I'm not sure I can add much to the argument of meal frequency. A lot of the information I rely on has come from the body building community, since that is wher

I'm not sure I can add much to the argument of meal frequency. A lot of the information I rely on has come from the body building community, since that is where I get a lot of my information (although, I'm not a body builder). I accept the fact that there are many different schools of thought on the subject, each with their own sets of "empirical evidence." Not surprisingly, I tend to champion the one that worked for me. My change from 'three squares' to 4-5 smaller meals a day has had quite a positive impact on my health and my lifestyle. As such, I'm not about to give it up. I really like never being really hungry. (note that I define a meal as 'eating something', even if that something is simply a banana.) > Notice how you never hear from people who have stayed thin for years by counting calories. No, I didn't notice. In fact, a lot of the people I know that have stayed fit for years have used calorie counting as part of their tool-set. The author of the book linked in my above comment is one of those people. However, that's just my experience. Like the author of the original author stated, counting calories is used more as an educational tool than a micro-management tool. It helps people understand their own personal energy (im)balance. That may well be the crux of your point though. I find it interesting that the research indicates something doesn't work that I have seen work with much success. I've always thought that calorie counting makes sense, since "you can't manage what you don't measure."