One of the things that has always fascinated me is how much of our culture is a modern affectation rather than being some deep pattern of human behavior. You don't even have to go back a few hundred years; there are things Americans perceive as having been that way forever that did not exist at the beginning of the 20th century. Most of our eating and sleeping habits have been shaped by the Industrial Revolution.
Regarding the article, I've experimented with a lot of different eating schedules and structures over the years, largely out of idle curiosity to see if it makes a difference. To be perfectly honest, I can't eat three meals a day. My typical day is eating something very light in the late morning, though I skip it a few days a week, and an early-ish dinner. I've kind of arrived there randomly but it suits me. I don't have time in the middle of the day for a Roman-style big lunch even if I wanted to have one.
A big difference between historical eating patterns and now was the lack of massive quantities of refined carbohydrates and sugars in the diet a couple centuries ago. The insulin response to many foods common in modern diets encourages repeated meals. The fact that my diet is typically quite low in refined carbohydrates probably makes it easier for me to eat only one significant meal per day.
The vast majority of humanity has, historically, eaten a diet comprised primarily of grain, potato and yam. Areas which supported such crops could support a lot of humans, while grazing areas had far lower populations.
It's historical nonsense to claim that a diet comprised primarily of refined carbs is some modern invention.
The normal definition of refining grains includes milling and sifting, both of which are ancient. They extend the shelf life of grains, among other benefits.
You are correct by your narrower (and unconventional) definition. Sugar has only been common for a few hundred years.
And neither was sugar as cheap and commonly available as it is today. Honey was more common, and even that was expensive. I don't think your average peasant had sweets very often.
If one divides their calorie needs by three and eats an average of those calories for each meal it isn't hard to get the body asking for three meals a day. Most people don't exercise though and have a slow metabolism.
My mother told me about getting the first TV in their neighborhood in the 1950s -- people were standing on their porch, staring in, trying to figure out what the hell the bright loud box was. Before that, they got their news from the movies and papers. Some newsreels went on until the 1970s, as seen in MASH.
She also told me about the government buying her best friend's house (and everyone else's house around there) to demolish them and put I-5 through the city. Before then, the only way from city to city were highways like Route 66, which wound through cities like residential streets.
I'm not sure how our present libertarian population would feel about governments applying eminent domain over thousands of miles of perfectly good farmland and housing.
Regarding the article, I've experimented with a lot of different eating schedules and structures over the years, largely out of idle curiosity to see if it makes a difference. To be perfectly honest, I can't eat three meals a day. My typical day is eating something very light in the late morning, though I skip it a few days a week, and an early-ish dinner. I've kind of arrived there randomly but it suits me. I don't have time in the middle of the day for a Roman-style big lunch even if I wanted to have one.
A big difference between historical eating patterns and now was the lack of massive quantities of refined carbohydrates and sugars in the diet a couple centuries ago. The insulin response to many foods common in modern diets encourages repeated meals. The fact that my diet is typically quite low in refined carbohydrates probably makes it easier for me to eat only one significant meal per day.