I don't think so either. It's just an educated guess but if you reduce a plants ability to make food it stands to reason it would be quick to make new leaves to replace the lost ones.
That's sort of the whole question I guess. I've never proclaimed to be an expert or botanist so I can only speak from personal experience, but I would also like to understand the reasons why the plant reacts in a certain way when this technique is applied.
All the experts say don't pull any leaves off as the plant won't grow without them, yet they seem to do the opposite. It does appear to induce a growth spurt with twice as many leaves growing back to replace the ones that were removed, how is this possible though when you have removed so many of the leaves to start with? If you've removed the thing that makes them grow, how can they possibly grow?
I am just guessing that there is a hormonal response to a plant being defoliated, just the same as it would if a branch were removed or growing tip? That response to regrow the leaves must be being fueled by some source other than the leaves which aren't there any more, so it must be a very big source to fuel that amount of growth in such a short time?
Is it tapping into the roots massive store of energy which it is saving for a rainy day? Or is the root mass still creating enough energy for a plant which should have twice as many leaves, could this be the source of energy for the extra growth?
If it's possible to manipulate these growth spurts by defoliating a plant, then it could possibly be advantageous to having them occur during flowering as it could force them to produce more flowers in these periods?