I used to believe that three evenly spaced meals were important for everyone, but now I'm not so sure. I think even that varies from person to person.

I've found for myself that no-meals works great (six to eight snacks instead of meals, none of them more than 400 calories, and most of them around 200). It helped me break the habit of feeling the need to be "full" after a meal. Now I'm never full, but I'm never starving and I'm never uncomfortable, either.

Other folks swear by IF (intermittant fasting), where they distribute their daily calories in a relatively short period of time, usually late afternoon to early evening.

I think research is too focused on finding a one-size-fits-all approach. Most research assumes that people's physiology is more alike than diverse - and I'm not convinced that's true. I think there's a huge difference between a healthy teen with 10 lbs to lose, and a middle-aged person with diabetes, thyroid issues and other issues with 150 lbs to lose.

I think there's more diversity than similarity, and until the science catches up, folks are left with trial and error.

This might hold true for some people, but I don't think this is a hard and fast rule for everyone.

I used to think breakfast was the most important meal of the day (and for me I still find that partially true), but it also is sometimes claimed that we should "eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper".

My meals are often reversed, and I like it that way. Sometimes I can't stomach more than a yogurt and a piece of fruit for breakfast. Sometimes I'm not even hungry for lunch so I grab a very small bite or half a sandwich. Whereas dinner has always been my go-to big meal. Heck, I'm even prone to after dinner food and sometimes late night snacking. (Gasp! Those huge no-nos!)

I'm also down 27 pounds. I think that my trial and error has shown that as long as I keep my calories in total balanced properly it doesn't matter when I eat. (Long as I'm not sleep eating, what a waste that would be! )

I agree. I don't think it matters when you eat your calories as long as you eat fewer calories overall.

This is a very interesting discussion. I kinda like the idea. It is quite flexible. But, I like most people's thoughts on this. Keep track of our calories, what we eat and our exercise and we should be good.

I am liking the idea of some to eat lower calorie during the week and then eat a few extra hundred calories on the weekend as a "treat". Kinda like ww banking points idea?

I think if I try this again, I will do as kaplods said she used to do when she did shift word: Set a specific time for my 24-hour period of calorie counting to being. Just using "dinnertime" is too lose. If I try this again, I think I'll start my day at 5:00 p.m. That might work. For now, the way I'm counting is working out fine, but if I find it difficult later, I may switch my starting time.

Just wanted to update those who are interested: I've been starting my calorie counting at 5 p.m. for since my last post. It's working out GREAT! I am finding it really helps me to keep to my calorie count. I am not a nighttime snacker, so I'm not sure it would work for those who are. However, counting this way makes me feel as if there is less opportunity to give in to temptation. I start counting at dinner, and a few hours later, of course, I sleep for several hours. So, the next day, all I have to do is stay within my calorie limit for two meals a day. If I have three meals (sometimes I have only two), I usually eat breakfast around 9:00 and lunch around 1:00. I only have to wait four hours after that to begin again. Also, as I mentioned in my first post, dinner is the most unpredictable meal for me, and counting this way has made it less stressful. For instance, if my husband spontaneously suggests that we go out for dinner or get take-out, I don't have to stress because I know that my whole calorie budget is available to me. That's not to say that I would "spend" all my calories on dinner. However, there seem to be many more options for low-calorie breakfast and lunch items than there are low-calorie dinner choices, so if I do overindulge at dinner, it's easier for me to eat less for breakfast and lunch the next day than it would be to eat a low-calorie dinner if I were counting the traditional way.

So, if you're thinking about doing this, give it a shot! It's working out well for me.

When I first got into calorie counting, I was just taking one morning class for the month before Spring semester started at college. I made a spreadsheet that ran from when I woke up in the morning (around 8 am) until when I went to sleep (around 10 pm) and I had a certain window of time to eat each snack as well as a certain spacing between eating. I kind of needed to get myself out of the whole 'grazing all day' pattern. When school started back up and I had a very inconsistent schedule, it kind of all went out the window.

The take away lesson I got from planning out my day in such detail was that it gives me a good guideline even now to know when I can 'bank' calories because I'm not hungry and also helps me to judge if the snack/meal I'm eating will hold me over at least 2 hours until when I should be eating again. I also eat more later in the day, so my morning snack isn't always as relevant as my mid-afternoon snack and I could skimp on breakfast and lunch knowing that I can have that extra serving at dinner.

I've been doing this for 2 weeks now (my dinner I log as dinner the following day) -- and I love it.
My husband prepares nearly all of my meals, and generally dinner is just whatever he ends up making. I can request/tinker breakfast and lunch, so after I log dinner I give some thoughts for the next day to make everything fit and it's really working well.

Love, love love. Such a simple shift has been making such a big difference in my stress/anxiety about how the day will end up.