You can force a calorie deficit, and you will likely lose fat. The question is one of sustainably managing a calorie deficit. If somebody manages 200 calories per meal, 6 meals a day, and still manages to work out for hours a day, then that's something they can manage, it shows that they can do this, it doesn't show that I can do this. It might work. But one person might experience more hunger eating that way, where another person experiences less--there are anecdotes either way, I don't have any reason to believe one person and not believe another. Lots of thing are worth trying, but also worth moving on from if they're not working for you.

Atkins fat fast--for somebody at a 1200 calorie level, that might have looked much like Nawchem's friends meals, six 200 calorie meals.

There's an old study with sipping vs. gulping glucose, 50 grams. Sipped over three and a half hours, the insulin response and the switch from fat to carbohydrate for energy are greatly reduced in comparison to taking it all at once. The slower rate of glucose absorption allows for a greater amount to be disposed of through glycogen storage vs. oxidation.

There are studies showing six meals aren't better than three. But what are the conditions? If you took in 50 grams of carbohydrate a day, splitting that into six servings might give the situation where the rate of glycogen synthesis is sufficient to handle most of the glucose load. Suppose you're taking in 300 grams of carbohydrate a day--that makes for 50 grams per meal, meaning that much of the glucose will need to be oxidized/used to synthesize fat. Once the numbers are small enough, splitting things into smaller meals might start to act a bit differently.