Does the volume of food make a difference?

Let's say you were really sick or something and all you could stomach was 600 calories, but they were all from...bell peppers (this is hypothetical, so I'm just trying to think of low-calorie things).  Would it make you less likely to go into starvation mode than if those 600 calories were from just one ice cream cone?  I would think it would, but do any of you guys know?  In short, does the volume of food impact how much your stomach thinks you're eating, regardless of calorie content?

Your stomach isn't your metabolism, so 600 cals would be 600 cals, regardless of how it was packaged; that's what I'm guessing.

Volume makes a difference to me, but not necessarily the way you might think. Some foods (spaghetti, chinese food) seem to fill me up fast because they are higher volume, but I can be hungry again in an hour. Denser foods--like peanut butter--won't make me feel "full" but will keep me from feeling hungry longer. If I practically stuff myself on high density food (once I ate a package of trail mix, 800 cals, when I had to get in that many calories at the end of a very busy day) both fill me and keep me from being hunger for a long time.

I think, that mkculs is right. Your stomach is not your metabolism and the volume of the food influences the way we _feel_ about how much we ate.

Additionally, you should not be afraid of going into the starvation mode when you are sick. When you are sick, your whole body works in other way, so if the starvation  for a day or two is something that it needs to recover, go for it. In this case, starvation is not slowing down your metabolism.

Hey guys, thanks for the replies.  What interesting answers!  You know, I've never really noticed that lower-density foods keep you full longer, but that's a good idea.  I've been going for volume this whole time, maybe I should try switching it up a bit.  And rilliyah, don't worry, it was just a hypothetical situation.  :)

xoxoxo Okie