In this post, I'll explore whether or not the scientific evidence is consistent with the predictions of the food reward hypothesis, as outlined in the last post.
Before diving in, I'd like to address the critique that the food reward concept is a tautology or relies on circular reasoning (or is not testable/falsifiable). This critique has no logical basis.
The reward and palatability value of a food is not defined by its effect on energy intake or body fatness. In the research setting, food reward is measured by the ability of food or food-related stimuli to reinforce or motivate behavior (e.g.,
1). In humans, palatability is measured by having a person taste a food and rate its pleasantness in a standardized, quantifiable manner, or sometimes by looking at brain activity by fMRI or related techniques (
2). In rodents, it is measured by observing stereotyped facial responses to palatable and unpalatable foods, which are similar to those seen in human infants. It is not a tautology or circular reasoning to say that the reinforcing value or pleasantness of food influences food intake and body fatness. These are quantifiable concepts and as I will explain, their relationship with food intake and body fatness can be, and already has been, tested in a controlled manner.
1. Increasing the reward/palatability value of the diet should cause fat gain in animals and humansRead more »
