Science

We have been telling ourselves since 1945 that we should drink “two liters of water a day.” Science is clear that this is not the case.

by

One of the most popular rules in popular health culturewithout a doubt it is in the amount of water you have to drink per day. An amount that is located in eight glasses a day or what is the same: the immovable figure of two literss. We see it in fitness applications, in influencers’ advice and we hear it repeated like a mantra, but the reality is that there is quite a myth behind this. We are different people. A very common phrase within medicine is precisely “there are no equal people”, and not only because of the external physique, but because of everything that is inside. This forces the medicine Focus towards a more individualized idea in your medical advice that have to be given, included in nutrition or water consumption. This forces us to have to personalize the amount of water that each person should consume, because a person who is 2 meters tall and weighs 100 kg with a large amount of muscle is not the same as an elderly person who has a much slower metabolism. Logically, the two liters of water mantra cannot be established here. The origin of the error. To understand why we drink (or think we should drink) so much, you have to travel back to 1945. According to key review by Dr. Heinz Valtin in it American Journal of Physiology 2002, the myth of the “8×8” rule, that is, 8 8-ounce glasses to have almost 2 liters of water, probably comes from a misinterpretation of a guide from the Food and Nutrition Board. A guide that indicated that it was always recommended to have an adequate intake of 2.5 liters of fluids per day. But most people ignored the accompanying sentence that said, “most of this amount is in prepared foods.” What the institutions say. So the question is quite clear: how much should we drink per day? In this case there are different official figures, but they have fine print. We have one of the examples in the European Food Safety Authority Panel 2010 established adequate water intake at 2 liters per day for women and 2.5 liters per day for men. But here’s the key: the EFSA specifies that this refers to total water, that is, the sum of drinks plus food. And there are many dishes that have a large amount of water, such as soup, although fruits also have a lot of water inside. Even in the United States. If we move to the recommendations made in the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the USA from 2005, suggests that the total water figures should be 2.7 liters per day for women and 3.7 liters per day for men. But again, it includes all the dietary intake that is made per day and not just glasses of tap water. The latest science. If we come more to the present, we also have scientific studies that have sought to dismantle a universal fixed figure set at two liters per day. One of the most important is the one published in Science in 2022 that used isotopes to measure water exchange in 5,604 people, and that showed that real needs vary enormously between people. One of the conclusions they addressed was that for most people in temperate climates and with sedentary lives, the real water intake needs are between 1.5 and 1.8 liters per day, far from the demands of wellness marketing. And it is reinforced. It is not a study that is isolated, but also in 2022 the magazine Scientific Reports, published research where this idea was reinforced: they predict necessary beverage intakes of about 1.6 L for women and 2.0 L for men, always depending on factors such as age, sex and body composition. Is more water better? One of the most repeated arguments by proponents of hyperhydration is that we should drink “before we are thirsty.” modern physiology, backed by scientific reviews and analysis of urinary osmolarity, refutes this fear that we may have. Specifically, the human body has an extremely sensitive osmoregulation system. When the concentration of solutes in the blood increases by only 2%well below clinical dehydration, the brain already activates the sensation of being thirsty and releases the necessary hormone to begin conserving water so that it does not ‘leave’ in the urine. There are exceptions. Unless you are an elderly person (whose thirst sensation is attenuated) or a high-performance athlete in the midst of intense effort, drinking when thirsty is the most accurate and scientifically validated strategy for maintaining water balance. When you should drink more water. That the “mandatory two liters” are a myth does not mean that water is not logically vital. The most recent systematic reviews and other clinical means confirm that increasing water intake has clear therapeutic benefits in very specific cases that are not universal. These can be the following: Having a kidney stone: here the “more, the better” applies since increasing urinary flow is key to preventing the recurrence of this disease. Urinary infections: a problem that mainly affects women, and that requires ‘overhydration’ to reduce risk of new episodes. Weight loss: Although the evidence is mixed, drinking water may help with satiety and, marginally, energy expenditure. Although it is not a magic solution against obesity. More common sense. The obsession with two liters is a perfect example of how an old and misinterpreted scientific recommendation becomes a cultural dogma. The reality, supported by decades of studies from Valtin to the latest isotopic analyses, is that we are not machines that need a fixed tank filling every 24 hours. In this way, our body’s water needs are dynamic. Water needs are dynamic. If you eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, work in an air-conditioned office, and don’t run marathons every day, forcing yourself to drink 2 liters of extra water will probably only do one thing: interrupting your work to go to the bathroom more times. The situation. In this way we can understand that … Read more

The “sweet spot” of exercise according to science is 30 minutes

by

For many years the goal of taking 10,000 steps per day has been the universal health mantrarepeating itself in medical consultations or being predefined in smart watches that monitor physical activity. But this mantra is evolving thanks to the latest evidence we know, since it is not just about how many steps you take, but how they occur. A sweet spot. For this science has identified the ideal when doing physical activity: 30 minutes of brisk walking (walk at a brisk pace) at a constant speed of 5 km/h. This habit is not only more efficient than taking random walks, but Delivers metabolic benefits previously only attributed to high-intensity gym workouts. An important threshold. The fact of having to exceed a speed of 5 km/h It is crucial when walking with the purpose of improving cardiovascular health. And for a walk to be considered “moderate intensity exercise”, it is not enough to move. Science in this case considers that there is a critical threshold that we must keep in mind when recommending doing the exercise: 100 steps per minute. That is what translates into this approximate speed of 5 km/h. And it is not something random, since it has been seen that at this speed there is a significant reduction in the glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) related to diabetes and systolic blood pressure (known as ‘high’). The secret is continuity. One of the most powerful findings from the studies It is precisely in the amount of time we invest in sport. And there is a big difference between continuous 30-minute sessions, in which we only walk, versus accumulated sessions, where we walk for five minutes and then stop continuing. In this case, the continuous 30-minute session is what has been found to be best for reducing insulin sensitivity, improving resistance, hip circumference, and also exercise adherence. And although it is good to move 5 minutes every hour to avoid a sedentary lifestyle, the reality is that it is best to dedicate only half an hour a day continuously. A shield against aging. For the middle-aged population, walking is literally life insurance. Different studies suggest that walking at 5 km/h for 30 minutes a day, for five days a week, helps reduce the risk of stroke (due to lowering blood pressure). But in addition to this, it also combats anxiety and stress, which is undoubtedly one of the big problems we have in today’s society with the stress hormone triggered and doing a lot of damage to our body. With all this, the increase in life expectancy is quite substantial compared to more sedentary people. Without forgetting strength exercises. Although walking is essential, we must not forget our muscles either. It is very important when you reach middle age do not neglect the development and maintenance of muscle, since there are many studies that suggest that it delays biological aging and even offers cognitive benefits such as protection against neurodegenerative diseases. In this way, in order to reach old age in optimal conditions, we must not forget to be mobile to reduce metabolic syndrome, but also to be attentive to our muscles. Images | Martin Dalsgaard In Xataka | The 11 best apps for exercising at home

We have been using ginger as medicine for 2,500 years. Science has just proven us right

by

Before pharmacies occupied every corner, ginger already existed. What for more than two millennia was the best kept secret of Asian pharmacies, today is undergoing the most rigorous examination of the microscope. This underground stem—technically a rhizome, not a root—has gone from being a simple cookie seasoning to becoming a protagonist in clinical nutrition. As Dr. Joshua Forman, a gastroenterologist in Maryland, says, in an interview with Washington Postsometimes we become obsessed with expensive and complex drugs while ignoring what is in front of us. “It’s funny how the simplest things go unnoticed,” reflects the expert. From the herbalist to the laboratory. “Popular wisdom” is no longer alone, science has taken over with force. A massive review of 109 clinical trials published in Nutrients confirms that ginger is not a placebo; It works, especially when the digestive system rebels. But the findings go beyond simple stomach relief. In fact, a meta-analysis in Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine has brought to the table something unthinkable years ago: its ability to help regulate blood sugar and protect the heart in patients with type 2 diabetes. What does the scientific verdict say? If we look at the evidence, ginger works with almost surgical precision on three fronts. First, in pregnancy; Just 1.5 grams can change a woman’s day with morning sickness. Furthermore, a study in it Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology even compared its effectiveness against menstrual pain with that of ibuprofen, with astonishing results. However, the most fascinating thing happens at the cellular level. Recent research in JCI Insight They suggest that ginger could “stop” the hyperactivity of certain body defenses, something key for those who suffer from lupus. Even in the brain, the magazine Frontiers in Nutrition points to a shield effect that could delay the progression of diseases such as Alzheimer’s by reducing inflammation of neurons. The chemistry of the rhizome. The secret of ginger resides in its compounds bioactives: gingerols, shogaols and zingerones. These compounds act on nerve receptors (such as 5-HT3 and TRPV1) that regulate pain and nausea signals. Additionally, ginger is a real accelerator. In the teststhe stomachs of those who took it took only 12 minutes to empty, almost half that of the control group. Of course, a warning for sailors: it is a master at relieving nausea, but if vomiting has already started, its effect is much less. It is not a “magic” solution for everything. Despite its rise on social networks like TikTok under tags like #GutHealth, experts warn: Be careful with him Ginger Ale: Dr. Forman warns in the post That most commercial ginger sodas contain corn syrup and artificial flavorings, but almost no real ginger. The ideal is a homemade infusion (grating the root and boiling it for 10 minutes). It is not a miraculous “detox”: there is no conclusive evidence that ginger “shots” on an empty stomach detoxify the body or lose weight on their own without a balanced diet. Dangerous interactions: Because ginger inhibits platelet aggregation, it should not be combined with anticoagulants such as warfarin, as increases the risk of bleeding. Science and nature, hand in hand. Ginger has gone from being a simple home remedy to becoming an “evidence-based supportive complementary option.” While it should not replace medical treatment in severe cases, science confirms that this rhizome is one of the few “superfoods” that truly lives up to its name, offering a low-cost and highly effective solution to improve daily quality of life. Image | Unsplash Xataka | There are people taking a “shot” of apple cider vinegar in the morning. Science has an opinion on this

Science has something to say to all those who drink coffee as soon as they wake up

by

Having a coffee for many is something that It is essential to start the day. It is something that in our country has become a cultural habit, but it is also a very relevant pharmacological event. Since although many people’s day doesn’t start until this coffee, our body already has its own “start-up” system built in as standard that we could be affecting. A good debate. Recently has arisen an idea that has set a precedent: Ingesting caffeine immediately after waking up interferes with the body’s natural biology. Specifically, with cortisolwhich is the stress hormone that allows us to wake up in the morning and sustain us throughout the day. Given this, It is recommended to wait between 60 and 90 minutes to drink your first cup of coffee.. Although… How much truth does this have? If we analyze the most recent clinical literature and population studies, we discover that Coffee in the morning is, in fact, a powerful ally for cardiovascular healthbut its maximum effectiveness depends on fine synchronization with our hormones. Natural injection of energy. To understand the effect of coffee on our body, we must first understand what happens when you don’t drink it. When you open your eyes, your brain doesn’t turn on like a switch, but instead starts a chemical cascade known as Cortisol Awakening Response (CAR). This is essential, since upon waking up, cortisol begins to increase and reaches its maximum peak approximately 30 to 60 minutes after opening the eyes. A hormone that is essential to activate us, and that is released in large quantities, for example when we are stressed or there is danger. A limbo of signals. In this way, if we introduce caffeine right into the body when cortisol is rising, we may be generating unnecessary overstimulation, increasing nervousness or so-called jitters. Furthermore, caffeine (despite the fact that it hurts for some) does not provide real energy to our body, but what it does is block the adenosine receptors, which is responsible for making us feel tired. In this way, when we wake up, there is still some of this signal in the body and if we block it suddenly and too soon, when the effect of the coffee wears off, this accumulated adenosine suddenly binds to its receptors and causes the famous mid-afternoon fatigue. What science knows. To date, there are no controlled clinical trials that compare the long-term cognitive performance of a group of people who drink coffee immediately versus another who waits 90 minutes. But what we do know is that there is a tolerance effect. A study published in PMC points out that in regular coffee consumers, the cortisol response to caffeine is significantly attenuated. That is, your body has already gotten used to that morning “hit” and the hormonal interference is much less than in an occasional consumer. In this way, when we remove the morning coffee, it may be much more difficult for a person to properly start their body as they lack that ‘drive’ to which their body has become accustomed. The night battle. Where the science is clear is in the use of caffeine late in the day. A study in Science Translational Medicine showed that a double espresso three hours before bed delays the circadian clock by about 40 minutes, seriously affecting sleep quality. Is it worth waiting? If you are one of those who feel intense anxiety after the first coffee or if you experience an unbearable drop in energy at two in the afternoon, the recommendation to wait 90 minutes has physiological plausibility and can be a valuable personal experiment. By delaying caffeine, you allow cortisol to do its job and residual adenosine to be cleared more naturally so you don’t have that unpleasant mid-afternoon tiredness. However, for the healthy general population accustomed to coffeethere is no evidence that taking it as soon as you wake up is harmful. We are only left with that effect of dependence on coffee that interferes with the internal ‘caffeine’ of awakening that our body produces. This is why the 90-minute rule is more advice based on clinical observation and biological logic than on robust studies. In Xataka | We knew that coffee was good for our health, but now we have discovered that it is a great ally of our microbiota

Science has named what you feel when a Pixar movie makes you cry

by

Watching the end of a Pixar movie and witnessing an unexpected reunion at an airport can trigger something in some people: a lump in the throat, a warmth in the chest, and even watering in the eyes. And it is not sadness nor euphoric happiness, but a sensation that has received a name very recently. A problem. For years, psychology has had trouble categorizing this specific sensation. We call it “being moved”, “striking a chord” or having “mixed feelings”. However, for a decadea group of scientists from UCLA and the University of Oslo has given it a technical namea theoretical framework and an evolutionary explanation. Is called ‘Kama Muta‘, and it is the scientific label for one of the most powerful tools of our survival, which is sudden connection. Something that we can also feel on social networks when we see the video of a grandmother with her grandson, for example, in a very idyllic situation. Kama Muta. A term that comes from Sanskrit and literally means “to be moved by love” (or “to be filled with love”). And although the name sounds very mystical, there is a scientific part behind it that supports it, since it has been systematically studied. by Kama Muta Labled by anthropologists and psychologists. According to his founding article from 2016and later reviews in Annual Review of Psychologykama muta is not a “new” emotion in the sense that we have just discovered it, but rather that we have just classified it. That is, we had these localized feelings, but we didn’t know what name to give them. Its definition. A positive emotional response triggered by a sudden intensification of communal relationships. In other words: it is what your body feels when you perceive that a social bond is suddenly created, repaired or strengthened. A physical triad. Unlike other abstract emotions, kama muta has a very clear physiological signature that researchers have validated in cross-sectional studies. According to research by Zickfeld published in Emotionwhich spanned 19 countries and 15 languages, the universal symptoms are clear: wet eyes, goosebumps, and a feeling of warmth. A sensation of warmth that curiously centers right in the heart of the chest. Something that already says a lot about this new emotion. Why we are sorry. Why did evolution design us to cry and tremble when we see others hugging? The answer is in group survival. Science suggests that this emotion acts as a social glue, since by feeling physically rewarded by the connection (our own or someone else’s), we are more predisposed to take care of others and sacrifice ourselves for the group. In this way, it has the power to humanize “others.” In an experiment, showing moving videos that induced kama muta significantly increased the perception of humanity towards outgroups, reducing any prejudices one might have. It’s not just “feeling good,” it’s a biological mechanism to expand our circle of empathy. Climate action. The most interesting from recent research is that kama muta does not remain a passive experience, but predicts behavior as well. A 2023 study published in Frontiers in Psychology found that messages about climate change that evoked kama muta (focused on connection to the planet and shared responsibility) were more effective in predicting pro-environmental intentions than those based on fear or guilt. Images | Nik Shuliahin In Xataka | If the question is “where is the secret to happiness,” an expert believes it is hidden in these 15 statements

science already knows what happens to your brain

by

after one night intense partya phrase that can become common is “yesterday I drank so much that I have blackouts.” For years, popular culture has treated these episodes as the fact that alcohol is a kind of eraser of memories in our brain, but the reality is very different: It’s not that memories are erased, it’s that they never existed.. The notice. Our parents didn’t say it anymore: drinking a lot of alcohol and smoking controversial substances is something that can fry the brain. And they were partly right. different experts point out in connection with research and meta-analysis on alcohol consumption and brain health, which shed light on what exactly happens in our heads when we go too far. A blackout. What we usually call a ‘gap’, memory loss the morning after a drunken night, is technically anterograde amnesia, or blackout. During a blackout a person can continue talking, walking (not always straight) and even having apparently normal conversations, but your brain has stopped transferring information from short-term memory to long-term memory. The person responsible for all this It is in the hippocampus itselfa region of the brain that acts as the logistics center for our memories. They arrive here to be stored in long-term memory, which is what interests us to remember what we did the next morning. A chemical interference. When the blood alcohol concentration begins to rise rapidly, quite significant chemical interference occurs. In this case modulates NMDA and GABA receptors which alters the communication between neurons and interrupts the ‘Long-term empowerment‘ (LTP). The latter is the physical process by which neural connections are strengthened to consolidate a memory. In short: during a heavy drunk, the hippocampus is still on to store memories, but the ‘save button’ is completely switched off. Therefore, the next day no matter how hard we try: there is nothing to recover because nothing was recorded in the hippocampus. They fry the brain. If we recover the idea that our grandmothers and parents transmitted to us about the effect of alcohol on the brain, the reality is that neuroimaging studies show As in chronic users there is significant hippocampal atrophy. This does not mean that memories become like water, but rather that the volume of brain matter is decreased. As brain tissue shrinks due to neuronal and connectivity loss, the empty space is occupied by cerebrospinal fluid. And this can give us the myth that the memory turns into water or black spots appear on the imaging tests when they pass. The effect on young people. In this population it has traditionally been said that they can handle alcohol much better and with several drinks they continue to be in top shape. But scientifically a great paradox occurs: the adolescent and young brain is extremely plastic, which makes it much more vulnerable to external aggressions. This is why binge drinking in developing brains not only causes blackouts more easily, but can also generate persistent changes in brain structure. Science has shown in this case that even moderate consumption (more than 14 units per week) is linked to greater hippocampal atrophy and worse long-term cognitive performance. He doesn’t forget who he is. Excessive alcohol does not cause us to suddenly forget our names, something that would fall squarely into the realm of serious dementia. But what is clear is that the blackouts repeated are an obvious risk marker. Not only because of silent structural damage, but because of behavioral vulnerability: a person who is not creating memories is a person who has lost the ability to learn from the consequences of their actions in real time, drastically increasing the risk of accidents and dangerous decisions. Images | Nate Holland Alyona Yankovska In Xataka | Forgetting things is not a bug, it is a feature of your brain: how not remembering things makes us think better

Science is on the verge of achieving something that would end our human experience as we knew it: suffering

by

The Holy Grail of modern pain medicine has always been the same: achieving the analgesic power of morphine without its side effects such as respiratory depression, addiction or tolerance. And although until now it seemed impossible, one study has suggested that the key is not to ‘numb’ the body, but to ‘attack’ the way the brain processes suffering. The study. A team led by Gregory Corder of the University of Pennsylvania has developed a gene therapy that acts as a “switch” for chronic pain. What is revolutionary is not just that it works, but how it does it: it eliminates the emotional distress of pain without erasing the protective physical sensation, keeping the patient safe but free from suffering. The problem is not feeling, it is suffering. Pain has two very clear components: one that is sensory, which is necessary to human survival (as it is to withdraw the hand when we get burned), and the other is the affective or the emotional. This second is what generates the feeling of constant suffering that can destroy the quality of life of a patient who lives with chronic pain or neuropathic pain that affects the nervous system, such as the hated ‘sciatica’. According to the study, titled, the researchers identified a specific group of neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). These neurons are sensitive to opioids and are responsible for encoding the “unpleasantness” of pain, and this is where they have tried to attack, but surgically and without pills. The tool used. The scientists used a tool known as DREADD (Designer Receptors Activated Exclusively by Designer Drugs). To do this, through a viral vector, they inserted synthetic receptors specifically into the cingulate cortex neurons of mice with neuropathic pain. From there, they administered a drug that has no effect called DCZ. This compound, despite not doing anything to the body in mice, acts as a key that “turns off” the neurons that have been modified in their brain in a very specific way. The result. The chronic pain behavior disappeared and they began to act like completely healthy animals. However, when exposed to an acute thermal stimulus, they were able to withdraw their paw. In this way, his survival system was working, but his anxiety system was completely turned off. The AI ​​that reads pain. One of the biggest challenges in pain research is that mice can’t tell us “it hurts a 7 out of 10,” which is why scientists classically relied on biased tests. But this is over thanks to an AI called LUPEwhich is a Deep Learning platform and has the ability to analyze hundreds of hours of video of mice moving freely. But what is relevant here is that it has the ability to detect spontaneous micro-behaviors associated with pain that the human eye would miss. Thanks to LUPE, the team was able to objectively confirm that the pain relief was real and not an error of human interpretation. The opioid crisis. The most promising thing about the study published a few days ago is the security profile. Unlike morphine, which generates tolerance, that is, more and more doses of medication are needed to have an effect, and addiction, this gene therapy is completely the opposite. In this way, it does not generate addiction, meaning that the mouse does not have to seek a higher dose to maintain that sensation and the effect remained stable. The arrival of humans. Although the success in mice is resounding, the jump to humans is complex, since we are really different and requires many more safety studies. However, the path is set. The team is already planning the next steps towards clinical trials, although it is something that may take many years to become a reality in our daily lives. Images | Sasun Bughdaryan In Xataka | We have accepted that sport is “medicine” for the body. Now science is discovering its side effects

We have accepted that sport is “medicine” for the body. Now science is discovering its side effects

by

Physical exercise can be prescribed as a drug in doctors’ offices, even though it is not packaged in a simple pill that we take. This is because the evidence behind it has made it more than clear that playing sports can prevent a large number of chronic diseasesI know even have a very good old age. But behind all this, too There is a negative part behind doing physical exercise. Its side effects. If we accept exercise as a drugwe must also accept that every drug has a leaflet, specific doses and of course some adverse effects. That is why as a society we have the problem of having begun to sell the fact of “exercising” in a generic way, ignoring the fine print that this task has, as recognized by the Spanish Heart Foundation itself. And it has a very simple solution: personalizing physical exercises per patient. The problem of metaphor. The slogan “exercise as medicine” is undoubtedly an excellent marketing campaign within the world of public health, but for science there are several important flaws. As different scientific studies point out, exercise does not act like a classic drugsince it does not have a predictable response in a patient as if it occurs as a pill. This forces us to always think that the effect can be very different for each person. In this way, by calling exercise a drug we can make invisible the diversity of individual responses. And there is no universal “squat pill”, since doing this exercise in a specific person can be very beneficial, but in another it can be be the origin of a pathology due to overload. And all because we throw ourselves into exercise without planning how to do it, since we find it very easy to pick up some weights and start building biceps. The damage numbers. We often hear that it is a great danger to stay sitting on the couch, and it is true because they are many diseases related to a sedentary lifestyle. But according to different studies done in the United States, people who meet or exceed the recommendations for moderate or vigorous exercise They have a 44 to 66% chance of developing musculoskeletal injuries. than subjects who remain inactive. In addition to this, although cardiovascular health improves with physical exercise because the heart reduces its heart rate, for example, the “maintenance cost” of the physical body increases dramatically with the amount of exercise done. A question of biases. Without a doubt, this is one of the most critical points that scientific literature reveals regarding the lack of transparency in clinical trials related to exercise. This is something that was seen in an analysis that included 103 trials on knee osteoarthritis, where it was found that 6% of the participants suffered direct damage from this exercise. But the most worrying thing is not the number, but the low information: many patients who abandon studies due to pain or discomfort are not classified as “victims of adverse effects”, which generates an artificially high perception of safety. This problem is repeated in oncology, where the motto “exercise is medicine in oncology” live with non-trivial adverse events which have forced us to propose much stricter monitoring systems to protect patients. We pass each other sometimes. The underlying problem in this case is undoubtedly recommending intensive or complex programs without a clear benefit/harm relationship compared to an alternative that is much simpler. But, on the other hand, we also fall into the phenomenon of “quaternary prevention” making medicine focus on avoiding harm from its own interventions. by overmedicalizingnullifying the benefits of physical exercise. The necessary consensus. In this way, the authors who popularized the concept of ‘exercise as medicine’ explicitly recognize that exercise is not without risks. Even the WHO itself In its guides it maintains that inactivity is the greatest population risk, but there is fine print that must be taken into account: Exercise should be ‘prescribed’ starting with a low intensity, and not opt ​​for maximum intensity from the first day. This causes a person who has spent years on a couch to begin to carry a lot of weight, for example, and end up injured. Pain is not always bad, and the patient must be educated so that they see that fatigue from the gym does not have to be medicalized with pills. Patients with cardiac risk must be evaluated to prevent uncontrolled exercise from aggravating the situation. Be supervised. The conclusion in this case is that exercise is obviously necessary and without a doubt it is one of the practices that can prevent the appearance of many diseases. But we always have to be aware of what we do. Loading the body with a large amount of exercise from minute 0 can cause significant injuries or the aggravation of diseases that are already present. In this way, the possibility of being in a gym with trainers who can advise on the progression curve that should be followed can be an interesting idea to have the benefit of exercise without the consequences of doing it aggressively. Images | Jonathan Borba In Xataka | Doing cardio or strength training: for science there is no debate about which is the ideal exercise after 50

Science has investigated why we bite our nails or leave everything until the last minute: “controlled explosions”

by

Biting our nails until it hurts, bingeing on junk food after a stressful day either open TikTok just when we have to start workingit is not an irritating habit that we would like to erase from our daily lives. But the reality is that science is beginning to see these behaviors in a radically different way: as a protection strategy for the organism. The brain seeks survival. As pointed out by different experts such as clinical psychologist Charlie Heriot-Maitland, author of Controlled Explosions in Mental Healthour brain prefers to inflict controlled “microdamage” on itself rather than face a greater and unpredictable threat. And the premise from which affective neuroscience and evolutionary psychology start is forceful: our brain is not programmed for us to be happy, but it is programmed to seek survival. Which is precisely what we did thousands of years ago when we tried to hunt or flee from predators. Systems that are still very present in our genetics. A hypersensitive system. This threat detection system is hypersensitive today. In the modern world we do not have to flee from a predator, but criticism from the boss or the fear of failing in a project activates the same alarms that a predator in the savanna activated in our ancestors. And faced with this unbearable stress, the brain looks for an escape route that acts as a “safety valve.” This is what Heriot-Maitland calls “controlled explosions.” Nail biting. Why can something as absurd as biting your nails or picking your skin be “protective”? The key is predictability. And in a chaotic world and an emotional, abstract and difficult to manage threat, cause us a little physical damage (like biting a cuticle), causes the brain to divert attention towards a specific, real stimulus and, above all, under our control. In this way it works as a “costly signal”, since we prefer a small and known damage to cushion emotional pain that we perceive as potentially devastating. Procrastinating is not laziness. scientific literature speaks in this sense of the self-handicapping (self-limitation), which suggests that we put obstacles on ourselves to protect our self-esteem. This way, if you stop studying for an exam and fail, you can tell yourself, “I failed because I didn’t study.” It’s a small damage to your ego. However, if you study to the maximum and fail, the conclusion is much more painful: “I failed because I am not capable.” The brain prefers the narrative of lack of effort (microdamage) rather than facing the threat of incompetence that poses greater emotional damage to anyone. It is not exclusive to us. In nature, there are numerous social insects that resort to defensive self-immolation in order to save their colony, as we already saw. In our case, the mechanism is something like this: we sacrifice our current well-being, such as physical health, to reduce a perceived long-term risk. The problem is that this system is designed for life or death situations, not to manage the chronic stress of the 21st century. In this way, what began as a useful defense ends up becoming a self-defeating pattern that generates more anxiety than it relieves. How to avoid it. If we understand that modern nails or procrastination are defense mechanisms, the solution changes completely. In this way, modern therapies, such as Compassion Focused Therapy, They propose that the first step It is not fighting against the habit, but understanding the reason for its existence. The most important thing in this case is not to punish yourself, since self-criticism is perceived by the brain as other threatens more, which reinforces the need to resort to the destructive habit to calm down. In this way, if we generate security, the brain will not have the need to cause these “controlled explosions.” Images | Sander Sammy Tim Gouw In Xataka | Procrastination is one of the great temptations of the mind. There are techniques to avoid it, according to science

Science reveals that the weight returns four times faster than with a diet

by

The era of “miracle” drugs to treat obesity is entering a phase of crude scientific maturity, thanks to the time that has passed since its launch on the market. In this way, despite the years with big headlines pointing to great weight losses with Ozempic, science is now able to provide more answers to the key question What we should ask ourselves: what happens when we stop pricking ourselves? The problem. When a drug is newly released to the market, long term effects It is something that is not known exactly, since patients need to be taking them long enough to see the effects they cause. And above all the effect that exists when the drug is removed from the body. To answer this with Ozempic we have a study led by the University of Oxford which is not minor at all, since it has analyzed more than 9,300 adults in 37 different clinical trials. And the conclusion they have been able to draw is quite clear: patients regain weight when they stop treatment at a rate of 0.4 kg per month. The comparison. At first glance, this figure seems really low, but if we compare it with other methods to lose weight, we see that the magnitude of the problem is not minuscule. The study itself indicates that in behavioral programs, such as a diet and an increase in physical activity, the effect after its withdrawal is an increase of 0.1 kg per month. This way, the rebound effect of slimming drugs It causes you to return to your initial weight in approximately a year and a half, while a change in eating and sports behavior takes around four years. New generation drugs. But this is a simple average between the different medications on the market. This implies that within GLP-1 agonists we can see that the most powerful drugs also have a much greater rebound effect. For example, in the case of Wegovy or Mounjaro, where the initial loss was 14.7kg, the rebound was seen to shoot up to 0.8kg per month. An effect that tells us that the body tries to recover lost ground at twice the speed of previous generation drugs. Cardiovascular health. Beyond the aesthetic, science pointed out that these drugs had the ability to reduce the risk of heart attacks and improve the metabolic health. But it seems these effects are completely temporary. Specifically, the study has seen that approximately a year and a half after stopping the medication, the majority of cardiometabolic markers return to their levels before starting treatment. For example, blood pressure increases, diabetes markers reverse their improvement, and total cholesterol also returns to its risk levels. Why the rebound is so fast. The answer to this could lie in our own biology. Science believes that this effect is due to the fact that by injecting massive doses of GLP-1 agonists (a hormone that is produced in small quantities when we eat) we could be destabilizing our own cell receptors. Or we would even be blocking our body’s natural production of this hormone that gives us satiety. That is why when withdrawing the drugthe system does not have the ability to produce this hormone again in the same way as before (as if it had to turn the system back on) and that is why the body’s satiety system goes deaf. The result? Well, logically, the appetite returns with great intensity, causing the patient to eat much more food, since they are not satiated and in this way the weight increases again. The myth of the magic bullet. There are hardly any miracles in medicine, even though we say that these drugs are. And the reality is that these drugs are not the definitive solution for obesity, since real data indicates that the majority of patients stop treatment after 12 months due to its high cost, the fatigue of injecting or side effects. But in addition, there is no awareness that this treatment is a simple aid to self-regulation, but that logically it must be accompanied by a dietary change and physical activity that must be continued once the treatment is finished. If not, we can be sure that the injections will be of absolutely no use. A paradigm shift. This meta-analysis marks a turning point. Science tells us that GLP-1 is extraordinarily effective, but it is not a cure. If we treat them as a six-month “crash plan”, we are condemning the patient to a more aggressive yo-yo effect than any miracle diet of the past. The solution, according to Qi Sun and the Oxford researchers, is not only in the syringe, but in public policy: taxes on ultra-processed foods, aid in the purchase of fruits and vegetables, and urban planning that encourages exercise. Without a change in environment, the drug is just a temporary truce in a war the body is programmed to win. Images | David Trinks Towfiqu barbhuiya In Xataka | If you want a “miracle” weight loss drug, you no longer turn to Ozempic: the competition is beginning to surpass 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.