Science

Science had always believed that only humans understand geometry. Until we noticed the crows again

by

The perception of geometric regularity in shapes, a variant of elementary geometry, has long been considered an ability that only human beings had. And it is no wonder, since from quite early stages of development and across multiple cultures, our species has demonstrated a natural understanding of spatial rules. But this has changed in a species similar to crows. A radical change. Although this innate quality of humans was quite well established, science has now shown that the crows too They have geometric understanding. A cognitive milestone that rethinks what we thought we knew about animal intelligence and the evolution of pure mathematics. A myth. The scientific bases showed a notable gap between human abilities and those of the rest of the animal kingdom with regard to euclidean geometry. Previous research had already seen that primates lacked the ability to recognize geometric regularity in tests of visual perception of shapes, something fundamental, since they may be the first that come to mind when thinking about this property. And this was crucial to determining that humans have an innate ability to process geometric regularity, since the recurring inability to species like baboons After intensive training he laid these foundations. However, the researchers decided to explore these abilities in birds known for their impressive cognitive and arithmetic skills. Touch screens. To test birds’ spatial intuition, scientists from the University of Tübingen They designed an experiment based on the detection of visual anomalies. In this case, two 10- and 11-year-old male crows were trained using touch screens located inside conditioning chambers. Here the birds could observe an array that displayed six simultaneous shapes on the screen and the task was to detect an “intruder”, that is, to peck at the shape that differed in its visual parameters with respect to the other five base stimuli. The tests. For the final test, five reference quadrilaterals were used, ordered by their level of regularity: the square, the isosceles trapezoid, the rhombus, the right hinge, and a completely irregular shape. From here on, the “intrusive” figures were artificially generated moving the lower right vertex of the original figure at a fixed distance equivalent to 75% of the average distance between the vertices. Results. The most impressive thing seen was the immediacy of understanding the problem, as the crows were able to apply the concept of detecting the intruder immediately upon being exposed to the new sets of quadrilaterals. Both subjects dramatically exceeded the 16.7% chance level during their first trials, demonstrating that they understood the task without hesitating or mindlessly pecking. Furthermore, during the first 60 trials, the first crow achieved 48.3% success and the second crow 56.7%. The most impressive thing. The most revealing data from these tests was precisely that the birds showed significantly better performance with shapes that presented properties of pure Euclidean geometry, such as right angles, parallel lines or symmetry. It is crucial here to highlight that this performance advantage did not require extensive prior training, but rather the regularity effect was present from the very beginning of the testing phase. Because? Faced with the logical question of why crows achieved what other primates failed, the authors of the study recognize certain important methodological differences compared to classic experiments with baboons. In this case, they point out that the crows were subjected to a strict progress criterion during training, needing to maintain 75% correctness over five consecutive sessions. In contrast, baboons only needed to reach a criterion of 80% correct responses only once, without the need for consecutive sessions. And although this difference may make a direct and exact comparison between the species difficult, the main finding is incontestable: crows recognize geometric regularity. Images | Tyler Quiring In Xataka | Punch, the monkey clinging to a stuffed animal and a victim of bullying, has achieved the impossible: uniting the Internet under the same cause

Science has calculated the real impact of reading books on your brain. And it has a very simple recipe: 30 minutes a day

by

It is well known that a sedentary lifestyle It is one of the great enemies of public healthespecially at advanced ages where muscle loss is a great danger. However, there are sedentary activities that are really beneficial and that we sometimes stop, such as reading books. Its benefit is such that science has shown that immersing yourself in the pages of a good book It not only feeds the intellect, but also lengthens life. The demonstration. One of the most important studies who wanted to focus on the benefits of reading, beyond the cognitive benefits or the richness of vocabulary for everyday life, analyzed a group of 3,635 nationally representative participants in the United States over 12 years. And as a result, they saw that the longer the time spent reading books, lower risk of mortality. The results. To understand the magnitude of the discovery, the researchers followed all the patients until 20% of them died and only 80% remained. There they put the cut and began to draw conclusions. The first is that non-readers reached this point at 85 months, while book readers reached this same threshold at 108 months. This is something that translates into a 23-month survival advantage for those who had the habit of reading books, or in other words, readers reduced the risk of mortality by 20% throughout the 12 years of follow-up. Furthermore, this protection was maintained regardless of a person’s gender, wealth, education, or health status. The format matters. Although you may think that any type of reading is appropriate, even the back of a shampoo, the reality is quite different. In this case, the study explicitly compared the impact of reading books versus reading the newspaper or a magazine. The findings here demonstrated that reading books contributes to a significantly greater survival advantage than that seen with newspapers or magazines. While magazines offer short articles that we often skim, books require a higher level of concentration. Something that is enhanced above all because the authors constantly present themes, characters and topics and that is essential to be able to follow the thread of the story that is being presented to us. Because? Here science is quite clear that the key is in the brain, since the “cognitive score” functioned as a complete mediator of this survival advantage. This means that reading books improves cognition and it is this cognitive improvement that prolongs life. Here reading books activates different specific neural processes that create this advantage. Among the most notable points, we find that active reading of books improves skills such as reasoning, concentration, critical thinking and vocabulary. But it also promotes social perception, empathy and emotional intelligence, which can lead to better health behaviors and stress reduction. Fundamental things when we talk about extending life. It’s backed up. In addition to the original study published in 2016, science has wanted to continue investigating the benefits of reading with a study published in 2024 where the complexity of reading in older adults pointed to less cognitive decline. But it has also been decided to analyze even the cultural level of the citizens, where it has been seen that low literacy increases mortalityonce again making the act of reading books stimulate our brain and protect our cognitive reserve. Although it is not necessary to be reading all day to guarantee having a better brain, studies specifically point out that with about 30 minutes a day It is enough to start reaping these advantages and obtain more years of life in which to continue reading. Images | Blaz Photo In Xataka | The problem is not that we are reading fewer books: it is that the books we read are much simpler and easier

If ads made with AI seem horrible to you and position you against the brand, you are not alone: ​​science supports you

by

“The most profitable ad in Pepsi history.” The most voted comment in YouTube of the ad generated with AI by Coca-cola for Christmas 2025 suggests something: a popular rejection of advertising made with AI. Is this true? A new study from the University of Zaragoza on the effect of artificial intelligence on advertising points in that direction. The researchers’ conclusion is that customers avoid services advertised with AI-generated images, especially in companies that offer pleasurable experiences—such as hotel vacations—or that force high-involvement decisions. The reason? Artificially generated images are interpreted as unreliable. Its four authors explain to Xataka that “consumers value real images more because they show a faithful image of the product or service and they distrust companies that use images created with AI because they seem less professional or hide reality.” However, recent studies show that images created with AI can be equally effectiveand easier for companies to obtain, especially when consumers do not know that they are not real, they clarify. What AI gives you, AI takes away Using AI in an advertisement conveys a feeling that “the brand makes little effort, especially in luxury and beauty brands,” explains Lucía Caro Castaño, professor at the Department of Marketing and Communication at the University of Cádiz. After the Christmas controversy, Coca-Cola was forced to share how did you make the announcement to show “all the effort and investment it had required in terms of people.” Caro points to savings in personnel as one of the reasons why content made with AI generates disgust. Coca-Cola has recognized The Wall Street Journal that producing your typical Christmas advertisement has gone from needing a year to a month, recognizing savings in costs and time. However, the creation of spot forced to enormous human work to fine-tune AI-generated images. Coca-Cola is not the only company that has discovered the advertising limitations of AI. Dell share your experience: “We’re very focused on getting the most out of a device’s AI capabilities, but what we’ve learned this year, especially from a consumer perspective, is that they don’t buy based on AI. In fact, I think AI probably confuses them more than it helps them understand a specific outcome,” argued a few months ago Kevin Terwilliger, Chief Product Officer at Dell. There are several reasons for this rejection of advertising AI: the feeling of “already seen”, which penalizes the lack of originality and creative effort; and the perception of “dehumanization” transmitted by excessively robotic content, explains Patricia Coll, doctor in Communication and professor at EAE Business School. Diana Gavilán, professor of Marketing at the Complutense University of Madrid, highlights the benefits of AI in automatable tasks in advertising and digital marketing: “The problematic thing is when it replaces a human. If a robot serves me but you want to convince me that it is like a human, there is a drop in confidence.” According to researchers at the University of Zaragoza, their study shows that real images are particularly effective when it comes to a product or service with high involvementthat is, the consumer wants faithful images when the decision they make is important. Real images are also better than those generated with AI to publicize hedonistic products or services because they allow “a better assessment of what the personal experience will be like.” On the other hand, when the products are utilitarian and low-involvement, images generated with AI are effective. In some sectors it is advisable to use commercial images made with AI, such as schools and social entities to avoid showing real children to protect their privacy, scientists highlight. The professor of Marketing at the University of Alicante, Ana Belén Casado, adds that not all consumers or all brands reject AI: “It depends a lot on the type of product, good, service or idea that is being marketed and the differential value proposition of each brand.” For Gavilán, AI is like the Thermomix: a tool with which you don’t do everything in the kitchen, “but you can use it and it is at your disposal, depending on how you use it, it will be better or worse.” In his opinion, the Coca-Cola ad was “a strategic mistake” for wanting to make the same old ad with AI instead of making a different story with that technology. Brands taking a step back with AI? Before Coca-Cola, the clothing brand H&M had already launched a campaign with real models and “digital twins” generated with AI. Although all images generated by AI are labeled so as not to confuse them with real ones and the models have image rights Regarding his digital copy, Caro highlights that “we do not know exactly what this contract has been like in terms of the rights to his own image that exceed those models, nor will it affect photographers and the rest of the workers who make these campaigns possible.” This innovative campaign was quite small, around a line of denim clothing, and the head of AI at the Swedish multinational, Linda Leopoldleft the company shortly after the campaign. “We don’t know where H&M will continue next, especially with all the controversy generated,” says Caro. Gavilán’s vision is that AI will continue to be implemented and that it will be applied more in areas “where it is very relevant.” Despite his water and energy consumptionthe environmental NGO WWF in Denmark launched a campaign titled “The hidden cost” in April 2025 to denounce the environmental impact of eleven different products. It was made entirely with AI. In Spain the first advertising agency focused on AI, AI::gencyhas worked with brands such as Nissan, Seat, Cushla and Ebro. Other brands have chosen publicly reject the AI. In his campaignWhy don’t we get on the AI ​​bandwagon?” in February 2024, the browser Vivaldi announced that it would not be incorporating AI “for the time being.” The reasons given by the company were copyright and privacy violations, as well as “plausible-sounding lies” generated by AI. At the advertising level, doveUnilever’s personal care brand, has … Read more

Science suggests that it is a great shield against cognitive deterioration

by

In our society, the fact that grandparents end up taking care of their grandchildren throughout the day or having to pick them up from school It is something quite normalboosted mainly by the problems of conciliation familiar. This is something that has been the subject of much controversy because, when you reach a certain age, carrying the burden of having a child under your responsibility can take its toll. But now science indicates that it has important benefits. New tests. A study published this year in the magazine Psychology and Aging points out that being involved in caring for grandchildren provides a benefit to cognitive health, although it has different important nuances related to sex and time dedicated. The science behind. This study focused on data from English Longitudinal Study of Aging where More than 1,700 grandparents over 50 years of age have been analyzed. In this case, to ensure maximum precision in the results, the researchers used a matching method, comparing grandparent caregivers with those who did not care for their grandchildren, but who did share demographic and health characteristics. What did they see? With this sample on the table, what was seen is that both grandmothers and grandfathers who are caregivers showed higher levels of verbal fluency compared to the control group. Furthermore, both genders had better episodic memory compared to matched controls. In this way, it can be concluded that grandparents who take care of their grandchildren tend to show better cognitive functioning than those who do not. Quality versus quantity. One of the most revealing conclusions of the study debunks a common myth: the amount of time spent is not the determining factor. In this way, spending more or fewer hours caring for one’s grandson or granddaughter does not predict the effect it may have on brain cognition. But what really affects brain health in this case is the diversity of tasks. What was seen is that grandparents who participated in a greater variety of activities experienced better cognitive outcomes. These activities include, for example, preparing food for your grandchildren, spending time playing with them, helping them with their homework, or picking them up from daycare or school. Gender difference. Although both grandfather and grandmother showed higher initial cognitive levels when caring for their grandchildren, with the passage of time it changed. In the case of both sexes, it was observed that both verbal fluency and episodic memory improved substantially over time. But the difference is precisely in the temporal decline, causing grandmothers who have cared for their grandchildren to have a slower cognitive loss over time than caring grandparents, who maintain the same speed of loss. Because? The researchers here suggest that these differences may be due to how they relate to different genders and how they collaborate on care tasks. In this case, grandmothers tend to become much more deeply involved in the physical and emotional care of children. If we turn to the grandparents, we find that they are involved in leisure activities and often carry out care tasks in the company of the grandmothers. This way, you are not as focused on care. The limit. Logically, Maintaining multiple productive roles, such as family caregiving, can promote a more active lifestyle that positively impacts people’s cognitive functions. However, research warns that adding care responsibilities to the usual activities of these grandparents can be stressful and leave our grandparents feeling overwhelmed and with little autonomy. Images | Vitaly Gariev In Xataka | Your grandmother is an evolutionary advantage: science already knows why they generate an indestructible bond with their grandchildren

The economy’s big fear was a simultaneous global drought. Science has found our lifesaver

by

We have been observing for years how climatic extremes They hit different parts of the globe, with the experience in Spain still very marked. But with him increase in temperatures To the extreme, one of the biggest fears of climatologists and economists is the synchrony of global droughts. That is, a scenario in which the main food-producing regions dry out at the same time. The good news is that science indicates that the Earth (at the moment) is not drying out. A problem. Logically, if the main countries in the world where wheat, rice, corn or soybeans are produced had a drought simultaneously, we would have a huge problem of product supplywhich for many is a real nightmare. But here the researchers have reached a conclusion: synchronized global droughts are severely limited and barely affect between 1.8% and 6.5% of the global land surface at the same time. Without a doubt, a great respite for economists who saw the end of the world as we know it and who has been published in Nature. But the most impressive thing is that all this is thanks to the oceans. What we knew. Until now, we knew that major climate events such as The Child wave North Atlantic Oscillationcould alter rainfall patterns thousands of miles away through what scientists call “teleconnections.” And it is something that the research team itself pointed out in the past: there are interconnected drought nodes at different latitudes, most in North America, South America, Africa and Australia. That is, when there is drought in one place, it can move to another. But, if these nodes are connected… Why doesn’t the entire planet dry out at once when there is an anomaly like El Niño? The answer is in the oceanic variability. An ally. In this case, the oceans act as an immense regulatory mechanism and that is why the authors literally speak of a phenomenon called ‘geographic trapping’. In this way, the dynamics of the oceans force the scale of these hydrological extremes to remain confined to certain areas, preventing drought from spreading across all continents simultaneously between the different nodes. It matters more that it doesn’t rain. Another of the findings that may be surprising derives from a common myth about extreme droughts. In this case we usually automatically associate the worst droughts with the suffocating heat wavesbut, nevertheless, the data from the last 120 years are clear in pointing out that the lack of precipitation dominates over high temperatures when determining the severity of a drought. That is to say, it is important that it does not rain or that it is extremely hot. Specifically, the lack of rain is responsible for two-thirds of the impact of the severity of these events, relegating temperature to a secondary role, although not negligible in a world that is moving towards warming of up to three degrees Celsius. It’s good news. That the planet has mechanisms to avoid a total global drought is excellent news for global food security and international markets, by ensuring supply for supermarkets. But scientists point out that we should not let our guard down. It must be kept in mind that, although 6.5% of land affected simultaneously, the maximum possibility that we have mentioned before, seems small on a planetary scale, if that percentage coincides exactly with the great “breadbaskets of the world”, the economic and humanitarian disaster can be equally devastating. In this way, the regions identified as “hubs” host a large part of global agricultural production, and the study warns of a growing systemic vulnerability in these areas. Images | edcharlie In Xataka | The drought is turning water into a very scarce and valuable commodity in Spain. And there are already organized groups of thieves

Science is clear that it is better to ‘suffer’ 10 minutes a day

by

For years we have had a daily goal burned into our minds and also on the activity bracelets we have on our wrists: take 10,000 steps a day. A mantra that doctors have repeated, like the intake of two liters of water a daybut little by little it is pivoting to a completely different approach, since it does not depend on how much we move, but on how we do it. A paradigm shift. Expert Rhonda Patrick already pointed out Because as a society we should consider changing the goal of 10,000 steps in our daily lives to give way to a new concept that is revolutionizing preventive medicine, which is VILPA, which is the acronym for ‘Vigorous Intermittent Lifestyle Physical Activity’ in English. This refers to doing small bursts of exercise of one or two minutes on a daily basis and which can be done several times a day. Something that is very simple, and although it may seem like it may have a harmless result in patients, the results point to the opposite. Its importance. To see if this works or not, we can go to the data extracted from the large groups of UK Biobank patients already a study published in 2022 which analyzed more than 25,000 people. Here it was seen that only 3 to 4 minutes of VILPA daily with bursts of just 1-2 minutes is associated with a 26-30% reduction in total mortality and specifically from cancer. But if we go further, we also observe a reduction of between 32% and 34% in cardiovascular mortality. However, the most relevant thing is that the benefits increase almost linearly the more minutes of vigorous activity you accumulate. Better than being sedentary. If we look at the most recent studies, such as published by The Lancent This year with more than 135,000 participants, it was confirmed that going from doing nothing to adding just between 1 and 6 minutes of vigorous exercise reduces mortality by 30% in the most sedentary people. The conclusion here is quite clear because we have a great performance investing very little time in the sport. It’s not all at once. One of the big doubts we have is whether those 10 minutes we are talking about have to be done in one go or if it is worth running a little to catch the bus. Here studies suggest that the way you do it does not matter as much as the total dose of exercise. This means that taking small exercise pills throughout the day offers the same benefits as doing them in one continuous session at the gym. This is great news for those who do not have time to go to a gym to train, since climbing the stairs quickly or carrying heavy bags counts, a lot. Rejuvenate the heart. One of the methods we have available to better structure the intensity of training It’s in the ‘Norwegian 4×4’. A protocol developed by different researchers that advocates applying four four-minute intervals of very high intensity along with three minutes of moderate active recovery between each block. With this simple regimen, the heart can be ‘rejuvenated’, causing the left ventricle to reverse its morphological changes and also improving the maximum volume of oxygen in patients with heart failure. That is why we have a much more efficient heart. You have to walk. Obviously, taking 10,000 steps a day is not stupid, and we must continue taking walking as an excellent habit for metabolic and joint health. However, the “10 minutes of intensity” figure supported by VILPA studies reveals an uncomfortable truth: walking at a walking pace does not replace the physiological benefit of being short of breath. As studies in huge cohorts show, introducing just a few minutes where your heart works at its maximum generates a great benefit in health and longevity compared to simple step volume. Images | Ingo Jakubke In Xataka | Neither walking nor running: science suggests that the squat is the true “drug” for healthy aging

An economic science fiction text has sunk Visa and Mastercard in the stock market. The reason is more disturbing than the story itself

by

Citrini Research, a hedge fund American published this week a text written as if it were a macroeconomic memorandum from June 2028. It is not a prediction, its authors warn. It is a speculative exercise. A feasible scenario. It has achieved 24 million impressions, and counting. It is not an anecdotal tweet. The markets they have responded by sinking. Visa has fallen 4.4%. Mastercard, 6.3%. American Express, almost 8%. And Capital One, 8%. This deserves an explanation. And it’s not what it seems. Between the lines. The market reaction is not explained by the specific content of the Citrini Research report, which includes arguments as debatable as that AI agents will abandon cards to pay with stablecoins in Solana. Antonio Ortiz, technology analysts, has pointed it out precisely: part of the argument “it is from the first of Twitter AI-hype“. The idea that an agent will compare twenty food delivery apps vibecodeadas to find the cheapest one smells like a caricature of the future. But the panic is not irrational. It is precisely the panic of not knowing where the limit is. Why is it importantand. What has moved the market has not been so much the thesis about payments but the thesis about the destruction of value. And that is solid: many billions of dollars of market capitalization have been built on a single foundation: that humans are slow, impatient, forgetful and loyal out of inertia. That we do not compare prices. That we renew subscriptions that we do not use. And that we pay commissions that we do not negotiate. An AI agent has none of those weaknesses. And that changes everything. The backdrop. Citrini’s report comes at a time when the so-called “saaspocalypse“is no longer a metaphor. WSJ states that investors are terrified by the possibility that AI ends up doing the work that large software companies bill for today. ServiceNow, Salesforce, business management platforms… all built on the premise that companies need software for their employees to do their jobs. But… what happens when employees disappear? What if the software itself can be replicated in weeks with agentic coding tools? Citrini’s fiction begins exactly there, in early 2026, when a competent developer can reproduce the core functionality of a mid-market SaaS in a few weeks, and constructs a scenario of systemic collapse. The big question. The report’s most disturbing argument is that in every previous technological cycle, job destruction created new jobs that only humans could do. This time, AI is already occupying those new positions as well. If that’s true—if AI improves faster than workers can reorient themselves—the self-correcting mechanism that has always kept creative destruction from turning into outright destruction wouldn’t work. That is the scenario that the markets have discounted this week, even if only partially and speculatively thanks to a creepypasta financial. Yes, but. The scenario requires assuming a speed of adoption that is not guaranteed, a completely absent political response and a total absence of new economic sectors. None of the three conditions are set in stone. Furthermore, as Antonio points out, there is some collective hysteria in the reaction: each announcement or “scary story catches attention and moves investors.” Markets are trading in panic over the unknown. But there’s an important difference between saying “this scenario won’t happen” and saying “this scenario is impossible.” And that difference is exactly what has the market nervous. The alarm signal. The most striking thing this week is that a speculative text, written in economic science fiction format, has been enough to move billions in market capitalization. That says a lot about the state of certainty in the markets regarding AI: it is practically non-existent. Nobody really knows how much a company whose moat It is human friction in a world where that friction is disappearing. The canary is still alive. But investors have stopped trusting the canary. In Xataka | AI promised to revolutionize all sectors. It has only revolutionized programming while the rest is still waiting Featured image | Avery Evans

The US has cut programs for research and science. Europe and Spain are recruiting their scientists

by

The Trump Administration has cut substantially the funds allocated to finance universities and, with them, the research projects that were being carried out, as as they point out from Nature. So American scientists have had no choice but to look for solutions to the draconian cuts in their country. Europe in general, and Spain in particular, they have become a magnet unexpected for all that talent, with programs that promise stability and million-dollar resources. Talent drain. According to information from the Ministry of Science, the call for the ATRAE program, aimed at incorporating researchers of international prestige with experience abroad in Spanish R&D centers, received 254 applications for the 2025 call. This implies an increase of 32% in applications, marking a historical record, because in 2023 no applications arrived from that country and in 2024 they only accounted for 16% of the total. 33.5% of them came from scientists from the US, which represents more than double that of previous editions. Finally, the scholarship program has selected 37 researchers in a program that allocates 38.9 million euros. Of the selected researchers, 56.7% come from American institutions and universities. Scientists who choose Spain. The Country collected the reasons why some of these researchers had decided to leave the US to continue their work in Spain. Vincenzo Calvanese, a 43-year-old Italian researcher who works at the Josep Carreras Institute in Barcelona after a decade in the United States, says that “many of my colleagues are having a very difficult time because of the political and economic events that affect science.” He encourages other colleagues to follow in his footsteps in Spain or other countries in Europesince the program represents “one of the few opportunities to ensure the future of research and some professional security.” ​Audrey Sawyer, a 43-year-old American hydrogeologist who has joined the research team at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, expresses a similar concern: “I have never seen a situation like this in the US. I feel very bad for the researchers and students, they are very talented and are facing serious challenges.” Although she applied before the most recent cuts, she clearly sees how federal funding affects areas like biomedicine and climate change. Europe: a troubled river gains fishermen. According to a survey made by Nature Among the US scientific community, 75% of researchers have seriously contemplated emigrating due to the cuts and layoffs promoted by Trump. In this scenario of uncertainty, Europe fights back taking out the nets to try to attract a good part of that talent dissatisfied with cuts in US research. The EU has doubled the funding of the European Research Council (ERC) with 500 million euros to provide it with more resources for these new researchers under the umbrella of the program Europe horizon. Spain distributes the incorporation of these new researchers in a balanced way: Catalonia receives 35.1% of the funding provided by these new scholarships, Madrid receives 29.7%, and entities such as the CSIC host 29.7% of the researchers. In this way, local research is reinforced with international talent, new students are trained and more funds are attracted from international competitions. The exodus is not only about science. The desire to leave the US does not only occur in the scientific field, some EU countries have doubled the number of residency applications and citizenship of US citizens. It is the case of Irelandwhich went from receiving 31,825 in all of 2024, to 3,692 applications during the month of February 2025 alone. Europe’s response to those requests has been different, tightening requirements to obtain residency or, as in the case of Spain, eliminating the “Golden Visa“which granted a residence permit in exchange of an economic investment. In Xataka | Of course digital nomads love Oviedo. It’s not because of the way of life: it’s because they charge 90,000 euros Image | Wikipedia, Unsplash (National Cancer Institute)

The cell phone on the nightstand is not “frying” your brain, but science is beginning to understand why it prevents you from resting

by

It is practically a ritual today: connect your phone to the charger, set the alarm and leave it on the nightstand just 30 centimeters from the pillow to sleep. According to the data, for 95% of adultssleeping with your phone within reach is a logistical necessity; For a growing stream of longevity experts, It’s a biological miscalculation. because we rest less. To do this, we have analyzed the bibliography to know exactly the effect of having your cell phone next to you. The culprit confirmed. Before entering the swampy terrain of the possible problems that radiation can generate when it is around us, we must point out the “elephant in the room.” The most solid evidence we have today does not blame antennas for having a bad sleep, but to the screens and what we do with them. To give us an idea, a meta-analysis over 36,000 participants concluded that excessive use of smartphone increases the risk of having poor quality sleep by 228%. The double responsible. The first is the suppression of melatonin, since the blue light emitted by the LED panels of mobile phones tricks our brain making him believe that it is still day. This delays the release of melatonin and fragments the architecture of sleep. But not only the blue light is information, since responding to a WhatsApp or doing doomscrolling on TikTok before bed keeps the brain alert. A study of medical students suggested that nighttime cell phone use corresponded to poorer sleep. The radiation debate. It has always been a mantra for many: having your cell phone nearby is having a large source of radiation that causes many health problems. In this case, organizations such as the WHO or ARPANSA have traditionally maintained that evidence of damage from low-level electromagnetic fields is “insufficient.” However, it does not mean that it is non-existent. The most recent studies They are beginning to see the non-thermal effects that mobile phones have. One of the most interesting was done with baby monitors that have a frequency of 2.45 GHz, similar to Bluetooth or Wifi, to simulate environmental exposure. The result was that the exposed group, compared to the placebo, showed a worse subjective quality of sleep and alterations in heart rate variability, suggesting that sensitive people do notice the invisible “presence” of the electronic device nearby. Brain wave modulation. Other research on 5G signals found that exposure to 3.6 GHz waves affected sleep spindles during N2 phasethat is, light sleep that accounts for 50% of the total rest time. The curious thing about this study is that the effect depended on genetics: only carriers of certain variants of the CACNA1C gene showed alterations in the electroencephalogram. This qualifies the warnings of some experts, since radiation may not affect us all equally, but for a genetically predisposed subgroup, sleeping next to a continuous emission source could be fragmenting their N2 phase, crucial for memory consolidation. The habit factor. It is often cited Sinha’s studio to demonize radiation, but what this study really measured were habits in a sample of 566 participants. In this case, it was seen that those people with high mobile phone use took longer to fall asleep, their sleep was less efficient, and 22.6% reported worse quality of sleep. In this way, the conclusion was not that the waves prevented them from sleeping, but that the habit of having their cell phone nearby inevitably leads to using. If it’s on the table, you look at it. If you look at it, you become active. It is a behavioral rather than a radiological vicious circle. Hygiene protocol. The question in this case is inevitable: should we wrap the room in aluminum foil? It’s not necessary. In this case, physics works in our favor thanks to the inverse square law: the intensity of the radiation falls drastically with distance. That is why the most important thing is to move the device at least one meter away from the bed, since at this distance the exposure falls to negligible basal levels, making Sleeping with your cell phone under your pillow is the worst possible decision. If we want to go a little further, we can put it in airplane mode, although the best advice, as the Spanish Society of Neurology points out, is to have a sacred hour, where the recommendation is to leave the screens an hour before going to sleep. Images | Nubelson Fernandes In Xataka | We thought insomnia was just not being able to sleep. Now we know that there are five different disorders

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

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.