Hi Zoltan, call me prejudice, but many articles that I have read from Japan, South Korea and China are just plain wrong, I don't know if it is increased pressure of researchers to publish something to advance their career.

But there is a way to see if the study had an impact. Look at how many times it has been cited on Google Scholar with papers that support their conclusions.

This paper has 18 citations, See if any of them reproduce the original paper:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_vis=1&hl=en&as_sdt=80000005&sciodt=0,23&cites=10807441174846425616&scipsc=

Dear Steingrimur,

I think you don't understand my question.

For example - a lost (missing) knowledge:

Where are the curves of the consumed oxygen? Why the RER in the figures, instead of oxygen consumption of the rats?

The first missing knowledge is the curves of oxygen consumption. The authors know that, we - readers not.

(Note - the authors wrote: "The difference in concentrations of O2 and CO2 between inflow and outflow air was measured with a differential O2 analyser (LC700E, Toray, Japan) and two CO2 sensors (GMW22D, Vaisala, Finland), respectively.")

2nd: The authors wrote:

"The energy expenditure induced by 20 % glucose was 2.79 ± 0.45 kJ kg−0.75 for 3 h (Fig. 4). The RER increased from 0.82 ± 0.01 to 0.92 ± 0.01 at 115 min (Fig. 1B), suggesting the oxidation of carbohydrate during the thermogenic response to the glucose infusion."

Only "suggesting"?

And they wrote:

"The metabolic rate rose during the 10 min infusion period of 3.6 % NaCl, stayed at a plateau level of ≈205 J kg−0.75 min−1 between 35 and 120 min and then slowly declined but was still significantly higher than the baseline level at 3 h. ... The RER did not change after infusion of any of the NaCl solutions (Fig. 2B)."

But they do not give any "suggestion" about the mechanism (pathway) of "thermogenesis" induced by NaCl solutions.

Missing knowledge: That was anaerobic glycolysis?

More missing knowledges??

Have you contacted the authors directly to ask them about the missing knowledge?

Secondly, have you looked through the 18 papers that cite then to see if some of your questions are addressed?

Mr. Osaka did not answer.

I'm not stupid, and don't interested the 18 papers, because - for example:

9 years after this article of Osaka et al.:

Ram K. Mathur: Role of diabetes, hypertension, and cigarette smoking on atherosclerosis

J Cardiovasc Dis Res. 2010 Apr-Jun; 1(2): 64–68. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945206/

From the article: "... To determine the mechanism of thermogenesis, Osaka et al.[7-9] infused hypertonic solution of glucose, NaCl, fructose, and amino acids in the intestine of urethane-anesthetized rats. A higher core body temperature was observed with increasing amounts of the above-mentioned nutrients. Furthermore, an intravenous injection (IV) of these nutrients also caused thermogenesis accompanied by an increase in plasma osmolality. However, thermogenesis caused by IV was lesser than that caused by the intestinal infusion of NaCl and the solutions of the other above-mentioned nutrients, suggesting an involvement of intestinal osmoreceptors. This further suggests that it is unlikely that IV and intestinal osmotic stimulation induces identical mechanisms of thermogenesis. However, it does show that an increase in the plasma osmolality, within the physiological range, elicits thermogenesis. The mechanism of thermogenesis is not clear. However, it may involve intestinal osmoreceptors. The authors also found that food intake stimulated the metabolic rate of the whole body and increased the core body temperature. The core body temperature is measured by inserting a thermister in the anus. The skin or cutaneous body temperature is measured by a thermister taped to the lateral surface of a rat's tail. The mechanism of core and skin temperatures are regulated differently.[10,11] It is this thermogenesis that is responsible for the generation of atherosclerotic plaque. ..."

Why Isn't clear the mechanism? Really the thermogenesis would be the cause of atherosclerosis?

I doubt this - strongly.

From the end of the article:

"Patients are advised to stay away from fatty foods, which obviously does not help because fatty meal is not the cause for atherosclerosis. Therefore, the researchers should first examine the cause of the disease before trying to cure it; otherwise, we will be treating symptoms rather than curing the disease itself. ... Finally, this field requires some broad theories and hypotheses explaining the involvement of foods, diabetes, hypertension, cigarette smoking, and others in the formation of atherosclerotic plaque. We have a mission but are lacking the vision. That is why we have not made any progress even though we have worked on it for more than 50 years."

Theories and hypotheses - why? Real science would be the solution.

And now:

American Heart Association

"Atherosclerosis How does atherosclerosis start and progress? It's a complex process. Exactly how atherosclerosis begins or what causes it isn't known, but some theories have been proposed. Many scientists believe plaque begins to form because the inner lining of the artery, called the endothelium, becomes damaged. Three possible causes of damage to the arterial wall are:

- Elevated levels of cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood

- High blood pressure

- Cigarette smoking"

Source:

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/WhyCholesterolMatters/Atherosclerosis_UCM_305564_Article.jsp

Where is the progress? Where is the real science?

Why are you venting your frustrations at me? You sound like my ex-wife.

Find all of the authors and email them. Email the journals and ask to write a commentary. Start a forum on RG criticizing these papers and results. Start a blog to point out the faults of these papers.

If yelling at me helps you in some way then fine, but seriously you need to find another outlet and I'm unfollowing this question.

My question is (was) a test. I haven't frustrations. I'm curious.

The subject of this test: Who can to find (among RG members) some of - or all of the (clear - scientific) missing knowledges?

And I wrote: "must to read it very carefully - with high level of attention"

What you wrote isn't an answer to my question.

Was your own decision that you answered - was not obligatory.

I do not want to criticize the results of Osaka et al. That is a valuable, scientific (experimental research) article.