After a family trip, Shashidhar Srinivasa explores the idea of new names for meal times.
Last summer, on a week-long family vacation, we ran into a distinctly American problem: too much food. Eating every meal out, we quickly realized that oversized portions — combined with our reluctance to waste food — made three meals a day feel excessive. By the second day, we adjusted.
My wife suggested skipping a meal. Two meals would be enough. “Brunch and… Lunner,” I said. “Lunner?” they asked. “A mix of lunch and dinner — like brunch, but later. A late lunch, early dinner.” My wife agreed. “Brunch and Lunner it is.” Our teenage daughter disagreed. “Please stop saying ‘Lunner.’ It’s not a thing.”
That reaction made me curious. Why wasn’t “lunner” a thing? It seemed practical. So, I looked into it. Others have tried naming that in-between meal — “drunch,” for example — but none have stuck. Which raises a bigger question: why did “brunch” succeed? Part of the answer is cultural. Brunch didn’t just solve a scheduling problem — it carried a sense of leisure and aspiration.
Popularized among British elites, it signaled a lifestyle as much as a meal. So, what would it take for “Lunner” to catch on? As norms around work and identity evolve, it’s possible new habits will emerge from different communities and routines.