I want to build up my physique but apparently, as Catholics, we are called to eat only one meal a day (not that we must but rather, we should strive for it). There's no way you'll be able to meet all of your body's caloric and nutritional needs with one single meal which basically means you can't do anything that would raise those requirements - meaning no bodybuilding.
testeverythingblog.com
If you are a monk than it is recommended that one eats once per day, but even than they usually do that gradually. Lay people are not called to so. It is recommended and good if a lay person did, but not recommended.
Personally, follow the recommendation in the Didache which says we ought to fast twice a week ( Wednesday and Friday). This helps build the habit of fasting.
As for body building, one could argue it is an act of vanity, but regular exercise is not bad at all. It is good to keep your temple clean and well built.
No, because bodybuilding is almost always associated with poisoning one's body with steroids to feed his pride. Also, one should dress modestly and bodybuilders never do that. They're the male equivalent of instagram thots, always taking pictures of their half-naked bodies and showing them in the internet.
As the other user stated, there's no problem with regular exercise.
Feels bad man
polite sage for off topic
I think it should be fine as long as you stay natty. Jesus is pretty jacked on the Sistine Chapel
Did you even read the article you linked?
Bodybuilding would be a good form of asceticism to offer up to God that also has temporal benefits. Make sure you're doing it for the right reasons and not for vanity. Do it to live a longer life so you can praise God all the more, and fitness to do good works even into old age, and so on.
Also since you posted Schwarzenegger, don't take professional Bodybuilders as idols, they all take steroids. Their ethic and dedication is admirable though.
Build the body to mortify the flesh.
Strength and discipline.
Those two days are the days when we are required to do so; but, tbh, we should fast as much as we can.
Stare at a blank wall and wait for Jesus. That's the only thing you are allowed to do.
One meal per day pfff. I eat only sun rays (photons).
...
Do you even know ANYTHING about squatting heavy
I see a bit of a conflict here. Ideally, one would lift weights on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays but if those are all fast days, you won't be meeting your body's needs I think. You seem to advocate for both exercising and fasting. Do you think there's any room for conflict between the two?
What would count as bodybuilding for "vanity"? I've been obese my whole life and I'm pretty ashamed of how I look. I want to be slim and be able to look good in what I wear. I would also like to look good topless for once in my life while I'm still young.
Can you elaborate? Is it because, through controlling what I eat, I dominate my bodily urges and cravings?
Explain OMAD to me.
I thought GOMAD was a /fit/ meme that just ends up making people get fat. I think it originates from some book by Mark Rippletoe.
Monday isn't a fast day
With this attitude, he’s likely he won’t ask you.
Yes, that was a minor oversight of mine. But since Wednesdays and Fridays are still fast days, I feel my point still remains mostly intact: Is it possible that lifting weights on those fast days could create issues?
Make those days cardio days or rest days.
Nothing wrong with it, just has temptations of vanity and pride as well as having the potential to overtake your piety if you're not careful. Imo it's a great hobby to enjoy, great disciplining and strength building habit too.
Yeah it's from Mark Rippetoe. He recommends it to skinny beginners who have a hard time eating enough food to gain weight. A gallon of 2% has 2000 calories; it will absolutely make you gain weight. You shouldn't be gaining more than 1 to 2 pounds a week when doing weight training. Otherwise you'll just gain way too much excess fat.
In some Christian denominations, devotees, especially religious leaders, are encouraged to eat only one meal a day.
In the fitness world, OMAD is basically a type of intermittent fasting. If your goal is to lose weight, it will certainly help you reduce caloric intake. Many say that it encourages your body to retain muscle and lose fat when losing weight, though there is not a lot of scientific study done on the topic.
I think ordinary exercise is fine, after all God made a body for each of us, and exercising takes care of it. Bodybuilding can risk vanity, and some forms are purely to look attractive rather than actually keeping the body strong, healthy, and functional. But I'm not in shape, so correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.
Somewhat of topic, is it okay for Christians to learn some kind of physical self-defense?
Bodybuilding with steroids seems to be entirely unhealthy, from my awareness. Those big men can hardly walk up a flight of stairs without huffing and puffing but because they're strong, they're seen as healthy. Natty bodybuilding seems to be entirely healthy though as you'll only be able to gain and retain muscle by being highly correct with your dieting and fitness (unlike on steroids where gains are made, regardless of whatever errors you're making).
I imagine self-defense is completely fine. Martial Artists are known to be the friendliest people, least prone to unnecessary violence. I believe this is because each and every sparring match bears a gentle reminder of their innate frailty as human beings.
On that note, why did Christianity never develop a martial art like the pagan faiths of the East? I've recently had the idea of hijacking their methods and techniques and applying it to God instead of their gods.
I agree bodybuilding can be at risk of vanity, but if your goal is just strength training I wouldnt worry about it.
I would almost say its mandatory to be able to defend yourself and your family. The key is that its for self defense its not for starting fights or getting involved in them. Dont let yourself be goaded into a fight, but if someone is trying to cause you harm you should defend yourself.
european christians developed dozens of advanced martial arts from unarmed combat to arts devoted to use of a particular weapon. The changes in warfare over the centuries caused new forms to be created and old styles to fall out of use. HEMA, historical european martial arts, is mostly about rediscovering the abandoned martial arts of europe.
jesus isn't natty though.
what is wrong with wanting to look attractive?
Is he supernatty or praenatty?
I guess the reason I feel that Christianity never developed a martial art is because when you look at the Eastern martial arts, it's not just about fighting. They have all these concepts about the flow of chi within the body and harnessing it and using it in combat that you just don't find in the West. Why did Christians never develop some form of technique or meditative exercise where one feels the flow of the Holy Spirit within the body, for instance and then weaponise it in hand-to-hand combat or some kind of body-conditioning exercise? We don't see things like that in the West.
Because peasants in Europe were allowed to own weapons. They had martial arts, but they involved weapons because they could, while many Eastern peasants would be executed if they were found with a sword. And despite the romantization the moderately trained armed guy will beat the expert unarmed guy 9 times out of 10.
Even still, the martial arts found in the West that use weapons seem to focus on practicality in combat. The East have a lot of flare.
I guess my primary issue is that you cannot really separate Eastern martial arts from eastern beliefs about chi and whatnot whereas with the West, you can separate the martial art from Christianity. The West doesn't have that fullness of integration with regards to religious beliefs and approach to combat. I think I've seen some people say that they Hail Mary as they do their exercises in the gym but that feels a bit tacked on in comparison.
Its because most of that stuff is esoteric nonsense. This gets more into cultural differences between east and west, as well as needing to understand the various waves of interest in the eastern mysteries. Ever since the east was opened up in the 1800s the interest in the eastern mysticism will rise for a decade then fall only to rise again later. It rose in the 20s/30s fell and then rose again in the 60s. Meditation was achieved in the the west through intense prayer, in the east there was much more focus on the procedure of it than anything else, whether it was special breathing or the exact movements you use. Chinese martial arts in particular something that only make sense when you know the history of china and its internal conflict cycle. The majority of the chinese "martial" arts have very little to do with actual warfare and havent for a long time. European martial arts were something that were constantly worked on and revised regularly as weapons and armor advance for the sole purpose of winning in battle. You dont really see a lot of flashy things in european fighting until the 17 and 1800s in the post personal armor time. There is also a difference between western spirituality and eastern spirituality. The west before the industrial revolution god was central to life and ever present so there was no need to inject esoteric mysteries into learning the sword. China had a polytheistic pagan style spirituality with the added belief that doing things would not make you closer to the gods, but in fact you could become an immortal god.
I spent enough time learning about the east to know now that for the most part its not that interesting once you get under the surface. Its not focused on combat, but look into the concepts of ora et labora and lectio divina if you want to learn more about western traditions.
I'd say it's fine, just don't cling to the false metaphysics associated with some Eastern martial arts.
It isn't bad per se, but it's very easy to obsess over it and fall into the pitfall of vanity.
Bodybuilding like Arnold may as well be gluttony
Is that because of the amount of food one has to consume to maintain a physique like Arnold's?
What's "armor time"?
Can you explain why God being ever-present means that esoteric mysteries are not developed? How does one lead into the other?
The amount of food for sure. It's a priveledge to be able to have that much food abundantly. So much you overeat and are able too chose which ones too hit a fashion goal. Honestly, if Transgenderism is a sin than this should be also.
Time to start!
armor fell out of use in the 1700s with the rise of larger conscripted armies armed with muskets. esoteric nonsense is a gateway to evil, truth is not something meant to be hidden for only a select few
I've always been more concerned with the motive behind it than the act itself. If someone becomes a bodybuilder just for vanity's sake, it's sinful. But our bodies are gifts from the Lord, we are made in His image, so why not glorify Him by achieving excellence with your body? It could be excellence in aesthetics, strength, agility, athleticism, endurance, you name it. Just make sure that it's for the glory of God.
Your fasting routine should be based on your temptations.
Conquering the temptations allows you to eat whatever you want and to work out is Holy.
God did not make Man to have manboobs and beer bellies.
Show off your Spiritual strength by conquering the body.
perhaps reading more of what is not allowed would be more beneficiary than to listen to corrupted flesh.
Don't use the Church to excuse your laziness, brother.
You dominate your body's urges by controlling what you eat, but also moving beyond your body's desire to quit.
St. Thomas Aquinas tells us effeminacy is the preference of what is easy over what is difficult and noble. Bodybuilding is difficult and noble, and lazing about is easy. Effeminacy is a vice in Christians. Moreover, by choosing the difficult path by the difficulty of hard training, you purify the will of extrinsic desires, in favor of developing the potency of the will itself. We are to submit ourselves to God's will, but submission proceeds out of strength, as it is the relationship between a noble and his liege-lord, or rather the king and the emperor over him. To be weak-willed is a sin, and your submission to righteousness is minimized by it. You can't get big and strong without willing yourself to train beyond your fatigue. You die to your own desires to be fat and weak, so that you can live as a stong-willed man in Christ's service.
Good man. A true Christian should be a beacon of strength and an exemplar of self-discipline.
I've been thinking about Christians living in Western society and how we're not experiencing war like say, the Syrian Christians. How we are in a privileged position with an abundance of opportunity. I feel like we're obligated to exploit these opportunities because to not do so would mean to waste them, a disrespect to those who don't have the chance. For you though, it seems that making use of the opportunity is the bad choice as the extra required food is wasted in your eyes, a disrespect to those who don't have the chance to regularly eat normal meals. I wonder how to reason which one of us is right.
Pic related, the prayer you think bodybuilders should be making.
So you can only be one or the other? Last I checked that's not how it works, you can be both wise and strong.
There's nothing wrong with an aesthetic physique if it comes from exercise to maintain good health and if it is not out of vanity.
you are funny.
say that to Aristotle, Socrates, Young, ..
Gluttony is a sin. If you have to pound down calories in order to bulk, then you are a glutton. Your body should be prepared for work or for battle, not for picking up a thing and putting it down repeatedly. There's a reason all the depictions of warriors have classically been slim "otter mode".
…
what you are referring to is not people in a gym, but people working on a farm or a field to dig out fresh potatoes or in the woods to cut out a few trees, perhaps even daily.
to go into a gym so you can self loathe and masturbate about your physique and aesthetics is like learning french to impress with you cursing skills.
scoobysworkshop.com
According to Scooby, only very advanced bodybuilders (lifting seriously for 7+ years) should consider bulking and cutting. For everyone else, putting on all that fat is completely unnecessary.
I do wonder though: how much did people know of muscle gain back in those days? Is it not possible that if they knew what we know today, they would have gained just as much muscle?
But yet, there's another critical factor that has to be considered: the abundance of food today was not available in those days to the peasants. Pic related, a modern "warrior".
What evidence do you have that the quote in my image refers specifically to laborers rather than people in a gym? For what reason does that distinction matter? Surely, a man that cuts down trees also, in the eyes of Socrates, has an obligation to manifest a good physique just as much as those in the gym? Your post is confusing.
The second part of your post seems to suggest a belief that the gym's purpose is the pursuit of something other than aesthetics (like fitness perhaps). It doesn't seem to connect well with the first part though. That first part makes no sense.
In any case, Socrates would most certainly be an advocate of having a good physique.
I also want to say as well, regarding gluttony that gluttony seems to be about indulging in the pleasure of eating food. If you listen to Omar Isuf at 2:45, he says that for the sake of his bulk, he was forcing himself to overeat, even to the point of vomiting. That doesn't sound pleasurable to me.
what evidence you have that there were gyms in the age of socrates?
good physique comes from physical labor. if you are not in a physical labor, you can have a good physique just by taking a week fast and taking walks.
there is nothing about gyms or good physique in bible as i'm aware of, however there is lots of fasting in bible.
en.wikipedia.org
You'll get slim but you will not have a good physique as without putting your musculature under stress, muscle growth cannot be stimulated. Without added muscle mass, your physique won't be good.
True. However there are various inferences that can be made. The body is holy and we are called to protect it for instance could be used as a justification for bodybuilding so I thought this was worth discussing.
>en.wikipedia.org
oh common, you just had to. there needs to be a way for athletes to compete in olympics, so of course they need to have a place where they can do their routine. these are not places for general public, where they can look into mirrors and loathe about their physique and aesthetics. these are places build with purpose of training for competition, not to feel good about yourself.
well i agree that your physique will not be good, if your daily work will not require it nor relies on it.
good physique is relative on your works.
who is to decide what's good one.
you can pilpul anyone into anything.
you can definitely make conjecture that if you fast, then you will not have much strength after it, but you will gain it back if you work on a field for a while.
you cannot make conjecture that if body is a temple, then by being a body builder, you will strengthen it. i can see, why one would think it makes sense. if you want to make conjectures based on body is a temple, you would have to first understand the meaning of this predicate. i understand it as an abstraction, not literal meaning. therefore you are building a conjecture - to be a body builder, which has a literal meaning, based on abstraction - body is a temple.
that is not a structure that survives fire.
So you think Socrates' quote was meant only for athletes and not all men? What is your stance on it?
This thread was meant to open discussion on this topic so if that's your stance, so be it.
My point was simply that by strengthening the body, you strengthen its resistance to illness. I was thinking specifically of how your strength naturally withers away as you age but a lot of that strength can be retained through lifting. You can still protect your mobility.
i think it was rather for common working folk as it makes no sense to target the 0.1% of the population - athletes.
you can learn how to physically train your body in a school years, so you could re-use this knowledge eventually while working in a specific trade - if you feel you have issues with your back, you will re-use the knowledge learned from those years (because you are not amateur) and apply it, to try to avoid the pain.
the second part of his statement could be again related to working in a trade and pushing your limits, whatever the trade is. you can even interpret the strength he is talking about to the mental strength, thus the picture would be purposefully deceiving.
i don't agree with this, rather i think that your body will wear of faster with age.
i'm so far convinced that hardening yourself in cold water combined with fasting are the best ways of prevention.
>bitchute.com
>WIM HOF "Iceman" Method: He's nicknamed "The Iceman" for his ability to withstand extreme cold which he assigns to exposure to cold, meditation and breathing techniques. Hof has set out to spread the potential health benefits of his breathing techniques, working closely with scientists around the world to prove that the Wim Hof Method works. It is thought from current studies that by consciously hyperventilating Wim can increase his heart rate, adrenalin levels and blood alkalinity. To learn more about the Wim Hof Method check out: wimhofmethod.com
common.
how can you not agree with me on this?
throw me something.
I feel like like you're injecting things that simply aren't there.
Like, for instance, your interpretation of what it means to be an amateur in the matter of physical training differs from mine. For me, it simply means to have an unconditioned, untrained body. It's a fairly general statement. For you though, it's as though there's a scholastic system in place from which one could graduate.
The second part explicitly refers to the body's capacity for beauty and strength. How on Earth do you deduce anything regarding trades?
And from where did you conjure the idea that a person's physique should be evaluated based upon what work they do? Your physique, when healthy and strong, will bear only one appearance. There's clearly a very definite direction all can move in.
I don't think that lifting weights makes you more susceptible to illness. I think that's flat out wrong.
verywellfit.com
Saging because I think this thread had had maximal exposure and no new people will post in it. It's just us two now.
everyone had to go through ears of gymnastics in grade school, where you've learned how to train your physical body. you also received a grade as a result. you cannot call yourself amateur now in case of physical training.
without purpose, how can one shape his body?
trade gives you purpose.
i didn't say anything about evaluation of anyone's physique.
i don't agree that it should be measured in any way as there is purpose to it.
i agree that there is a direction we all can move in, but there is no point of going to gym to achieve it.
they fasted in bible to get closer to god, why would any one try to get gains, if you eventually lose it by fasting anyways or by not using it in the trade you do.
i don't think so.
Hm, I wonder if he might be biased here.
This thread is about to turn me pagan again.
YOU WILL NOT BE DAMNED
FOR DEVELOPING YOUR STRENGTH
the word is laymen. stop abusing the language.
I think people in this thread are taking things too… extreme. Ironically the message they give is not to take bodybuilding to the extreme. For we should do all things to glorify God, and that includes physical training. While it may sound vain, a fat preacher may not have as much effect as a physical specimen. And strength itself is a useful tool: you can lift a log off a trapped man, you can fight off a rapist or a thief and you can defend your loved ones.
Timothy teaches us "for while bodily training is of some value, godliness of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. " (1 Timothy 4:8). We must in all actions, not just training, but everything ask ourselves: how does this glorify God? How does this further his purpose? And many things are useful to the purpose of God, for He created all the world and can turn anything to His Will.
Where it becomes too extreme is where you build your body in opposition to the Will of God. Do you abandon vows or asceticism? Are you finding yourself flexing all day in front of the mirror? Are you throwing resources and effort in ungodly pursuits? If so, you may have begun to worship your body, instead of using your body to worship God. But if you remember the above rule and keep to it, you will always lift for God, and not against Him.
Remember, your body is a Temple to the Lord, not an idol to compete with Him.
Sorry I miscopied the Bible verse:
OP originally implied that because Catholics are encouraged to eat one meal a day that he shouldn't or couldn't start bodybuilding.
The following responses degenerated into embarrassing legalizing over the degree to which bodily training would become sinful. You yourself could not help but specify those "dangerous" scenarios.
However, no-one has mentioned sloth.
Is there a caloric restriction which accompanies a single monastic meal?
The priorities are disgusting.
I specified it because you appeared shook by the above discourse. I thought it useful to outline what people were afraid of in the above posts. Besides, the OP title is "Is Bodyubuilding good?". I think I answered the question.
Most people's fasts these days would resemble the feasts of old: rather than get technical it's better to understand the purpose of fasting. Does the focus required of it draw you closer to God? Just like weightlifting, if you aren't feeling it then maybe it isn't enough. For a fat man, a normal meal might be considered a fast. Also, it is easy to eat a day's worth of food in one sitting (I did this myself at a friend's engagement party the other day). Refusing food thereafter would not be considered fasting.
If the OP asked "what is the minimum work required of me before I get back on the couch?" we would have a thread about sloth. The discussion matches the OP's title and post. But yes, sloth is bad and we should make best use of our talents.
You seem a reasonable fellow. I appreciate you're concern. However; you fail to see my point. OP came here worried that bodybuilding is sinful in light of the call for moderate meals. If you read into that at all, you'll find that OP is either caught up in a form of spiritual perfectionism, or more likely excusing himself from bettering his health through proper training. You may not be guilty of this yourself but it is indicative of the attitude of Zig Forums. It is embarrassing. Rather than developing a thread on the various nuances of sin presented to a Catholic athlete, we should encourage him to pursue well-being. He may not have asked for the particulars on the sin of sloth, but if a man seeks to excuse himself of beneficial labor, then sloth would be the more pertinent sin to dissuade. Gluttony has come up a few times already which, within this context, is ridiculous. Vanity is a reasonable criticism, but clearly OP has not begun training and vanity is likely not yet an issue.
We should not preoccupy ourselves with laws like the Pharisees do.
Dead Sea Scrolls
Dead Sea Scrolls
I read only a few posts and skimmed the rest, but did not interpret the OP's questioning as looking for excuses not to train. That being said I can appreciate your concerns as well, and it is easy to let scrupulosity and indecision get in the way of worthy pursuits. I myself train and would encourage everyone else to do so as well according to their needs.
The dicourse of the thread itself though I feel is pointless: most bodies and diet/exercise regimens are robust enough to withstand a day of fasting - even a total fast. It is better to remember the benefits both of fasting and exercise - when directed towards God. I feel that much of this thread derives from a lack of understanding of one or the other - they certainly are not mutually exclusive. Muslims partake in a month of fasting, and yet their bodybuilders physiques' are intact. Once this is understood, it is easy to plan diets and stick to them.
Or you could just stop being Catholic? Become Orthodox and you can eat as much as you like, provided it's vegan (often +fish) during fasting season.
Despite this, I still maintain my stance that to be an "amateur" in the matter of physical training is to simply have the body of someone that does not train regularly.
I think aesthetics are a fine purpose in and of themself. But even if that's deemed too vain, there's still general health and wellbeing. It doesn't have to be trade-related.
But earlier, you said
Which means that when evaluating someone's physique, you have to factor in their works/trade. That's different from saying that a physique cannot be evaluated at all.
There's various things you can do to glorify God. Also, since you won't be fasting the majority of the time, I don't believe your loss in gains will be that great. Also, even if you don't use your muscles in your trade, with regular training, you can still retain it. Office workers are good examples of people who can hit the gym and build a physique even though they work a desk job.
That isn't true. If you're eating like a glutton during the Fast, then you're not keeping the Fast.
train for what?
and what purpose is that?
why would you evaluate it at all is a mystery to me.
you can evaluate ones achievement in competition, but to glorify and loathe about your measurements.
what is the point?
if you want to be a wood cutter, then you eventually reach to the point, where your physique is aligned to of a wood cutter.
if you want to be a athlete, same applies.
if you want to be close to GOD, same applies for people who fast(water only) for a week every month.
it's also funny that people somehow think, that you cannot survive without water for three(?) days they say?
it's just pathetic, how people will corrupt anything they come across.
"Orthodoxy" is heresy
I think I'm correct to assume that you don't think beauty is something which people should strive to cultivate. I don't think we have any more room for discussion.
ones work and achievements can be things of a beauty too.
you cannot attend gym with a goal to be beautiful.
beautiful man or a woman are born, made to be perfect by GOD.
And everyone else should just give up and get fat?
The rare, true beauties are beautiful almost entirely due to their genetics, yes but the average person can still do a lot to help themself. They shouldn't just give up just because they cannot be perfect. That's a horrible attitude to have.
Are you serious?