In the meantime, a small number of randomized trials has continued to cast doubt on the protective effect of breakfast. At Cornell University, for example, scientists have showed in experiments that in some cases, but not all, depriving people of breakfast can lead them to eat more calories at lunch. But those extra calories do not make up for the calories they missed at breakfast, so at the end of the day, they still end up eating fewer calories over all.
I doubt it really works this way; the article similarly casts doubt on causality (to its credit).
My own experience is this. I generally eat a very modest breakfast, some fat and protein and as low-carbohydrate as possible (and coffee, of course, with cream but no sugar). When I used to eat cereal (even low sugar, fiber-rich cereal), I would get hungry much earlier, and it was a sort of relentless hunger. The kind of hunger that made it a necessity to eat an early lunch. But absent eating cereal, I can generally go much longer before eating lunch if need be.
And it might not just be that I avoid spiking my glucose levels (which of course I do avoid glucose spikes). It might also relate to appetite-increasing properties of modern wheat, a claim that I would be more skeptical about if it weren’t for my own experience (though of course I believe more study on this ostensible effect is warranted). If true, then the dietary recommendations that have been shoved down our throats for decades should be re-examined in full.
It helps that I’m not very hungry in the morning. I never have been. But some people are very hungry in the wee hours, and so the routine I’ve described above wouldn’t work for them. You have to do what works for you and is sustainable. Fortunately, I’ve been able to avoid wheat, starchy products, and excessive sugar intake for a long time, despite being a “sweet tooth” throughout my childhood. It’s not that difficult and it’s better for you anyway.