Two monkeys in a cage. One monkey, pushes a button, every time, he gets a treat. The other monkey, pushes a button, sometimes, he gets a treat. Result: The monkey that always gets a treat, pushes the button only when he wants a treat. The other monkey, continuously pushes the button. Conclusion: Uncertainty disrupts otherwise normal behavior toward reward (i.e. self-regulation), and ultimately causes excess intake.
In the above, the button is physical. In a semi-starvation setting, the button is the "find food" thought derived from hunger. Since there is no food, or only sometimes, the "find food" button is continuously pressed, first causing an always-consume response when food is found, then ultimately resulting in excess intake.
However, the "find food" button is an effect, not a cause. The cause is the semi-starvation, which leads to hunger, and so forth. This is well illustrated with the after-effect in the famous Minnesota semi-starvation experiment, where subjects binged on all kinds of crap to the point of gaining excess body mass way beyond their initial body mass pre-experiment.
In this mice experiment, we have a variation on this theme. In both instances of "always" and "never", there is certainty of outcome. However, there is still uncertainty of outcome from the fact that the same mice experienced both certainty of "always" and certainty of "never", just like that monkey who got a treat only sometimes. Regardless of the association of internal state, the choice will be one that ensures both intake and economy. This stems from the knowledge that one can be plucked from the cage, starved, then put in a cage where there is certainty of "never".
If the above can be done, it can be undone by the same mechanism. Easy. In the certainty of never, change this to a certainty of always. So, now when we pluck a mouse and starve it, we also give it a treat every time it pushes that button. We effectively cause the mouse to push the button only when it wants a treat, regardless of whether it's already full or starving.
There is no way to eliminate the "consume everything in sight" outcome, if there is any form of "never" or uncertainty.
Slightly off-topic, but still pertinent.
There's a trick to quitting smoking. Keep a full pack of smokes at hand. It works because it creates a sense of abundance in spite of the real absence of intake. This sense of abundance is effectively the same as real abundance. It also converts the quitting to a purposeful controllable intentional choice, from an event over which we have no control. Every time the urge comes up, we make a choice because the choice is real. Do we smoke or do we not smoke? We can smoke because we have a full pack right there. We can also not smoke because the full pack makes this choice equally more obvious. Repetition of this choice every time the urge comes up also increases confidence in this choice every time this choice is made. Literally, practice. In the event we choose to smoke this time, we now gain experience from the contrast between smoking and not smoking, within the context of wanting to quit and in control, rather than from the context of being still addicted and powerless.
We are monkeys in a cage.