I remember an old study where the subjects ate a liquid only diet from a
spout.  They changed the caloric value of the liquid and waited.  The
subjects needed about two weeks before they adjusted the volume of the
liquid they drank to compensate for the new caloric value.

In this context it makes the OP's test, of changing the calories of lunch
and then seeing if the dinner calories changed, meaningless.  They needed to
run their study for several weeks, minimum.

The real question is not what happens within one day,k but rather what
happens over a period of months.

Did you know that lean meat is pretty low in energy density also?

For example, lean turkey breast has 117 calories per 87 grams.

Not all meat is calorie dense. However, eating a lot of low calorie
food is beneficial and I personally go through a few pounds of
vegetables every day.

My diet, pretty much, is mostly vegetables and meat and eggs. I eat
other stuff also, but in smaller quantities.

You see, I agree with you that vegetables are good, but concluding
from this that meat is bad is unwarranted.

i

Asuming that calories are the only factor involved in weight
management in humans, then you may have a point, otherwise this is a
silly exercise in theoretical weight management. Calories do not
trigger fat storage, hormones do, insulin to be precise. Calories are
secondary to hormonal flunctuations.

TC

Also for your information:

Barbara J. Rolls, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
(1992); Professor of Nutrition, Penn State University. Consultant for
Knoll Pharmaceuticals and has received research support from, among
others, Knoll, P&G, and ILSI. Coauthored (with James O. Hill) a 1998
report for ILSI on "Carbohydrates and Weight Management." (phone
conversation w/ R. Collins, CSPI, December 6, 2000) (Newark
Star-Ledger, 2/17/97)Research on lipid and lipoprotein responses to
different diets partially supported by Abbott Laboratories. (Am. J.
Clin. Nurt. 2000;70:839-46) Research on age related impairments in the
regulation of food intake supported in part by the Campbell Soup
Company. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1995;62:923-31)

If you want information about nutrition, www.pcrm.org is not a good
source. If you want info about domestic terrorism or extreme animal
rights groups or info about vegetarianism, it may be a good source.
Otherwise the entire organisation at PCRM are basically extreme
nut-cases that advovcate vegetarianism, not because it is healthy, but
because it will avoid the harming of poor beef cows, chickens, etc.
Hardly a scientific approach to nutrition.

TC

Very interesting, here is a repeat post I made a couple of days ago which
discusses another aspect of our food/eating culture which affects our
overeating:

The perception effect of variety described is one thing some thinks help a
low carb diet work,ie. less variety in it curbs hunger more quickly.

     CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - Ed Glomb admits he gets a little carried away
     when faced with the more than 150 all-you-can-eat options on the Red
     Apple Buffet's Italian-American-Chinese-Japanese menu.

     "Everybody has a tendency to eat with their eyes," he said recently,
     adding that he'd already eaten soup, shrimp and crab legs - starters
     to be followed by roast beef, potatoes and dessert. "It's a little bit
     of this and a little bit of that."

     But Glomb's tendency to pile it on at his favorite restaurant - and
     his rotund size - may have as much to do with the number of choices on
     the buffet table as the unlimited portions being offered.

     Call it the "salad bar effect." Studies suggest that variety increases
     consumption. With monotonous meals, people eat until they are full.
     Add variety, even something as subtle as different shapes of pasta,
     and they eat more.

     Studies dating back to the 1960s have shown that variety can increase
     calorie consumption an average of 25 percent, according to Megan
     McCrory, a nutrition scientist at Tufts University.

     That has some researchers grappling with the global obesity epidemic
     considering what role an often dizzying array of food choices might
     play in expanding the collective waistline.

     "Nutritionists have been wrong. We've been telling you for years
     variety is important, but it's that variety that really helps to make
     you fat," said Judith S. Stern, vice president of the American Obesity
     Association.

     The science may not be familiar to most people, but its effects
     probably are.

     It plays out "in restaurants when you're really stuffed to the brim
     and you just can't have another bite," McCrory said. "Then the waiter
     brings around the dessert cart. ... There's always room for dessert."

     Blame it on so-called sensory specific satiety, a mental process that
     makes food taste better at first but progressively less interesting as
     a person continues to eat it. Switch to a new food and, even if the
     person is full, it will be appealing.

     Marketers know this. Coca-Cola sells nearly 400 different drinks,
     Frito-Lay offers about 150 different chips and pretzels in the United
     States alone, and Campbell's produces 170 soups.

     "If all you have is chicken soup, you probably won't eat soup night
     after night," said John Faulkner, a spokesman for the Campbell Soup
     Company. "But the more varieties you have, the more of it you'll eat."

     Barbara Rolls, a professor of nutrition at Penn State University, said
     this dietary trigger dates back to humanity's early days, when
     survival was best served by a natural inclination to eat a variety of
     foods.

     "It encourages you to switch from food to food," she said. "As
     omnivores with a variety of nutrient requirements, we need to switch
     from food to food and take in a lot of different nutrients. This is
     actually an adaptive response."

     Most researchers agree on the science behind sensory specific satiety.
     Where they differ is on how it affects overall eating patterns and how
     significantly it contributes to obesity.

     Rolls and McCrory, two of the leading researchers in the field, think
     it does.

     "There's so much variety that especially when the variety tastes
     really good we're more apt to go ahead and eat it, especially when
     it's everywhere you turn," McCrory said.

     The problem isn't just that people seek variety, but also that the
     foods they are eating are high in calories, Rolls said. People learn
     as children to prefer high-calorie foods because they satisfy cravings
     quickly.

     Rolls said it's a prescription for obesity - easy access to a growing
     variety of high-calorie foods paired with a natural inclination to eat
     more of them.

     And though obesity long has been considered an American problem, the
     rest of the world is catching up. McCrory thinks that might be due to
     a greater variety of foods becoming available in other nations,
     especially calorie-dense items.

     Availability of such foods overseas has increased dramatically. Since
     1989, U.S. exports of snack foods have quadrupled to more than $1.5
     billion last year, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

     An influx of variety has had a dramatic effect on the people of the
     Solomon Islands in the South Pacific, said Gary Miller, a professor of
     nutrition and obesity at Wake Forest University.

     He said 30 year ago the islanders' diet was limited mostly to what
     could be produced locally. Trade has since introduced a torrent of
     variety, especially calorie-dense foods previously absent from this
     nation of 340,000 people.

     The country now has one of the highest obesity rates in the world.

     Richard Mattes, a nutrition professor at Purdue University, said it
     isn't that simple. Though he agrees that variety prompts people to eat
     more, he said studies have yet to prove the effect of sensory specific
     satiety lasts beyond a particular meal.

     In fact, some studies suggest that after a meal of variety-induced
     excess, people compensate and eat less later, he said.

     But Dr. Terry Maratos-Flier, head of obesity research at the Joslin
     Diabetes Center in Boston, said that's generally only true with lean
     people. Overweight people - roughly two-thirds of Americans - often
     don't compensate.

     Mattes also questions whether variety is responsible for the global
     spread of obesity. He said that more likely is due to sedentary
     lifestyles and an overall increased consumption of calorie-dense
     foods.

     "Has variety really increased over say the last 20, 25 years? Yes,
     there have been many new products introduced into the market place.
     But that's not the measure," he said.

     "The measure is what are the number of unique foods Americans ate
     during the 1970s and what is the number of unique foods Americans are
     eating today?"

     Maratos-Flier thinks people are eating a greater variety, but not
     because there are more foods. She said low costs and ease of
     transportation have made it easier for more people to eat more food,
     and more types of food.

     Consumers are surrounded by a staggering array of food: The typical
     American grocer has 35,000 products, up from 10,000 in 1983, according
     to Walter Heller, research director for Progressive Grocer magazine.
     During the 1930s, it was around 800 items.

     Researchers don't think food variety alone dooms people to being
     overweight, but it doesn't hurt.

     Sensory specific satiety can help people lose weight. Obesity experts
     agree that the most successful diets are the most restrictive - the
     more people eat of one food, the less they want it. As a result, they
     eat less and lose weight.

     "Even if you went on a doughnut diet, if that's all you had you would
     undoubtedly lose weight because of monotony and lack of variety.
     Obviously that's not a good idea," Rolls said.

     But since human nature is working against it, such diets also are the
     hardest to stick with.

     Giving in to the urge for variety also can be good, as long as the
     food choices are sound. Filling up on a variety of low-calorie foods
     leaves less room for calorie dense-foods.

     "You can't get rid of variety. People want 100 channels. They wants
     thousands of CDs and books. There's no policy that's going to get rid
     of variety in foods," Maratos-Flier said. "What you need is education"
     about good food choices.

     As Glomb's wife has found, human nature is hard to fight. The urge
     doesn't diminish even in the face of absurd variety.

     "This is good but it would be nice to have something different for a
     change," Marilynn Glomb said after mulling the options at the Red
     Apple Buffet, where the Merrimack couple eats twice a week. "It's the
     same thing every time you come."

     ---

     On the Web:

     Tufts University Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging:

     http://www.hnrc.tufts.edu/

     Penn State University: http://www.psu.edu/

     American Obesity Association: http://www.obesity.org/