study

Barbacid’s promising cancer study has been withdrawn. The reason is not science, it is a “hidden” spin-off

by

Last December, the team led by the prestigious researcher Mariano Barbacid filled the headlines of the main media with great news: had found a triple therapy to eliminate pancreatic tumors in animal models. Very relevant news because of how deadly pancreatic cancer is and how it affects our society, but now this euphoria has hit a wall after the decision of the US National Academy of Sciences to remove the item from PNAS magazine. The context. The original article, published on December 2 of last year, was not just another publication, but described the results of administering three drugs in 45 mice who had pancreatic cancer. And although it was a preclinical study that had not been tested in humans and was the expected next step, it generated great expectation. The promise of a cure, even if it was in the animal phase, propelled intense fundraising campaigns to be able to start a clinical trial with humans as soon as possible. In this way, foundations such as CRIS against cancer achieved raise 3.7 million euros in the heat of these advances and thanks to the media showcase that was given to them. And now they withdraw it. The first thing to keep in mind when faced with so many alarmist headlines is that it is not removed from the PNAS magazine because the results have been invented or exaggerated, but rather the reason lies in the omission of important information regarding to conflict of interest. In this case Mariano Barbacid, taking advantage of his status as a member of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, used a “fast track” of publication that is reserved for academics of this institution. The problem is that this privilege requires scrupulous and impeccable transparency. Data omission. As detailed by El Paísthe alarms went off in February 2026, when the academy received notices about possible conflicts of interest that have now led to the sudden retraction of the article. The problem is that Mariano Barbacid, along with researchers Carmen Guerra and Vasiliki Liaki, are co-owners of Vega Oncotargetsa spin-off which was born in the ecosystem of the National Cancer Research Center (CNIO) with the aim of developing and marketing therapies against pancreatic cancer like this one. This is why informing the journal that the authors had a direct economic and business interest in the success of the study is a violation of the most basic transparency regulations in scientific publication. It always happens. When a researcher wants to publish the results of his or her research, a lot of data must always be provided, both about the method that has been followed and everything behind it, such as the source of financing or the conflicts behind. For example, if a researcher owns shares of a large pharmaceutical company and studies one of its drugs, logically good results will benefit him because the value of the company will increase. And this is something that should always be reported so that anyone reading the research knows if the researcher may have been influenced by an economic component. And in this particular case, the fact that there is already a company that will commercialize the future therapy that is being investigated is logically something that must always be specified, because if the study goes well, it logically benefits the company enormously. There are already answers. As we say, PNAS sanctions bad practice when it comes to being transparent, but in no case does it indicate that the research is poorly done. Along these lines, Carmen Guerra has already admitted the error, as El País points out, and has confirmed that the team has resubmitted the article with this correction, detailing that they do have participation in Vega Oncatargerts. The problem is that now they are going to have to go through the entire standard review process and the republishing will not be fast. Images | UPV brgfx on Freepik In Xataka | Mice today, hope tomorrow: researchers have managed to attack pancreatic cancer before it forms

the study that reveals its birth in an isolated corner of the galaxy

by

2025 was the year of 3I/ATLAS, the third interstellar visitor that telescopes have been able to capture prowling the Earth. From the beginning it was considered that it could possibly be much older than the other two, Oumuamua and 2I/Borisov. However, there were many unknowns about its origin. Now, thanks to a recently published study by scientists at the University of Michigan, we have much more data on the matter. A visitor from a cold and distant place. According to observations made from the ALMA Observatoryin the Atacama Desert (Chile), 3I/ATLAS formed in a cold and isolated corner of our galaxy, before definitively integrating into its own solar system. The key is in deuterium. The observations that led to this recent study were made between October and December 2025. Several telescopes focused their attention on our interstellar visitor to observe the water on its surface and observed something striking: it had very high levels of deuterium. This is an isotope of hydrogen, somewhat heavier than the most abundant on Earth. In astronomy the deuterium/hydrogen ratio is used to estimate the age of objectssince it has been observed that the more primitive they are, the more deuterium they have. But this proportion also helps to know the temperature at which they were formed. A reaction without turning back. In the cold gas clouds in which stars form, the most abundant molecules They are hydrogen, followed by carbon monoxide (CO). Hydrogen participates in something known as deuteron-proton exchange reactions, where hydrogen protons and deuterium isotopes react with each other, forming something known as deuterated hydrogen. This is the reaction: H3+​+HD⇌H2​D++H2​ CO can compete with this reaction, making it less efficient. However, when it is very cold, the CO freezes into dust grains and cannot react. On the other hand, the deuteration reaction can occur in both directions (hence the two arrows), but if it is cold there is not enough energy to produce it backwards. All the hydrogen with deuterium that is formed accumulates. a lonely star. The fact that 3I/ATLAS occurred in such a cold environment may indicate that it possibly originated around a solitary star. If there had been other stars forming around it, it would be much hotter. Very far away now. Today, that interstellar visitor is near Jupiter, preparing to leave our solar system. It can only be observed with a few instruments. Luckily, he came to our neighborhood long enough to give us a lot of valuable information. Why is it useful information?. We already have a lot of data about 3I/ATLAS. For example, its core measures between 440 meters and 5.6 kilometers. Also that it moves at 220,000 km/h. Now, in addition, we know that it originated in an extremely cold environment, about 11,000 million years ago. This helps us understand the conditions of primitive planetary formation much better. As they always say, to know where we are going, it is very important to understand where we come from. There’s nothing like a visitor from a place far, far away to give us the pieces we need to understand it. Image |NSF/AUI/NSF NRAO/M.Weiss In Xataka | A Harvard astronomer has accused NASA of hiding 3I/ATLAS images. has an explanation

For decades we believed that extreme nausea during pregnancy was caused by “hormones.” A large study found the real culprit

by

The beginning of pregnancy for many is associated with horrible nausea and vomiting that have become almost an inevitable and deeply annoying toll in pregnancy and that many women fear. And the reality is that, for a percentage of these women, nausea becomes a big problem and evolves into a very serious form called hyperemesis gravidarum. What was believed. At first, the most classic reviews They pointed squarely at the ‘hormonal dance’ that pregnant women experience while the placenta is forming. Here the peaks of human chorionic gonadotropin (which is the hormone that pregnancy tests detect), along with estrogens and progesterone, were the main responsible for this discomfort. However, in clinical practice, the exact cause remained uncertain, since it was not understood why some women only felt mild morning sickness and others ended up hospitalized due to the severe dehydration caused by vomiting. And the answer was in the DNA. A great study. Here science has dotted the i’s with an article published in Nature which has analyzed the data of almost 11,000 cases of hyperemesis gravidarum and contrasted it with more than 420,000 women who did not have this problem. The result. He targeted ten genes associated with this severe form of extreme nausea, but among all of them the GDF15 gene emerged as the main culprit. And here the different experts point out that the developing fetus and the placenta produce the hormone GDF15, which is produced from the gene that we mentioned before and sends it directly to the blood, causing this nausea. Although the key is not just how much hormone is produced, but the degree of prior exposure the mother had to this hormone before pregnancy. In this way, women who had low levels of GDF15 before becoming pregnant turn out to be much more sensitive to the sudden surge of this hormone from the fetus, which triggers the most severe symptoms of nausea and vomiting. A discovery with evidence. Despite the forcefulness that accompanies this evidence, the study suggests that the gene GDF15 It is the main cause, but not the only one. The fact that there are other genes involved demonstrates that hyperemesis gravidarum is a multifactorial condition so calling it the “sole cause” would be scientifically inaccurate, but classifying it as the most determining genetic factor is, today, a fact supported by the best peer-reviewed literature. What does it mean? Identifying GDF15 as the main biological switch of this problem is undoubtedly the first step to be able to apply a treatment that can help these future mothers who suffer from significant vomiting during pregnancy, and especially in the first trimester. Although it is true that this does not explain many other symptoms of pregnancy, such as heartburn or that some things begin to feel bad ‘just because’. Although there is still a lot of research ahead to discover them. Images | tirachardz on Freepik In Xataka | We have been sending pregnant women to bed for decades as a precaution. Science has just proven that it is a big mistake

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

by

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

One study compares what AI does to your ability to think to boiled frog syndrome. The frog does not come out well

by

There are two things that the technology industry is pushing hard. On the one hand, short videos. The TikTok format ‘broke’ it a few years ago to the point that platforms like Instagram or YouTube jumped headlong into copying them. On the other hand, AI. Everything must have AI, and now a chatbot He must be our assistant at all times. In parallel, every time more studies appear that point to something disturbing. That, perhaps, our brain is eroding. In short. Months ago, a study pointed out that chatbots cause cognitive surrender, another that makes us lazy and there is even one from Microsoft itself pointing in the same direction. One of the last is the elaborated by researchers from MIT, the University of California, Oxford, and Carnegie Mellon titled “AI Assistance Reduces Persistence and Harms Independent Performance.” To test the hypothesis, they conducted three experiments in which they let part of the participants access a bot based on GPT-5 and, after ten minutes, they cut off that access. Before the results, the tests: Equation Test – 350 people had to solve those problems. Qlogic test – 670 people had to take a mathematical test, but of logical reasoning in this case. Reading comprehension test – 200 participants who had to analyze a text and complete a brief reading comprehension series. We are so-so. As we say, part of the sample had access to that bot that was deactivated in the middle of the ‘exam’, and the result was the same in all three tests. As the researchers point out, when access to AI is interrupted, not only does the participants’ performance drop, but also their perseverance. In statements to the magazine Futurismone of the researchers points out that “once we take away the AI, it is not just that they make mistakes when giving the answer, it is that they are not willing to try either.” There was a distinction between AI users: Those who wanted the easy answer were the quickest to lose interest in attempting the task when they no longer had access to the tool. Those who asked for explanations or not to “cheat” directly had better results because some did try to continue with the task. The boiled frog. That’s where the analogy of the boiled frog that applies so well to this situation. The premise is that if we put a frog in a saucepan of boiling water, the frog will jump as soon as it senses danger. However, if we put the frog in the saucepan with warm water and heat it little by little, the animal will cook. This is not the case because the frog is obviously not stupid and, as long as it cannot be thermoregulateit will jump, but the analogy serves to explain what is happening with AI and those who delegate all tasks to a chatbot so as not to have to think. Are they making us dumber? Fools, fools… wouldn’t be the word. Rather, we become lazy. We don’t think because, after all, we have AI to do it for us. Without going into the danger that it poses (because now AIs are free, but tomorrow they may take them away from us at a stroke and turn them into a paid product even for the most basic tasks), the researchers they point out that, if someone uses AI in their daily life for all types of tasks, that person runs the risk of seeing their capabilities erode to the point of creating a dependency on the system because they do not know how to do anything without it. with head. This study, like many others, is not a criticism of artificial intelligence. As we have once said, it is just another tool, but you have to have criteria when using it. As the researchers point out, performance and interest are not the same in the case of someone who uses AI as a quick response as in the case of someone who just wants a concept explained to them. What they are clear about is that their observations, apart from those of other studies, should serve as a basis when designing how to integrate chatbots into educational programs. Because we are already seeing that there are countries and institutions that are integrating AI into classrooms and the conclusion of the study is that the analytical and creative thinking that we develop during youth is vital in adulthood. “Practice makes you better, and that is precisely what AI will take away from you. We will have a generation of students and people who will not know what they are capable of, and then that will hurt both innovation and human creativity” – Rachit Dubey, computational cognitive scientist at the University of California fast food. I commented at the beginning that short videos were also affecting us and it was not a toast to the Sun. It has a lot to do with the use of AI to obtain easy answers because the bottom line is the same: not having to think. It is something related to the concept of “brain rot” and the trap of dopamine, creating that dependency. In the case of short videos with slop and empty content, another implication is that little by little they break our attention span. That is why videos on YouTube The aim is to hook you from the beginningthe songs are getting shorter and have choruses that fit into the 15 seconds of an Instagram story, microdramas are the order of the day and when you start watching a movie that is not releasing dopamine, not even five minutes pass until you pick up your phone. It’s up to us to let the frog stew until it’s cooked… or if it jumps out of the pot. Images | J. Ronald LeeChatGPT (edited) In Xataka | The big names in AI are fighting over neuroscientists like they were soccer stars

what a new study has discovered studying flies

by

The brain is an extremely energy-demanding organ, as it needs a large amount of glucose to function correctly. But sometimes not everything focuses on functioning to live, but also to accumulate new memories or knowledge, something that students who put themselves in front of books need above all. And now we know that sugar can be your best ally. A new paradigm. A priori, we may think that what we eat is like a large amount of gasoline that we pour into the tank we have inside us. However, a recent study published in Nature describes an unprecedented biological mechanism, pointing out that it is not sugar that magically improves memory, but rather it is consuming it after learning something new, such as a study session, that can consolidate it. All this along with a good rest too. What has been seen? Here the researchers subjected a group of flies to aversive learning that began to be spaced out over time, in this way a neutral stimulus was associated with an experience that was detected as unpleasant so that they learned to reject it. Under this pretext, the researchers observed that subjecting the flies to this learning system causes the “hijacking” of the fructose-detecting neurons, which is a type of carbohydrate, in the brain of the flies. There is more. The fascinating thing about all this is that it happens even when the flies are completely full, so the learning generates a kind of temporary “non-homeostatic hunger.” In this way, after the cognitive effort, if the fly ingests sugar, these neurons, which had been disinhibited by learning, become massively activated. And it is something fundamental because activation triggers the release of a hormone called thyrostimulinwhich acts as the definitive signal to consolidate long-term memory. It’s not just about the taste. This article does not come out of nowhere, but already in 2017 a research group showed that the brain is too smart to be fooled by the sweeteners that give us the sweet taste. Here the concept “caloric frustration memory” was introduced, which pointed out that the brain perfectly distinguishes between sweet taste and real energy value. That is why for certain memories to be optimally consolidated, the nutritional value matters as much or more than the simple taste reward. Furthermore, this same French team demonstrated in 2024 that diverting the flow of glucose to neurons plays a vital role in memory memory. fruit fly, and that the metabolic activation of certain areas of the brain is an essential trigger for long-term memory. In humans. Although this is something that has been seen in flies right now, it offers us an incredible window into evolutionary neurobiology. This is something that gives us hope that, at a fundamental level, brains have evolved to link energy availability with metabolic expenditure in order to create new memories. If we look at the literature, there are studies that have analyzed this same effect in our own brains. Specifically, it has been seen that administering glucose can temporarily improve certain cognitive aspects. This is especially noticeable in verbal memory, episodic memory, and in hippocampal-dependent tasks such as object-location binding. Although in no case should you gorge yourself on sugar to be able to learn much faster. Images | Marcos Paulo Prado Daniel Kraus In Xataka | The memory of young people is deteriorating at a record pace. Science thinks it knows why

A study has revealed the key to getting your emails answered: give the "thanks in advance"

by

It has all happened to us at some point: you write an important email, you send it and the only response you get is absolute silence. You review the text, the subject, the recipient, and everything seems correct. According to science, the problem with that email may be in the last two words that close the body of the email, that space that the majority fills in as a formality with a “regards” or “sincerely”, without devoting a second of reflection to it. how it should be worded an email so that don’t fall into oblivion. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychologyanalyzed hundreds of thousands of email conversations and came to conclusions strong enough to reconsider a habit that almost no one questions, but improves the chances of receiving a response. The experiment that changed everything. In 2017, Boomerang examined over 350,000 email threads extracted from mailing list archives of over twenty different online communities. The goal was to determine whether the way one says goodbye at the end of an email has any real effect on the probability of get responsesomething that until then no one had measured on that scale. The study of these data returned a resounding yes. Closings with expressions of gratitude obtained notably higher response rates than the rest of the usual formalisms, with a difference that can exceed fourteen percentage points compared to the more neutral farewell formulas. The average response rate for all the emails analyzed was 47.5%, a reference figure that allows the real impact of each type of closure to be measured. In Xataka Change Gmail or Outlook for a European alternative: step to follow and what you should take into account The formula that prevails over all others. Among all the closings studied, the farewell with a “thank you in advance” turned out to be the most effective formula, with a response rate of 65.7%. This was followed by a brief “thank you” with 63% and “thank you very much” with 57.9%. At the opposite extreme, closer farewell formulas such as “kind regards” (53.9%), “regards” (53.5%) or “regards” (52.9%) were well below. On the other hand, the “best” formula, the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of “the best”, recorded the worst data of all those analyzed, with 51.2%. The logic behind the most successful terms is simple: writing “thank you in advance” thanks the recipient in advance for a response that has not yet occurred, which creates an implicit expectation of commitment that the recipient tends to fulfill. It’s not a fancy psychological trick, but rather a signal of advance politeness that, according to the data, serves as a consistent and measurable hook. In Xataka The key to being more productive is not doing more things: it is identifying where you are wasting your time The science that explains the phenomenon. The results published by Boomerang match the investigations previous studies conducted by behavioral psychologists Adam M. Grant (Wharton School) and Francesca Gino (Harvard Business School). Their study showed that the expressions of gratitude They directly motivate prosocial behavior, that is, people’s willingness to help. University students who participated in that experiment who received a message with an expression of gratitude closing the email were twice as likely to offer their help as those who received the same message without it. The researchers concluded that the key mechanism is not the recipient’s self-esteem or emotional state, but rather the feeling of feeling socially valued. Apparently, those two formulas that seemed like mere courtesy, activate that spring. {“videoId”:”x86bhjh”,”autoplay”:false,”title”:”17 TRICKS and FUNCTIONS WITH GMAIL GET THE MOST OF YOUR ACCOUNT”, “tag”:””, “duration”:”593″} The numbers that justify the change. When Boomerang directly compared the emails with these thank-you closings to the rest, the difference was even clearer. Messages with some variant of thanks at the end achieved a response rate of 62%, compared to the 46% average offered by emails that did not include it, which represents a relative increase of 36% in the average response rate. It is worth keeping in mind, however, that the analysis itself warns of its limitations and conditions. The sample comes mainly from communities linked to open source software and academic environments, so it may not reflect all professional or social contexts. Even so, the fact that these closures generated a greater tendency to respond confirms that the choice of the appropriate closure is not a minor detail, but a variable. with proven weight. In Xataka | European alternatives to Gmail and Outlook: the best email providers made in Europe Image | Unsplash (Stephen Phillips) (function() { window._JS_MODULES = window._JS_MODULES || {}; var headElement = document.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)(0); if (_JS_MODULES.instagram) { var instagramScript = document.createElement(‘script’); instagramScript.src=”https://platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js”; instagramScript.async = true; instagramScript.defer = true; headElement.appendChild(instagramScript); – The news A study has revealed the key to getting your emails answered: saying “thank you in advance” was originally published in Xataka by Ruben Andres .

A study believes that kinesiology is only a placebo

by

When you have a muscle problem such as tendonitis or overuse, it is likely that the physiotherapist has placed the famous adhesive strips cotton with very bright colors stuck to the skin. This is known as kinesiotaping or neuromuscular taping, and has been sold as an effective pain relief treatment. Although science has been closing the gap on their true usefulness for years, now pointing to them being irrelevant. A massive study. Just like has collected El País, a recent article published in the BMJ magazine has given the necessary numbers to affirm that placing these strips on muscle injuries is not recommended. And it’s not that they looked at a handful of patients, but that they analyzed 128 published systematic reviews, which is equivalent to a whopping 310 randomized clinical trials with a total of 15,812 participants, covering 29 different musculoskeletal disorders. What has been seen? Proponents of this technique often argue that the tape microscopically lifts the skin, improving blood and lymph flow, which instantly relieves pain. The problem is that new evidence suggests that kinesiotaping offers, at best, a one-point reduction in pain on a scale of 1 to 10. This is negligible in the medical field, since it does not make a big change in the patient’s quality of life. But the few benefits observed, which are slight improvements in mobility or reduction in initial pain, are completely temporary. As has become clear in the patients analyzed, these symptoms disappear in a matter of days or a few weeks. But in the long term whether to wear the strip or not doesn’t exactly matter. What was known before. Obviously, if this is something so widespread that we even see it in elite athletes, something had to have been investigated. Here the researchers point out that in the previous literature there are serious inconsistencies in the methodology that open the door to a high risk of bias. In this way, they suggest that much of the initial improvement reported by patients could be explained by the placebo effect. They warned us. Although this macro study is very recent, it is not the first to burst the bubble of the use of these tapes. If we dive through all the available bibliography, we can find an analysis done in 2021 where it was pointed out that, although the reduction in pain was evident, it only served as a temporary “adjunctive supplement”, not as the solution. The verdict. The conclusion of science is clear: colored strips do not have biomechanical superpowers, and their success has been based on a mix of brilliant marketing, mass adoption by famous athletes and the undeniable power of the placebo effect. Although it is true that initially it is likely to reduce pain. Images | Flickr Edward Muntinga In Xataka | Postural tricks and objects to avoid back pain: what is true and what is myth

We knew that mobile phones had an impact on children’s mental health. A study has defined the border: 16 years

by

Today, we live in a time of great debate around Instagram, TikTok or X, wondering if they really negatively affect our minors, with several governments promoting the possibility of banning them, including Spanish. Now, a new study longitudinal has shed light on the true impact that using social networks can have on mental health, pointing to a much more complex scenario than we think. The study. It has been a team from the Miguel Hernández University that has decided to put the focus precisely on social networks at a time when research paints a very worrying picture. But in this case wanted to put the focus in the nuances that should really matter to us: age, gender and mental health status prior to entering the world of social networks. And its conclusions change the classical conception. It’s not how much, but how. Until recently, the most classic concept to measure danger was “screen time.” In this way, different reviews suggested that spending more hours in front of the cell phone was equivalent to having a worse well-being. But the UMH research goes a step further and focuses on how networks interfere with daily life, sleep or personal relationships. Here the most striking finding that the research team saw was that the impact of this problematic use on depressive symptoms has a very clear boundary: 16 years. But it fades. Although researchers have observed that increased depressive symptoms It is much more acute in those under 16 years of age, it has also been seen that around this age the effect diminishes. The reason that marks 16 years as a true frontier is precisely the greater capacity for emotional and cognitive self-regulation that adolescents have as they mature little by little. In this way, young people from the age of 16 become less vulnerable to the negative impacts of the digital environment, something pointed out by other external studies that already warned that early pre-adolescence is the true critical period of exposure to social networks as they are more sensitive. A gender gap. Another worrying point raised by science is how digital popularity affects depending on whether the teenager is a boy or a girl. And right now we live in the era of followers where anything is done to see how our accounts have more and more followers. And while it may seem like having more followers is a positive reinforcement for any teen, the data says otherwise. The researchers point out here that having a greater number of followers is associated with a greater number of depressive symptoms, and especially in girls. The reasons lie in the pressure to maintain a perfect image, the fear of being analyzed down to the last detail and, logically, the cybervictimization. A set of factors that act as a toxic cocktail towards mental health. In the boys. Here, having many followers has a neutral or even somewhat protective effect, operating as a status enhancer within a group of friends, for example. That is, the complete opposite of girls, marking a gender gap that has also been investigated by other third-party studies that already warned that the mental health of minors is much more susceptible to the dynamics of online validation. Previous vulnerability. Do social networks depress you or were teenagers already depressed? This is the question we can ask ourselves when addressing this complex issue, and science indicates that adolescents who already suffered from a previous vulnerability before using the networks are the most susceptible. In this way, if a young person already presents depressive symptoms, their evolution will be significantly worse if they develop problematic use of networks. In these cases, the screen becomes a true refuge that ends up worsening the original picture when exposed to a large number of people or by consuming negative content. What should we do? The great conclusion that can be drawn here is that We must protect preteens as they are the most vulnerable, and also give priority attention to girls because they suffer much greater aesthetic and validation pressure. This is where governments come in with the regulations that are already being put on the table to prevent these most vulnerable young people from being exposed to something that can be so harmful. Images | Johnny Cohen In Xataka | We say we are “depressed” beyond our means: where does the illness end and where does the illness begin?

We thought that the great challenge of veganism was vitamin B12. A study suggests that social relationships are

by

Whatever there is taken the step to veganismfor whatever reasons, knows that the most difficult thing is not to give up cheese or meat, but to face Christmas dinner with the family or the Sunday barbecue with friends, since food is an event with a great social component. In this way, when someone decides to radically change consumption habits in a predominantly omnivorous worldnot only changes the plate, but also social relations. Now science has determined the tactics these people develop in order to survive social frictions. The data. The study, published in September 2025is not limited to conducting a survey among vegan people to analyze the impact on their social relationships. What they did was exhaustive field work between 2017 and 2022, combining in-depth interviews, observation and netnography, which is the analysis of the behavior of online communities. where debates arise about it. The goal here was none other than to understand exactly where and how everyday interactions are “broken.” And above all how they tried to compensate in an almost innate way. Social fractures. The researchers here identified that tensions in a social relationship do not arise from a simple difference of opinion about the most ethical diet, but from what they have called “relational fractures”, which are divided into three very clear areas: Co-execution: The simple act of cooking with another person, such as a partner, or sharing a meal becomes logistically complex. What was once a fluid ritual now requires planning, separate pans, and constant negotiation to arrive at a common dish. Co-learning: Family traditions, like inheriting grandma’s secret meatball recipe, are short-circuited. This means that the exchange of culinary knowledge between omnivores and vegans often comes to a standstill. Activities that may be everyday activities, such as going shopping or choosing a restaurant with other people, become logistical minefields where one has to balance one’s ethical needs with the preferences of others to choose, for example, a restaurant with a menu that suits everyone. Survival kit. So, if relationships fracture, how do vegans avoid becoming isolated? The researchers here discovered that, to maintain social peace and navigate these turbulent waters, vegans develop four specific “relational competencies” that sometimes appear without them realizing it, which we see below. Decoding. This is the ability to “analyze,” meaning vegans learn to anticipate how others will react to their diet and evaluate whether the environment is safe, hostile, or simply curious. Depending on the impression you have, your behavior will adapt to the environment by being more or less open with the topic. Disengagement. The second pillar is to deliberately separate food from social interaction, as it means that one will eat their vegan plate while another eats animal products, prioritizing company and conversation over dietary friction. Chameleon effect. The third adaptation consists of integrating so as not to attract attention in the group. This may mean, for example, bringing food from home to a social gathering or ordering a basic salad at a steakhouse without comment, all to prevent veganism from becoming the central topic of conversation of the evening. Abandonment. The last adaptation that has been detected in some vegans is where they directly give up different shared plans, such as stopping going to certain restaurants or social events. Even, in extreme cases, a distancing has been detected in an interpersonal relationship, since it becomes toxic due to the tensions that are generated. It is not born from nothing. One of the researchers has been exploring “morality in markets” for years and this led her to talk about indigenous and animal consumption practices. In this way, veganism is something that has been scrutinized for a long time in different studiessince it is not just about choosing what to eat, but it is an ethical stance that the omnivorous environment often perceives as a challenge to its own social and cultural customs. The big conclusion that can be drawn from all this is that the transition to a plant-based diet does not only require learning to read nutritional labels or discovering new recipes, but also requires a profound social and emotional re-education.. The long-term success of a vegan lifestyle depends as much on resilience at the supermarket as it does diplomacy at the dining table. Images | Anna Pelzer Xataka | Protein powder has become the star accessory of modern wellness. Nutritionists have something to say

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.