Science

The science of learning dismantles the mathematical rule of the fashionable study method

by

When it comes to studying anything, almost all of us want to have a system that allows us learn quickly and efficient. This is where we can turn to the Internet, where there are numerous pages that promise us almost miraculous systems to pass easily, and one of them is the 2-7-30 method. But… What does science say about this system? What is it about? This method focuses on a system where you have to review the information exactly 2, 7 and 30 days after having addressed it on the first occasion. Something that is quite similar to what we want to achieve with the flashcards. Something that a priori seems quite simple to put into practice, but which can generate quite a bit of fear by leaving a topic shelved for so many days in the last round. It gives good results. But it is the best from the point of view of science, and to understand it, we have to go to the basics of how our memory works. And this method is based on the spacing effectwhich undoubtedly far surpasses the classic ‘binge’ the night before an exam, where you try to get all the data in in a matter of hours. Here, a classic meta-analysis published in 2006 in Psychological Bulletin, analyzed 839 measures in 317 experiments and confirmed that distributing practice over separate intervals dramatically improves retention. But even in the past, other studies suggested that repeating material over time consolidates memory much more efficiently. Recovery practice. There is no point in spacing out the reviews if, when day 2 or day 7 of the method arrives, we limit ourselves to passively rereading the notes. Here different studies have shown that actively trying to remember information produces much more lasting learning than passively re-studying it. In this way, forcing the brain to “rescue” that data strengthens neuronal connections, and science points to the advantage of active remembering over traditional binge-watching methods, such as making conceptual maps. The enemy to beat. The concept of reviewing in increasingly longer windows of time is born from the need to combat our natural decline in retention. This is where a work on the “forgetting curve” by Hermann Ebbinghaus comes into play, which demonstrated that we lose most of the newly learned information within hours or days if we do nothing to retain it. More modern replications of this idea confirm that this initial rapid forgetting is real and useful to contextualize the problem, although researchers depend on different factors and not only the strict passage of time. That is why the idea we should stick with is that every time we review the information, the forgetting curve resets and its slope becomes gentler so that it takes longer to disappear. The myth of exact numbers. Although it has been shown that spacing study days, in reality science does not identify 2, 7 and 30 days as a universally valid pattern for all learning and people, but will depend on many factors. Here, a study published in 2008 showed that the optimal interval between reviews depends on the retention interval we are looking for, but that the spacing changes radically if the objective is to remember something for an exam that is due in a week versus if we want to remember something in a year, as can happen in an opposition. In this way we get the following pattern: If the exam is in 1 week, the reviews should be separated by just 1 or 2 days. If the exam is in 1 year, Reviews should be spaced several weeks or even a month apart. Images | freepik In Xataka | SQ3R technique: the study method that helps you understand the subjects, not just remember them

Science has managed to turn off the extra chromosome of Down syndrome. It has also opened the great ethical debate on gene editing

by

In the complex genetic map that surrounds the known down syndromethe problem is not that there is a lack of information in our cells, but that there is an excess. The presence of a third copy of chromosome 21 It unbalances the entire cellular system that ends up generating an entire clinic that today did not have any type of cure. But thanks to clinical advances and revolutionary gene therapies, we have found a way to turn off this gene that is extra in the cells of people with Down. A natural switch. To understand this advance, we must look at how nature itself resolves its own genetic imbalances. And, for those who do not know, in human beings sex is determined by two types of chromosomes: X and Y. If you are a woman, you will have XX chromosomes, and if you are a man, you will have XY. The problem, boiling it down to its most basic, is that always one of the ‘X’ genes must be silenced so that the genetic load is compensated in humans. And this is something that is done thanks to the gene XIST which encodes an RNA molecule that covers the chromosome and alters its chromatin, silencing de facto their genes. Something that has been developed by nature itself in order to maintain the species, and then the question is obligatory: why not use this natural switch to silence the chromosomes that generate diseases as important as Down syndrome? It’s not something new. The idea of ​​using this “switch” to be able to alter the gene expression of the chromosomes that we have in excess is not new, since in 2013 the researcher Jeanne Lawrence demonstrated for the first time that this RNA could induce the silencing of the extra chromosome 21 in human cells that were in culture in a laboratory. Later, in 2020, it was applied to neural stem cells, but the historical problem has always been the same: the very low efficiency when integrating this gene into the affected cells.. A new milestone. This has changed radically, as a team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston has published a new article in PNAS with a solution to eradicate this bottleneck thanks to the tool CRISPR/Cas9. This system can be visualized as simple scissors that specifically cut into our DNA to eliminate something that was left over or altered. The problem is that it was not very efficient at integrating new genetic material, and to overcome this, scientists have developed a modified version of CRISPR/Cas9 that boosts the success rate of the integration of the XIST gene which will silence the third chromosome 21. Good results. Here we recognize how XIST has been integrated into 20-40% of cell lines that have trisomy 21. Furthermore, the method reliably affects only the extra copy of chromosome 21 without silencing other genes that can cause other diseases. There are problems. Despite the enthusiasm, the technique is far from being applied in humans, since one of the biggest challenges of CRISPR is the mutations off-target, That is, it acts on other genetic points that are its marked objectives. And this occurs when these ‘scissors’ cut a sequence of DNA that closely resembles its target, but which in reality is not. In this way, an error off-target It could trigger severe cellular problems or even cancer. Recent studies show that experimentation on embryos with these techniques often results in mosaicism with edited and unedited cells, as well as incomplete edits. This means that right now we have to work on having greater specificity in the genetic objectives of the therapy so that the consequences of using it are not much greater than the fact of curing a disease. Ethical shock. The controversy is served with genetic therapies in general, since right now one of the lines that are open is to eliminate this extra chromosome directly in a human embryo before implementing it in a woman so that she is not born with this disease. This is where bioethicists they point because experimenting with human embryos damages their physical integrity and poses irreversible risks for future generations. Furthermore, they underline the urgency of distinguishing between the use of CRISPR for purely therapeutic purposes, such as treating symptoms, and its use for “genetic improvement” or the selection of embryos that are much more advanced or genetically perfect. This is also added to the fact that genetic editing in embryos for reproductive purposes is currently prohibited in most countries. Images | Sangharsh Lohakare In Xataka | The surprising thing is not that we have sequenced the DNA of a Neanderthal from 11,000 years ago: it is what it has revealed

Science has managed to turn off the extra chromosome of Down syndrome. It has also opened the great ethical debate on gene editing

by

In the complex genetic map that surrounds the known down syndromethe problem is not that there is a lack of information in our cells, but that there is an excess. The presence of a third copy of chromosome 21 It unbalances the entire cellular system that ends up generating an entire clinic that today did not have any type of cure. But thanks to clinical advances and revolutionary gene therapies, we have found a way to turn off this gene that is extra in the cells of people with Down. A natural switch. To understand this advance, we must look at how nature itself resolves its own genetic imbalances. And, for those who do not know, in human beings sex is determined by two types of chromosomes: X and Y. If you are a woman, you will have XX chromosomes, and if you are a man, you will have XY. The problem, boiling it down to its most basic, is that always one of the ‘X’ genes must be silenced so that the genetic load is compensated in humans. And this is something that is done thanks to the gene XIST which encodes an RNA molecule that covers the chromosome and alters its chromatin, silencing de facto their genes. Something that has been developed by nature itself in order to maintain the species, and then the question is obligatory: why not use this natural switch to silence the chromosomes that generate diseases as important as Down syndrome? It’s not something new. The idea of ​​using this “switch” to be able to alter the gene expression of the chromosomes that we have in excess is not new, since in 2013 the researcher Jeanne Lawrence demonstrated for the first time that this RNA could induce the silencing of the extra chromosome 21 in human cells that were in culture in a laboratory. Later, in 2020, it was applied to neural stem cells, but the historical problem has always been the same: the very low efficiency when integrating this gene into the affected cells.. A new milestone. This has changed radically, as a team at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston has published a new article in PNAS with a solution to eradicate this bottleneck thanks to the tool CRISPR/Cas9. This system can be visualized as simple scissors that specifically cut into our DNA to eliminate something that was left over or altered. The problem is that it was not very efficient at integrating new genetic material, and to overcome this, scientists have developed a modified version of CRISPR/Cas9 that boosts the success rate of the integration of the XIST gene which will silence the third chromosome 21. Good results. Here we recognize how XIST has been integrated into 20-40% of cell lines that have trisomy 21. Furthermore, the method reliably affects only the extra copy of chromosome 21 without silencing other genes that can cause other diseases. There are problems. Despite the enthusiasm, the technique is far from being applied in humans, since one of the biggest challenges of CRISPR is the mutations off-target, That is, it acts on other genetic points that are its marked objectives. And this occurs when these ‘scissors’ cut a sequence of DNA that closely resembles its target, but which in reality is not. In this way, an error off-target It could trigger severe cellular problems or even cancer. Recent studies show that experimentation on embryos with these techniques often results in mosaicism with edited and unedited cells, as well as incomplete edits. This means that right now we have to work on having greater specificity in the genetic objectives of the therapy so that the consequences of using it are not much greater than the fact of curing a disease. Ethical shock. The controversy is served with genetic therapies in general, since right now one of the lines that are open is to eliminate this extra chromosome directly in a human embryo before implementing it in a woman so that she is not born with this disease. This is where bioethicists they point because experimenting with human embryos damages their physical integrity and poses irreversible risks for future generations. Furthermore, they underline the urgency of distinguishing between the use of CRISPR for purely therapeutic purposes, such as treating symptoms, and its use for “genetic improvement” or the selection of embryos that are much more advanced or genetically perfect. This is also added to the fact that genetic editing in embryos for reproductive purposes is currently prohibited in most countries. Images | Sangharsh Lohakare In Xataka | The surprising thing is not that we have sequenced the DNA of a Neanderthal from 11,000 years ago: it is what it has revealed

Drink water right before going to sleep? Science has finally clarified whether it is a good idea or a terrible enemy of sleep

by

Before going to sleep, some people may have an almost standardized ritual in which they should drink one or two glasses of water, and also have a backup on the bedside table in case they get thirsty in the middle of the night. But there are also many questions about whether it is positive to drink water before sleeping for eight hours or if it is counterproductive by forcing us to get up in the middle of the night. And here science has something to say. It has benefits. What is clearly known is that during the night our body does not go into a total pause, but rather continues with an active metabolism even though it is attenuated. That is why we lose approximately half a liter of water simply due to evaporation when breathing and sweating, and to compensate for this, hydration can be the best ally. It is investigated. A Japanese studio published this same year analyzed a group of middle-aged men to conclude that drinking 280 ml of water just before going to bed significantly reduces morning depressive mood and improves well-being upon waking up. But it is not the only one, because a 2025 crossover trial with 15 healthy adults found a relationship between drinking fluids before sleeping and the duration and quality of sleep. REM phasewhich is what makes us truly rest. And it makes sense, because adequate hydration favors the release of vasopressin, a key hormone for regulating the biological clock and preventing tissue dehydration during deep sleep. And it is essential, because it can translate into less fatigue and headaches in the morning. He has problems. It will not always be beneficial to have this habit, since the main enemy of drinking water at night is nocturiawhich is the need to wake up to urinate during the night. And although the total time we spend awake is not drastically altered, because it is only a few minutes, there is an interruption in sleep. It depends on the quantity. Logically, drinking a glass of water is not the same as drinking a whole bottle before going to sleep. That is why when you go over half a liter of water there is a possibility that some pre-existing problems such as chronic insomnia will worsen or even increase the risk of falls when getting up in the dark. How to do it. There are a series of tips that we can follow to stay hydrated during sleep and they are summarized in the following points: You should limit yourself to drinking around a quarter of a liter of water in the final part of the day to avoid overfilling your bladder. The last glass of water should be drunk two hours before going to sleep. Maintain good hydration throughout the day to avoid reaching the end of the day with a major hydration problem. Images | krakenimages.com on Freepik In Xataka | There are people obsessed with magnesium as a supplement when the best way is to put it directly into your diet

They have kidnapped agents from Anthropic, Google and Microsoft for the sake of science. The three companies ended up paying

by

In some development teams it is already becoming common to rely on artificial intelligence agents to review incidents, analyze code changes and move through tasks that were previously left in human hands. The problem appears when these systems not only read information that may come from outside, but also operate in spaces where they coexist. sensitive keys, tokens and permissions. That is what recent research puts on the table: we are not simply facing a useful tool that can make mistakes, but rather an architecture that can also become dangerous if it is deployed without very clear limits. The alarm has been turned on Aonan Guan and Johns Hopkins researchers Zhengyu Liu and Gavin Zhong after demonstrating attacks against three agents deployed on the aforementioned platform: Claude Code Security Review, from Anthropic, Gemini CLI Action, from Google, and GitHub Copilot Agent, a GitHub tool under Microsoft. According to your documentation, The failures were communicated in a coordinated manner and ended in financial rewards paid by the companies, but what is relevant is that they point to a broader problem. This is how they managed to twist the agents from within The name that Guan gives to the discovery helps a lot to understand what this is all about: “Comment and Control.” The idea is simple to explain, although the substance is not so simple. Instead of setting up an external infrastructure to direct the attack, GitHub itself acts as an entry and exit channel: the attacker leave the instruction in a titlean incident or a comment, the agent processes it as if it were part of normal work and the result ends up reappearing within that same environment. Everything stays at home, and that is precisely the key to the problem. And that “everything stays at home” is not a minor detail, but the basis of what the research describes. The three agents share a very similar logic: they read normal content from GitHub, incorporate it as a work context, and from there, execute actions within automated flows. The clash appears because that same space not only contains text sent by third parties, but also tools, permissions and secrets that the agent needs to operate. The first case Guan details concerns Claude Code Security Review, an Anthropic GitHub action designed to review code changes and look for possible security flaws. Up to this point, everything is within what was expected. The problem, as the researcher explains, is that it was enough to introduce malicious instructions in the title of a pull requestwhich is the request that someone sends to propose changes to a project, so that the agent will execute commands and return the result as if it were part of your review. The team then managed to go a step further and demonstrate that it could also extract credentials from the environment. The interesting thing is that the same scheme also appeared in the other two services, although with nuances. At Google, Gemini CLI Action could be pushed to reveal the GEMINI_API_KEY from instructions snuck into an issue and its comments; In GitHub Copilot Agent, the variant was even more worrying, because the attack was hidden in an HTML comment that a person did not see on the screen, but the agent did process when another person assigned it to the case. In both scenarios, the background was the same again: apparently normal content that ended up twisting the behavior of the system until exposing credentials or sensitive information within GitHub itself. Guan assures that the pattern made it possible to leak API keys, GitHub tokens and other secrets exposed in the environment where the agent ran, that is, just the credentials that can later open the door to much more delicate actions. Who does this affect? Especially to repositories that run agents in GitHub Actions on content sent by untrustworthy collaborators and, in addition, give them access to secrets or powerful tools. The researcher himself clarifies that the risk depends a lot on the configuration: by default GitHub does not expose secrets to pull requests from forksbut there are deployments that open that door. And here another layer of the matter appears, less technical but just as important. As published by The RegisterAnthropic, Google, and GitHub ended up paying bounties for the findings, but none of the three had published public notices or assigned CVE at the time of that information. Guan was quite clear about this: he said he knew “for certain” that some users were still stuck on vulnerable versions and warned that, without visible communication, many may never know that they were exposed or even being attacked. So although there were mitigations and changes in documentation or in the internal treatment of reports, there was no equivalent public notice for all those potentially affected. Anthropic settled the case on November 25, 2025 and paid $100 Google rewarded the discovery on January 20, 2026 with $1,337 GitHub closed the case on March 9, 2026 with a payment of $500 What makes this case especially delicate is that GitHub does not seem like the end of the road, but rather the first visible showcase. Guan argues that the same pattern can probably be reproduced in other agents who work with tools and secrets within automatic flows, and there he mentions from Slack-connected bots to Jira agentsmail or deployment automation. The logic is the same again: if the system has to read external content to do its job and also has enough access to act, the field is fertile for someone to try to twist it from within. The conclusion that Guan reaches is not about selling a magic solution, but about returning to a fairly classic idea in security: giving each system only what is essential to do its job. If an agent reviews code, they shouldn’t have access to tools or secrets they don’t need; If you’re just summarizing issues, it wouldn’t make sense for you to write to GitHub or touch sensitive credentials. That … Read more

There are only 66 cases in the world and science is just beginning to understand it

by

Night rest can be interrupt due to many factorssuch as the need to go to the bathroom constantly to drink water before going to sleep, but there are other cases, such as painful sleep erectionswhich right now is emerging from ignorance, and that is why every time you get to know more of this problem which, fortunately, is quite infrequent. What is it? Although you may think that this is a problem related to the penis, the truth is that it is classified as a parasomnia. And it is no wonder, because what happens to the man here is that he has multiple erections during the night while he is in the REM phase of sleep that are so painful that it makes you wake up with a jump out of bed. But the curious thing is that the problem does not lie in the penis tissue itself, but rather clinical reviews point out that this disease is closely linked to hypertonicity or contracture of the bulbocavernosus muscles of the penis and the pelvic floor. Added to this are alterations in the central nervous system, such as instability during REM sleep, a peak in activity of the sympathetic nervous system and abnormal processing of pain and hormonal stress signals. It’s a challenge. At the level of cases diagnosed with this problem, the reality is that we speak of a “phantom disease” since it barely there are 66 cases documented worldwide, and there are almost no articles in the medical literature. This is something that translates into a situation of underdiagnosis, since in daily practice specialists see very few cases throughout their career. As a result, patients suffer a medical journey that delays diagnosis for years, and in desperation, and in the absence of answers, many end up assuming erroneous self-diagnoses based on chronic stress or prostatitis. Science tries to advance. Historically, the lack of cases made it difficult to create treatment protocols with the steps that doctors had to follow to solve the patient’s problem. However, recent clinical research has shed light on highly effective therapeutic approaches. That is why right now the use of muscle relaxants such as baclofen has proven to be a turning point for patients, since by relaxing the muscles of the penis an improvement is achieved in patients with this problem. In addition, diseases that are below this problem should also be looked for, such as sleep apnea or insomnia in general, which may be related to this pathology. Although there is still much to be done to investigate this disease, which a priori is quite unknown. Images | gpointstudio on Freepik In Xataka | Before colonizing other planets, humanity must solve a problem: erections in space

science is in the middle

by

In the crowded nutrition and supplements market, the collagen Hydrolyzed has emerged as one of the products that many people take daily with the thought that it will improve their joints and bones so that they become rejuvenated again. And it is no wonder, because there are promises of unbreakable articulations, eternally young skin and fracture-proof bones flooding social networks. But science has a lot to say here. Some statements. Skepticism can be maximum when taking these supplements that are sold to us as almost a miracle for health. In this way, there are some voices like that of Santiago Segura that they point to speeches of disappointment: “I was taking collagen for my bones, but I read that it’s like eating a computer to be smarter.” But… Are you right in saying that it is useless? The science here is quite clear: it is not a miracle, but it is not something harmless that we take every day. Collagen in the body. At a purely biological level, type I collagen functions as the main protein of the structural matrix of bone tissue, that is, as if they were the scaffolding for later bricks. Once we took this into account, science wanted to see how its construction works. The supplement problem. Within scientific logic, when we swallow a collagen pill and it reaches the stomach, it is literally broken down by stomach acids. In this way, when it is decomposed, it loses its main function, since it has to be absorbed into small amino acids that make up proteins such as collagen. The problem here is that the body does not know that we have taken collagen, but instead it detects that there are a series of amino acids that are like its bricks for future proteins. In this way, very varied proteins can be built in the blood, but it may not end up forming this collagen that we want to go to the bone or cartilage. And this is what explains why some are big detractors of taking collagen. What does science say? Here the studies have not been so catastrophic in pointing out that the body is capable of absorbing protein peptides in the intestine and they can act in target areas. Here the difference is that peptides are a small protein fragment of several amino acids, which does not resemble collagen, which is the complete protein, but it does something. We have an example in a meta-analysis published in 2025 which concluded that supplementation with hydrolyzed collagen significantly increases bone mineral density in critical areas such as the spine and neck of the femur. In the case of postmenopausal women. an acquaintance 2018 clinical trial showed that a dose of 5 grams per day of specific collagen peptides for 12 months managed to increase bone mineral density and improve biomarkers compared to a placebo group. This is something fundamental, because we are talking about a group of people who are very prone to bone problems. Furthermore, a 4-year follow-up published in 2021 confirmed these long-term effects in this same demographic group with osteopenia or osteoporosis. More evidence. A 2026 large systematic review on musculoskeletal health group tests pointing to consistent and clinically relevant benefits for both bone and muscle, although it warns that the level of evidence is intermediate. And once again we see that it is not at all a miracle for everyone, nor does it replace good treatment for bone problems. The small print. Despite these positive data, science also puts a handbrake on the excessive expectations that they sometimes try to sell us. In this case, many of the studies carried out to date are relatively small, of short duration or have a very heterogeneous design without focusing on a similar population. In addition to all this, we must remember that we are not dealing with a drug, but rather a dietary supplement. For health problems, once again we must remember that you should consult a doctor who will evaluate the medical treatments currently approved for osteoporosis, such as bisphosphonates. But ‘take for the sake of taking’ is not the best strategy, as with other supplements. A winning combo. If you are going to take collagen expecting real benefits in your bones, science indicates that it is not enough to take an isolated pill and wait for a miracle. In this case, it must be taken into account that the best collagen is the one that is specifically hydrolyzed, and its composition is also validated and supported. Patience is also essential here, since it has to be taken for several months and the positive effects are much more relevant when collagen is combined with a diet rich in calcium and vitamin D, added to physical exercise. Images | GRANAT In Xataka | There are people obsessed with magnesium as a supplement when the best way is to put it directly into your diet

They promised us that 20 minutes of sparking was equivalent to 4 hours in the gym. Science says it’s more complicated

by

Since humans became aware of the existence of electric current, they have tried to apply that power to their own body. As detailed in a report by The Wall Street Journalthis fascination goes back a long way: from the ancient Roman belief in the healing impact of torpedo fish, to the famous vibrating belt machines that promised to sculpt silhouettes in the 1950s. Today, the industry fitness has taken it a step further with whole body muscle electrostimulation (WB-EMS). The concept itself seems straight out of a science fiction movie: users don a wet suit covered in electrodes that delivers simultaneous shocks to major muscle groups for about 20 minutes. The marketing hook is irresistible, as these strength and bodyweight training sessions are sold as the ultimate shortcut to replacing hours of sweat in the gym. On social networks, dozens of influencers They upload videos doing squats and arm lifts while wearing this bionic suit. But, beyond the aesthetics and the promise of a toned body with little effort, what is true in all this? From the clinic to global fashion The technology behind electrostimulation is not a recent invention nor was it born in a trendy gym. Initially, it was used in hospitals and rehabilitation settings for a strictly medical purpose: to relieve pain, prevent muscle atrophy in bedridden patients, and improve circulation. However, in recent years, it has experienced explosive growth as a business model. fitness. The data is there. On the ClassPass platform, the number of centers offering EMS training worldwide increased more than 16% between 2023 and 2025. International franchises such as the French Iron Bodyfit plan to open more than 50 studios in the United States in the next three years, while the Californian company Body20 has gone from 46 to 67 locations nationwide since 2023. All this despite the fact that it is not an economic activity: classes cost between $40 and $100 per session. To understand the phenomenon, you have to understand how the experience works. The wet suit—water is necessary to conduct electricity effectively—sends electrical impulses directly to the muscle. This forces a greater percentage of muscle fibers to contract simultaneously involuntarily. As described by journalist Ellen Gamerman in The Wall Street Journalthe physical sensation is similar to that of receiving a call on a mobile phone in vibrate mode, with the difference that, in this case, “you are the phone.” Combined with core exercises, the level of muscle contraction makes the effort feel as intense as a high-intensity interval (HIIT) class. If you extend one arm without bending it slightly, the current can cause it to lock up completely until the trainer lowers the intensity of the machine. But who is attracted to this technology? Helge Guetzlaff, business development director of the German brand Miha Bodytec, joked in the American newspaper claiming that it attracts “a lot of lazy people.” However, Sabine Padar, owner of the exclusive Body Alchemist NYC studio, points out that she often has to convince her clients that spending more hours in the gym is not the only way to gain muscle. She insists that EMS sessions aren’t necessarily easier than traditional training, they’re just faster. The user profile is varied: from women concerned about losing strength during menopause to fashion professionals, such as Max Auth, a director of the Wolford brand who confesses to spending about $300 a month on these sessions to maintain his figure with a minimal investment of time. The reality bath Faced with marketing claims that “20 minutes are equivalent to 4 hours in the gym”, the scientific community has decided to take action on the matter. Cedric X. Bryant, executive director of the American Council on Exercise, points in WSJ that these claims are hyperbolic and that what one should expect from these workouts is being greatly exaggerated, while acknowledging that they may offer mild to moderate improvements. To shed light on the matter, various studies have analyzed the real impact of WB-EMS on different population groups: In older and sedentary adults: A research published in Clinical Interventions in Aging demonstrated the effectiveness of this technology in sedentary and thin older women, at risk of sarcopenia (loss of muscle mass) and abdominal obesity. After subjecting a group of 23 women to 18 minutes of WB-EMS (three sessions every 14 days) for 12 months, the results showed significant and positive differences in appendicular muscle mass and a reduction in abdominal fat mass compared to the control group. The study concluded that, given the good acceptance of the technology, WB-EMS is a valid and less daunting alternative for subjects who do not want or cannot do conventional exercise. In recreational athletes: Another essay published in Frontiers in Physiology analyzed the effects of WB-EMS in male recreational runners. For 6 weeks, participants reduced their running training to a single day per week and added a weekly WB-EMS session. The results indicated that the electrostimulation group improved their maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max), their ventilatory thresholds, their running economy and their vertical jump. This suggests that WB-EMS may be an effective stimulus to maintain and even improve performance in periods where resistance training volume is reduced. The definitive comparison (The WB-EMS is not a miracle): To check whether electrostimulation is really superior to classic sweating, the FIT-AGEING project evaluated 89 sedentary middle-aged adults. A rigorous study also published in Frontiers in Physiology divided the subjects into three 12-week programs: traditional concurrent training (recommended by WHO), high intensity interval training (HIIT), and HIIT added to WB-EMS. Finally, all types of exercise induced similar increases in cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength. In fact, the scientists explicitly concluded that the changes observed in the WB-EMS group were not superior to those of the other conventional exercise programs. The suit does not provide any extra decisive advantage compared to sweating the shirt in a traditional way. The silent danger of overexertion Despite the obvious benefits, WB-EMS is not a toy and carries risks if not properly supervised. As he … Read more

We have been sending pregnant women to bed for decades as a precaution. Science has just proven that it is a big mistake

by

In the face of a potentially risky pregnancy, the prescription that was administered was very clear: absolute bed rest to avoid any fall or inappropriate movement that could cause an abortion. But this is something that today is no longer the norm, since staying still during pregnancy not only does not prevent the premature birth of a baby, but it can be very harmful. You have to move. Here, institutions as important as the Mayo Clinic are quite blunt in their guidelines by noting that there is no evidence that bed rest is effective in treating preterm labor. To reach this conclusion, they logically resort to different clinical studies inside the Cochrane Library In this case, they point out, for example, that in singleton pregnancies, routine bed rest does not prevent premature births and, in fact, the adverse effects of being immobilized outweigh the supposed benefits. In the situation of being in a multiple pregnancy, hospitalization and strict rest do not reduce perinatal risks and, ironically, an increased risk of spontaneous birth has been observed. What dangers does it have? Lying in bed may be something that a priori is seen as completely harmless, but the reality is that science advises against it for different reasons. The first of them is that immobility increases the risk of venous thromboembolism if one is not properly anticoagulated. In addition, it causes bone demineralization, where an estimated loss of bone mass is 2% to 3% per month, muscle atrophy and weakness, orthostatic hypotension, and is also associated with low neonatal birth weight and a higher rate of cesarean sections. Beyond the physical. Having complete rest isolates the pregnant woman in a bed watching television all day, and this only causes increased emotional stress, anxiety, and can lead to depression. In studies, this is something that currently affects 20% of pregnant women subjected to this isolation in countries like the United States. What is recommended. The objective of the different international guidelines to treat these pregnant women has taken a great turn in recent years. The SEGO guide of Spain, for example, recommends these women with aerobic activity for 3-5 days a week, avoiding routine rest. If we cross the ocean, in the United States it is recommended 150 minutes of moderate exercise a week, also to reduce the rate of cesarean sections and gestational diabetes. There are exceptions. Generalizations are never good, and that is why you cannot ask all pregnant women for absolute rest, but neither for a lot of activity. Here the most current guidelines establish that there are very specific and documented cases, such as premature rupture of membranes, where this rest is necessary. But these cases are very few. What we must stay with here is that immobility during pregnancy is not the best, and we must stay active as much as possible with activities logically adapted to the pregnancy situation. Images | Anna Hecker In Xataka | There are couples who couldn’t have children. Now AI has managed to give them hope

We have turned WhatsApp into an “emotional pacifier”. And science warns that it is making us more fragile

by

A message sent, a double check blue and, suddenly, silence. In that period of time, which can last minutes or days, the stomach shrinks. The immediate reaction for many is instinctive: unlock the screen of the smartphoneimmersing yourself in social media, sending looping messages seeking solace. We have turned our devices into an “emotional pacifier” to calm the anxiety of “not knowing.” In an era where hyperconnection promises us instant answers, science and psychology issue a clear warning: our inability to tolerate uncertainty is making us increasingly fragile. The brain in the face of chaos. To understand what happens to us, we have to look at our biology. As psychologist Regina López Riego explainsour brain is evolutionarily designed to look for patterns and make sense of everything around us. “This was key to our survival as a species: identifying threats and anticipating dangers,” he says. However, in today’s world, that need for certainty translates into constant suffering. The problem is that we live in a universe governed by entropy. From the team of Nalu Psychology remember thatbased on chaos theory and thermodynamics, systems tend toward disorder. “The future is uncertain and, one way or another, we deal with it as best we can,” they explain. When changes threaten, fear takes center stage, alerting us to possible danger. To mitigate that fear, we resort to a patch: control. However, it is a trap. The brain processes the symptoms of anxiety in the same way that it relates to uncertainty, releasing large amounts of norepinephrine that affect our nervous system. The more we try to tie down the future, the more discomfort we generate. The trap of overthinking. When the mind has no data, it invents it. The psychologist Marta Valle In his blog he explains that overthinking not as a lack of intelligence, but as a failed protection mechanism born of fear of error and low tolerance for uncertainty. It manifests itself in two ways: ruminating on the past or worrying in anticipation about the future. “You think that if you think about it enough, you will avoid a problem,” he details, but the end result is paralysis, insomnia and disconnection from the present. Experts from Harvard Mental Health Services (CAMHS) They have a name for this phenomenon: “toxic time travel.” Dr. Rue Wilson, a psychologist at this institution, describes how we try to feel in control by imagining different outcomes. “We get stuck ruminating, overwhelmed by ‘what ifs,’ and disconnected from the present, which is where we really have the most certainty.” Feed a bigger monster. This loop ends in what psychologist Laura Marín defines as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD)where concern is constant and fueled by overestimating the risks. Marín illustrates this with a clear example: two women, Alicia and Brenda, undergo a medical test. While Alicia asks whatever is necessary and continues with her daily life, Brenda compulsively searches for information on the Internet and needs her partner to continually reassure her. It is the so-called “reinsurance search”. Checking emails, postponing decisions or constantly asking for opinions are strategies that give false relief in the short term, but in the long run make us unable to tolerate the slightest doubt. The cell phone as an escape route. The need to escape from uncertainty has found in smartphones your best ally, but at a high cost for mental health. Rigorous research supports this claim. In a couple of published studies in the scientific journal Science Direct (led by Jon D. Elhai and colleagues in 2017), it was demonstrated through systematic reviews that the severity of depression and anxiety are strongly linked to problematic mobile phone use. One of the most revealing findings of Elhai’s research differentiates between “social” use of the phone (messaging, networks) and “process” use (consumption of news, entertainment, scroll passive). The study found that anxiety is much more related to process use than social use. That is, people with anxiety use the non-social functions of their devices as an avoidance mechanism (such as doomscrolling or addictive consumption of news) to avoid facing stress, this “use of process” being the direct bridge to mobile addiction. In fact, Dr. Leigh W. Jerome warns precisely about this habit. In the face of global chaos, doomscrolling It does not prepare us for the future, but “can cause headaches, muscle tension, high blood pressure, and difficulty sleeping.” Leon Garber, mental health counselor, adds a vital reflection on compulsive doubt avoidance: “Avoidance, in and of itself, is not negative (…) but imagine how many missed opportunities for growth or connection, over time, add up to a lost relationship.” Garber points out that even therapy has a limit if the patient is only seeking definitive answers. “We have to learn to live with uncertainty. Fundamentally, we have to learn to live,” he says. The trap of the hyperconnected world. The desire for certainties not only affects the individual, but shapes our society. An analysis published in The Conversation reminds us thatAccording to Maslow’s pyramid, security is a primary need. However, the obsession with eliminating all risks has a dark side. “There are desires that should not be fulfilled and that of radical security is a desire that can never and should never be satisfied,” the article underlines. Trying to control everything, whether through algorithms, surveillance cameras or the transfer of freedoms, strips us of our humanity and leads us to voluntary servitude. Instead of delegating control to technology to avoid panic, experts advocate a “pedagogy of responsibility”, appealing to the values ​​of Kant and Rousseau, where we assume that zero risk does not exist. How to inhabit the void. Since uncertainty is inevitable, the solution is not to find all the answers, but to change our relationship with the questions. According to institutions such as Harvard CAMHS and diverse psychology professionalsthere are four keys to navigate the uncontrollable: Focus on what you control: challenge the illusion of absolute certainty. If you lose your job, you can’t control when you’ll be hired, but you … Read more

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.