How much is a full meal in fasting?

[Odilon]

For most believers this is not a problem. My own father used the “over 60” excuse for why he shouldn’t fast and he was heathy as a horse until his late 80’s. Well, he has moved on to the next world and will now have to explain his actions to the Lord in person.

 

[Odilon]

Sorry, but it is possible to not eat anything - I do it every Good Friday and I am not dead yet. The only thing I do is drink some water, and drinking is not eating. One twenty-four hour period of no food is not an impossibility, it focus’s the mind on the great sacrifice that was made for us.

Yes, I can understand the directions for those who are sick - but most of us are healthy and one 24 hour period would do most of us a world of good.

 

[Odilon]

The Church does not say we cannot go without food, it only gives it’s own guidelines on the practice. I guess the Church’s definition of the word “fasting” and mine are different.

“And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”* (Matthew 6:16-18, ESV)

This is how I do it.

 

[OraLabora]

Sorry, but it is possible to not eat anything - I do it every Good Friday and I am not dead yet. The only thing I do is drink some water, and drinking is not eating. One twenty-four hour period of no food is not an impossibility, it focus’s the mind on the great sacrifice that was made for us.

Yes, I can understand the directions for those who are sick - but most of us are healthy and one 24 hour period would do most of us a world of good.

Sorry, but just because something is possible, does not make right, or healthy. St. Benedict warns us about spiritual pride.

The notion that a fast is no food has not been a Church teaching since, oh, a bout the 6th century. St. Benedict, in his rule, written in the 6th century, says this about fasting:

From holy Easter till Pentecost let the brethren dine at the sixth hour and take supper in the evening. From Pentecost on, however, during the whole summer, if the monks have no work in the fields and the excess of the heat doth not interfere, let them fast on Wednesday and Friday until the ninth hour; but on the other days let them dine at the sixth hour. This sixth hour for dinner is to be continued, if they have work in the fields or the heat of the summer is great. Let the Abbot provide for this; and so let him manage and adapt everything that souls may be saved, and that what the brethren do, they may do without having a reasonable cause to murmur. From the ides of September until the beginning of Lent let them always dine at the ninth hour. During Lent, however, until Easter, let them dine in the evening. But let this evening hour be so arranged that they will not need lamp-light during their meal; but let everything be finished whilst it is still day. But at all times let the hour of meals, whether for dinner or for supper, be so arranged that everything is done by daylight.

Clearly then, fasting in St. Benedict’s day meant delaying the main (and only) meal on fast days and Lent.

It did not mean going without food for 24 hours. The Church then, has solid traditional ground on which to base her notion of fasting.

The Church does not say we cannot go without food, it only gives it’s own guidelines on the practice. I guess the Church’s definition of the word “fasting” and mine are different.

The definition of “fasting” is to go without food for a period of time. That definition does not say 12 or 24 hours, it merely says “a period of time”. As noted above for a monk in the 6th century, it meant one meal a day. You could argue that this means 24 hours, but then the abbot always had the discretion to add more if the monks required it due to heavy labour.

 

[Socrates92]

That’s me in cycling season! Problem is, after I put the bikes away for the winter, I forget that I can’t eat like that anymore, and I balloon.

How serious of a cycler are you? Just out of curiosity. Are we talking full-time intensive training, or just a normalish 30-70km/day commuting to/from work?

It’s impossible to not eat anything, period. One has to balance the need to fast with the need to maintain remain healthy and alert according to our circumstances. Someone who works on a loading dock, for instance, cannot be expected to go 24 hours without eating, nor would you want an airline pilot to suffer from low blood sugar or have hunger distract him/her on a difficult instrument approach in bad weather.

I may be unusual, but I find it’s much more difficult to do mental work on an empty stomach than hard physical labour.

 

[OraLabora]

How serious of a cycler are you? Just out of curiosity. Are we talking full-time intensive training, or just a normalish 30-70km/day commuting to/from work?

5000 km this season. First ride January 27th during a thaw, last in late October when I had to travel to Rome for 10 days. I hoped to ride when I got back but winter arrived early with tons of snow, so now I’m confined to my trainer in the basement (as well as some hiking/snowshoeing in the mountains for cross-training).

I usually do a couple of centuries (160 km/100 miles) per season. A “normal” outing is about 80 km, with about 1000 m elevation difference. This year I bought a gravel bike and really got into gravel roads. The grades are up to around 20%. So it’s pretty intensive. I’ve ridden a lot in Italy, in the mountains. I lean to being a climber. Not a fast climber, but a strong one.

I figure that’s not bad for my age (60)

I may be unusual, but I find it’s much more difficult to do mental work on an empty stomach than hard physical labour.

For my daily reading of the Rule of St. Benedict, I use a version with an excellent commentary by a Trappist abbot. He said somewhere that it is impossible to do good liturgy, or something along those lines, on a grumbling stomach!

 

[LilyM]

The scriptures don’t ever say that Christ ate literally nothing. They simply say that he went hungry.

And He quite deliberately differentiated Himself, who enjoyed food enough to be accused of gluttony, with the very ascetic John the Baptist.

 

[MiserereMei25]

Good for you for fasting beyond the standard requirement. I wish I had that self discipline.
But when it comes to fasting my friend, remember Isaiah 58…Isaiah 58…

 

[thistle]

Sorry, but it is possible to not eat anything - I do it every Good Friday and I am not dead yet. The only thing I do is drink some water, and drinking is not eating. One twenty-four hour period of no food is not an impossibility, it focus’s the mind on the great sacrifice that was made for us.

Yes, I can understand the directions for those who are sick - but most of us are healthy and one 24 hour period would do most of us a world of good.

I repeat we are to be OBEDIENT to the Church. The Church gives us fasting rules. If you wish to do a deeper fast that is up to you but you cannot say the Church is wrong.

 

[thequeen]

You are so correct that is why I do not fast anytime during the year not even on ash wednesday or good friday and sometimes I even have to break the one hour fast rule my priest knows this and is okay with it. I have type 1 diabetes.

 

[semper_catholicus]

It would depend on age, weight, height, occupation etc. There really isn’t a blanket answer covering everything, and it’s something everyone needs to determine for themselves, possibly with the assistance of a pastor.

 

[Socrates92]

5000 km this season. First ride January 27th during a thaw, last in late October when I had to travel to Rome for 10 days. I hoped to ride when I got back but winter arrived early with tons of snow, so now I’m confined to my trainer in the basement (as well as some hiking/snowshoeing in the mountains for cross-training).

I usually do a couple of centuries (160 km/100 miles) per season. A “normal” outing is about 80 km, with about 1000 m elevation difference. This year I bought a gravel bike and really got into gravel roads. The grades are up to around 20%. So it’s pretty intensive. I’ve ridden a lot in Italy, in the mountains. I lean to being a climber. Not a fast climber, but a strong one.

I figure that’s not bad for my age (60)

Impressive.

For my daily reading of the Rule of St. Benedict, I use a version with an excellent commentary by a Trappist abbot. He said somewhere that it is impossible to do good liturgy, or something along those lines, on a grumbling stomach!

That Trappist abbot was a wise man.

 

[TK421]

803.52666666667(repeating) calories = full meal

 

[OraLabora]

Impressive.

I’m also diabetic (type II, hereditary in my case), so it really helps. So far no need for insulin. As I’m intolerant to statins, it also helps with cardiovascular fitness.

 

[mVitus]

My own father used the “over 60” excuse for why he shouldn’t fast and he was heathy as a horse until his late 80’s. Well, he has moved on to the next world and will now have to explain his actions to the Lord in person.

In other words he used the “excuse” of following the Church’s laws in regards to fasting and did something that was perfectly permitted. I can’t see how that would be a black mark.

 

[edjlopez23]

Okay, for a full course meal so around 700-800 calories because that’s like 1/3rd of a day’s amount of food. Maximum 1000 calories.

And the two smaller meals should be under 350 calories each since the two small meals combine have to be less the a full meal.

So basically fasting is between 1/3rd to 2/3rd of a day’s amount of food. (700-1700 calories depending on a person’s will of discipline)

 

[Mark121359]

I would say a four course meal would be in order…with a double helping of cherry pie for dessert of course!!!

 

[thistle]

Okay, for a full course meal so around 700-800 calories because that’s like 1/3rd of a day’s amount of food. Maximum 1000 calories.

And the two smaller meals should be under 350 calories each since the two small meals combine have to be less the a full meal.

So basically fasting is between 1/3rd to 2/3rd of a day’s amount of food. (700-1700 calories depending on a person’s will of discipline)

That is your opinion. The Church does NOT define a meal that way. For fasting purposes a full meal is what an individual would normally eat.
Trying to define meals in calories will simply have negative affects on people who are scrupulous!

 

[edjlopez23]

It’s not fasting if you eat like 2300 calories in that day. A person can still overeat in one full meal and two small meals.

 

[OraLabora]

I guess it depends if one is doing some intensive physical labour. But then the Church already dispenses people who do heavy labour, and in other specific circumstances (health, pregnancy for instance) from fasting.