Now I know many of you have had success with losing on a certain number of calories and small, frequent mini-meals, but I want to put a question out there and see if I can get some perspective on this.

Basically, 1200 a day has been my target calorie number for a while. I rarely go more than 50 over or under in any given day. When I was home for the summer, though, boredom eating would cause me to eat 1200 calories made up of small things like a RF cheese stick, a handful of grapes, a single plain chicken breast, but they were ALL measured, accounted for, and honestly added up to about 1200 a day with 30-45 minutes at the gym (which I would walk to while I had a 4 week pass.)

Now that I am back in school, I am still eating 1200 calories, but in what is usually 3 square meals a day with a small afternoon snack, and the weight is just flying off again.

My only guess is that constant eating keeps insulin production high and therefore makes the pounds more stubborn? I don't have blood sugar issues, but I know that insulin production can play a role regardless.

Thoughts?

I know when I was in school, I walked a lot more than summer. Is it possible that your activity is higher even if you exercised while home?

I don't think anyone can say there is a definite correlation between frequent eating and slower losses for EVERYONE - but it seems you may have stumbled on a correlation for YOU! That's what this journey is all about... Learning how our bodies respond to different situations and foods. I think there is something to your theory if you haven't changed your intake in any other way.

I think your quicker weightloss is a function of being more active, having higher NEAT (non-exercise activity)... you walk to classes, walk to your car/home/bus. stand sit and just in general MOVE MORE in a non-exercise way (maybe also on top of your exercise?) Incresing NEAT can create a SUBSTANTIAL calorie deficit...were talking 400-600 cals difference per day.... That is my guess... you were more sedentary when you were at home on break, generally. Remember, the calories we burn during hour we spend in the gym isnt S**T compared to our activity and caloric burn the rest of the day...
ALso...small frequent meals isnt for eveyone... "eat 6 small meals a day to stoke yor metabolism" is PURE MYTH spawned and touted by magazines/artciles and the press everywhere. FOR SOME, it is medically better because it keeps blood sugar ( insulin) more stable...... Other than that, theres no need to eat that way, ubnless you LIKE TO. Body Builders began the 6 meal a day thing because, honestly, when they are trying to build muscle its REALLY hard to get 4000 or 5000 cals in a day in 3 meals... SO, they opt for "smaller", more frequent meals of 500 to 1000 cals each.
We, however, are all in deficits ( or trying to be) so if we break our meals into 6 a day, that equals roughly 200 or 300 a meal. For me personally, this is not the way to go. I LIKE to feel satiated anf full, i prefer to have 2-3 meals at 400 or 450 cals each, so i can feel like ive actually EATEN, kwim?
Different strokes for different folks

I'd guess the extra exercise too. I got a huge amount of exercise from being at school despite avoiding sports for all I was worth.

I don't believe in a universal plan for how many meals everyone should eat in a day. Go for whatever works for you personally, something that you can sustain long-term without problems. You sound lucky enough to be able to function well both on a large meal pattern and a small grazing pattern, and that's fantastic, most people can only handle one or the other.

I could not agree more! You articulated this perfectly.

Thank you!!! I conquer! I was roped into the 5-6xs meals a day for a LONG time and yes I lost all my weight that way. HOWEVER I was miserable and hungry ALL the time. I've recently dropped to 3-4 meals a day and am in heaven! I've even started losing the weight I've gained, but I don't think it's necessarily related.