PROBLEMS OF FAT RESORPTION_ 351 



juice is distinctly less than we were formerly disposed CQ 

 believe. 4 From the previously iiiejitioTife} investigation'" of 

 Pawlow and Boldyreff we have learned th#t -tmtt'^diately 

 after taking fatty food it is very easy to havO a- reflux' of the 

 duodenal contents into the stomach. The first portion of fat 

 on entering the duodenum may in the same manner as acid 

 give rise to a pyloric reflex ; although this does not (as in case 

 of acid stimulation) lead to closure of the pylorus, but to an 

 inhibition of the normal antral peristalsis. In this manner 

 the pancreatic steapsin may gain entrance into the stomach 

 and take part here in the cleavage of fats. 5 A number of 

 authors used to be disposed to deny for the pure gastric 

 juice any active lipolytic function. This apparently, how- 

 ever, is not the case; fat cleavage in the stomach being due 

 in part, at least, to the influence of an enzyme secreted by the 

 gastric mucous membrane, 6 the secretion of which goes on 

 about parallel with that of the pepsin. 7 Then, too, the state- 

 ment of Laqueur that the gastric lipase is not activated by 

 bile does not bespeak an identity with the pancreatic steap- 

 sin. 8 Nevertheless, no particular physiological importance 

 is to be attached to the lipolytic processes in the stomach in 

 the author's opinion. 



PROBLEMS OF FAT RESORPTION 



Of very different significance is the question as to the 

 manner in which fat resorption takes place in the intestine. 

 It is well known that, after the fat has become mixed in the 

 small intestine with the bile and pancreatic secretion, the 

 greater portion of it is changed into a fine emulsion. For 

 thirty years there has been an open question whether the 



4 E. S. London, Zeitschr. f. physiol. Chem., 50, 125, 1906. 



5 Of. S. J. Levites. (St. Petersburg), Biochem. Zeitschr., 20, 220, 1909; 

 Zeitschr. f. physiol. Chem., 49, 273, 1906. 



6 Cf. S. v. Pesthy (F. Tangl's Lab., Budapesth), Biochem. Zeitschr., 

 84, 147, 1911. 



7 Heinsheimer, Deutsch. med. Wochenschr., 1906, 1194. 



8 E. Laqueur (R. Gottlieb's Lab., Heidelberg), Hofmeister's Beitr., 8, 281, 

 1906. 



