As a side-note - not eating in the morning is actually extremely healty. If you think about it - what animal in the wild wakes up an finds his breakfast beside him?
This is the sort of thing where nutrition is
so divided that I don't think anyone knows what's what really. I was chatting with a girl a few months back and she had been told by her doctor that not eating breakfast would take five years off her life. So we have two experts giving completely the opposite nutritional advice. One of them, or both, is wrong, but good luck getting either of them to question their POV!
The thing with 'real' science is it results in theories with applicable consequences and obvious proofs. Nutrition has a zillion different people all with different theories and a mess of investigations, all proving and refuting each other, and I think the whole driving point in reality is money. I've seen enough bunk scientific investigations in my time to not trust any info at face value.
My philosophy is very natural. The body needs food. Provide as much as it needs. It's very capable of adapting (current culture loves to try and regulate the body with chemicals and drugs and
thinking about things, instead of just letting it be).
The major problem that I see is - eating has become a form of entertainmet these days. There are even shows on TV, like Jaime Oliver and comp.
I don't begrudge the likes of Jamie Oliver who are trying to get busy people to eat good, varied food. Food for foods sake has been a cultural phenomenon for centuries though, for as long as people have been around. It's a social activity. I think there's just more opportunity for people to eat than ever, and with stupidly rich foods. eg. A muffin or cake slice at a Starbucks can weigh in at 500-600 calories. That's a small meal! In a cake! People will eat it as a snack but it carries substantial energy. Eating without an awareness of how much energy one is intaking is definitely part of the problem IMO.
Counting calories is a fundamentally flawed point of view. It leads to obesity. It is typically promoted and pushed by the food industry (especially e.g. Coca Cola).
A calorie is not a calorie!
Although I can agree to some point, because not all calories are equal in terms of dietary value, the principle of only eating as much energy as you need remains regardless what that energy is measured in. Calories on food labels may not be accurate but (I hope!) they are somewhat useful.
Guess what...eating carbs has drastic effect on insulin level (increase!!)...increasing insulin, leads to fat storing, increasing insulin decreases the abilities of the fat cells to release their fat to fuel the body. In consequence, your body gets inefficient in using energy (all biochemics, well known since decades)...in consequence: your body tells your brain: eat more, I am hungry! A viscous cycle.
From personal experience I don't believe you.
I eat a hugely carb rich diet. I dislike fatty foods as a norm, except for some really rich junk foods. And there are plenty of civilisations living of carb-rich diets.
So thermodynamics is not the answer...
You can't avoid thermodynamics.
Your body needs xxx amount of energy to run, in whatever measure. Let's say Joules to avoid the calorie issues. Let's say a person needs 7000 kJ to operate their normal metabolic bioactivities, and 3000 kJ for their daily movements and activities. This person needs that energy from their dietary intake, requiring 10,000 kJ of energy within their food. If the body ingests more than that, let's say 12,000 kJ a day, it has three options:
1) Don't absorb the surplus energy
2) Consume the surplus energy then and there
3) Store the surplus energy
There is no mechanism for 1). The body doesn't have a calorie-counting mechanic that's wonderfully accurate and will shut down the digestive tract once 10,000 kJ has been absorbed. 2) would require the energy to be burnt up, which would mean muscular movement and heat generation. People could go into hot spasms to burn of the extra calories and stop when it's over, but that's not a terribly useful state in a dangerous world. 3) The body stores the excess, for which it has a very well developed biochemistry, to be used on those days when either the intake is less than the 10,000 kJ requirement or the daily requirement has been increased (due to running away from wolves).
That's where the thermodynamics comes in. You cannot operate a mechanism without sufficient energy, and an excess has to go somewhere for which there is no mechanism in organisms other than storage. Eating carbs may make one want to eat more, but it isn't necessary to eat more - those calories ingested are going somewhere and being used.
I'm not a nutrition expert by any stretch, and I know there's been a lot of research and new stuff found since I was studying, but I do have a degree in Biochemistry wherein I studied in detail the various metabolic and catabolic processes, the hormones and enzymes and cycles. They all work to balance dietary intake with requirements, storing energy when it's in excess in the bloodstream after eating and recovering it from the stores throughout the rest of the day. This is why I find new-fangled ideas like 'complex carbohydrates slowly releasing energy' to be laughable. Simple carbs will be digested and the energy stored in glycogen. Human beings don't need to regulate their food intake as if everyone was diabetic! I can go without breakfast because my mornings are sedate and my body taps into glycogen and fat reserves, topped up the night before, for operation before the first influx of energy from lunch. The reason insulin goes up when you eat carbs is to store the energy, otherwise it'd be swimming around your blood. But once the energy is stored, the insulin drops again, and then it's the other hormone (can't remember the name and can't be bothered to Google it to pretend I can) that's released to get the energy back out again. If people are getting hungry eating carbs, my guess is that they are snacking carbs. If they eat a big, carb-rich meal, they'll get plenty enough food to switch off the hunger response and then the body can store that energy away. And most importantly IMO, carbs recharge glycogen before fats, which is what you really want. Fats are stored as fat and not glycogen, meaning no decent energy for muscle operation. Starchy foods are extremely numerous (potato, rich, wheat), the staple of all cultures except Inuits eating their whale blubber, and organism biochemistry is highly optimised around using glucose. Avoiding carbs as a 'bad thing' is unnatural. Just don't eat too many of them.