Here's how that logic fails the test

Everyone has their opinion.  Cleveland Clinic has done extenstive studies as well and proved otherwise.

Can you send us the links? I assume it is peer-reviewed and published otherwise it csnnot be seen as proof! 

Clearly there are scientific studies that come down both ways.  So that means at best it's equivocal, rather than an agreed on fact.  It also depends on exactly what was studied.  The research I quoted specifically looked at the issue of breakfast, one of the very few studies to do so.  Other studies, such as the one you reference, may have been looking at other things and posited an effect without studying it directly.  What the study also said was that while there are a few studies that show some benefit, they are often mis-interpreting data and mis-stating the effect.

Scientists can have biases, and the notion of a healthy breakfast has been pounded into everyone in America - mostly by advertising.  One of the good things is that another group will come along and dig into the research and try it again.  Thus science corrects itself over time (too slowly often, but it does correct).

The idea that breakfast is healthy and necessary was, as far as I know, an invention of the cereal companies in the 1920s as a marketing gimmick to sell corn flakes. There are many parts of the world where breakfast is barely a thought... and obesity rates are far lower than those in america.  One of my fondest recollections is sitting in Prague watching some local workers have their "breakfast" - a cigarette and a beer... they were skinny :)

For people with blood sugar issues, breakfast is NOT optional.

Also, the advantage of eating in the morning and spreading smaller meals out throughout the day (as opposed to two big meals) is that it keeps blood sugar and metabolism at more stable levels.  

It still boils down to calories in and calories burned.  this of us who eat 6 or 7 times a day spread our calorie "allotment" out across those meals.  If I ate a 300-400 calorie meal/snack 6 times a day (instead of many of the meals being less than 200 calories), I would be regaining at a fairly rapid rate!

For people with blood sugar issues, breakfast is NOT optional.

Also, the advantage of eating in the morning and spreading smaller meals out throughout the day (as opposed to two big meals) is that it keeps blood sugar and metabolism at more stable levels.  

It still boils down to calories in and calories burned.  this of us who eat 6 or 7 times a day spread our calorie "allotment" out across those meals.  If I ate a 300-400 calorie meal/snack 6 times a day (instead of many of the meals being less than 200 calories), I would be regaining at a fairly rapid rate!

I agree about the blood sugar thing and also that it is an individual thing how it works best for us to take in our calories. Many banded people simply cannot eat at breakfast tme. 

but I don't like the blanket statement that we must all eat breakfast! There may be peer-reviewed science to support the premise but, despite being asked to do so, the OP has not provided any. jubjub has provided some for the opposite view. It would be good to see the "proof" the OP says exists. 

I know Tim Ferris did some interesting experiments with cold / ice baths on weight loss in his 4 hour body book.  I have an entire suitcase full of "nopes" for that process... 

Found a guy who says it far better than me... from suppversity.com

"For the average Joe, scientific bias is only an indirect problem. For him statements like 

• "The fact is, when you’re trying to lose body fat, you can’t skip breakfast." (Dr. Oz),
• "In fact, skipping breakfast actually increases your risk of obesity." (Mayo Clinic),
• "Want to trim your waist? Try eating breakfast" (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics),

or the Surgeon General's assertion "Eating a healthy breakfast is a good way to start the day and may be important in achieving and maintaining a healthy weight" are the real problem (examples from Brown 2013).

Our constant exposure to statements like these from "authorities" and those people in our surrounding who listen to what these "people in the know" say, has the concept of the "healthy" and "anti-obesogenic" breakfast engrained so deeply into our brains that even scientists apparently can't escape the subconscious pro-breakfast bias."

Now, what's actually true? What can you believe?

As Brown et al. point out, "there have been very few RCTs that investigated breakfast and weight change." (Brown. 2013) Consequently, researchers' overview of the currently available literature does not allow for a definitive answer to the litmus question "Is skipping breakfast good or bad for you?"

Figure 1: Randomly selected long(er) term studies on weight gain / loss of having / not having breakfast.

"Incidentally, intermediate endpoint studies would support the notion that behavioral mechanisms play a much larger role in the etiology of the purported link between breakfast consumption and obesity. The often heard hypothesis that having breakfast will reduce subsequent energy intake in the course of the day and thus result in an overall reduced food intake, however, is not supported by the currently available evidence."

Figure 2: Selection of controlled studies investigating the effect of breakfast eating / skipping on total energy intake.

"Bottom line: In the end, there are only three things we know for sure. There is a major bias in favor of a desirable (=preventive) effect of breakfast on obesity in the general public, the authorities and even among the scientists. This bias is reflected in the currently available literature in form of improper language use, misleading citations and unwarranted causal implications.

As long as we don't get rid of this built-in bias, we are left with a host of observational evidence, tons of flawed reviews and no answer to the (imho not even important) question whether you should or shouldn't have breakfast if you want to lose or maintain your current body weight."

----

The point being that there's evidence in various directions depending on exactly how a study was constructed and few of them were constructed to specifically answer the breakfast question.  Many of the studies are polluted with bias towards having breakfast as it's a cultural norm. Like so many other things obesity related, we probably have to do our own experimenting to see what works for us... there isn't a clear and definitive answer that works for everyone.

For myself, I ran the experiment.  I went several months where I skipped breakfast every day, and logged the results.  My weight was very stable during that time.  (I've been in maintenance for over a year).  

Means nothing for other people.  Run the experiment for yourself and see what happens!  Log what you eat... log your weight... Log how you feel and try it.  

Thanks for initiating the discussion!

Jubjub, thanks for posting studies. So much better than anecdote or hearsay!

having said that, I am about to become anecdotal. It has always been the case for me that if I eat breakfast, I feel more hunger by lunch time. Being banded, as for many banded people, breakfast is simply not a meal I want. Didn't seem to affect speed of loss.n

When i was MO, eating breakfast would definitely make me feel hungrier by lunch time.  Now that I'm of a more normal weight it doesn't seem to have that effect.  Maybe it's because I've got the VSG, maybe I'm just eating better stuff if I do eat breakfast, maybe my body has changed and processes breakfast differently... Too many variables really and not enough copies of me to try them all. ;)

That is so true.  Before surgery, I would be starving at lunchtime if I ate breakfast.  If I didn't eat breakfast, I wouldn't be hungry until the late afternoon.

Thank you for the previous posts.  It's so helpful to read what the people who perform research (which doesn't include Dr. Oz) are actually finding.