> postmeal blood glucose and its long-term metabolic consequences.
and the point is there aren't long term metabolic consequences.
> but if we can put a finger on exactly what causes people to put on a few pounds it would be a significant advance in science that would affect billions of people
I totally agree! We know it's not the insulin response in and of itself that is causing weight gain, it's the subsequent increased caloric intake, so my point is by being deliberate about what we are studying we can get better results. I'm not saying we don't need to study the psychology of eating, definitely the opposite! That's really what we need to focus on, and stop worrying about the "metabolic consequences" of the insulin response.
and how exactly do you know that the insulin response doesn't affect the psychology? that's begging the question, and that's exactly what i'm saying is erroneous about your mindset. the state of nutrition science is currently horseshit, any casual observer can see that - we need all the good science we can get.
I agree with you about the sorry state of nutritional science, and when it comes to diet I'd love to see a lot more resources put into the psychological (especially reward pathway/will power) aspects of it.
a waste of time? really? what does that mean? does this mean the difference between 10-20 pounds over the course of 10 years? because that's the vast majority of 'weight' concerns - people who are overweight but not obese are 'otherwise healthy' but if we can put a finger on exactly what causes people to put on a few pounds it would be a significant advance in science that would affect billions of people.
like, how can you possibly say that investigating what causes a "increased psychological urge to eat" is some kind of trivial pursuit? that's the whole problem with "otherwise healthy" people.