From the article:
The latest research, performed under conditions that more closely resemble a real-world scenario, shows the opposite result. In this study, three high-protein meals lead to greater fullness and appetite control when compared to six high-protein meals. You can read my summary of the study here: Three Meals Superior for Appetite Control.
There's no doubt that meal frequency is highly individual. However, absolute statements claiming smaller meals are superior for hunger and appetite control are untrue and are based on studies using methods that greatly differed from real-world meal patterns. Current research with a normal meal pattern and protein intakes that are closer to what can be seen in a typical non-re****ed diet, suggests superior appetite control when eating fewer and larger meals.
I think the 'typical guy' would need to plane more so as meal frequency gets higher. If you are looking at 2400 maintenance, surely planning 6 meals of 400 calories is more difficult than three meals of 800 calories?
But again, lets emphasise the personal choice aspect of all this. For me I know that i succeed with limited meal frequency because of my personal preferences, which is to eat later in the day. If I skip breakfast and lunch then I usually consume less (and higher quality) calories in the day. If the research quoted in teh article is correct then this can only be a good thing for me. And as I'm not terribly consistent I can attest anecdotally that my workouts (evening) are not affected in comparison to when I do give in to social pressure and have lunch with my colleagues