Breakfast is, as has been pounded into our skulls for the best part of a century, the most important meal of the day. Bluntly put, this is nonsense on stilts. I eat two meals a day, four to six hours apart. That I happen to eat fairly early is largely a product of the fact that my mid-day meal is approximately eighteen hours previous. So in the literal meaning of the word, I do indeed "break my fast". However, breaking my fast with meat is about as far from the typical sugar saturated carb heavy breakfast eaten by countless millions of peeps as it is possible to get.
Even at that I do not immediately eat upon rising. Usually my morning meal is one to two hours after I wake up, and then my mid-day meal is noonish. This results in what is called an "eating window" of from four to six hours. This loose regimen is what seems to suit me best, but everyone will be different in this regard. A mid-day meal, then an evening meal 4-6 hours later is just as viable and may mesh better with a person's schedule better than my method. Even more work friendly is a big meal before work, don't eat at work at all, then have another big meal as soon before bedtime as can be managed.
Some in the low-carb sphere practice OMAD, which means one meal a day, usually mid-day. But in my case I'd have to stuff myself well past satiety to make it practical. Plus it is impractical for working folks of almost every stripe. 2MAD, as it's sometimes called, will suit most work schedules just fine. Even 2MAD is difficult to maintain if the meals are loaded with carbs. Carbs simply don't have the long lasting satiety levels of animal protein and fat. On a diet that is between 60 and 80% carbs, very common these days, going eighteen hours without eating, or even more than eight hours, is extremely difficult, and not sustainable for most people.
I do not "track macros" as is common for those beginning a low-carb journey. I don't count calories either, but I estimate I eat 2000 to 2500 calories per day, so I'm hardly calorie deficient. But, the number of calories per day is dramatically less important than what one is eating. Calories in/calories out is an absurd paradigm because we do not have a coal burning steam engine inside of us. We have a physiology that metabolizes carbs, proteins, and fats very differently. We do not "burn" calories. We chemically break down food into the particular substances our body uses to go about its business. This is not just semantics because poisoning ourselves with ultra-carbs, sugar for instance, bollixes up our metabolism and can, usually does, eventually drive us into chronic illness. Grains and fruit are perhaps a tiny, very tiny, bit better than direct ingestion of table sugar, but the doleful results are largely the same.
A low-carb eater almost by default practices what is called "intermittent fasting". All this really means is that a person is going longer without food than is the norm. Even just going without food while sleeping eight hours is technically intermittent fasting. But, by fasting from 16-18 hours our bodies respond by ramping up cell repair processes (autophagy) then carry them out for a while before eating is resumed. Eating animal products and intermittent fasting mimics how our distant ancestors would have done it. Frequently they were forced to do it because of the spotty nature of food supplies hundreds of thousands of years ago. Homo sapiens evolved to be able to go without eating for extended periods, days or even weeks, without noticeable problems. Which tamed the famine/feast nature of paleological life.
Eat mostly animal products. Practice intermittent fasting. Live long and prosper.
