I can't say I'm surprised by the results of the study. It makes sense to me both that falling blood sugar might be a useful proxy for genuine hunger in non-diabetics, and also that the measure is less useful in diabetics.

However, I can't say I'm a fan of the whole concept personally, as it leads towards reinforcing the theory that people can be trained to just eat less, that they just need to try harder, to just have more willpower, that hunger is their own personal responsibility to manage. To blame the person, not the policy.

As someone who previously struggled with obesity almost my whole life, I couldn't disagree more. Hunger to me is the body's way of saying "I need more of whatever it is that I need." The trick is just to identify what that something really is. And if you're eating less of everything, that question can never go answered to the body's satisfaction, leaving it constantly hungry.

Not to say that how much we eat doesn't ultimately matter, of course it does, you can still have too much of a good thing. But when it comes to addressing hunger specifically, I would argue that it matters far more what it is that we eat. Because if we get that right, then the issue of how much we eat becomes less of an issue anyway, if what we are eating is that much more satiating in the first place.