Failure to Support the Hypothesis That Eating is Anticipatory of Need

Abstract

Le Magnen (1959) reported evidence that eating is a response to an anticipated rather than existing nutritional deficit. However, it is the contention of this paper that the evidence was based upon a statistical artifact. The purpose of the present experiment was to obtain the anticipatory effect using a modified procedure. In both Le Magnen's experiment and the present one, one meal preceded a long interval and followed a short interval while the other meal preceded a short interval and followed a long interval. Insofar as eating is anticipatory, more should be eaten at the meal which precedes the long interval than at the meal that precedes the short one. If eating is a response to an existing deficit, then more should be eaten at the meal that precedes the short interval because this meal also follows the long intermeal interval. There was no systematic relationship between the length of the intermeal interval (either preceding or following a meal) and the amount consumed.