Science

The brain asks for ultra-processed foods when it has nothing to do and science thinks it knows why

by

There is a fairly classic scene in the lives of many people: not being hungry but wandering around the kitchen, opening the refrigerator, looking and closing it. Minutes later, this operation is repeated. The final result? End up eating something we probably didn’t needwhich is what can be popularly known as ‘gluttony’, but nutrition science has a more precise term: emotional eating. Investigation. Reference researchers in Spain such as Dolores Corella and Jordi Salas-Salvadó from CIBERobn, have focused on how factors more than calorieslike emotions or genetics, determine our weight. And the conclusion is quite clear: boredom is as real a metabolic risk factor as sugar. The boring brain. When we get boredthe brain detects a stimulation deficit that it tries to compensate with the fastest route to pleasure. And this is where the ultra-processed darlings come in. In this case, science indicates that these foods not only nourish us poorly, but activates dopaminergic reward circuitsin a very similar way to how certain addictive substances do. In this case, we have, first of all, a stimulus that is boredom that causes our mood to drop. Here the brain looks for a quick peak of dopamine and an apple is usually not enough, but rather it looks for fats and refined sugars, since their consumption causes a peak of pleasure followed by a sudden drop. Something that promotes excessive consumption and therefore favors gaining weight. The danger of getting bored. Not having things to do during the day or even at night, the truth is that it can be the ideal seed for consuming more calories than necessary. And above all, boredom tends to attack more strongly at the end of the day, when obligations end and this is where “boredom eating” collides head-on with chrononutrition. Researcher Marta Garaulet has shown that the moment in which we eat is critical, since snacking out of boredom after 9:00 p.m. is metabolically disastrous, especially in Spain. Why Spain. We Spaniards have a much worse time eating for boredom beyond 9 at night due to a genetic load in half of the population related to the MTNR1B gene. In this case, whoever has this gene and eats late, the consequences are quite clear: the body secretes less insulin and tolerates the glucose that we are introducing less well. The result here is that what is eaten due to nocturnal boredom it makes you fatter and more inflammatory than if you eat during the day, due to the desynchronization of circadian rhythms and the enzymes necessary to process food. How to counter it. If boredom is the trigger for this situation and ultra-processed foods are the gasoline, the solution to break this vicious circle is in PREDIMED studies. In this case, they pointed out that increasing fiber intake through fruits, vegetables and legumes improves glucose regulation. Something that enhances the reduction of glucose drops that can encourage the brain to eat some sugar urgently. In addition to this, the PREDIMED study confirms that the Mediterranean diet Supplemented with extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) or nuts, it reduces anxiety about eating. Unlike ultra-processed foods, which leave you wanting more, a handful of nuts activates long-lasting satiety mechanisms that prevent us from falling into eating a muffin or chocolate ice cream during the night. Routine vs. chaos. Since intermittent fasting lacks solid long-term evidence, experts like Salas-Salvadó suggest focusing on marked routines: bringing forward dinner to extend your overnight fast naturally. Having a fixed schedule reduces moments of “down time” where hunger attacks due to boredom. With all this, what has been achieved is that the brain does not adapt to situations with high levels of dopamine, such as a time of large, very copious late-night dinners. That is why the strategy is not about prohibiting, but about understanding that when you open the refrigerator at eleven at night without hunger, it is not the stomach that speaks but the brain looking for the entertainment it needs. Images | Toby Towfiqu barbhuiya In Xataka | Scientists have found the key to obesity in a protein: mice that do not gain weight even if they consume a fatty diet

The complex science behind nose-to-nose contact in the animal kingdom

by

The kiss for humans is undoubtedly a summit of human romanticism or the closeness between two people, and when we focus on the animal world and see them doing our ‘Eskimo kiss’ by bringing their noses together, we believe that they also they are romanizing. But the reality is that touching noses mutually is not just a sign of affection, but a high-speed data transfer. What has been seen. A new scientific review published in 2026 in Evolution and Human Behavior has brought order to decades of scattered observations of this type of communication. Their conclusion is quite clear: from bats to pigs and rats, nose-to-nose contact is one of nature’s most sophisticated communication tools. And yes, our human kiss could simply be a version 2.0 of this ancient biological mechanism. The second olfactory system. To understand why animals rub their noses, you first have to understand that most mammals smell the world in stereo, but with two different systems. The first of these is the main olfactory system that detects volatile odors such as the smell of rain. But the second goes much further, since is centered on the vomeronasal system (VMO)which is a structure specialized in detect pheromones and non-volatile substances. Its importance. This second olfactory system is the one that interests us in this case, since the signals captured by this organ do not pass through the usual filters of rational thought; They rapidly project to the amygdala and hypothalamus, the command centers for emotion, aggression, and sexual behavior. This way, when two beavers they bump their noses, they are not “greeting” each other politely; you are injecting pure chemical information about your hormonal status and health directly into your limbic system. The language of noses. The touch of two noses has many more functions than a simple sign of affection, and depending on the species, a touch of the nose can be a sentence of submission or a medical check-up. In the case of rats, nose-to-nose contact is a political tool. The queen uses intense nudging and nose contact not to demonstrate love, but to exert dominance and reproductive suppression. It’s their way of chemically reminding subordinates who’s boss and inhibiting their ability to reproduce. The success of the pigs. In livestock farming and applied ethology, nasal contact between piglets is a performance metric. The studies cited by Rasmussen show a direct correlation: a greater frequency of nasal contacts is associated with greater weight gain and survival. This makes contact function as a social cohesion mechanism that reduces stress and improves the well-being of the group. The hedgehog accident. Although we may think that all contacts are social, in solitary animals such as the European hedgehog it has been documented that many of these encounters are accidental collisions. Basically, since they have very poor vision, they approach each other olfactorily until they collide. What is interesting is what happens next in cats and other small mammals: sudden immobility. The animal “hangs” momentarily processing the chemical sensory overload it has just received. The modern kiss. Although we do something similar with kisses, even with Eskimo kisses, the truth is that we have lost a large part of the functionality of the vomeronasal organ. But it is true that we maintain the behavior. A study carried out in 2023 published in Science dismantled the myth that the kiss is a recent invention, since it was already seen in Mesopotamia and Egypt that The lip-to-lip kiss existed 4,500 years ago. Its meaning. Anthropologists suggest that behaviors such as hongi Maori, the honi Hawaiian or the misnamed “Eskimo kiss” (kunik) of the Inuit are the missing links. In these practices, the goal is not the touch of lips, but rather the sharing of breath and smell in intimate proximity. The human kiss, with all its cultural load, could be an evolutionary remnant of that biological need to get close enough so that our brains could chemically “read” each other. What for a bat is an identity recognition, For us it has become a sign of intimacy, but the underlying hardware has a common origin: the need to communicate what cannot be said with words (or with grunts). Images | Simon Hurry In Xataka | It seemed like a hidden risk for celiac sufferers, but post-pizza kisses do not worry science

This new short is inspired by his science fiction work

by

The comics and animation of the eighties are the key aesthetics of a project that, if all goes well, will see the light of day soon and that comes with a label well known to Spanish fans: that of Alfonso Azpirithe much-missed artist who gave visual form to the great successes of the Golden Age of Spanish soft in games for dynamicTopo and other companies. His unmistakable style is part of the DNA of a very promising project: ‘Love Story’ The origin. To trace the origin of this idea we must go back to a tiny science fiction story written by Carlos Buiza (an essential figure in the development of Spanish science fiction in the sixties as co-creator of the magazine Nueva Dimensión) and which was illustrated by Azpiri still taking his first steps, in 1972. Buiza had already obtained some fame with a story, ‘El asfalto’, which Chicho Ibáñez Serrador adapted in an episode of ‘Stories to keep you awake‘ which achieved notable relevance. In 1972, Buiza published ‘Love Story’ in an issue of ‘Triunfo’ magazine dedicated to science fiction, along with an illustrated header of an Azpiri still far from his days of fame but in whose lines the future genius was already guessed. Later, Azpiri would transform the story into a comic, which appeared on the author’s compilation album ‘Pesadillas’, published in 1985. The influences. ‘Historia de amor’ will become a short film directed by Jose Luis Quirós and David Díaz-Guerra, but it takes a leap in its visual references from the seventies, focusing on a style more typical of the eighties, when Azpiri, already in full command of his art, published comics such as ‘Lorna’, ‘Mot’, ‘Nightmares’ or ‘The Vagabonds of Infinity’. The authors also mention authors of the time such as Moebius or Frank Miller, and animes such as ‘Ghost in the Shell’, ‘Evangelion’ and ‘Cowboy Bebop’ as key influences. What is it about? AZ, a dreamy alien on a barren planet, Polkj, is kidnapped by humans. But he wants to discover the secrets of the universe, life and love before they experiment on him. The connection that arises with humans clashes with the objective of these invaders: that AZ be infected with a virus that will exterminate his species and allow humans to escape from a dying planet Earth. Who is behind. ‘Love Story’ is co-directed by José Luis Quirós and David Díaz-Guerra. The first has been twice nominated and winner of the Goya Prize, and is behind very personal works, such as ‘The tower of time’. Next to him is the Runik Animation studio, which has collaborated in the making of films such as ‘Planet 51’, ‘Catch the Flag’, ‘Fantastic Beasts’, ‘The Avengers’ and ‘Pacific Rim’. As for Díaz-Guerra, this is his first short film as a director, but he has experience as a screenwriter and, significantly, as a theoretical physicist, which guarantees a very stimulating approach to the science fiction that is a core part of the short. How will it be done? The short will use 3D animation as a basis for modeling and lighting, working in real time with Unreal Engine. There will be motion capture to reduce costs and, finally, traditional animation sequences for selected moments. All of this will be combined with selected sequences drawn with watercolors, in search of a style with a nostalgic touch that goes back to Azpiri’s comics. How much and for when. The estimated budget of the project, according to what the creators of ‘Love Story’ tell us, is 50,000 euros, of which they already have 10%. There is a long road ahead of searching for financing to reach the planned goal of releasing in the fourth quarter of 2026. At this moment, Runik Animation, together with producer Juan Nieto and Nvidia (which collaborates by providing hardware to the team) are in the initial phase of developing the script and storyboards. In Xataka | 30 years of ‘Navy Moves’, when Dinamic made the best game of the year in the entire world

Science now believes that our biological expiration date is more hereditary than we thought.

by

For years, the scientific consensus and popular culture have repeated a reassuring mantra: genes they only determine 20 or 25% of life expectancy. The rest of this fell on our shoulders directly with the lifestyle, diet or even the environment we surround ourselves with. But this figure, which corresponded to old studieshas changed radically. The study. A study published this week in Science has come to shake the foundations of biogerontology. Led by molecular biologist Uri Alon of the Weizmann Institute in Israel, the research suggests that We have been massively underestimating the role of DNA. Something that they have been able to know after cleaning the data from the statistical “noise” with a very resounding conclusion behind it: the heritability of human life expectancy is around 55%. What we knew. The percentage of participation of current genetics was based on research carried out in the 90s and whose key was the definition of “dying.” The oldest studies analyzed cohorts of Danish-Swedish twins taking mortality as a whole. In this way, if one twin died of cancer at 90 and the other from a car accident at 30, the statistics interpreted that genetics had very little influence. The present. But now, Alon’s team has applied a new mathematical model to separate two concepts that used to be mixed up. One of these was extrinsic mortality, that is, deaths caused by external and random factors such as accidents, pandemics or wars. On the other hand, we have intrinsic mortality, which is true biological aging and is not due to an accident, but to the ‘wear and tear’ of the organism over time. In this way, by removing the noise of extrinsic mortality from historical data, the weight of genetics begins to skyrocket. The results. The new study, published at the end of January, is not just based on a simulation but has analyzed decades of records. On the one hand, data from twins born between 1870 and 1900 have been reanalyzed, which are the original studies where the extrinsic factor was included. By removing it, the genetic correlation again became much stronger. The team crossed their models with sibling data for 444 American centenarians confirming that extreme longevity clusters in families much more than chance or shared environment could explain. In this way, the study corrects what experts call prior estimation biases. That is, the 20-25% figures were not wrong. per sebut they included too much “bad luck.” Lifestyle matters. That the weight of genetics is much greater than we think, does not mean that we should abandon the gym and a balanced diet. And although genetics determine 55% of aging, the other almost half continues to depend on the environment and lifestyle. And this must continue to be maintained. On the other hand, this has enormous implications for personalized medicine. If the “expiration date” of our tissues is more programmed than we thought, anti-aging therapies will have to focus much more on editing or modulating that genetic load, and not just on telling us to eat more vegetables (which too). Images | LOGAN WEAVER | @LGNWVR In Xataka | In Spain there are already 148 people over 64 years of age for every 100 young people. And that is a ticking time bomb for the economy.

Three Russians surrender on camera. A normal scene from wars, but science fiction in Ukraine because of the “soldier” who points guns at them

by

From dug trenches rush to heaven buzzing without restthe war in Ukraine has become a testing ground where the classic rules of combat have long since lost the battle. Every month scenes appear that would have seemed impossible just a few years ago and that force us to rethink what it means today to fight, resist or survive in a front dominated by unexpected technologies. The last example shows a surrender. The first time before a machine. Three Russian soldiers emerge from a building, one of them bloody, raise their hands and obey orders while a camera records everything. The scene would be routine in any war conflict in history, but in Ukraine it marks a breaking point: The one who points the gun at them is not an infant, but an armed robot. It’s not the first time we see such a surrenderbut it is the first to be documented on video and in front of an unmanned land vehicle, a scenario that symbolizes the extent to which the line between science fiction and real combat has been definitively erased in this conflict. From marginal experiment to centerpiece. It we have counted before. Ukrainian ground robots, known as robotic ground complexes, began the war as imported rarities and today are an industrial and military mainstay of their own. 99% of UGVs in use They are already manufactured in Ukrainewith more than 200 different models produced by dozens of local companies in ultra-fast design cycles, fine-tuned directly with feedback from the front. Small, cheap and assembled from commercial components, these robots have moved from transportation and evacuation to carry heavy machine gunslead assaults, hold defensive positions for weeks, and now, accept prisoners without any human soldiers having to expose themselves. Machines that do not bleed. The tactical value of these systems goes beyond firepower. Accepting a surrender with a robot eliminates the risk of ambushes, false capitulations or instant decisions between life and death, a recurring problem on the Ukrainian front. At the same time, the psychological impact It’s huge: fighting an enemy who doesn’t feel paindoes not die and can be replaced quickly erodes morale and makes the option of surrender more rational. Hence the image of confused soldierss surrendering to a machine summarizes that moral and human imbalance. Some of the varieties of Ukrainian ground drones The sky as a weapon. This qualitative leap on the ground fits with an even more overwhelming reality in the air. According to Zelenskymore than 80% of effective strikes against Russian forces are already carried out with drones, the vast majority manufactured locally. In 2025, Ukraine claims to have attacked about 820,000 targets with these systems, recording each impact on video within a points system that rewards units for each confirmed casualty and accelerates the acquisition of new material. In other words, war has become a closed loop of sensors, cameras, algorithms and rewards. An unprecedented cost. Almost four years after the invasion, Russia’s human toll in Ukraine reaches unprecedented figures since World War II: around 1.2 million soldiers dead, wounded or missing, according to the latest report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This massive attrition contrasts with very limited territorial advances, barely 12% more territory controlled since 2022, with daily progress that in some sectors is measured in meters and is even lower than that recorded in battles of the First World War. The Ukrainian defense-in-depth strategy, combining trenches, mines, obstacles, artillery and drones, has tipped the balance of casualties by a proportion clearly unfavorable for Moscow and questions the idea of ​​an inevitable Russian victory. The Russian rearguard. The impact of the conflict goes far beyond the front and is degrading Russia’s economic and strategic capacity, the same as the SCIS report already described as a second or third order power. The combination of inflation, labor shortages, industrial weakness and technological stagnation has left growth stunted and a committed futurewhile human losses exceed the recruitment and replacement capacity. In fact, compared to past conflicts, the figures are devastating. The war future. In short, between swarms of FPV drones, armed ground robots and electronic warfare systems, the war in Ukraine has advanced decades of military development in just a few years, while much more expensive and slow Western programs they stalled or were canceled. Therefore, the filmed surrender facing a robot is not an isolated anecdote, but a sign that modern combat no longer revolves only around the human soldier, but rather cheap, disposable and omnipresent machines. In Ukraine, the war of the future is no longer being imagined: it is being recorded in the first person. Image | UKRAINE MOD In Xataka | “They are under our feet”: Ukraine has entered an inexplicable phase, that of its drones attacking Russians at absurd distances In Xataka | We had seen everything in Ukraine. Until Russia sent a soldier to the front that we had only seen in the movies

Science suggests that heat does not eliminate the toxin from potatoes with sprouts

by

Being in the kitchen, opening the pantry and finding some potatoes at the back that we had forgotten about is a scene that can be common in Spanish kitchens. As time goes by, it is common for ‘eyes’ or small sprouts appear on the tubers with greenish areas. And this is where we divide ourselves into two banks: those who cut the ugly piece and cook the rest, and those who throw everything away out of fear. The risk. In order to know which side is the most suitable, in this case, you have to understand the chemistry that the potato hides inside. The tuber naturally produces compounds called glucoalkaloids, mainly two: α-solanine and α-chaconine. They are not compounds that are there to bother us humans, but rather they are an evolutionary defense system that it has. The problem is that under certain conditions of stress this concentration skyrockets and that is where is becoming a red flag for humans. The stress. Among the stimuli that can increase the production of these stimuli we find light, which stimulates chlorophyll synthesis, but also blows and cuts. But the most striking thing is the appearance of sprouts on the surface of the potato that mobilize these compounds. AND according to toxicological data While a normal potato has safe levels, green or sprouting parts can accumulate up to 1 mg of the compound per gram of potato. The dose makes the poison. Taking a little of this compound is not fatal, but the problem is reaching the toxic doses that It is calculated between 2 and 5 mg per kg of body weight. This means that for a 70 kg adult, the dangerous intake would begin between 140 and 350 mg of solanine. It seems like a high amount, but if we consume very green potatoes or those with many sprouts (where the concentration is maximum), it is not impossible to achieve it. And even when both compounds are combined, the effect is much more powerful than when they are ingested separately. The symptoms. Most mild poisonings go unnoticed because they are confused with common gastroenteritis. And it is quite similar because the symptoms appear between 30 minutes and 12 hours after ingesting this compound, presenting nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain. However, in high doses, solanine is a neurotoxin and that is why we have documented cases where serious neurological disorders or cardiovascular complications have occurred. And it is no wonder, since the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) places special emphasis on the vulnerability of children, since due to their lower body weight, reaching the toxic threshold is much easier for them with few potatoes. The boiling myth. This is perhaps the most important point and where the most people make mistakes. There is a belief that by boiling or frying the potato, we “kill” the poison and the short answer is no. The reason centers on the great stability of solanine against the high temperatures of domestic cooking. This is why boiling a potato with sprouts will not degrade solanine, although frying at very high temperatures can partially degrade it. But in no case is it a guarantee of total security. What should be done. What you should try to do in these cases is quite clear.: If the potato is hard and the sprouts are incipient, it can be consumed. Although logically you have to remove the sprout and the surrounding area generously. But the problem comes when there are green spots on a large part of the potato, it has large sprouts or it is very wrinkled. Here you have to throw it away, since the solanine could have spread throughout the tuber and the risk is not worth it in these cases. Especially when we talk about the little ones in the house. The flavor rules. And although it is something strange to see in our society, there is the possibility of detecting the presence of a large amount of solanine thanks to its bitter taste. Here, if when you taste a dish of potatoes you notice a persistent bitterness, it is best to stop eating immediately. Images | Bekky Bekks In Xataka | Restaurants in half of Spain are giving us scallops for scallops. And Galicia has tired of fraud

Science says that eating three oranges is health and drinking them is a mistake

by

One of the most characteristic images of the ideal breakfast is undoubtedly the freshly squeezed orange juice that They try to place us in any cafeteria thanks to being an icon of health and vitamin C. However, in recent years it has been seen that the way to get the most out of this fruit is to leave it whole and without squeezing it. The juice is different. A juice, whether natural or bottled, It is not the same as fruit, no matter how much they try to sell it to us that way.. And the difference is precisely in what ends up in the trash, better known as food matrixwhich has a large number of benefits that we are constantly discarding. The matrix rotates. To understand why juice is not the same as fruit, we must understand how our digestive system works in the presence of food. In the case of eating whole fruits, what we eat is a complex “matrix” that has water and fructose ‘trapped’ inside. This is a network of insoluble and soluble fiber that forces our body to work a little to be able to absorb the nutrients that are in between. The fact of having to ‘search’ for nutrients among the fiber favors a much slower digestion that makes the sugars pass through the body in a more ‘controlled’ manner and not abruptly. But when you squeeze the fruit, this matrix ends up destroyed and the sugars are released from its prison, making it much easier for the body to trap them. The consequences. For the WHOintrinsic fructose, the sugar from the fruit itselfis now called ‘free sugars’ since they have nothing to hold them back. In this way, when drinking the juice, gastric emptying is very fast because there are no solids to process and the result is a large amount of glucose and fructose reaching the bloodstream. Something that represents stress for the body that is not prepared for it. The glucose curve. While eating whole fruit generates a much more moderate and sustained curve, juice causes an acute glycemic peak, followed by reactive hypoglycemia that awakens hunger shortly after. Although anyone in these cases may think that logically the amount of sugar in both the juice and the fruit is the same, so the behavior of the organism should be identical. But the reality is quite different, since science has been able to demonstrate that although the amount of sugar is identical, insulin response is significantly greater in the liquid version. For metabolic purposes, the pancreas does not distinguish much between industrial orange juice, homemade one or a sugary soft drink: it detects a flood of energy that it must manage immediately. What the data says. In this context, science already pointed out in 2014 a figure that should make us rethink breakfast: a higher intake of fruit juice was associated with a 14% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes. On the contrary, the consumption of whole fruits (especially blueberries, grapes or apples) is systematically associated with a reduced risk. The fructose trap. Beyond glucose, which is like the main enemy against health that many of us have in mind, another enemy must be highlighted: liquid fructose. In this case, when it suddenly reaches the liver, it converts its excess into fat, generating uric acid as a byproduct, raising blood pressure and the risk of gout. In parallel, inflammatory pathways are activated that contribute to insulin resistance in the long term. But the key data is found in a 2025 Chilean analysis that concluded that, although 100% natural juices are “neutral” in small doses, They are consistently inferior to whole fruit in preventing major diseases. The satiety factor. There is a very interesting relationship between juices and obesity in the act of chewingas pointed out by different Japanese studies that have shown that the act of chewing not only crushes the food, but also sends satiety signals to the brain. But when we are drinking we skip these control signals to stop eating when the body says it is fine. If we start talking about figures, a glass of juice requires more or less 2-3 oranges (depending on the size), and it is very easy to drink it in forty seconds. But it is much more difficult to eat three oranges in a row, chewing slice by slice, since we are giving the body time to assimilate that sugar. It is not absolute evil. Obviously, juice is not poison for the body, but different nuances must be taken into account. Reviews published in 2024 and 2025 suggest that 100% natural juices may have a place in a healthy diet under very specific conditions. The dose in this case is very important, since It has been shown that small amounts (less than 150 ml per day) do not increase cardiovascular risk and they can provide vitamins. The problem is that the usual consumption size is usually double or triple that amount. Furthermore, the context matters since a high-performance athlete who takes that quick energy shot is not the same as a sedentary person already prone to diabetes. However, general public health advice increasingly aligns with the radical stance: if you have the choice, always choose whole fruit. Images | Mateusz Feliksik In Xataka | It turns out that a longevity expert has said something that makes sense. And the reason is the juices

Science has been measuring whether size matters for years. A study with 3D simulation has the most complete answer

by

It is probably one of the most recurring questions in the history of humanity and, yet, one of the ones that accumulates the most myths per square meter. Leaving aside popular culture and internet forums, scientific literature has been trying for years to quantify what is true about the importance penis size. Science to the rescue. A published study This year, PLOS Biology wanted to resolve a question that has undoubtedly generated many jokes and also some complexes in the male sex. And the truth is that the short answer to this question is that size does matterbut perhaps not for the reasons most men believe. The signal theory. Until now, many studies were based on simple surveys to answer this question. However, this study has gone one step further by using 343 3D figures to evaluate the response of more than 800 participants. The goal was to understand penis size not only as a reproductive tool, but as an evolutionary signaling trait. The results. In the investigationfemale participants rated men as more attractive, which combined three factors: greater height, a “V” shaped torso (wide shoulders and narrow hips) and a larger penis. But there is a very important nuance. Attraction doesn’t follow a line of “the more the merrier” ad infinitum. The study in this case detected diminishing returns, since after a certain size, attractiveness does not increase proportionally, but rather there is a ceiling. Competence. But men also went through this study to evaluate the size of other men. In this case, it was highlighted that they perceived those with larger genitals as more competitive rivals and with greater fighting capacity. This suggests that, evolutionarily, the size could have served as both sexual ornament and a signal of status or threat towards other males, similar to the antlers of a deer. What they prefer. If we move away from evolutionary theory and go to stated preference, the baseline study remains the one published by N. Prause in PLOS One in 2015. This work is key because it differentiated, for the first time with rigor, between the type of relationship sought. In this case, using 3D models on heterosexual women, a preference was specifically shown for a slightly larger size, averaging about 16.3 cm in length in an erect state and 12.7 cm in circumference. But in the case of stable couples, the preference dropped slightly to 16 cm and 12.2 cm in circumference. The key reading. The first point to note is that circumference matters more than length in visual choice. The second is that these measures are only “slightly” above the population average. A mechanical reality. This is where science busts most porn myths. A narrative review published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine in 2023 analyzed the existing literature To answer the million-dollar question: does a larger penis give more pleasure? The answer is a very nuanced ‘it depends’. Science points out in this case that there are few high-quality studies that manage to directly link size with the organism, and the results are heterogeneous. But if we draw a clear conclusion, the truth is that the quality of the relationship such as trust or communication correlates more strongly with sexual satisfaction than the size of the penis. Male anxiety. If female preferences are moderate and satisfaction depends more on technique than size, why is there still so much anxiety among society? The studies in this case They point out that there is a great disconnection between reality and male perception, since approximately 38% of men report some degree of dissatisfaction with their penis. However, the vast majority of couples have a positive view of their partners’ genitals. Images | Deon Black In Xataka | Desire in times of stress and screens: this is how the era of programmed sex was born

We have been relying on the Nutri-Score in stores for years. Science believes that its real impact is zero

by

He Nutriscore what we can see in some foods born with an ambitious promise: simplify the nutritional complexity of products into a code of easy to understand colors to know if a food is healthy or not. However, what on paper seemed like the definitive solution against obesity and poor diet is facing a much grayer scientific reality. His dark side. Although the idea seemed quite good, the reality is that new scientific reviews are setting off alarm bells. The conclusion being drawn is quite clear: the real impact on the shopping basket is minimal and the algorithm categorizes foods that are essential as something very bad. A good gap. One of the strongest arguments in favor of Nutri-Score comes from studies conducted in controlled environments, i.e. a laboratory. But what happens when we go down to the real, everyday world? This is what they wanted to analyze in a recent narrative reviewwhich evaluates consumer behavior in physical supermarkets and throws cold water on the system. And with this food color coding, the data shows that the improvement in the nutritional score of the purchase is only 2.5%. That is to say, it has hardly been noticed that a person begins to eat much more appropriate foods with this color code. Something that quite disagrees with the laboratory results that predicted that the effect was going to be much better. The real victim. The fact that some people’s shopping baskets have improved a little is the motivation that some producers of these foods have to change their ingredients to achieve a better Nutri-Score. as seen on Eroski. But this does not mean that citizens have changed the way they shop. The great blind spot. The fiercest criticism from the scientific field, highlighted by organizations such as the Puleva Nutrition Instituteis the omission of micronutrients. The current algorithm focuses almost exclusively on macronutrients, which are fat, sugars and proteins, but forgets other points that are fundamental. One of these points are vitamins and minerals, which are logically essential for the body, especially because some of them must be taken as they are not produced by the body. But polyphenols or bioactive compounds also stand out, which are essential antioxidants that can prevent chronic diseases. Unfair penalty. The system that is implemented right now also penalizes foods for their total fat content without differentiating whether they are healthy, something that has led to putting a bad score for olive oil. A paradoxical situation. The study from the University of Granada wanted to see the same thing about soluble cocoa to highlight these large discrepancies that force us to question Nutri-score. The result of the research team indicates that while pure cocoas with a higher bioactive profile can receive low grades such as C or D. But, on the other hand, others ultra-processed products with additives They achieve better scores, even A, simply by adjusting their sugar or fiber levels, without necessarily being healthier. Trying to correct it. The scientific community is no stranger to this problem and logically when something goes wrong you want to fix it to make it fit reality and that it truly fulfills the objective with which it was created. In fact, recent updates have already tried to correct the algorithm to better treat vegetable oils and nuts and penalize ultra-processed foods more strongly. However, the validations insist that, although there is an association between scores and macronutrientsthere remain huge gaps with comprehensive dietary guidelines. And we must keep in mind that the Nutri-Score measures “isolated nutrients” but not the overall quality of the food. ¿Where are we going? Science seems to indicate that the Nutri-Score is a useful but overly simplistic tool. By trying to condense health into a letter, nuances are lost that really make a difference in longevity and disease prevention. Although the algorithm is being refined to better align with European recommendations, the risk of the consumer blindly trusting an “A” for a processed product versus a “C” for a natural food remains present. Images | Franki Chamaki In Xataka | Ozempic’s “great rebound”, in figures: science reveals that the weight returns four times faster than with a diet

Science explains why the cure can be worse than the disease

by

At the time of want to lose a few kilos The truth is that many different strategies emerge, such as eliminate sweetsstart exercising more or eat much more protein. But, on the other hand, there are strategies that are really extravagant and that are spread by influencers of our society that do not have any solid foundation. The last one arrives from actor Matt Damon who claims to have lost a few kilos thanks to leaving gluten out of his diet. A discrepancy. And the reality is that science has a lot to say about this decision. Since the ‘gluten-free’ foods that now flood supermarkets were born as a medical necessity for 1% of the population. But now it has become a holy grail of weight loss following the following logic: ‘if I cut out bread and pasta, I lose weight. Ergo, gluten makes you fat.’ There is no evidence. Nutritional science has bad news for these peopleincluding the actor, since eliminating gluten does not have a specific slimming effect. In fact, if you do not have celiac disease or gluten sensitivity diagnosed, eliminating it can even be counterproductive for cardiovascular and metabolic health. It’s a calorie deficit. The first myth to debunk is that gluten, per sebe a metabolic villain that makes us accumulate fat. According to a systematic review published in International Journal of Cardiovascular Sciencesgluten-free diets are not associated with greater weight loss compared to normal gluten-containing diets in healthy adults. So… why do some people swear they lost weight by giving up gluten? The answer lies in the changes that accompany this diet, but not in gluten. And when you give up gluten, you automatically stop eating calorie-dense ultra-processed foods such as industrial pastries, cookies, refined pasta… In this way, you eat fewer total calories and this is what causes you to lose weight and not the absence of gluten. The effect of water. In addition to this caloric deficit, a pilot study in athletes noted that the rapid weight loss after six weeks without gluten was primarily due to loss of fluid and glycogen stores, not an actual metabolic advantage. Fewer refined carbohydrates mean less water retention. But if there was any doubt, another clinical trial in patients with a metabolic problem in their history detected reductions in waist circumference and triglyceridesbut without changes in weight. In this way, the researchers suggest that this is due more to better food selection and glycemic control than to a “fat-removing effect” of gluten. A flat stomach. Another of the great thoughts that can be heard in this sense is that people who do not eat wheat feel much less bloated. And this is real, but the culprit is not gluten, but from the fructans of wheatwhich is basically a type of fermentable carbohydrate that produces a lot of gas and bloating. In this way, the abdomen looks much flatter, but not because of a loss of fat. The cardiovascular paradox. But although gluten is seen as a demon, the reality is that it has several intrinsically good things. For example, gluten is often accompanied by whole grains, and whole grains are cardioprotective. This is evidenced in a study published in the BMJ with more than 100,000 participants who were followed for 26 years. This concludes that gluten consumption does not increase the risk of coronary heart disease. What’s more, when the data was adjusted, a higher gluten intake was associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease. That is why the authors warned: promoting gluten-free diets in healthy people can reduce the consumption of whole grains and, therefore, negatively affect cardiovascular health. And in diabetes. In this case they were three large studies that showed an inverse relationship: Those who ate the most gluten had a 13% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those who ate the least. The why? Again, the fiber and micronutrients associated with the cereal that contains gluten. The problem of the accused. When we see that something is ‘gluten free’ we may think that we are looking at something much healthier. But the reality is that sometimes, to compensate for the lack of elasticity and texture that gluten provides, The food industry often reformulates products by adding more saturated fat, more sugar and reducing the protein it contains. Furthermore, gluten-free diets in non-celiac people have also been associated with a lower intake of fiber, B vitamins and a worse long-term cardiometabolic profile. Who should give up gluten? Science is quite clear in this case: who needs it, that is, the 1% of the population with celiac disease. And logically also people with non-celiac gluten sensitivity who may have major digestive problems. For the rest of the population, eliminating gluten offers no clear nutritional benefits. On the contrary: there is a risk of spending more money on products with a worse nutritional profile, reducing the consumption of cardioprotective fiber and attributing to gluten a success that, in reality, simply belongs to eating less ultra-processed foods. Images | Wesual Click Towfiqu barbhuiya In Xataka | Food has been filled with contradictory messages: a sports nutritionist helps us understand what’s behind it

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.