Science

Washing chicken “to clean it” sounds hygienic. Science says it’s a bad idea (and very dangerous)

by

“Chicken should never be washed.” This time, it was Higinio Gómez (one of the most renowned gourmet polleros in Spain) who reopened the debate in an interview in El País. But the issue is recurrent and inexplicably generates very opposing positions: from those convinced that washing chicken is a way to “remove germs or dirt” to those who, rightly, say that it is a terrible idea. But, as Gómez himself would say in his establishment, ‘let’s go in parts’. What’s wrong with the chicken? Let’s start with the most basic: nothing happens to the chicken. The risk linked to ‘washing chicken’ has nothing to do with the chicken itself. It has to do with cross contamination: the bacteria from raw chicken (which would be eliminated during preparation) transfer to the hands, sink, countertops, and various utensils. Often, in fact, when washing chicken we end up putting those bacteria in foods that are ready to eat. The EFSA estimated in billions of euros annually the impact of pollution Campylobacter (a bug especially linked to chicken). Sometimes it’s because you cook it wrong, yes; but often it is due to handling raw food without any type of rigor. What the evidence says. In a now classic observational study by the North American USDA, was discovered that, in fact, what I just explained was what really happened: among those who washed the chicken, 60% contaminated the sink and up to 26% ended up transferring bacteria to the salad. And, in fact, we already have experimental studies that explain the mechanism: beyond the obvious, “washing generates droplets capable of transferring bacteria and increasing environmental pollution” And why do people insist on washing it? That’s a good question with numerous answers: from the cultural and historical heritage (after all, when the chicken was slaughtered at home, washing did make more sense) to a lack of sense of control that ends up turning against us. Let’s be practical: How to avoid cross contamination when cooking chicken? Separate raw chicken from other foods: It is a good idea to keep the chicken raw separated from other foods. This is always true, but especially with all those that are consumed raw (such as fruits and vegetables). Use different utensils: We have talked about it with the cutting boardsbut it is especially effective advice with knives and other utensils. In fact, the recommendation is that, if we do not have several sets of utensils, wash them carefully between uses with hot water and soap. Wash hands and surfaces thoroughly: After handling raw chicken, you should not only wash your hands with soap and hot water for at least 20 seconds; Instead, we should disinfect all surfaces with which it has been in contact. Image | Christian Guillen / Imani In Xataka | Washing raw chicken increases risk of foodborne infection

Women consistently sleep worse than men. And science has finally discovered why it is

by

For years we have been able to have a perception in many homes: the women tend to sleep worse, wake up more and feel more tired than men. This is something that for a long time has been dismissed as a subjective perception, but Science has now wanted to close the debate, pointing out that it is not only a perception, but that there is a gender gap documented. The data. The Global Sleep Survey 2025carried out on a massive sample of more than 30,000 people in 13 countries, has produced a key figure: 38% of women have problems falling asleep more than three times a week, compared to 29% of men. Something that in Spain is not a very different situation, since according to the cross-sectional studies recently published in Naturewomen have much higher scores on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), indicating worse subjective quality. In this way, while 44.6% of Spanish women report poor sleep quality, in men the figure drops to 30.1%. A paradox. Tests with motion sensors suggest that women sometimes have higher “sleep efficiency” on paper, but it is perceived as greater exhaustion. The person responsible for this is the sleep fragmentationwhich is related to constant waking up or even in mothers due to having to get up to care for a baby, for example. The hormonal factor. It is undoubtedly one of the big differences that exist between men and women, since estrogen and progesterone levels fluctuate drastically during the menstrual cycle, pregnancy or menopause. In the specific case of menopause it can be seen as a drop in the level of estrogen, in addition to produce alterations in bone formationalso increases the immediate degradation of rest. The data indicates that 51% of the Menopausal women suffer from sleep disordersshown a big difference: 44% of women in this stage report serious problems compared to 33% of non-menopausal women. If we go to pregnancywe see something similar with physical (from discomfort) and hormonal disruptions that create a pattern of alertness that often doesn’t fully recover until years after childbirth. The mental load. Beyond the hormonal load, the social factor is, perhaps, the most difficult to correct. One of the most important is the role that women have in many cases regarding the care of other people. According to the data compiled by the University of Michigan and diverse reviews on BMJ Openemployed women wake up twice as often as their partners to care for children or dependent relatives, even when they are the main breadwinners of the home. This “caretaker” role keeps the brain in an “alert” situation, making it attentive to whether a baby cries at night or a dependent family member has any need. This causes 76% of caregivers to report poor sleep quality.since the brain cannot unconsciously disconnect to monitor the well-being of the environment. Its consequences. Poor sleep not only means being tired the next day, but also has more serious clinical consequences. One of the most important is the increase in the probability of having a metabolic diseasesuch as diabetes. In addition, it increases accelerated cognitive deterioration and causes an increase in anxiety and depression disorders. And what is interesting in this case is that the female brain in sleep deprivation is more vulnerable to emotional dysregulation. The solution. The scientific community, from the Sleep Research Institute (IIS) to publications in Frontiers in Psychiatryagrees that it is not enough to increase “sleep hygiene” by leaving your cell phone before going to sleep, for example. It mainly aims at social therapy, making changes in the structure of the home that avoid fragmentation of sleep by getting up to take care of someone, for example. But logically, if you are in a perimenopause situation, you should also choose to go to the doctor to receive pharmacological treatment whenever there is significant hormonal deregulation. Images | Slaapwijsheid.nl In Xataka | If you fall asleep in less than five minutes, you don’t have a “superpower”: it’s a warning signal from your brain

Science has discovered that the original “home” of primates was the cold of the north

by

The mental image is almost universal: an ape-like ancestor jumping among vines in a hot, humid jungle. For almost a century, paleoanthropology has assumed that primates are children of the tropics, however, an ambitious study published in PNAS by researcher Jorge Avaria-Llautureo and his team has blown up this paradigm, since they have seen that the primates were not looking for the sun. The ‘Tropical Dogma’. Until now, the predominant theory regarding evolution pointed out that primates evolved in warm, stable climateswhere food, such as fruits, were available all year round. In this way, it would only be millions of years later when some species had ventured into more hostile climates such as extreme cold. A great twist of script. Science has changed this paradigm by analyzing data from none other than 66 million years of history. To do this they have crossed the fossil record with climatic reconstructions that were made with great precision to see that the ancestors of all current primates originated in environments that had significantly low temperatures. Nothing to do with the tropical and arid landscapes that we may have had in mind until now. Survival training. How is it possible that a species that we associate with the jungle was born in areas that today would be equivalent to temperate or even boreal forests? The answer is in the adaptability. Science points in this case to the fact that early primates lived at high latitudes in the northern hemisphere, as is Eurasia and North America. And at that time, they were not constant paradises, since the animals had to deal with months of cold where the plants did not bear fruit. Your adaptation. This forced primates to stop being “fruit specialists” and become generalists capable of eating insects, shoots or bark, when the weather got bad enough. And this was crucial for their biology, since their metabolism was forced to adapt to these extreme conditions, which resulted in a brutal competitive advantage when they finally expanded. The researchers point out that this metabolic adaptation to tolerate adverse climates was the basis on which their evolutionary success was based. The paradox of the Tropics. If they were born in the cold, why do almost everyone live on the equator today? The study reveals a fascinating phenomenon: southward migration. And as the global climate changed, primates moved towards tropical bands. There they found an environment where their ‘survival kit’, which was developed in very harsh conditions, allowed them to thrive with great ease. That is why the Tropics were not where primates were made, but rather it is where they diversified explosively because, compared to the north, life there was much easier and they had a large amount of food. In short, the tropics were a refuge for biodiversity, but the spark that makes us primates was lit in the cold. Change the rules of the game. In addition to seeing the past differently with this new study, it also forces us to look at the future differently. Specifically, understanding how species moved between thermal niches over millions of years is vital to predicting how today’s primates will respond to climate change. global warming accelerated. But it also lets us see that if primates have an important history of resistance to cold and seasonal scarcity, it opens the door to our own ability as humans to colonize all corners of the planet as a form of evolution. Images | Anthony In Xataka | Human evolution has not stopped: in fact, there are reasons to think that it is more accelerated than ever

The problem with animal experimentation is not a lack of ethics, it is that science still does not have a plan B

by

Scientific research is very necessary for a society to advance with new treatments to alleviate diseases, for example. But there is a big problem behind it that still lingers and that for many people may be incomprehensible: the use of laboratory animals to test these new advances before doing them in humans. And, as recognized by the Spanish scientific community: “we would use alternative methods if we could.” A paradox. Although we live in a time in which artificial intelligence and bioengineering dominate the current paradigm of society, we continue to depend on a frame designed in 1959 to validate whether a drug is safe or not. This happens for the use of animal experimentationwhich has been a major ethical conflict within science for years. The problem is that despite all the advances that exist, the use, for example, of a laboratory mouse cannot be replaced due to the lack of an alternative that is as complete as this one. The problem. The regulatory framework that is currently on the table focuses on the 3R principle proposed by Russell and Burch more than 60 years ago: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement. A theory that a priori seems quite noble, since In a few words it can be summarized in: if you can not use animals, don’t use them; If you have to use them, use as few as possible; and if you use them, do them as little damage as possible. However, as science itself has analyzed, this framework has become ‘procedural’. That is to say, it has become a list of bureaucratic tasks that legitimizes the use of animals under the pretext that it is a necessary evil that we must assume to continue advancing as a society. The ethics. The bioethical analyzes carried out on this matter focus on the type of studies that are approved to use animals. And it is not analyzed at this point whether it will contribute much or little to scientific knowledge, but rather how the proposed experiment is designed. This way, if an experiment is well designed, it is approved to use animals. All this despite the fact that their contribution to knowledge is marginal or insignificant. Something that creates an “ethical hole”: we continue to assume certain animal harm in exchange for an uncertain or diffuse human benefit. The great promise. If ethics pushes us to change, technology should give us the tool to do so. This is where NAMs (New Approach Methods) come into play, which focus on AI simulations of organisms, organs on a chip or organoids. In this way, we can understand this advance as the cultivation of mini-brains or human kidneys in the laboratory to work with them. Something that on paper seems like a great idea, since we would be testing drugs with human cells directly, eliminating the problem of testing on a different species. The problem. When we go down to the technical detail, we find a large wall in front of us. As the experts explainthese technologies cover specific niches, such as the damage that a drug can do to the liver, but they cannot replicate the entire film. Because an organism is not only the effect on an organ, but how all the systems that we have interconnected influence. The problems encountered They can mainly be summarized in several points: There is no possibility of creating a blood system that cleans the tissue and nourishes it as occurs in the real organism. There is no immune or nervous system that can react to the drug or generate pain in an organ. In a chip with an ‘organ’ inside, the effect of the drug cannot be simulated several years from now. Prohibited areas. With all these points, there are fields as important as autoimmune diseases (when the body attacks its own cells) where These models are irreplaceable. All this because it is necessary to see the simultaneous interaction of all the organs in a living being. Regulation. Currently there are different organizations that try to prevent a drug from killing a person, such as the FDA in the United States and the EMA in Europe. Both agencies to approve a trial of a drug in humans demand massive security data that are taken from the animals themselves. In this way, the alternatives are not used massively because they are not validated by these organizations that require the use of animal models in their standards. An attitude that perpetuates the system, which for many is truly crazy, since science depends on animals if it wants to continue developing drugs that improve the lives of citizens. All this because no committee places more value on the life of a mouse than that of a human. The future. In the short term we will not see a big change in this aspect. Organoids and AI It does not seem that they are going to suddenly replace animal modelsbut will act as complementary systems to reduce the number used in laboratories. Images | Matthew Mejia In Xataka | Researchers removed Instagram and TikTok from 300 young people to see if their anxiety decreased. The results speak for themselves

We have been failing with New Year’s resolutions for decades. Science says it’s because we don’t know how to “cheat”

by

January starts with a predictable ritual: paying gym membership, fill the fridge with kale or buy paintbrushes for a new hobby. It is the “clean slate effect” that defines Professor Katy Milkman. Human beings do not perceive time linearly, but rather like chapters of a novel. The New Year is the “Black Friday” of new beginnings; a symbolic border that makes us believe that the “me” of last year—the one who didn’t know how to draw a line without looking like a preschooler—has finally died. In fact, 4,000 years ago the Babylonians they already made promises at the Akitu festival to appease their gods. The difference is that they sought to avoid divine wrath and we simply sought to avoid the guilt in the mirror. The autopsy of a failure foretold. Despite our enthusiasm, the statistics are devastating. According to the media Selphonly one in five people manages to stick to their long-term resolutions. Most of us throw in the towel before the month is over, because we always make the same mistake: wanting to be a different person overnight. We want to eat healthy, meditate, travel and be experts in some subject, all at the same time. The problem is that we focus obsessively on the result (losing 10 kilos) and not on the process (enjoying the taste of a new recipe). Added to this is what psychologist Kimberley Wilson describes how the danger of “forbidden words”. Using terms like “always” or “never” puts us in an “all or nothing” trap. If work gets complicated on a Wednesday and you can’t go to paint or eat a pizza, you feel like the entire year is a failure. It’s tunnel vision that ignores that life is, by definition, unpredictable. Furthermore, today we have a new enemy: metrics. As behavioral experts saywe have gone “from enjoyment to performance.” We no longer read for pleasure, but to update the counter. goodreads; We do not run for health, but to not break the streak of Strava. This culture of productivity applied to leisure turns our hobbies into a second working day. If the app says we haven’t complied, guilt appears. The science of “traps”: The method of temptation. What if the key to compliance was not military discipline, but rather being a little “cheatful”? Katy Milkman, behavior change expert, confesses her own trick in an interview with the Washington Post: he “temptation bundling” (temptation pairing). When he was a student, he hated exercising but loved Harry Potter. His solution was to allow himself to listen to the audiobooks of the saga only while he was at the gym. “It made me want to go to work out,” he explains. It’s basically using a guilty pleasure to “bribe” our brain into a healthy habit. This idea is complemented by the “Habit Stacking” (habit stacking). Instead of reaching for willpower you don’t have, “glue” your new purpose to something you already do automatically. Want to learn that paint stroke? Do a five-minute sketch right after your morning coffee. Want to finish that Pinterest scarf? Do ten rows while watching your favorite Netflix series. You don’t add effort, you just take advantage of the architecture of your current routine. Less “goals”, more “values”. From Harvard University, Dr. Aisha Usmani suggests that we see change as “shaping a sculpture”: It is done by removing pieces of stone little by little, not all at once. Cognitive science tells us that if you want to paint, don’t set out to do one canvas a day; Start with one a week. And above all, align your goals with your personal values, not with external pressure. If crochet stresses you, perhaps it does not respond to your value of “creativity”, but rather to an aesthetic imposition. According to Usmani, We must ask ourselves every day: “Is this still important to me?” If the answer is no, adjusting course is not failure, it is being flexible. Self-compassion as a strategy. We cannot forget the weight of the treatment we give to ourselves. As the psychologist Ángel Rull explains in his columnmany resolutions are born from “being fed up with oneself” and not from self-care. If you join the gym because you hate your body, there is a good chance you will quit. If you do it to feel more energetic, the commitment changes. Another interesting note is how we talk about our setbacks. A recent study highlights the difference between saying that we didn’t “have time” and that we didn’t “make time.” While the first sounds like an external excuse, the second implies active control over our agenda: if we didn’t do it today, we can decide to do it tomorrow. According to this research, focusing the cause of failure on external factors and not on our lack of will is the best lifesaver for our confidence. A more human 2026. In short, we are not computers that restart on January 1st. The real change is not about saturating our to-do list, but about transforming initial fatigue into real self-care. If this year you want to start lifting some weights or for your painting stroke to gain firmness, science gives you permission to be a strategist: combine effort with pleasure through temptation bundlingopt for small things—because a page read will always be better than an abandoned book—and accept that perseverance necessarily includes days of hiatus. In the end, perhaps the best resolution for this year is not to become an “optimized” version of ourselves, but to stop treating ourselves as a defective project that must be fixed by decree. The key to success this year lies not in military discipline, but in the ability to begin to see ourselves as someone who is simply trying to live with a little more presence, realistic tools and, above all, a little less guilt. Image | freepik Xataka | Neither board games nor karaoke: ‘Word on Beat’ is the new king of the living room and proof that we prefer rhythmic chaos

Science suggests that economic stress ages the heart

by

For decades, cardiovascular medicine has operated under an almost immovable dogma: If you want to protect your heart you have to watch your dietexercise and control blood pressure. However, science has begun to see that there are other social factors that can also be very important, such as the status of personal bank accounts. The study. In order to reach this conclusion that aims to drastically change an authentic dogma of medicine, the Mayo Clinic has analyzed more than 280,000 patients thanks to the artificial intelligence application. To do this, the AI ​​has analyzed the patients’ conventional medical tests and their history. In this way, researchers have discovered that the factors that accelerate the biological clock the most of the heart is not always in the medical history, but in the bank account and in the shopping basket. The ‘invisible’ age. The technological core of this discovery is found in an AI algorithm applied to electrocardiograms. In this way, unlike the analysis carried out by a cardiologist who looks for arrhythmias or abnormalities in the conduction of the heart, this learning model analyzes changes in the electrocardiogram that are very subtle in the electrical signals that can go unnoticed by the human eye. In this way, the algorithm can estimate something that science calls “heart age.” From here, when the researchers compared the figure with the patient’s actual age, a cardiac age gap emerged. That is, there were people with a heart that looked older than it should, which is a much more accurate predictor of mortality than some traditional markers. The social impact. Now the question that science asks is why. The results of the study published in Mayo Clinic Procedures, place financial stress and food insecurity as the most aggressive social determinants of health (SDH). In this way, what the study demonstrates is that constant worry about payment, rent, mortgage or the increase in the cost of basic foods generates a state of physiological wear and tear that AI detects as premature aging of cardiovascular tissue. The reasons. At a biological level, this phenomenon is explained through the chronic stress response. Economic uncertainty keeps the body in a state of permanent “alert”, triggering levels of cortisol and adrenaline. This prolonged hormonal overexposure damages the vascular endothelium and alters heart rate variability, effects that the Mayo Clinic algorithm identifies as signs of an aging heart. Surprisingly, the study indicates that the impact of this precariousness can equal or even exceed the risk posed by physical inactivity or chronic diseases such as diabetes in terms of accelerated mortality. From loneliness to inflation. This work is not an isolated event, but the culmination of a line of research that the Mayo Clinic has reinforced in recent years. In 2024, the same team used AI to show that social isolation acts in the opposite way: having strong support networks and community ties works as a biological “brake” that slows down the aging of the heart. However, the new 2025 study is the first to prioritize economic factors over clinical ones. Change the rules of the game. This finding reminds us of the importance that in clinical practice, beyond seeing results of tests or electrocardiograms, we must also know that in front of the doctor there is a human patient. And not only is the high cholesterol in the analysis important, but there are also many social problems behind him that can interfere with his pathology and that doctors should be aware of. The relevance of this work lies in its ability to prioritize. While other previous studies already talked about social stress, this is the first to use AI models to quantify exactly how economic precariousness “rusts” the heart muscle compared to traditional medical factors. Images | Robina Weermeijer Christian Erfurt In Xataka | Half of employees say they work under constant stress: they would give up 21% of their salary to avoid it

If the question is why today’s songs are so simple, science has the answer: because we are.

by

I belong to a generation that screamed singing Queen songsLast in line or Extrememoduro that they sounded on a cassette. Therefore, it has not gone unnoticed by me that, in the last five decades, music has changed. The letters they have become simplermore repetitive and loaded with negative emotions or stress. This shows it a data analysis about more than 20,000 songs that occupied the Billboard Hot 100 between 1973 and 2023 published in the magazine Scientific Reports. This phenomenon does not just happen. In reality, it is our own reflection, and the result of profound social transformations, of how we feel, consume and live our lives. A study that traces an underlying trend. He study Conducted by researchers at the University of Vienna, it has analyzed the lyrics of popular American songs over a period of five decades, measuring three key variables: presence of stress-related vocabulary, general emotional tone (positivity or negativity) and lyrical complexity based on repetition metrics and word variety. The result has led researchers to be able to affirm that, from the seventies to today, the use of words associated with stress has increased, the proportion of positive expressions has fallen and the structures of the letters have been simplified. What does it mean that they are “simpler”? According what was published by Forbesthis pattern is also seen in other investigations that compare songs from different genres over the years and their conclusions are the same: the lyrics of current songs tend to repeat more simple phrases, express intense emotions (such as anger or sadness) directly, and use fewer metaphors or complex images than in the past. Saying that the songs are simpler does not only mean that they are easy to remember, but that their lexicon and structure have been losing richness and complexity. Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2016 “for having created new poetic expressions within the great tradition of American song.” With all the respects to Bad Bunnybut I don’t see him as a candidate for the 2026 Nobel Prize due to the depth of his lyrics. The algorithm enjoys it. In technical terms, letters that are repeated frequently and use less distinctive vocabulary are more “comprehensible” for algorithms that measure textual complexity. Not only does this make it easier for them to stick in the listener’s head (raise your hand if you’ve never woken up with a catchy song in your head), but it also responds to how we consume music today. In times of streaming and algorithmic listscatchy and repetitive themes compete better for attention. The change in music has occurred in parallel with the rise of rapid consumption platforms and more fragmented forms of listening. The artists they don’t even play it anymore releasing a good album. Not even with a single, but they compete in a context where the first chorus decides whether the listener continues or skips to the next song. That competition for attention It explains the rise of simple structures and quick hooks, but it also influences the type of emotions that predominate in the lyrics. A mirror of our collective anxiety. According to the conclusions of the University of Vienna study, the greater presence of terms associated with stress, anxiety or conflict is correlated with emotional state of society. As diagnoses of anxiety and depression increased in the population, an increase in negative language in cultural works has also been detected. This does not mean that music causes these states, but rather that it turns them into a space of expression. As and as I emphasized Patricia L. Sabbatella, professor of music at the University of Cádiz, “Music is part of everyday life, fulfilling different uses and functions ranging from entertainment, social cohesion, communication, emotional expression and regulation to learning, relaxation or entertainment.” Therefore, this transformation responds to the function of music as a barometer and emotional regulator of society. It is his reflection and at the same time his therapy.. “Surprisingly, social shocks like COVID-19 coincided with attenuations rather than amplifications of these trends, indicating a preference for emotion-incongruent music,” the researchers noted. What music tells us about ourselves. Although the average negativity and stress has increased, it does not mean that all music is gloomy or empty of meaning. There are artists and songs that challenge these trends. What the study indicates is the dominant pattern, not that all music is like this. One of the conclusions of the study is that if popular songs are now, in general, simpler, negative and stressful, it is because this phenomenon appears as a reflection of societies with accelerated rhythms, high levels of anxiety and a relationship with digital culture that favors the immediate and emotionally intense. Music is not the cause, but it is a sensitive mirror of how we feel and how we communicate. In that sense, understanding these changes not only helps explain why a hit from the seventies sounds different from the current onebut also what kind of roles music plays today. In Xataka | Angie Corine has made a name for herself in the Spanish rap scene with an unexpected commercial twist: she is right-wing Image | Unsplash (Eric Nopanen)

2,000 years ago, Seneca said that “it is not that we have little time to live, but that we keep wasting it.” Science agrees

by

20 centuries ago, a man from Cordoba who had been quaestor, praetor, senator and consul of Rome and tutor to Emperors sat down to write a small treatise on the brevity of life. That was where he wrote that “it is not that we have little time to live, but that we waste a lot.” That phrase has spanned decades and decades, sticking in the minds of thousands of people and illuminating their lives. Or, simply, filling out internet pages that we have learned to consume as if it were any other entertainment product. A very popular one, by the way. In recent months, the Internet has been filled with Seneca quotes. The head of this report is one of them, but not the only one (“If you want to find true happiness, do not look for it in the great or the new, but in the serenity that simplicity brings.“, “there is no favorable wind for those who do not know where they are going“, “It is not that we have little time to live, but that we waste a lot“, etc, etc. ). And it’s curious… Does it make sense to go back to types from 2,000 years ago to solve our modern-day problems? And surprisingly it may be so. That’s what Philosophy professor Christopher Gill asked himself a few years ago.What if all that philosophical gossip goes further? “To what extent can we moderns recognize in these essays a plausible response to mental illness?” he asked. His answer, after studying Stoics and Aristotelians, is that Seneca’s texts; but, in general, these “philosophical essays were designed to function as a psychological analogue of the ancient medical regime.” What we would call today “lifestyle management” or “preventive medicine.” And, therefore, beyond the ‘pop philosophy’ of recent years, it is possible to find something of value in all those classic texts. Some of value, but not everything. In 1965, when she entered the Chinese Academy of Traditional Medicine, chemist Tu Youyou entered into a very long race to analyze each and every one of the remedies that the ancient Chinese civilization had been selecting. Most of them were pure pseudoscience, of course. A mixture of superstition, credulity and placebo. However, hidden among the trickery, there were real gems. The best example is the artemisinina revolutionary treatment against malaria. A treatment that earned him the Nobel Prize in 2015. It was sold like a Nobel Prize for traditional medicine, yes; but in reality, it was a Nobel for the slow work of screening, testing and discarding by the Ningbo scientist. That is what should be done with the practical philosophy of the Greeks and Romans. And, in this case, it seems that Seneca was right. First of all, because we have systematic biases that they push us to postpone and waste time. Secondly, because much of the “lost time” is not even conscious: it is pure “cognitive friction” (interruptions, multitasking, attention waste, etc.). And finally, because, according to available evidencewhen we reduce the lack of time, well-being increases. That is to say, it is not so much that we lack time as that we do not have a “well-lived” life. How do we fit all this together? Well, very good. Because “all this”, moreover, fits into the general idea not only of Seneca’s pamphlet in which it appears; but in the general outline of Stoic philosophy. And it is worth remembering that under all the naturalistic scaffolding of the philosophy of the old Stoics there was, above all, an ethical question: an imperative to live in accordance with nature (a, by the way, very rationalist vision of nature). In this sense, the Stoics they used to pay attention to what the human being could or could not do: since you have limited control over the length of your life, you must focus on how you live it; They told us while they invited us to order our behavior through moral criteria by dint of attention and peace of mind. Image | Fabio Comperelli | Prado Museum In Xataka | What is Stoicism, the Greek philosophy from 2,000 years ago that has become fashionable again today

There is an obsession with protein to gain more and more muscle. Science has more and more doubts that it works

by

Until not so long ago, protein was a technical term, linked to clinical nutrition and sports. Today it has become a cultural symbol. Under what some have called the era of Protein Chicprotein is no longer just a nutrient, but a promise: for health, body control and active aging. Eating well has come to mean, almost automatically, eating “with protein.” The market pushes. This change has consolidated an idea that is as simple as it is deceptive: that if protein is good, the more it is, the better. However, while the market push this logic Without nuances, the human body continues to function with very specific limits. And there arises the question that rarely accompanies packaging and slogans: how much protein do we really need to age well, and at what point does it stop adding up? What does science really say? This is where the noise of marketing collides with the evidence. In an extensive report published by The Washington PostProfessor Stuart Phillips, leading researcher in protein metabolism, muscle health and aging at McMaster University (Canada), issues a clear warning: “Consuming more and more protein is not necessarily better. There are no infinite benefits associated with higher intake.” Phillips is not a marginal voice in this debate. He has been studying for decades how nutrition and exercise interact to slow age-related loss of muscle mass —sarcopenia—and he is one of the scientists most cited in this field. His message dismantles much of the dominant narrative. So, let’s get to the data. The classic recommendation of 0.8 grams of protein per kilo of body weight —the well-known recommended daily intake (RDA)— is usually interpreted as an objective to achieve. In reality, it is designed as a minimum to avoid malnutrition. According to Stuart Phillipswhen the focus is on aging healthily and preserving muscle mass, the evidence points to somewhat higher ranges, always combined with strength training. This approach fits with what was published by harvard and Mayo Clinicpoint out that exceeding intakes close to 2 grams per kilo of body weight rarely provides clear advantages to the general population. Instead, they insist on the need to adapt the amount of protein to age, physical activity and health status. Protein: necessary, but not miraculous. It is worth remembering something basic that is often lost in public conversation: the body does not store protein. Once the needs are met, the excess is used as energy or transformed into fat. Eating more protein, by itself, does not build muscle. As they remember from Mayo Clinic: “Muscle is built by strength training, not by shaking.” From 40 or 50 years old, the equation changes slightly. The progressive loss of muscle mass begins and here protein takes on a strategic role, but always in combination with resistance exercise. Spreading the protein throughout the day (between 15 and 30 grams per meal) and not concentrating it only at dinner seems more effective in stimulating muscle synthesis, a point that also underlines the McMaster University researcher. The word of the year: protein. At least in the nutritional field, because – for those who want to know – the word of the year has been “tariff”, and no wonder. But getting back to the topic at hand, protein has sneaked in on social networks, in cafes and in viral morning routines. And going further, the new ritual of well-being involves coffees protein, clear protein, functional supplements and smoothies that promise sculpted bodies. This obsession coexists with other contemporary phenomena: the fear of aging, the cult of the “perfect” body and the popularization of weight loss drugs like Ozempic. In this context, protein is sold almost as a talisman: it satisfies, slims, tones and protects against aging. Nutritionists, however, are more cautious. Many agree that we are paying a premium for ultra-processed products that do not provide more benefits than the real food that we already have at home: eggs, legumes, fish or natural yogurt. The origin of the protein. Another important turn in this debate. We come to a meta-analysis that shows that following patterns like the Planetary Health Dietrich in plant proteins, is associated with both lower mortality and a lower climate footprint. It is not about eliminating animal protein, but about moving it from the center of the plate and prioritizing legumes, nuts and whole grains. The experts introduce a key concept here, widely cited by Harvard: he protein package. It’s not just the protein that matters, but what comes with it. It is not the same to obtain it from an ultra-processed “high in protein” food than from a dish of lentils with fiber, minerals and antioxidants. The nutritional context matters as much as the isolated macronutrient. So who really needs more protein? Protein deficiencies are not common in the general population. They appear especially in older people, patients with illnesses, very restrictive diets or chewing problems. In these cases, supplements can be a useful tool, never a universal shortcut. Alma Palau, dietician-nutritionist and manager of the General Council of Official Colleges of Dietitians-Nutritionists, warned in an interview in CuídatePlus that excess protein is not harmless. “Proteins that the body does not need are metabolized and eliminated, but this process involves making organs such as the kidney or liver work unnecessarily,” he explained. Palau insists that consuming more protein than necessary does not translate into more muscle or more health if it is not accompanied by sufficient carbohydrates, a varied diet and physical activity. In other words: without context, the protein loses its meaning. Along the same lines, Carlos Andrés Zapata, nutritionist interviewed by La Vanguardiawarns that protein has been overstated in current discourse and remembers that it is not more important than other macronutrients such as carbohydrates or fats, nor does it replace a balanced diet or strength training. Less obsession, more balance. Protein matters, a lot. It is essential to maintain muscle, autonomy and quality of life with age. But science does not support the idea that it is infinite or magical. … Read more

We have been believing for decades that wet hair makes us sick in winter. Science knows perfectly well that it is a lie

by

“Don’t go out with wet hair or you’ll catch pneumonia” or “put on your coat or you’ll catch a cold” are very grandmotherly phrases that almost all of us have been told in our childhood and that have been burned into our brains. But the question we can ask ourselves: is this true? The reality is that not directly. The culprit. May we have a cold or flu It doesn’t exactly depend on the cold. The culprit in this case are infectious agents such as viruses, the most common being rhinovirus. The fact that this microscopic germ accesses our body and overcomes our defense barriers causes it to begin to replicate and generate its effect that In the long run it’s really annoying when accompanied by fever, cough and a host of other symptoms. In this way, the equation is quite simple: if there is no exposure to the virus, the external temperature is irrelevant. To understand it, if we put ourselves in the situation of going out to Antarctica with our hair soaked and naked, we would surely die of hypothermia, but we wouldn’t catch a cold unless a penguin sneezed rhinovirus on us. The same thing happens if we are in an environment completely isolated from viruses and at a very low temperature: no infection would occur. The experts. Just as it isExperts from the Mayo Clinic explain and disseminating pharmacistscold alone does not have the ability to spontaneously generate a pathogen. Cold is a physical condition, not a biological agent. And science has been trying to explain this for decades. One of the most cited and relevant studies is the one carried out by the University of Rochester where they separated volunteers into two groups. One of them was exposed to low temperature and cold conditions; the other was kept in a warm and comfortable environment. Subsequently, they were exposed to rhinovirus that causes colds. The result. In this way, it was seen that between the two groups there was no significant difference in the contagion of the virus or in the symptoms they presented. The group subjected to the cold did not have a harsher cold, so the factor in getting sick was solely and exclusively the virus. Getting sick in winter. It is a reality that when winter arrives the rates of people with colds or flu increase greatly, as we are seeing in Spain these days. This makes us think that the relationship really exists, whatever science says. And this is where we give a little point to ‘grandmother’s advice’. Science suggests that rhinoviruses they replicate better at the temperatures we usually have in our noseswhich ranges from 33 to 35 °C. But in addition, the cold temperature also causes our defenses to lower, so it is much easier for the virus to access our body and begin to spread in a much simpler way. And that’s why winter is where we see a higher rate of colds. Other factors. But he is not the only one. The social factor is also a big culprit, because when it is cold the truth is that it is better to be locked up at home with Netflix. But in these cases we would be in an interior space with little ventilation (because it is cold) and very close to other people. In this way, if a person has the virus, the probability of contagion skyrockets in a heated indoor place much more than in an open-air park at 5°C. Another point is the dry environment that exists at this time due to the cold outside and the indoor heating. This causes the nasal mucous membranes to dry out, which is a serious problem for the mucus, which is our first line of defense at the entrance to viruses and bacteria. If the mucosa is dry, its effectiveness decreases and facilitates the entry of pathogens. Wet hair. A special distinction must be made for this myth since today there is no evidence to justify a relationship between wet hair and an increase in viral infections. Going out with wet hair causes a great loss of body heat (since the head has a lot of vascularized surface), which generates notable thermal discomfort. This translates into a feeling of very cold, feeling cold and perhaps accompanied by a headache due to muscle tension derived from the cold, but the humidity on the scalp does not attract germs or facilitate infection. Images | Dmitriy Kievskiy Brittany Colette In Xataka | H5N1 bird flu unleashes a massacre in Antarctica: half of the female seals have already disappeared

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.