Church doesn't require counting calories, or even weighing things on a gram scale.

Just envision your two small meals together and think whether they'd constitute a big meal ... and use common sense, and relax.

This is bothering me a bit (scruples). I know that counting calories would be the most 'accurate' to know if you are eating past the large meal, but at the same time there are foods that make you 'feel' more full, perfect example would be apples vs cookies, the apple is less calories but fills you up more.

The point is not to lose weight, but to mortify yourself.  Since the lenten rules technically don't apply, you can do this however you like. 

And one could even eat a 'full' meal at a restaurant/take out which are usually high in calories due to the oils and sauces and still have a decent 2 'small' meals...

The old, old strict Lenten rules (Middle Ages) didn't allow milk, eggs, cheese, meat, etc for a full 40 days.  Basically, this would cut out meat and animal fats.  So you were left with fruits, veggies, nuts.  Current rules allow meat once a day, due to the modern diet deficiencies and hectic lifestyle. 

But...One can still cut back on the above things, and eat a more "paleo" diet (as an example).  The spirit of the law would suggest one limit foods favorable to one's tastes, whatever that is.  As long as you eat enough to fulfill your duties of life.  Don't go overboard.

I think I am bothered as last year I didn't work so I could have 1 meal per day without worrying about work ethic/performance/safety etc, so it feels like I am doing less or 'cheating' so to speak by eating 2 small meals (say 500 calorie each) and 1 main meal (~1500 calorie), and this is still 'under eating'.

You could eat enough calories to have sufficient energy, but still 'fast' by eating things you hate -- i.e. tuna salad sandwiches, or eggs with no salt/pepper/hot sauce, or dry chicken with no seasonings.  Or salad with dressings you don't like. 

And of course a person could always drink something between meals for calories like juice or milk, but I think not drinking between meals would be a good mortification and less of a 'cheat' (unless you really need it if you do I high intense labour job, my job isn't that intense or laborious, perhaps medium?)

There's lots of leeway.

But if you have a super large main meal then the 2 small meals can still be large as they are still less than the main meal.

I just use common sense.  I know some people who apply the letter of the law and expand their main meal to twice what they would normally eat.  I go by the yardstick of a main meal I would "normally" eat, though some people have a lot of small meals and rarely eat one super large meal, so perhaps it's more like something that would constitute a decent and satisfying main meal for an average person.

It's not an exact science using gram scales, calories counters, etc.  To me that borders on a scrupulosity that's reminiscent of the Pharisaical attitude.  I try to keep the main meal within the limits of what I consider a normal main meal that a normal person might eat, and then just visualize the two small meals to make sure that together they don't rise to that level of a completely satisfying main meal.

Point is to perform mortification not to be all scrupulous about it.

If you double the size of your main meal so that your two small meals could be normal meals, that fails the test of mortification.

Nor would it be mortal sin of any kind if on one or another day you miscalculated.

Also, the main meal isn't a relative thing.  I've occasionally done something where, because I was in a hurry, where I ate a pretty small main meal on any given day.  That does not require adjusting "down" the other two meals on that particular day.  Main Meal should be based on a hypothetical main meal that a normal person might find satisfying and not leave them hungry, not the actual main meal you ate on that day.

Mortal sin would be, "Forget this.  I'm not fasting."  If you trip up a little by an unintentional miscalculation, it's maybe a venial sin at best ... if you were negligent in keeping track.  I'm sure I've had days where I had a third small meal where I had forgotten that I had already had 2.

(Save meat, eggs etc for Sundays.)

For today, I ate a bowl of oatmeal for breakfast and big salad with bean chili on top for lunch.

For dinner, Tuna sandwiches with a side of plantain chips. 


Ash Wednesday, we went out to dinner one main meal for the day was vegetarian fajitas and veggie enchiladas. 

Yesterday, was salad for breakfast and apple.  popcorn for lunch and huge salad for dinner with bean chili and plantain chips. 

Drinking water, coffee and tea. 

On days where meat is eaten once at the principal meal, eat more meat than usual and you won’t be hungry later, it’s the veggies and rice, etc other carbs that’ll make you hungry later; cut the carb serving in half (or eliminate it entirely) and use extra meat to substitute for the deleted carbs and you’ll be quite surprised how hungry you’re not, I speak from experience on that.
As others have said, don’t fret too much over it…honest effort and God is happy!

Proteins are more filling which is why high protein meals are 'heavier'.

On days where meat is eaten once at the principal meal, eat more meat than usual 

That’s contrary to the purpose of Lent.  You’re supposed to feel some hunger.  It’s a penance. 

That’s contrary to the purpose of Lent.  You’re supposed to feel some hunger.  It’s a penance.

The Lenten discipline is both penitential and ascetical. Sometimes we trads focus too much on the penitential end since the Conciliar Church de-emphasises penance and confession has become a rare sacrament amongst the Conciliarists.