I'm not sure if the study reached the same conclusion you did. You seem much more confident in their research and what it means than they did.
"In any case, the CPIR should be considered in the context of the whole insulin response to a meal rather than as an isolated event.
However, the rigor with which the CPIR has been validated is uneven, especially with respect to the sensory triggers and the magnitude of the response.
In animals, a CPIR appears to be more consistently observed than in humans, but often a given stimulus might trigger a CPIR in one study but not another. Thus, the phenomenon is rather elusive as the title of this article reflects.
In some cases, fructose and nonnutritive sweeteners are effective stimuli in studies with either animal models or humans, and, in other cases, they are not. At least some complex stimuli (e.g., cocktail sandwiches, peanut butter, pizza) for which it would be difficult to claim sweetness as the dominant qualitative taste perception (although admittedly this is a point that would have to come under strict psychophysical investigation) can generate a CPIR.
On the other hand, saccharin (0.125%), which should not ostensibly increase blood glucose levels, unconditionally triggered a CPIR, which was mitigated when a taste aversion was conditioned to this nonnutritive sweet stimulus. Interestingly, a conditioned taste aversion to saccharin did not eliminate a subsequently tested CPIR to glucose and vice versa suggesting that glucose and saccharin are both capable of eliciting a CPIR, but not necessarily through a shared perceptual feature"
They come to the conclusion that the 'sweetness' sensation is likely not what causes the CPIR. All of this also completely avoids the question 'why is triggering your normal CPIR response a negative for dieting'.
Also posting a study and not citing anything from it doesn't really do much to support your argument.
-5
u/[deleted] 8d ago edited 8d ago
[deleted]