Anyways, he told me they didn't have a breakfast, but instead a big meal called dinner... apparently what we now call lunch. Then a midday snack, then a late supper that was lighter than dinner. As confusing as that was, he always called lunch dinner into the modern age.
They were much more active so didn't really get fat, so I agree sofar as to say the modern diet is likely too much. I may agree they helped push the 'breakfast' idea, but not people eating more often.
This is still a thing in parts of the UK (and possibly other places):
"The divide between different meanings of "dinner" is not cut-and-dried based on either geography or socioeconomic class. The term for the midday meal is most commonly used by working-class people, especially in the English Midlands, North of England and the central belt of Scotland."
> "intermittent fasting" is more like "returning to normal"
Careful extrapolating what works for you to all of humanity. I agree that avoiding excess sugar is good, so I do really well with a light breakfast. That's not "abnormal" or a conspiracy by Big Cereal.
I was merely trying to remind you that healthy people's food habits are varied. So that you remember it for yourself.
I'm not claiming to be right either. I've definitely been guilty of pushing my own stuff on others. We all do that. It's easy to do. So, humility is a good thing.
People seem to go crazy in healthy food discussions. I think one takeaway I get is that different people get by with different methods. People get very preachy about their own method, without realizing how unique it is to them.
Breakfast was glorified in order to sell more cereal at the beginning of the industrial age, so perhaps what they call "intermittent fasting" is more like "returning to normal" in a society where everything is coated with dangerous amounts of sugar and salt. So I'd say take those anthropology generalizations with a grain of salt.