Thanks Marcos, the answer is this: thanks to my glocometer (the use of which, can you imagine!!!, was not recommended for type 2 diabetics in the British national health service 10 years ago) I rapidly discovered that skipping breakfast and avoiding carbohydrates but enjoying some wine with supper (alcohol inhibits glucose release from the liver) put my blood levels happily in the pre-diabetic range. I'd essentially reversed my condition (& I think that if I worked at my desk less, and concentrated on my diet more, and take even more exercise, I could do even better--but my doctors are v happy with and for me, and I take only metformin and a statin).
not bad for someone who was told on diagnosis I'd be on insulin in 6 months!
When that reversal first happened, 10 years ago, my doctor was outraged because, he said, only 1% of patients achieved that, yet I'd done all the things he'd told me not to do. "doesn't that make you think?" I asked.
"No" he said, "these are the NICE guidelines." [National Institute of Clinical Excellence or something like that] which I found a bit discombobulating.
anyway, my story is now commonplace as people increasingly go carbohydrate-free, but then it seemed pioneering.
btw, when my glucose levels stray, a few days of vegan diet correct that. But most of the time I can be carnivorous if I wish.

Thank you. I've written about this group and their studies before (Breakfast is a Dangerous Meal, 2016, 4th Estate, UK, pp 91-95). What they've done in this particular study is to put their subjects on a weight-loss diet, which raises free fatty acid levels (which they did not measure or report in this study, unless I've stupidly overlooked them.) When free fatty acid levels are raised, breakfast remains a dangerous meal but dinner becomes even more dangerous. But that is only a temporary phenomenon while subjects are fasting and losing weight. But when subjects revert to stable weights, then dinner also reverts to being safe.
It's a shame I think that these authors did not measure circulating free fatty acid levels, because that would have made it so much easier to understand what is going on. It's also a shame I think that these authors attribute so much to circadian rhythms when a much simpler explanation--FFAs--are there to be found.
So the rule remains: for day-to-day life, breakfast should be avoided (unless you're one of those people who absolutely needs it and if you're slim and fit and free of blood sugar problems).
But if you're losing weight, then dinner will become temporarily an even more dangerous meal than breakfast, so then and then alone should dinner be the meal to avoid.

Hope you are still there, prof. Kealey.
Read your book and checked those three jakubowicz studies. Soon I settled with pictures only. The text and logic is fishy. 

They focus primarily on glucose reactions, while feeding td2 people (or pre D) with min 46% carbs. They are happy when the insulin reaction is greater! They seem to think lipolysis is a bad thing (using lipogenesis as a term). Similarily, they like bigger glp1 reaction. Like they get everything upside down, and repeat the same bs with the same team, over and over.

Not anymore so confused, thanks for guidance. 
JR

Thank you. I think my point is this: to thine own self be true. The curse of 'breakfast is the most important meal of the day' and 'breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dine like a pauper' is that it encourages people to eat breakfast when they're not hungry, out of a sense of metabolic 'duty.' So if you're not hungry in the morning, then don't eat breakfast! But if you are, then of course you must (though a person can still go easy on the carbs.) And if you're a 'labourer' and function better with breakfast then--again--do; but--again--don't eat just because someone says you should: eat only if you're hungry.
An astonishing number of us are pre-diabetic or diabetic, and there's no doubt that if we can lower weights across the population (& skipping breakfast is such an easy way to do so) we'd be healthier as a population.

Thank you for clarifying. I think it is important to note that skipping breakfast can be a useful "hack" for a certain population but does not mean that you must skip in order to be healthy. Thanks again, I'm looking forward to reading Part 2!

Thiago que legal ter vc neste curso hístorico. Muito obrigado para suas palavras. Seu feedback vale muito para nos. Muito sucesso para seu futuro como treinador, tudo de bom para o L3 e até logo!

Yup, you're right to be puzzled. Most people tend to go hypo after exercise, for reasons that are obvious, but some people tend to go hyper as glucagon and adrenaline kick in and drive glucose out of the liver. All anyone can do is to recognise that everyone is different and to determine what functions for them. But working out remains a very good idea!

This is really good news, and I think some people really do get a hypo dip after their blood sugar levels rise so high after breakfast. You wld seem to be one of those people

Gracias a ti Juan!

Derrick ~ As a physician who graduated 40 years ago, I can attest that we got a good grounding in biochemistry, however, we got (precisely) 3 hours (by which I do not mean credit hours, but rather actual hours on the clock) of 'nutrition'. And that amounted to a single lecture on how to write orders for 'low cholesterol diet', 'low fat diet', 'bland diet', 'low residue diet' etc etc. We, who were interested in the topic, were forced to dig out our own nutritional education over the intervening years as autodidacts, and I, for one, would love to know what they are teaching med students nowadays in nutrition. Would you mind expanding a bit on what they're teaching you now? Your comment that what you're learning doesn't at all jibe with what Dr. Kealey's initial diabetic treatment was, makes curious about what's being taught now. Would you comment further?  Thanks!

Thank you Derrick. What were you then taught? In those days people were still taught that type 2 diabetes was invariably progressive, but we now know a low-calorie and/or a low carbohydrate diet can in many cases reverse it. But I agree with Dr Eades that physicians were simply not then taught a nutritional science that made sense or which was even based on biochemistry, so I'd be grateful for your comments.

Thank you Candice, Amedeo and Emmanuel

Fernando que legal passar o fim de semana com voce e essa turma maravilhosa. Obrigado pela su mensagem, tudo de bom para frente e ate logo!

Grazie Fabri !!!

Grande Fabri!!! Complimenti per il muscle up!!!

Thank you, Ches, it was a pleasure.  Thanks for your help and hospitality!

Thank you for showing us the classic West Texas charm and hospitality! I loved finally getting to see your spot!