you wrote "...the judge study controlled for many variables...", but did it condition the judges to be aware of their alleged brain limitations? Did the study have a variable where judges were informed about the allegedly deleterious impact of low glucose, information where the judges were told they can counteract the impairment via positive thinking, a self fulfilling prophecy?
I am not convinced low glucose is always a limitation, it depends upon the severity of the deficiency, mild deficiency such as missing one meal could focus the mind thus the mind is less liable to deal with bullsh*t, the mind is perhaps less tolerant of nonsense thus unjust leniency
could be a consequence of being fully satiated. The assumption seems to be the refusal of parole was wrong and the leniency was right, but there is no evidence to say which decision was right or wrong. You can explain how the decisions are based on lack of glucose or lack of food but you cannot prove, it has not be proved, which decision was right. Many criminals often go on to commit more crimes therefore I am inclined to think the depleted glucose state (where parole was refused) was the correct decision thus a brain low on glucose is an advantageous state.So tell me again why "all would benefit from a steadier glucose fuel intake", where has the benefit been proved? All that has been proved is that glucose alters decisions, but it has not been proved what decisions are best. People have made assumptions about what decisions are best based purely on their bias.
It has actually been proved it is healthier to miss meals, or restrict calorie intake, regarding life extension. Here is an article regarding how starving yourself on alternate days could boost brainpower:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2103286/The-secret-long-life-Starve-alternate-days-boost-brain-power-shed-weight.html
"The National Institutes for Aging said their research was based on giving animals the bare minimum of calories required to keep them alive and results showed they lived up to twice as long."
The brain enhancement of providing a constant supply of glucose could actually decrease intelligence. The above link explains:
"In one set of experiments, a group of mice were only fed on alternate days while others were allowed to eat daily. Both groups were given unlimited access to food on the days they were allowed to eat and eventually consumed the same amount of calories. Professor Mattson said he found the mice fed on alternate days were more sensitive to insulin and needed to produce less of it. High levels of the hormone, which is produced to control sugar levels after a meal or snack, are usually associated with lower brain power and are at a higher risk of diabetes."
See also: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/the-risks-and-rewards-of-skipping-meals