If I don't have diabetes, is it worth trying to flatten my blood sugar spikes?

Neither side is talking about people with diabetes, where glucose monitoring has an established clinical job that nothing here touches. Hall's participants ate identical presented meals in a metabolic ward, which is the strictest possible test of reliability and the least like real life.

Inchauspé is addressing people eating their own food at home who have never seen their own curve, and a large share of her audience are women in perimenopause or with PCOS, where the metabolic picture is genuinely different and neither side's evidence was gathered.

More than the fight suggests. Both agree that postprandial excursions in people without diabetes are larger and more variable than was once assumed. Both agree that muscle contraction after eating lowers them. Neither recommends calorie counting. Neither is arguing that the acute effects are imaginary.

The dispute is entirely about what follows from a curve: whether it is a signal worth organising your eating around, or a number that moves for reasons you cannot reliably attribute.

A randomised trial in normoglycemic adults of a spike-flattening behavioural programme against a matched food-quality programme, with a hard outcome or at least a validated symptom endpoint, over a period long enough to matter. Nobody has run it and both sides would be moved by it.

Short of that, a repeat-measures reliability study in free-living people would settle Hall's narrower objection, and he names the remedy himself: aggregated repeated measurements rather than single readings.