While I'm a big fan of intermittent fasting myself, I don't think the research is anywhere near conclusive enough to say it's more important than basic advice like sleeping, exercising, and avoiding processed foods.

Historical evidence isn't enough?

Correct, historical evidence isn't enough. "Recorded history" has seen many revisions and is abundant with confounding factors.

It's still better than unreliable science. We're not adapted to eat breakfast; we're better adapted to skip it.

No snacking? Not long ago the advice was to munch on healthy things throughout the day.

The advice of yesterday is wrong today -- the way it seems to go with most food/health/lifestyle advice. For me, I live the way I want to live, and eat what I like to eat. If it shortens my life by a few years, so be it.

Same wrong advices were about cholesterol and saturated fat.

Yeah, and tomorrow your advice will be back to being wrong.

No, it won't be as my advice has thousands of years of backing. Historical and biological evidence, in this case, worth more than corrupt nutritional science. People eat breakfast thanks to the commercial interest of Kellogg's - you can do your own research about "the most important meal of the day"!

Current research indicates that people who don't eat breakfast are more likely to have health problems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast#Effect_on_health

I'm also reasonably sure that the hearty English breakfast is older than Kellog's cornflakes. As is the Japanese breakfast with grilled fish and rice and the traditional breakfasts of countless other cultures.

"Current research" there is not necessarily strong nor convincing either way, from the linked wikipedia article:

Reinagel also suggests that link between skipping breakfast and increased weight may be mostly behavioral – compensating with snacks and eating more later—and therefore not inevitable

I was referring to the expressions "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day". Also, different activities are adapted to different things. Even without one ethnicity, there might be differences (for example, slaves vs warriors). I subscribed to the Warrior Diet [0]. According to the author Ori Hofmekler, slaves were eating all day long while warriors were only feasting at night.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_diet

my ancestors were eating breakfast long before that company was founded. you might be right, but the way you present your side and your opinions (no hard facts so far)... you could work a bit on that part ;)

Different ethnicities are adapted to different things. For example, we eat differently than the Inuits. It takes several generations to do an adaptation to a new diet.

The burden of proof is on you, who is claiming an additional statement. I'm not going to do any research on anything to prove your point.