For years I skipped breakfast, not eating for 6-8 hours after waking up. What I found when I got older was that I tended to over eat at lunch and/or dinner. Additionally I found that it keeps my blood sugar stable, not a surprise. The studies in the article are at best subjective. I think if you're trying to limit food intake, eating breakfast is a wise choice. Why? In my opinion it may be as much psychological as it is fact. I think my day goes much better after I've eaten. If I don't eat, but say just have coffee, I tend to drink more coffee than I should. then I'm wide awake at 10PM that night. But more realistically, I think if you have a tendency to over-eat, it's best to do it earlier in the day instead of doing it at dinner. That way you are less likely to retire to the couch in front of the TV or sitting in front of the computer, or worse yet going to bed with a full stomach.
Of course, all of this is relative to what you eat and how much. With all those variables, that's why I think these types of studies are subjective at best. You decide for yourself
I'd heard that Brown rice and Wild rice is better than White Rice, but didn't realize White Rice was not good for those with Type Ii diabetes. The article doesn't specifically says "diabetes", but it does say "white rice has a negative impact on blood sugar, which leads to weight gain and encourages overeating because it is not filling." Personally, I prefer Couscous, but it's not mentioned in this article. The glycemic index of couscous is not too good either since it is a high carbohydrate pasta.
OK, I didn't write this article, our good friends at Care2 did. I added the question mark to the title because I'm not so sure it true. It's far fetched and the medical proof is... stretched. Only you can decide if it has any merit. Nonetheless, it's allot more fun than running or doing crunches.