Most people I know do IF by waiting to eat until 2-3pm.

It seems like this would be the easiest approach but the second part of the article talks about the importance of syncing body clocks with daylight hours. If that argument has merit then we shouldn't be skipping breakfast but missing dinner.

The problem with missing dinner is that it makes compliance at lot harder if you mess with social schedules.

Also, willpower is strongest in the morning and decreases over the course of the day.

I think the concern is more about night time binging (i.e., people who eat a late dinner are also more likely to stay up long enough to eat a midnight snack).

I don't understand what you are saying here. It seems to me like you would expect hunger to increase over time after eating. Thus putting the part of your fast with the highest hunger intensity into your sleep time seems considerably easier than intentionally being awake for it?

I.E: If I skip dinner earlier I am effectively adding hours of minimal hunger experience but if I skip breakfast I am adding hours of maximal hunger experience.

> It seems to me like you would expect hunger to increase over time after eating.

This actually isn't the case at all. Thirst works this way: the longer you don't drink, the thirstier you get. But hunger tends to subside after a while if you don't eat, and comes back at the next normal meal time.