Talk:Satiety signalling
Discussion page·3 threads·no archives
This is the discussion page for the article Satiety signalling. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.
Satiation versus satietyResolved
The two terms are used interchangeably almost everywhere, including in papers that should know better. Defining them separately in the lead is the right call. — SatietySunniva (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Added both to Glossary of peptide terminology as well, so the distinction is findable from outside this article. ✓ Done — GlossaryGleb (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Energy expenditure claimDone
"No incretin agonist has been shown to raise it" is a strong negative claim. Is it defensible? — BalanceBirdie (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
It is, in the sense that no published trial has demonstrated it. I have phrased it as "has been shown to" rather than "does", which is the difference between an evidential and a metaphysical claim. ✓ Done — ArcuateArt (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Decerebrate preparations
The reference to decerebrate animal preparations is startling in an article otherwise about drug mechanism. Is it necessary? — StudentSindhu (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
It is the cleanest evidence that brainstem circuits suffice for meal termination, and that fact underpins the whole brainstem-versus-hypothalamus distinction. I would keep it but am open to a shorter phrasing. — ArcuateArt (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)