Three meals or six small

The best way is probably what works for you.

For me, I find eating 4-5 times a day is better than 3 times. I stay full and that keeps me from wanting to snack.

I personally like to eat smaller meals more frequently. Otherwise I find myself twice as hungry and more likely to binge on junk food.

Eating 4-7 smaller meals instead of 3 large meals a day tend to keep the hunger pangs away a little better. If you're on a low-carb diet, then it really doesn't matter either way. But, I would think if you're still eating a lot of carbs (150 grams plus), then 3 meals is going to cause your blood sugar to spike and then plummet after the meal. When your blood sugar plummets, then the hunger pangs are going to kick in and you'll tend to find yourself eating more than you should. But, different strokes for different folks.....for some people 3 squares a day works. For others, several small meals work. Experiment and find what works best for you in your daily life.

It doesn't matter...weigh control be it losing, maintaining, or gaining is all about energy consumption, not so much the timing of that consumption. Do whatever is going to result in the best dietary adherence.

I tend to eat 3 main meals a day and 2 snacks. I do this to keep my body burning calories for most of the day. My snacks are usually 100 calories or less but filling. My main meals I try to keep between 35-50 carbs. Your metabolism is what dictates how fast you burn the calories. If you ate all your calories at two meals, lunch and dinner let's say, your body will burn those slower because it has to save the energy (food you ate) until tomorrows lunch. If your body gets more meals and snacks from the same amount of food it does not try to conserve its energy (the food you eat) but goes ahead and keeps on burning energy. I hope this make a little sense to you because it took me a little bit to figure it out years ago. I just chose not to make good choice in the food I put into my body, but now I'm more than willing and it is working for me. Down 22 pounds since 01/02/14.

I eat kinda whenever it tickles me. On days I work I usually eat only twice a day, breakfast and dinner with something like a coffee or a fruit juice (okay never juice almost always a coffee) for lunch. On days when I'm off or out running around having fun I usually eat more throughout the day, a sandwich here, some fruit there, mostly snacking throughout the day with something like chicken and veggies for dinner.

Mine varies. During the week 5-6 smaller meals. Weekends depending on what we are doing 2-3 meals including several Coors lights!

It doesn't matter. It's the overall calories not meal timing that make you lose weight. So what ever works for you

This. Meal timing is all but irrelevant for weight loss/management in the vast majority of people without a preexisting medical condition that dictates otherwise.

What you can adhere to is the best way. For ME it is a lunch and a huge dinner.

As others have said - the 'best' way is the way that allows you to better adhere (as well as what is best for energy for gym performance).

Eating 4-7 smaller meals instead of 3 large meals a day tend to keep the hunger pangs away a little better. If you're on a low-carb diet, then it really doesn't matter either way.

That is only true for some people. When I eat a bunch of small "meals", which in my book are not meals at all, I am always hungry. When I eat 2-3 large meals I am very satisfied and not hungry between them. Also, whether low-carb or not, meal frequency makes no difference in terms of weight loss if the calories a kept the same.

To the original poster, do what will make you more likely to stick to your calorie goals. If that is eating 3 meals a day, do it. If it is 6 meals, do it. Just realize it is not the meal frequency that makes any difference, it is the overall daily calorie deficit.

I tend to eat 3 main meals a day and 2 snacks. I do this to keep my body burning calories for most of the day.

Regardless of eating your body burns calories all day. If it didn't you would be dead. If by this you mean that is keeps your metabolism going fast, that has been shown to be false. Meal frequency has no effect on total daily metabolic rate.

If you ate all your calories at two meals, lunch and dinner let's say, your body will burn those slower because it has to save the energy (food you ate) until tomorrows lunch. If your body gets more meals and snacks from the same amount of food it does not try to conserve its energy (the food you eat) but goes ahead and keeps on burning energy.

I think you are misunderstanding how our bodies work. Your body simply does not handle food that way. It does not try to conserve energy in any way like you described it.

When it comes down to it, meal frequency has no effect on metabolism, or weight loss assuming calories are kept the same. The only value it has is in compliance to one's calorie goals. So if your 3 meals and 2 snacks works for you, great, but realize it is the calorie restriction that is causing the weight loss, not the meal timing.

Whatever works for you.

I don't eat breakfast. I rarely snack, if I do its mid afternoon between lunch and dinner.
I eat big lunches and dinners.

I used to get the munchies late at night but I have started going to bed early so that took care of that.

I don't think it really makes a difference and I have read here more of the same.

I honestly only eat two to three meals a day.. And have lost 23 pounds in the past month. So I don't really think it matters how many meals, more so calories in general. I do believe that having smaller more frequent meals makes your metabolism run more efficiently.

Some people do better with 3 big meals, I prefer multiple smaller meals, or my blood sugar will crash too much.

^ This is me also! I don't think it matters how or when you choose to eat. Do what works best for you and your lifestyle.