I've encountered several websites recently that seem to have the calorie number"300" on a pedestal, as if this is what we should aspire to as a total count for a meal. So much so that a current bestselling book out there has used this premise to get you to buy it.
Let's do some math.
A 30 year old, 5' 5" woman aspiring to be 135 lbs, not accounting for being moderately physically active, can eat about 1800 calories a day. Even if breakfast is only 60% as big as lunch and dinner, that works out to about 400 calories. I've found that having a large breakfast makes it easier to avoid bingeing later in the day, so my preference in this situation would be to recommend 500 calories at each meal, which leaves room for a 300 calorie snack.
If you're not hungry first thing in the morning, it may be that your blood glucose dropped overnight and triggered a blood sugar surge. The best remedy for this is often to be sure that 300 calorie snack comes before bedtime and includes protein. One of the first signs that you're actually resolving your insulin resistance seems to be that you find yourself hungrier, earlier in the morning.
Somehow, somewhere, 300 calories has been some kind of magic number to aim for. But I also see, time and time again, that women who choose this number as their goal, experience more cravings and are more likely to binge.
When it comes to calories, it's not always that less equals more. It's about making sure you have enough calories at the right times of day so that you are not hungry for too many at the wrong times of day.
For most women, a meal size of 500 to 600 is just about right. Try it, even once and see if it makes a difference in your cravings and urges to binge.
Need help finding 500 calorie breakfasts? I did a post awhile back on this topic that is consistently one of our most read. I encourage you to check it out.
http://www.incyst.com/2009/03/four-500-calorie-breakfasts.html