Inconsistencies in the assessment of food intake

Abstract

Many peptides and other compounds that influence metabolism also influence food intake, and numerous hypotheses explaining the observed effects in terms of energy homeostasis have been suggested over the years. For example, cholecystokinin (CCK), a duodenal peptide secreted during meals that aids in digestion, also reduces ongoing food intake, thereby contributing to satiation; and insulin and leptin, hormones secreted in direct proportion to body fat, act in the brain to help control adiposity by reducing energy intake. These behavioral actions are often considered to be hard-wired, such that negative experiments, in which an administered compound fails to have its purported effect, are generally disregarded. In point of fact, failures to replicate the effects of compounds on food intake are commonplace, and this occurs both between and within laboratories. Failures to replicate have historically fueled heated debate about the efficacy and/or normal function of one or another compound, leading to confusion and ambiguity in the literature. We review these phenomena and their implications and argue that, rather than eliciting hard-wired behavioral responses in the maintenance of homeostasis, compounds that alter food intake are subjected to numerous influences that can render them completely ineffective at times and that a major reason for this variance is that food intake is not under stringent homeostatic control.