom: artificial light and high temperatures send alert signals to the brain that make it difficult to rest. Avoid screens before going to bed—at least 30 minutes—and have a light dinner, without excess fats or spicy food, close to bedtime. For those who do not have insomnia, a short nap may be beneficial; The key is that it does not exceed 25 minutes so as not to disturb your night’s sleep. And in the face of anxiety or thoughts in a loop, Ferrero points out tools with scientific evidence: … Read more

We have turned probiotics into the miracle pill of the 21st century. Science has something to say about it

by

They are in pharmacies, along with vitamins C and multivitamin complexes. They are on the shelves of organic supermarkets, between adaptogens and turmeric shots. They occupy the reels of TikTok with the same enthusiasm with which before detox juices populated. Probiotics – supplements with live microorganisms that supposedly strengthen the intestinal flora – have become the health amulet of the 21st century. The promise is simple and seductive: take these “good” bacteria in a capsule and your gut, your brain, your immune system, and your skin will function better. The business accompanies the promise. According to different estimates from the sectorthe global probiotics market was valued at around $114 billion in 2025 and is projected to continue growing at a sustained rate over the next decade. However, there is a problem that science has been contemplating for years: taken massively and indiscriminately, probiotic supplements not only do not improve the microbiome in the majority of healthy people. In some cases, they can actively block it. A forgotten organ that regulates almost everything. The human intestine is home to trillions of microorganisms—bacteria, fungi, viruses—that form an ecosystem as complex and personal as a fingerprint. According to gastroenterologist Chris Dammanfrom the University of Washington, who has been studying the microbiome for 20 years, this ecosystem acts as “the gateway to the body’s overall health.” Diets with more fiber, fruit and vegetables are those that generate the greatest variety and richness of bacteria in the intestine, and healthy bacteria produce short-chain fatty acids that support the health of the intestinal lining, according to the clinical documents of the Whole Health from the US Veterans Administration. The microbiota is not just digestion. A review published in the journal Nutrients by researchers at the University of Cassino in Italy, details how the gut microbiota modulates neurochemical pathways involving serotonin, dopamine, GABA and glutamate, as well as the immune and endocrine axes. Microbial imbalance—what scientists call dysbiosis—contributes to low-grade systemic inflammation, impaired neuroplasticity, and altered stress responses, all of which are linked to mood disorders and cognitive decline. However, the most striking fact is that Approximately 95% of the body’s serotonin is synthesized in the intestinenot in the brain. Whether the intestine is good or bad is no small matter. Take care of the microbiota is key to healthbut to make good use of probiotics it is important to first understand their real mechanism. And that’s where things get complicated. Years of warning. The problem with probiotics is not that they never work. The thing is that we have turned them into a general use resource, something that is taken preventively and continuously, without diagnosis, without medical indication and without understanding what is really happening in each person’s intestine. A product with real and very specific benefits that social networks have turned into a universal solution. Dammam explains it clearly: Probiotic supplements purchased without a prescription are not sufficiently regulated. You don’t really know what you’re taking. Products vary greatly in labeling accuracy, presence of adulterants, and legitimacy of their claims, according to VA Program documents. Prescribing probiotics is difficult even for doctors: there are thousands of products on the market, each claiming superiority over the other. Many have “special recipes,” proprietary strains or combinations of multiple organisms that the VA wryly describes as “a microbiological shotgun approach.” The problem, ultimately, is not just the lack of regulation. It’s that we start from a wrong premise. The science behind. Dr. De la Puerta, an expert in microbiota, sums it up with a phrase that does not leave much room for interpretation: “If you want a healthy microbiota, you probably don’t need to live taking probiotics.” He said it in podcast by Dr. José Abellán in one of the most shared analyzes of intestinal health in recent weeks. Her central argument is not that probiotics are useless—in fact, she herself admits that she uses and prescribes them frequently—but that they are becoming a permanent habit when they are designed to be a one-time tool. “You have to take them to get you out of a place,” he explains. And he gives his own case as an example: “My microbiota is fairly good, but I have a lot of stress. So I take probiotics from time to time.” The key is in those two words: seasons. Deeper investigations. The latest science backs up exactly this nuance. A review published in Trends in Microbiology concludes that the composition of the microbiome varies greatly depending on geography, age and lifestyle, which directly calls into question the efficacy of universal probiotic treatments and requires that the design of any effective probiotic takes into account microbial diversity and specific adaptation to the context of each host. The Probiota 2025 conference, held in Copenhagen, confirmed this same idea: Geographic and demographic variations reveal microbiome profiles so different among healthy populations that it is impossible to define a universal standard of a “healthy microbiome.” There is another equally serious problem, which Dr. De la Puerta points out precisely: not all probiotics are the same, even if we sell them as if they were. “Take a probiotic, stabilizer, immunomodulator, neuroactive, high load, low load, monostrain, multistrain…”, he lists. Some have more to do with the immune system, others with digestive health, others with mood. The most successful interventions are those informed by a microbial profile prior to treatment, which allows predicting therapeutic efficacy. “That’s why it doesn’t make much sense to buy them at random simply because someone has recommended them on social networks,” the expert details. The garden already planted. There is a conceptual error that lies at the bottom of this entire debate. We take probiotics as if the intestine were empty land waiting to be repopulated. But in the vast majority of healthy adults, the intestinal ecosystem is already established and has its own defenses. According to the VA Programcontinuing to take them once a healthy intestinal ecosystem is formed would be like planting an already planted garden. The real problem, … Read more

We have believed all our lives that “dying of grief” was a romantic myth. Science is clear that there is some truth

by

The classic scene of two old people who have been together their entire lives, and when one dies, the other follows him a few days later because “he couldn’t bear the pain” seems to be something that remains in the movies. However, what we have always dismissed as romantic hyperbole or statistical coincidence has, in reality, deep physiological support. It is studied. A recent deluge of scientific data puts on the table a conclusion that is quite devastating by pointing out that intense grief not only hurts emotionally, but also drastically increases the chances of suffering a fatal cardiovascular event that triggers long-term mortality. The most robust and recent confirmation comes through a study published in Frontiers in Public Health that analyzed 1735 people in a ground situation to be able to find out what happened in the long term with those who could not overcome a loss naturally. The results. The researchers here divided the patients into groups according to the intensity and duration of their suffering. What was precisely seen is that those who showed a high and sustained grief trajectory, which is called prolonged grief, not only needed many medical consultations and psychotropic drugs, but also presented a higher risk of mortality than the low grief groups. Translated into plain numbers: people trapped in persistent grief were almost twice as likely to die in the decade after the loss. The heart breaks. When we receive bad news, we sometimes say that the heart ‘has broken’ and for many it may seem strange, since physically the heart is intact. But this expression, which may be popular, has clinical demonstration behind it, as pointed out a published study in Circulation which shows that the first weeks after widowhood or the loss of a loved one are high risk. Specifically, in the first 24 hours after the loss, it was shown that the risk of suffering an acute myocardial infarction reached its maximum peakwhile in the following 30 days cardiovascular events also increased, including stroke. In the guides. As a curiosity, there is even a clinically documented pathology known as Takotsubo syndrome (or broken heart syndrome), which is a cardiomyopathy induced by extreme emotional stress that temporarily weakens the heart muscle, simulating the symptoms of a massive heart attack. The small print. What has been compiled in this case is a statistical correlation, that is, that those people who have had a deep mourning have seen their mortality increase. But this does not mean that there will be an event of this magnitude. What happens in these cases is that grief is a marker of constant vulnerability, since cortisol levels increase, keeping the body in a state of alert that exhausts the immune system. But in addition, those who suffer extreme grief often stop eating properly and reduce their physical activity to zero, and in many cases, forget to take their medication. All of this ultimately increases the risk of mortality, but not the loss itself. Images | Yosi Prihantoro In Xataka | More and more people die from a sudden heart attack in Spain: the sudden death pandemic

The human being is the primate that sleeps the least. Science is clear that it is a “radical evolutionary experiment”

by

We spend a third of our lives sleeping, yet the most common complaint in modern society It’s the lack of rest. We tend to blame screens, work stress and artificial light for robbing us of hours of sleep, but here evolutionary anthropology has a much more forceful answer: human beings are genetically designed to sleep less than any other evolutionary relative. It is studied. It is not something that we see from afar as a mere hypothesis, but researcher David R. Samson, professor of Evolutionary Anthropology, recently published a book that includes the results of his research. And the truth is that, after living with hunter-gatherer tribes like the Hadza in Tanzania and the BaYaka in the Congo, their conclusion is resounding: humans are an absolute biological anomaly. We are the great early riser. If we take out the calculator and the meter, a primate more or less of our same average body mass, brain size and diet should sleep about 9.5 hours a day. But this figure is limited to a fairly select few people, since we actually sleep around 2.5 hours less than our evolutionary biology predicts, making us the primates that sleep the least of all. This is a pretty clear conclusion. if we compare ourselves with other species that have very high sleep rates, as can be seen in the following list: Chimpanzee: between 9.5-11.5 hours a day. Gorilla: 10-12 hours. Pig-tailed macaque: 14 hours. Night monkey: 17 hours. Because? How is it possible that with the most complex and energetically demanding brain in the animal kingdom we sleep so little? The answer seems to lie in the “deep sleep” hypothesiswhich suggests that evolution forced us to have a much deeper and more efficient sleep to sleep much less than the rest of the hominids. For example, humans spend approximately 25% of our rest time in the REM phase, which contrasts with species such as African green monkeys, which They only dedicate 5% to this phase. But in addition, human sleep has a lower proportion of light sleep, since in return, it has a higher proportion of deep sleep. A necessity. Having a much shorter rest was not a whim of ours, but rather a matter of survival, since by leaving the safety of the trees, where our ancestors slept safely, and descending to dry land, the risk of predation skyrocketed. Regarding shorter sleep, evolution promoted several mechanisms to guarantee our survival, such as sleeping next to the fire and in large groups for greater security. But in 2017 a study showed that natural variation in chronotype allowed someone to always be awake standing guard during the night. Don’t blame the screens. It is tempting to think that we sleep for about 7 hours because electric lights and smartphones have altered us in this modern life. But this is not the case, because after analyzing the sleep of the Hadza, who are a hunting community in Tanzania without access to electricity or mobile phones, it was shown that their patterns are identical to ours, sleeping 6.25 hours a night and maintaining a sleep efficiency of 68.9%. Images | MediaEcke In Xataka | We’ve been sold melatonin as the ultimate harmless sleep supplement. Science does not think the same

93% of owners believe that sleeping with their dog improves their rest. Science has just proven that it is self-deception

by

Night comes, you get into bed and, almost out of inertia, your dog or cat jumps on the mattress to curl up at your feet. For many people, pets are full members of the family and even share the sheets. According to a report from the platform Sleep Foundation56% of people say they sleep with a pet in their room. The bond is so strong that the mere idea of ​​changing this habit generates rejection. Sleep psychologist Shelby Harris recounts in an interview for The New York Times that when caring for patients with insomnia problems, the first reaction is usually almost defensive: “I have a dog. You’re going to tell me not to sleep with him.” And, although sleeping with our animals gives us an immense feeling of peace, the scientific community has begun to empirically measure what happens in our body and brain during the night. The bad news is that, objectively, your rest could be suffering much more than you realize. Data under the microscope. An exhaustive study published in the scientific journal Scientific Reports decided to put exact figures on this phenomenon. Researcher Brian N. Chin and his team analyzed the habits of a representative sample of more than 1,500 adults in the United States. The results revealed that sleeping with pets is directly associated with poorer perceived sleep quality and greater severity of insomnia symptoms. Interestingly, the impact is not identical with all animals. Research analyzes showed that this negative effect on human sleep is strongly associated with dog owners, but no evidence was found that the same damage occurs when sleeping with cats. This difference may be due to the fact that dogs have greater sensitivity to external stimuli, waking up more easily to the noise of cars or barking in the neighborhood. The main problem lies in the sleeper’s self-deception. The author of the study highlights a surprising fact: 93% of people who slept with their pets firmly believed that their pets had a positive or neutral effect on their sleep. This disconnection between perception and biological reality is also supported In another study carried out on 12 women; Although the monitoring devices showed that the dogs constantly interrupted their rest, they rarely reported these interruptions the next morning. Why do we rest worse if we feel good? Dr. Vsevolod Polotsky, a sleep researcher at Johns Hopkins University, explains that the sleep of dogs and cats is not continuous; They inevitably move, bark, scratch or walk on the bed and on us. All this nocturnal activity causes what experts call “microawakenings.” Neurology professor Kristen Knutson details that these brief interruptions, which we are often not even aware of, are extremely disruptive because they abruptly take us out of the deep sleep phase. Worse yet, they have been associated with the release of the stress hormone cortisol, which significantly worsens overall rest. Furthermore, the investigation of Scientific Reports demolished one of the most widespread beliefs: the myth that the pet acts as a protective shield against anxiety before sleeping. Although high levels of life stress were associated with worse sleep, the scientists found no evidence that sleeping with the animal had a “buffering” effect that would protect the person from the ravages of stress. However, purely emotional logic has an undeniable weight in this equation. Sleeping with a pet, especially one with whom you have a close bond, can reduce the sense of perceived vulnerability and dramatically increase the feeling of security. We are faced with a complex exchange: our physical body experiences fragmented and less efficient sleep, but the animal’s mere presence helps emotional regulation by making us feel happy and protected. The verdict of the specialists. For animals, the experience of sharing sheets is undoubtedly positive. Dr. Dana Varble, veterinary director of the North American Veterinary Community, points out that animals Those who sleep with their owners experience higher levels of trust, as well as an increase in beneficial neurotransmitters such as oxytocin and dopamine, known as the feel-good hormones. However, in the case of humans, medical specialists warn about certain risk profiles: Respiratory problems: People with allergies or asthma are at risk of seeing their symptoms activated by being exposed to allergens such as animal dander for multiple hours in a closed space. Persistent allergens: Dr. Raj Dasgupta, pulmonologist, warns that allergens They also reside in the animal’s saliva and skin, which can cause watery eyes and continued nasal congestion throughout the night. Previous disorders: For those who suffer from chronic problems such as insomnia or sleep apnea, Dr. Polotsky is very clear when stating that bed sharing “is particularly harmful” and will prevent the patient from falling asleep again when they wake up. There are, of course, medical exceptions where the balance tips in favor of the animal. Service dogs trained for patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are of great help by knowing how to identify physical symptoms and wake their owners to interrupt nocturnal nightmares. Dr. Dasgupta also recognizes that, For people dealing with depression or anxiety, the pet can act as a comforting “big blanket” that effectively decreases distress. The unwanted companions. Beyond sleep quality, hygiene adds another layer of risk to nighttime living. A revealing pilot study published in the scientific journal Pathogens investigated what exact bacteria and parasites we take to bed. Of the 50 animals analyzed, 30% literally slept in bed, under the blankets with their humans. The most striking thing about this research was the great contradiction of the owner: although 42% of all respondents cited lack of hygiene as the main reason why pets should not be allowed into the bedroom, in practice, many ignored the risk and allowed them to sleep there. Microscopic measurements of the fur were surprising. The aerobic colony count (ACC) on the dogs’ hair exceeded the maximum limits of bacteria tolerated on hospital surfaces or in food preparation areas by 4 to 43 times. Even more graphic is that 64% of the dogs tested positive for … Read more

We’ve been sold melatonin as the ultimate harmless sleep supplement. Science does not think the same

by

By taking a walk through any pharmacy, supermarket or online store, it is easy to find melatonin as the definitive solution to sleep problems and with the great claim of being something totally natural that our body secretes. Pills, drops, infusions or even gummies are some of the presentations in which we find a product that for many should not be available to everyone and that, in their opinion, It should be regulated like any other medicine. The alarm voice. The scientific community and regulatory bodies They are starting to sound the alarm and the central idea is clear: melatonin is not as harmless as it is often promoted and, according to experts, it should be treated with the same rigor as a medication, and not as a simple vitamin supplement. The labels. One of the biggest problems with melatonin, especially in countries like the United States where it is regulated as a dietary supplement, is the lack of strict control over its production. Here a study published in 2017 put a worrying fact on the table when seeing that there are a great variability between what the labels say and what the bottle actually contains. And when analyzing multiple brands, researchers found products that contained from 83% less melatonin than declared, to an alarming 478% more. And if that were not enough, the study detected the presence of serotonin in several of these supplements, which is a neurotransmitter that is regulated. It’s not something magical. Marketing has positioned melatonin as a universal solution for sleep that can be consumed without almost any type of control or limit. But here the different reviews conclude that its benefits are modest, without having a powerful hypnotic effect, but rather that its real usefulness lies in adjusting specific circadian rhythm disorders such as jet lag, so use should be selective and not routine. Furthermore, it is not without risks. One of the most striking is the incompatibility that taking melatonin may have. with anticoagulant medicationswhich requires medical supervision. This is something that a priori is not known to patients as they do not go to the doctor for a prescription and have melatonin available on a supermarket shelf. The silent danger. The rise of melatonin in gummy form has brought with it very serious collateral damage, since children may see it as a candy, which has led to an increase in visits to the emergency room in the United States due to excessive consumption of melatonin. In Spain, The approach taken is more strict, since drug regulatory agencies evaluate the safety of this substance in the key of medicinealthough you can buy it almost without any type of control when going to any supermarket. The positive part here is that the highest concentrations of melatonin can only be prescribed by a doctor in consultation so that the pharmacy can make a master preparation, considering it as just another medication, which is what is requested internationally. Images | James Yarema Slaapwijsheid.nl In Xataka | Someone has said that melatonin damages the heart. The reality, according to science, is that we can be calm

Science has measured how dinner affects sleep and the result explains why you wake up craving sugar

by

Almost everyone has experienced an annoying night tossing and turning in bed after a heavy dinner or fat. Under this pretext, science has gone one step further to demonstrate that the relationship between what we eat and how we rest is completely bidirectional, making what we eat determine whether we are going to rest better or worse. And the most surprising thing is that sleeping poorly can cause us to need to consume more sugar the next morning. A Granada studio. In February 2026 the magazine European Journal of Nutrition public a revealing investigation led by the University of Granada, where researchers monitored the habits of 146 adults with obesity. To do this, they used special watches to analyze accelerometry over a period of 14 days, to later cross-reference the activity data with dietary surveys of what had been consumed throughout the day. Prohibited items. One of the most interesting conclusions reached was undoubtedly the relationship between certain foods and poor rest. And to be clear, the elements that should be prohibited at our dinner are the following: Saturated fats. Eating excess protein and, more specifically, eating red meat for dinner. French fries, or fried foods in general, reduce the quality of sleep. Alcohol is one of the classics on this topic, since, although it generates a feeling of sleep, it destabilizes its quality. Large meals cause slow digestion and cause nighttime awakenings, preventing you from entering into a deep and restful sleep. Highly recommended foods. On the contrary, the passport to restful sleep seems to lie in another type of nutritional profile. Interestingly, carbohydrates, often demonized at night, were associated with better rest in this study. Although we are not talking about sugar directly from the sugar bowl, but rather complex carbohydrates, such as brown rice or potatoes, because help transport tryptophan to the brain. But in addition, the consumption of oily fish such as salmon or sardines is also recommended, since they are rich in omega-3 and especially tryptophan. The reasons. As we see, tryptophan is key in the diet to induce quality sleep, and it is no wonder. Biochemistry tells us that the tryptophan that we ingest through the diet is converted into serotonin and, subsequently, that serotonin is transformed into melatonin, the well-known sleep hormone. And for this chain to work we need very important factors such as vitamin B6, magnesium or zinc. But this also adds to a much less difficult digestion when talking about foods that are barely fatty and that do not require a lot of work on the part of our body and that do not invite reflux symptoms to appear that can be really annoying at night. Specific foods. With scientific support behind it We find the kiwi, since here a trial pointed out that eating two kiwis, one before going to sleep, reduces the time to fall asleep by 35%. But it also increases sleep duration by 13% due to its contribution of antioxidants and natural serotonin. Additionally, green leafy vegetables such as spinach, chard or lettuce provide magnesium and tryptophan. And if vegetables are not for you, we also have eggs, either boiled or in an omelet, which provides tryptophan and vitamin B6, along with the classic grilled chicken breast, which is also an excellent source of tryptophan. The rebound effect. However, the true clinical contribution of the research is to show that this problem is, in reality, a cycle that feeds on itself in a dangerous way. Here the researchers found that when participants experienced a poor night’s sleep, breakfast was marked by a higher consumption of sugars and a lower intake of fiber. Images | Slaapwijsheid.nl Debbie Tea In Xataka | We have accepted that “deep sleep” is the standard for sleep quality: science points in another direction

Cases in young people are skyrocketing and science points to our lifestyle

by

When we think of patients with colon cancerour mind can automatically go to a middle-aged person with different risk factors behind them. However, epidemiology is documenting a radical change in statisticssince more and more young people are being diagnosed with this type of cancer, which makes us reflect to look for the ‘why’. The experts. Winette van der Graaf, professor of Medical Oncology at the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI), points to this new reality and states that “I would never have imagined that I would be seeing patients with colorectal cancer at the age of 19” as collect The Country. With this phrase he gives voice to a global trend that epidemiological studies continue to confirm, since cancer is no longer a disease almost exclusively of old age, and the incidence is growing at a rate four times faster in young people than in older people. An explosion. Data supports the medical concern through multiple international macro studies, such as the one published in 2024 in The Lancet. Here, 50 countries were analyzed and showed that early-onset colorectal cancer (between 25 and 49 years) is increasing in 27 of them. But the most revealing data is in 20 of those 27 territories, where the increase in cases is exclusive to young people or is advancing much faster than in the adult population. The fastest pace is taken by countries such as New Zealand or Chile, growing at 4.0% annually, and Puerto Rico with 3.8%. Furthermore, in 14 countries, including Spain, the United States and the United Kingdom, cases are increasing in young people while remaining stable in those over 50 years of age. Among the youngest. The figures here are scary, since, according to the data From the CDC, data on colorectal cancer among adolescents tripled between 1999 and 2020. If we go into detail, in the 20 to 24 year old group they grew by 185%, while in the 10 to 14 year old age group the growth was 500% as the incidence went from 0.1 to 0.6 cases per 100,000 children. The Spanish case. Here, a study based on real data from the Virgen de la Victoria Hospital published in JCO Global Oncology in 2024 analyzed more than 24,500 patients and found that 22.2% had early-onset cancer, being present before the age of 50. And we can go further, by making a list of the types of cancer that have increased the most in our territory: Sarcoma: increased by 43.4% in young people compared to 28.6% in older people. Kidney: rose 27.8% in young people compared to 20.1% in older people. Testicle: grew by 16.3% in young people, while its incidence fell by 13.1% in older people. Because? Here experts point to a combination of very diverse factors that try to explain it, although none of them is definitive. One of these is an inadequate diet with an increase in the consumption of red meat and calcium-deficient diets that is complemented by a tendency toward a sedentary lifestyle. But in addition, the excessive use of antibiotics could be severely altering our intestinal microbiota, added to the impact of bacterial infections during childhood. And it even goes further by considering the role of the exposure we have since childhood to chemical elements such as pesticides or pollution in general to give it an explanation. Images | brgfx on Magnific Julia Koblitz In Xataka | Neither cure nor die: why the next great revolution against cancer is to make it chronic

You thought you ended up liking beer out of habit. Science has seen many ways to acquire this taste

by

There are many people who cannot stand certain foods, such as the hated broccoli or cauliflower, which for some is inedible and they do not even understand how someone could like that. This also happens when you first take a sip of coffee or a drink of beer whose strong flavor can put anyone off. However, a few years later, that same bitter drink is part of the daily routine or even a pleasure, as is the case with beer. How is it possible? This is the question we can ask ourselves about these sudden changes in taste, and the truth is that it is quite documented under the term “acquired taste“. These two words explain not only why our preferences change, but also how our brain is capable of rewriting its own danger alerts to transform rejection into a reward. Survive. To understand why we learn to love certain flavors, we first have to understand why we hate them in the first place. Much of the blame lies with food neophobia, which is nothing more than the fear or refusal to try new foods, since although in childhood we usually label it as “being picky”, from an evolutionary point of view it is a sophisticated defense mechanism. If we look back to prehistory, children put anything they found in their mouths; like a new berry or a bitter plant, they were very likely to end up poisoned. That is why any bitter taste for our brain is a sign of toxicity and, therefore, we must reject it. Although this is not the case, as is the case with many foods. It’s genetic. The interesting thing is that this rejection is programmed from the factory and has a very strong genetic component. This has been seen in studies done on twins who demonstrated that childhood food neophobia is highly heritable, estimating that heritability by up to 72% during early stages. This genetic predisposition is often associated with a lower acceptance of diverse flavors and textures, and a more restrictive diet in childhood. But genetics only deals the cards with which we will later play in a great environment, since 28% of the probabilities leave a margin for environmental factors. Hacking the brain. The question here is that if biology has programmed us to spit out coffee because it is bitter… Why are many people hooked on it? The answer lies in the brain mechanisms of flavor learning and memory, since our brain constantly evaluates the post-ingestion consequences of what we eat. This is what explains, for example, that if we vomit a lot after eating a tortilla, we begin to put it aside later because we associate it with illness. But if we drink something bitter and, instead of getting sick or dying, we get a boost of energy like with caffeine or a social disinhibition like with alcohol, the brain updates its database and points out that the risk was worth it and that we achieved something positive. Repeated exposure. In order to introduce new foods into a diet that is being developed, as occurs in children, science suggests that Consistency destroys this disgust that generates. However, visual exposure alone is not enough to break this ‘phobia’, rather repeated oral contact is necessary for the nervous system to adapt and accept the food. To facilitate this process, humans have thought of techniques such as, for example, sweeten foodand that is why the fact of adding sugar to coffee or drinking it with milk arises. This acts as a neuropsychological bridge to signal to the brain that these are safe calories. The social model It is one of the most important tools to intervene in our tastes. Here studies in infants suggest that seeing parents enjoy an unfamiliar food significantly increases acceptance in babies. And the reasoning is quite simple, since if the adult eats it and does not suffer damage, the food is considered safe to continue eating. And as you grow up, a large part of the flavors acquired in adolescence, such as beer or traditional dishes, are adopted because they are strongly linked to contexts of socialization and group acceptance, since if a friend takes it and nothing happens to him, it is because everything is fine. Images | Louis Hansel In Xataka | Not all processed foods pose a risk to our health. Some tricks can help us choose the best

If we want to take care of our microbiota, this is what science says about what time it is ideal to have dinner

by

We give more and more importance to what we eat, and we begin to take into account the information on food labels, and even demonize ultra-processed foods. However, it is so important that we eat like him when We eat, although the latter is something to which we may give very little importance in our environment, but which in truth has a great effect on our microbiota. What happens. We are not the only ones who go to sleep, since the two billion bacteria that inhabit our digestive tract have their own circadian clock. Change it by having dinner after hours Not only does it worsen our digestion, but, according to the latest studies, it pushes us towards a pro-inflammatory and obesogenic metabolism in a matter of days. In this way, changing the time at which we eat dinner can be essential to improve our general metabolic health. The bacteria. To understand why dinner time is critical, you must first understand that our microbiota is not static, but rather the composition and function of our bacteria oscillate in 24-hour cycles like ourselves. In this way, during the day, when we eat, bacteria such as Firmicuteswhich are active to help us process nutrients. However, when the night fast arrives, the ecosystem changes shift and families such as the Bacteroidetes and Verrucomicrobia. And this is something fundamental, because it is the moment in which our bacteria ferment the fiber and produce short-chain fatty acids such as butyrate, which will act as a protective shield for the intestinal barrier and regulate our glucose levels. It’s sensitive. Up to this point everything seems wonderful, but the moment we have a late dinner or if we break the fast with alcohol and a fast night meal like the classic kebab after a party, this delicate ecosystem becomes out of sync. At that time, the Bacteroidetes They decrease, the intestine becomes inflamed and we lose that protective shield. The experiment. The theory sounds good, but how long does it take for us to damage this ecosystem by eating late? The answer lies with a joint team from the CSIC, the University of Murcia and Harvard University through a rigorous test where he submitted to a group of young women and healthy to a crossover experiment. In this case, for one week the women ate the main meal at 2:00 p.m., and the following week it was delayed until 5:30 p.m. Everything else, such as calories, type of diet or hours of sleep, remained identical. The results were forcefulsince seven days of eating late were enough to completely invest the daily rhythm of the microbiota. And, as we have seen before, by moving the schedules towards the night, the microbial diversity was altered and bacteria associated with pro-inflammatory processes began to proliferate (such as Fusobacterium either Porphyromonas). Clinically, this delayed pattern pushes the body into a metabolic state that facilitates obesity and increases the risk of intestinal diseases. The ideal time. The scientific consensus points to a very specific window that for Spaniards represents an important cultural challenge, since it is believed that dinner should be eaten before 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m., while lunch should not exceed 2:00 p.m. Although if we go further, microbiota researchers agree that the ideal period is between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., always guaranteeing that at least two to three hours pass before going to sleep. It is quite important, because it has been seen that people who eat dinner early or at least leave two hours of margin before going to bed They have a 20% lower risk of developing breast and prostate cancer. The key seems to be in melatonin, the sleep hormone, which when secreted naturally displays a powerful antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effect, as long as we are not in full digestion. Images | Caroline Attwood CDC In Xataka | We know more and more about the human microbiota. And there is still little we know about the benefits of probiotics

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.