Compare Set Point And Positive Incentive Theories Of Hunger

Compare Set Point And Positive Incentive Theories Of Hunger And Eat

Compare set-point and positive-incentive theories of hunger and eating. Compare their ability to predict two major research findings. Describe and discuss sexual dimorphisms of the mammalian brain. How do they develop? Include cyclic gonadotropin release, the sexually dimorphic nucleus, and the aromatization hypothesis in your answer. Each answer has to be 300 words or more and include reference(s).

Paper For Above instruction

Hunger and eating behaviors are complex processes regulated by various physiological and psychological mechanisms. Two prominent theories explaining these mechanisms are the set-point theory and the positive-incentive theory. The set-point theory posits that the body maintains homeostasis around a predetermined weight or energy level, with internal feedback mechanisms acting to restore energy balance when deviations occur. This view emphasizes a biological regulation system that signals hunger when energy stores are low and suppresses appetite when energy needs are met (Keesey & Corbett, 1998). In contrast, the positive-incentive theory emphasizes the motivational aspects of hunger, proposing that food intake is driven by the anticipated pleasure or reward associated with eating, rather than solely by physiological needs. It suggests that environmental cues, learning, and psychological factors significantly influence hunger, and individuals are motivated to eat because of the pleasurable properties of food (Berridge & Kringelbach, 2015).

When considering their predictive power, the set-point theory effectively explains findings related to physiological regulation of body weight, such as the rebound effect after weight loss or gain. For example, research on metabolic adaptations demonstrates that after significant weight loss, the body reduces energy expenditure to defend the baseline weight, aligning with the set-point model (Leibel et al., 1995). However, it falls short in explaining why individuals often eat in the absence of energy deficits or why environmental factors can override physiological cues, as observed in overeating in obesogenic environments (Epstein et al., 2008). The positive-incentive theory better accounts for behavioral and environmental influences, such as how food palatability and social cues can motivate eating even when energy stores are sufficient or excess (Samanez-Larkin et al., 2014). It can predict findings where exposure to highly rewarding foods leads to increased consumption independent of physiological hunger signals.

In conclusion, while the set-point theory provides a framework for understanding biological regulation of hunger, it does not fully account for the influence of external factors. Conversely, the positive-incentive theory emphasizes the motivational aspect driven by external cues but may underestimate the role of physiological homeostasis. An integrated approach that includes both models offers the most comprehensive explanation for the complexity of hunger and eating behaviors (Berthoud & Munzberg, 2011).

Discuss Sexual Dimorphisms of the Mammalian Brain

Sexual dimorphisms in the mammalian brain refer to structural and functional differences between male and female brains, which are critical for reproductive behaviors and hormonally influenced processes. These differences develop through a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors, with gonadal steroids playing a central role. During early development, cyclic gonadotropin release orchestrates the hormonal environment that influences brain differentiation. Gonadotropins such as luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) regulate testosterone and estrogen production, which are crucial for sexual differentiation (Cooke et al., 1998).

The sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN), particularly prominent in the preoptic area of the hypothalamus, exemplifies structural differences. In rats, the SDN is considerably larger in males than in females, a difference attributed to the influence of testosterone during critical periods of brain development. The aromatization hypothesis proposes that testosterone is converted to estradiol within the brain by the enzyme aromatase, facilitating the masculinization of neural circuits. Estradiol acts on estrogen receptors to promote the development of male-typical brain structures and behaviors (Phoenix et al., 1959). Notably, in many mammals, after birth, testosterone secretion surges in males, leading to the differentiation of reproductive brain regions, while in females, the absence of this surge results in different development patterns.

Further, these dimorphic brain regions influence sexual behaviors, cognitive differences, and hormone regulation. For example, in rodents, the SDN and the vomeronasal system demonstrate clear sexual dimorphism, affecting mating behaviors. These structural differences are maintained by the cyclic release of hormones, particularly in adulthood, reinforcing the link between brain anatomy and reproductive function (Stocker & McLean, 2014). Understanding these developmental processes illuminates the biological basis for sex differences in behavior and physiology across mammals, emphasizing the interplay of hormones, genetics, and environmental factors (Morris et al., 2004).

References

  • Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2015). Pleasure systems in the brain. Neuron, 86(3), 646–664.
  • Berthoud, H. R., & Munzberg, H. (2011). The brain basis of obesity: from homeostasis to behavioral neuroscience. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 121(6), 2080–2086.
  • Cooke, B. M., Silk, R. S., & Breedlove, S. M. (1998). Development of sexual dimorphism in the mammalian brain. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 342, 17–29.
  • Epstein, L. H., et al. (2008). Food reinforcement, delay discounting, and obesity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 1, 124–130.
  • Keesey, R. E., & Corbett, A. D. (1998). Regulation of body weight: implications for human obesity. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 67(4), 597S–602S.
  • Leibel, R. L., Rosenbaum, M., & Hirsch, J. (1995). Changes in energy expenditure resulting from altered body weight. The New England Journal of Medicine, 332(10), 621–628.
  • Morris, J. A., Jordan, C. L., & Breedlove, S. M. (2004). Sexual differentiation of the brain and behavior. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics, 33(3), 511–519.
  • Phoenix, C. H., Goy, R. W., Gerall, A. A., & Young, W. C. (1959). Organizer effects of pre-natal testosterone on the sexual behavior of guinea pigs. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 142(3), 343–369.
  • Stocker, C. J., & McLean, H. R. (2014). Brain sexual dimorphism and gonadal steroid action. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 26(4), 159–173.
  • Samanez-Larkin, G., et al. (2014). Individual differences in nucleus accumbens activation during anticipation of rewards and their relation to eating behavior. NeuroImage, 84, 998–1004.

Related Assignments