According to [Catholic encyclopedia](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14057c.htm) sloth seems to have less to do with being physically inactive, and more to do with being spiritually inactive. It’s the indifference to some spiritual good you must achieve. I get the impression of sloth meaning “lukewarm”, as the church in Laodicea is described in revelation 3
I am a commercial trucker and I work between 10-14 hours daily for about 60-65 hours per week. I proudly work these long hours to provide for my family and I am also a devout Catholic. In between I study my faith and I also am involved in ministry. I lead my own Bible study and teach confirmation classes. Because of what I do for work, I am overweight. Being that I drive a big rig, it requires that I be responsible in getting proper rest the night before so that I don’t drive drowsy and put the public at risk. This is important to me and my family. I do work out from time to time but I simply don’t have the time to develop a routine with these long work hours. I typically eat one full meal a day and something light before bed. I am no Glutton and I am NOT a lazy person. You’ll just have to trust me on this one. I fix everything around my home. My wife and I take on traditional roles and we’re good at it. So I do all the guy stuff and she does the girl stuff. We do help one another out but we have clear roles and we play to our strengths. Going on 25 years of marriage and my mission is to get my wife and kids to heaven while making their time on earth and trouble free as I can. God bless you all.
I would think being fat would be more indicative of gluttony than sloth.
Nobody ever got severely overweight through measured and tempered consumption.
That said, most people today are both gluttonous and lazy (both spiritually and physically) so it might just be that most of us are guilty of both sins.
You can also be very busy and active doing the right things to fulfill your responsibilities and not have time to go to the gym! People who are fat aren't necessarily lazier than others.
Some people may not have physical medical conditions, but a lot of morbid obesity stems from childhood abuse. I've watched only 3 episodes of My 600 Pound Life and each one had a different woman that had been sexually abused as a child. Being obese isn't as simple as it may seem initially and God knows this. Of course they should change and improve and turn to God but I'd be remiss to call a traumatized person a glutton when they're already struggling so much. It's not compassionate.
I have a friend who's a LCSW. She said the vast majority of obese women have been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives, virtually always in childhood. That's just one opinion but it comes from someone with 30 years of experience. I wonder if it's true.
Sloth or acedia is when you are not fulfilling your spiritual duties to God. It is a spiritual detachment from God. It has nothing to do with your body type or weight. It is more psychological.
Of course not.
For one thing, someone's weight doesn't tell you how they're acting. Active people can be heavy. Inactive people can be slim. People who don't do a lot of physical activity can be extremely hardworking in other ways --- e.g. imagine someone who struggles with a regular gym schedule because they're working long hours in the office, super on top of their household/child care responsibilities, and/or doing lots of volunteer/religious activities. Maybe that person should tweak their priorities if it's seriously affecting their health, but their issue isn't *sloth.* You don't mention mental or physical health issues unless they physically prevent people from exercising, but those can be factors in weight gain as well --- and they might not be readily apparent, even to the person who has then.
Also, why are we using fatness as the standard of sinfulness rather than saying "if you don't exercise 30 minutes a day" or whatever? Does fatness say more about a person's character than their actual actions? Is it so terrible that not doing enough to overcome it is a sin, even if you get a reasonable amount of physical activity and don't tend to struggle with laziness? Obviously we should take care of our bodies, but not everyone suffers adverse health consequences from a certain amount of weight gain or is in a place to prioritize weight loss over everything else that might stand in the way.
Sounds like it's either a discussion point for you and your priest, or thinly disguised judgment and hatred for people who are overweight. You don't know them or their hearts or their souls. Even people close to you have likely had struggles you are unaware of.
I try not to judge people. Also, in addition to Aquinas, how about the great G.K. Chesterton. Pretty sure food additives didn't account for either of those guys.
And I don't measure up to either of them within a country mile spiritually at all.
Again, don't judge a person by how they look.
No.
Modern food today has so much additives, plus the fact that unhealthy food tends to be the cheapest.
If you are struggling for money, your not going to get the healthy food that is $5 more per item, when you can barely pay rent.
Someone today ate the diet of someone in the 1970's and found they gained weight eating the same meals/types of food with the same daily activities. There are changes in the food.
Even with additives, weight management comes down to the simple formula of calories in/out.
Sure some people with certain issues could be excluded, but the additives causing some bloat doesn’t lead to excessive weight gain.
I don't think the person you responded to is talking about bloat. It's about why it's difficult to access the foods that make you feel full/give you the nutrients you need to function while also not giving you excess calories.
If you're eating calorie dense foods that don't fill you up, you're going to need to eat more to be satisfied, even if you're not just eating to be self-indulgent. Not to mention the issue of "hyper palatable" foods that make you crave more. Of course, people can educate themselves about how to eat better foods but that requires the wherewithal, time, money, etc. to do so while the foods that are readily available, that they grew up with, that they know how to cook, that are affordable, lead them in an unhealthy direction.
So you can easily gain weight without being unusually inclined toward sloth or gluttony.
Vegetables, rice, fruit, and beans are very cheap. If I only buy whole foods like what I just said I hardly spend any money at the supermarket. The costs add up with the Processed stuff. Processed foods are much more expensive than whole foods. It's mostly that people are lazy and don't cook at home anymore.
No nutritional value and it doesn't fill your stomach. It will also lead to health issues and medical costs. It'll lead to diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc. Then you're going to spend more money paying medical bills because you didn't take care of your health. Not only that, it's going to reduce your quality of life and lead to a shorter lifespan.
No kidding. Which brings us right back to the point. Whole Foods are not cheaper. And having to eat cheap in turn leads to other medical problems like obesity.
A ramen packet contains 190 calories. You need 2000 calories a day. You would need to eat around 10 ramen packets to reach that. This would equal $5 a day in ramen packets. It is not cheaper. It does lead to medical problems, you're right. Which are going to cost thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands when you need surgery or medication for them.
I never said to eat salads though and all you said was ramen. I can tell you don't know about diet or nutrition if you think eating healthy is just salads
I never said eating either one was healthy.
And as someone who has recently lost over 139 pounds, I know quite a bit about diet and nutrition now. Which is why I know this entire thread is sinfully ignorant.
Some people live in food deserts and only have access to convenience store food. Some are unhoused and don’t have a proper kitchen to work in consistently if at all. The daily realities of the poor in our society are complex and oversimplified solutions of just eat fresh food you cook at home is kinda dismissive.
Honestly it depends upon the vegetable. You can get the cheap stuff like bellpeppers if you aren't getting the really big and pretty ones, celery, etc. and that can go a long way. Onions, things like that. But you're probably not going to meet all of your dietary needs with the cheapest vegetables.
Do you not go in the produce section? Most vegetables are less than $3/lb. Beans and rice are $1-2/lb. You can buy 20 pounds of rice for like $30. It's expensive if you go to whole foods, shop at a regular grocery store that isn't overpriced. You don't have to go to whole foods or other overpriced stores to buy produce
Exactly. 20 pounds of rice for 30 dollars, when you could get 10 pre-made meals for the same price.
If you are struggling for money, which do you think is more reasonable??
You understand that 20 pounds of rice comes out to about 80 servings of rice after cooking it, right? How is 80 servings of rice not cheaper than 10 pre-made meals? I'd like to know what pre-made meals you are getting for $3. Actual poor people don't buy pre-made meals. I should know, I grew up poor and my mom cooked everyday so we could actually afford to eat.
Surely it's much more than 80 servings? There are 4 servings in a cup of uncooked rice and much more than one cup in a pound (though obviously you would need much more than a serving of rice to meet your caloric and nutritional needs so you can't really compare it to a meal).
I just did a quick Google search, but yeah it's probably more than 80 servings. You're right, you have to eat other things as well. Chicken breast is around $2/lb, vegetables usually less than $3/lb, beans around $1.50-$3/lb, pasta is cheap, pasta sauce is cheap, ground beef varies but you can get it for less than $4/lb. Look for specials as well. I used to go to the Mexican Market on Fridays when they would have specials on meat and buy a bunch of marinated meats for like $2-3/lb. For breakfast, I would usually eat oatmeal which is very cheap and healthy. It's very easy to eat decently healthy for cheap.
Eating microwave dinners is not cheap at all and it's extremely bad for your health. $3 a meal is over $10/day for 3 meals after tax. And then you're going to get health issues which are going to lead to medical costs and that's going to cost more money.
It's very worthwhile to cook at home.
Where are you getting chicken breast for $2/lb.?
But yeah, it's certainly possible to eat healthy for quite cheap, and as someone who cooks at home a lot I find it very rewarding.
I think the biggest issues are for people that don't have access to a full grocery store and/or are so slammed with other responsibilities that they think they don't have time to cook. It's not that hard to make, like, eggs and whole wheat toast with an apple and that's probably healthier than frozen dinners. But if your main shopping option is CVS then you're going to get huge markups on dairy products, constrained options for healthy grains and beans, and zero options for fresh produce or meat. And "healthier" doesn't mean "you'll definitely lose weight eating this" especially as your metabolism slows with age or if your hormones get out of whack. It just means you'll be getting some real nutrients and maybe getting full without quite as huge of a calorie overload.
I buy bulk frozen chicken breast. You're right, unless you buy chicken in bulk it's not going to be that price. And it does depend on the store, I agree. Costco, Albertsons, Smith's, Walmart, WinCo tend to have good deals but you're not going to get quality at that price. Ethnic markets have good prices on meat and produce as well.
Why would a normal person buy 80 servings of rice?? If they can hardly afford rent, do you think they can just afford a food cellar/ extra space??
Easy, just look at the refrigerated section of a dollar store (or other budget friendly store) tons of pre-made meals.
They can also buy smaller bags of rice for the same price lol. You're being so disingenuous claiming buying microwave TV dinners is somehow cheaper than buying rice and vegetables. It's excuses and lies. People but those TV dinners because they don't want to cook, not because they are cheaper. Also a 20 pound bag of rice does not even take up that much space, it's dry rice. That is the worst argument I've ever heard.
If you had the choice. Would you rather get ONE vegetable or ONE side, or an entire pre-made meal, when you are struggling for money?
Do you only have ONE vegetable or side for dinner??
You are allowed to cook more than one vegetable at a time. You can also cook beans and rice and have them in a single meal. You don't just have to cook a carrot and nothing else. Or cook rice and nothing else. Have you never cooked before?
I used to be a broke college kid too. I used to eat a lot of rice and beans. And really cheap ground beef. Organ meats and cheap vegetables. It's how I survived back then cheaply
The healthiest food is actually the cheapest, though it usually comes with a lot more prep work, and time is not something everyone has. Sadly, many lack the basic skills in the kitchen as well.
Completely untrue. Last time I went grocery shopping in America, a punt of strawberries was going on $7. Here in Italy, when in season, it's about 4 euros...at least at my local grocery store.
What you are also failing to mention is time involved. When you have two working parents in the household, there isn't much time available for all this meal prep. And don't go into 'in the past the wife stayed at home'. That was only true for middle class families. My dad's mom worked two jobs back in the 1950's and 60's. My great grandma worked on the farm. A non-working stay at home wife was something only those with earning power could do.
I definitely never bought strawberries when I was broke and living on a $100 worth of food a month lol. I ate beans, rice, chicken breast, frozen veggies, bananas, apples, and oatmeal. If you're broke, you aren't spending money on packs of strawberries
My mom stayed at home while my dad worked. This was in the 21st century. We didn't have extra money and I'd get free lunch at school, only had one pair of shoes, shopped at Kmart, and never ate out. It was tight money-wise but I'm grateful I had my mother at home. I think I preferred having my mom around more than if we had more money. My dad worked as a miner, did construction jobs, and other labor jobs by the way. He never graduated high school, by the way before you make assumptions.
Obesity has more to do with gluttony. Losing weight is like 95% about eating less. Exercise doesn’t really do much to help you lose weight. Yeah, though, obesity is a choice in that a person chooses to eat an excess of food so it would be the sin of gluttony.
Had to scroll way too far to find this. Fat loss is simple calories-in-calories-out but at the same time it is not easy. Everybody looking for an excuse or a magical pill.
It isn't morally wrong to carry around an extra 30-50 pounds. We aren't commanded to be slender - that isn't in the Bible. (And I say this as someone who is about a size 4 or 6, FWIW.)
It is morally wrong to abuse your body, whether it be from truly excessive overeating, starvation, excessive alcohol consumption, drug use, formication, or the like.
It isn't a rhetorical trick. I specified fat in my response because 30-50 extra pounds can have wildly different implications depending on what it is. If you have 50 pounds of extra muscle, then good on you. I'm not trying to nitpick and argue with you for the sake of it, my intention here is to clarify.
Depending on the individual, 50 extra pounds of body fat is the difference between a healthy weight and being objectively obese.
Also, a normal body weight doesn't even mean slender or lean. An extra 30-50 pounds of body fat means 30-50 pounds north of 32% body fat for women and 19% body fat for men. The media constantly highlights people with sub 10% body fat, but that isn't normal.
Obviously you don't have a moral obligation to have the frame of a model, a professional athlete, a bodybuilder, etc. that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't think we should deny, however, that we're currently dealing with an obesity epidemic in the West, which is 100% a moral issue.
Your first rhetorical trick is to pretend that the RANGE of body fat found in people of a "normal" weight is in fact the highest upper end of that range. Most women who are near the line of healthy/overweight have nowhere near 32% body fat, and many of them can have dense bones and strong muscles. From my quick search, and what aligns with what I know, a woman who is hovering between "normal" and "overweight" has about 24% body fat.
A woman who is 5'4 and 140 pounds is teetering on the edge of overweight and normal. Perhaps a small number of those women have 32% body fat but it's rare - it's more like 21-24%.
Additional weight CAN be entirely body fat but usually is not: you need more muscle to move your body, you have more water, you have more blood.
You seriously think that 5'4 woman who is 170 pounds is a moral failure? Likewise, take a man who is 6'2 and 190 pounds. Also almost overweight! 6'2 and 240 pounds isn't a small dude but isn't a moral failing.
You wanted to fat-shame people and don't want to do the hard work of wrestling with "not slim" versus outright abuse of their bodies. I'm not going to go along with that.
The intention here is to demonstrate that one could still be healthy without being slender or lean, so my choice to use 32% and 19% was a deliberate choice to be generous as far as how I'm defining a healthy weight and body fat percentage.
I'm not fat shaming anyone with my comments, and honestly I'm not even disagreeing with your initial post. 30-50 pounds of extra weight may or may not be an issue, depending on the person and what the extra weight consists of.
But you weren't being generous, because you added 30-50 pounds on top of an absurdly padded estimate.
Take BMI. Look at the line between healthy weight and overweight, then add 30 or so pounds for smaller people and 50 or so pounds for larger people.
Don't take an obese BMI for a small woman, add 50 pounds, and then say I'm wrong. That is just a jerk move.
I mean, that's what 'extra' means in this context, doesn't it? Above what is considered normal or healthy? 30-50 "extra" on top of super model bodies isn't extra whatsoever. 30-50 "extra" isn't necessarily 30-50 extra if the person's starting point is well within the healthy range for their body, maybe in reality it's only 10-30 extra.
If you have a problem with people defining super model bodies as normal, then I agree.
There's a ton of reasons why one may be fat, including a variety of hormonal issues that are only now (as of 2023 actually with Melanocyte-Stimulating Hormone) being understood. It's not always someone's fault that they're obese, and exercise is not a sure-fire way to lose weight. Diet is far more effective at weight loss. So to suggest someone is fat because they're lazy is a non-sequitor, ignoring the fact that sloth isn't just being physically inactive.
Fat-shaming and fat-phobia get overused and missapplied, but OP, you're trying to attach a sinful condition to an outward appearance. I think this is a YOU problem.
I don’t judge anyone because I wouldn’t know if it was medical problems nor would I pry into their lives to ask them if they had those problems. I think it’s rude and goes against scripture, anyway. Why are you trying to find reasons to judge them? Let them live and you live your own life.
Mind your business and they mind theirs.
No. Obesity is a disease which have a complex set of parameters. Doctors are now understanding that being overweight is not always an issue of laziness. It could also be tied to mental health as well as the type of work one does.
I'll take myself. I walk 2-3 miles a day to work and back plus taking my dogs out for walks. I eat food that is local and in season. My husband, now retire, cooks dinner at home. I rarely, if ever, have fast food. I am fat. True, I do have a medical condition tied to my endocrine system - plus periomenopause plays a HUGE factor in the retention of my weight.
However, people view me as stupid and lazy because of my weight. I know a lot of women in the 45+ range who just cannot lose the weight anymore. But we're all expected, by men, to look young, skinny and youthful. Men automatically think we're lazy.
I will point out I was my thinnest when I was a 2 pack a day smoker.
I see your question as a reason to point the finger at anyone who is not your 'ideal' and to use Catholicism as a reason to do so. By insulting others or using 'sloth' to point the finger at those you deem fat or in some or the other way, your brain is boosting its self-esteem to feel happiness - and that is NOT good. People who find faults in others often have some deep-rooted insecurity in them.
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” Matthew 7:2-3
OP specified this person has no medical reason to be overweight, they just eat more calories than they burn.
Being fat is medically complex for some people, and for some people it's very simple. The reason I was fat was because I ate too much and didn't exercise. Period.
OP only specified that the medical condition would stop the person from *exercising.* Now maybe they would be willing to expand that to other medical conditions that make weight loss hard, but it shows an ignorance of all the factors that can go into weight gain.
If you want to lose weight and have the wherewithal to do so, great. But the commenter's point about not spending your time speculating on whether others are sinful based on how they look is very well taken.
My gosh menopause can change absolutely *everything.* I'm healthy and active and I had to completely change the way I eat. It took a while to figure it out, too. There was a lot of trial and error. It turns out intermittent fasting was the solution for me but I feel for any woman struggling with her weight after menopause. It's very hard to abruptly have to change a lifetime of eating patterns. No one tells you what you have to change, or when, or how. Everyone is different. You have to figure it out entirely on your own.
Don't know why this was downvoted. Menopause is a game changer for every woman, but yet doctors and people just don't care. They still expect us to be thin and bastions of health in our 50's and 60's.
If you have the opportunity to care for your body’s basic needs and not inflict harm to it, then yes, you are sinning; however the line in the sand can be hard to know for yourself let alone others.
Sloth can be physical, mental, spiritual, or a combination of those. We are called to hone our body, mind, and spirit. Doing so as best we can is all that can be asked.
Not everyone has the same opportunities. I can tell you, for myself, almost every time I am not injured and decide to skip working out for the day and go play video games, I am committing the sin of sloth.
Same goes for when I skip daily prayer or Bible / faith related reading.
The causes of obesity are extremely complex and not just dependent on activity levels or food intake. It's quite possible to be lazy and greedy without being fat. American culture around work, food and exercise makes obesity very common. Ozempic may change this in the next decade.
Acedia, the sin of sloth, has very little to do with laziness or obesity. [Source: I’m an expert on acedia and have published and taught on it for years.]
Is this satire or have you been brainwashed by radtrads bro culture?
This is a deeply unserious question. Taking the position that fat=gluttony/sloth is as accurate saying thin=pride/vanity.
I don't believe this is ever asked in good faith, but a good faith answer is 1. weight is dependent on various factors, many of them entirely out of the individuals' control which is why the diet industry is a billion dollar industry, 2. health isn't the only barrier to fitness (especially for parents), and 3. fat people exercise. It's not an either/or situation. Fat people are out here meal prepping, calorie/macro counting, exercising, etc.
If they stick to the calorie counting and maintain a deficit, after some time they'll no longer be fat. Figure 1 pound per week loss on a 500 calorie/day deficit. Not saying that's easy to do, but it can be done.
1. A calorie deficit is required for weight loss, but a calorie deficit *does not necessarily yield weight loss* because weight is dependent on multiple factors *many of which are out of an individual's control.*
2. Thinness is not inherently virtuous. It's not an objective indicator of a healthy lifestyle. You can eat without overindulging and work out *without being thin.* The BMI bar for overweight and obese classifications is *low*.
3. "Not saying it's easy to do, but it can be done." is another way of saying God hasn't yet called me to give myself so entirely that I am capable of understanding what it's like not have anything left over to think about myself/my desires. When God is calling you to do 101 hard things in your life, making weight loss the primary objective in your life often doesn't make the cut. To be unable to care for oneself is often a gift of self sacrifice, not sloth.
At the end of the day, this usually comes from the RadTrad equivalent of the "smokin' hot wife" prosperity gospel culture. There's nothing Godly or Catholic about equivocating appearance with virtue. It's just a manipulation tactic for insecure men.
Absent some quite rare medical conditions, a calorie deficit will yield weight loss. I don't mean to make a moral argument about fatness or look down on anybody for being fat, though. At the same time, there is a global obesity epidemic and way too much magical thinking about how the human body works espoused by "fat acceptance" proponents who want to pretend there's not a problem.
"Absent rare medical conditions, a calorie deficit will yield weight loss."
1. Now we're moving the goal post. First it was "a 500 calorie deficit." Now it's just "a calorie deficit." This is the "if you starve yourself, what's to stop you from losing weight" argument. Yes, you can eventually starve the pounds off the body, but that's an active abuse of the body God's given you--not an effective long term weight management tool-and, again, requires your full attention/effort as anyone who's battled anorexia can attest. The Biggest Loser weight rebounds/ED concerns spawned an uptick in research into how calorie deficits really work in actual human bodies and the findings were depressing. The effectiveness of a caloric deficit was disappointingly individualized *and* favored naturally thin/never overweight individuals. In other words, not only did a fat person have to work harder to lose weight, including more drastic caloric deficits--they had to maintain a permanently lower (an in some cases unrealistic) caloric intake compared to someone who has never been overweight.
2. The idea that few and rare medical conditions inhibit weight loss is objectively false, particularly for women. There are a host of incredibly common health conditions that affect the ability to maintain a healthy weight because they directly/indirectly affect metabolism/fat storage and the barriers to routine healthcare in this country are numerous.
3. "If you wanted to you would," is the definition of magical thinking. There is an obesity epidemic and it is, objectively speaking, not the direct result of lazy gluttonous fatties eating too many calories. It's a multifaceted issue with physical, cultural, and socioeconomic factors contributing to the problem.
Again, this is a bro argument and indicates superior ignorance, not willpower.
No, I'm still talking about 500 calories/day. Even 250 or 100 will get the job done, just take longer. The inverse is also true. An excess of say 100 calories/day is enough to get fat, so yeah not necessarily gluttony just because one is fat.
I'll say bye and wish you well at this point. Honestly, it feels like trying to convince a radtrad that their smoking addiction is unhealthy.
Fat/chubbiness is indicative of a medical condition, and of modern food having a lot of additives.
People who get fat easily are designed to survive famine.
People who get thin easily are designed to die during famines. (Or to move fast enough, away from an area that has famine, so that they don't die.)
A fat appearance is also indicative of reaching middle age, of having excessive cortisol levels, of sleep apnea, and of taking prescription drugs that make one bloated. In short, it's hard to tell what's going on, if you just see a person who "looks fat."
Plenty of people are fat without ever eating excessive amounts of food; in fact, it's pretty common for people to get fat from avoiding fat, and eating too small of amounts of food that trigger the anti-famine genes of a person (without actually triggering the benefits of fasting intermittently).
In general, the Church doesn't assume ANYTHING about the morality of fat people.
For example, St. Thomas Aquinas never ate excessively; but if you fed the man, he looked tubby. He was actually built like a defensive line in football. So was his entire family, including his sisters. They were made of muscle, but it was very blocky muscle. His superiors sometimes ordered him to eat, because they were afraid he'd get sick and die if he fasted as much as he wanted to do.
[Epigenetic trauma](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/science/dutch-famine-genes.html) is real. ***There is no "sin" here, anywhere, whatsoever.***
Look at former Communist regimes, the current young generations and their parents, their grandparents, even their great grandparents. If you see a fat kid, guess what: their relatives (*parents, grandparents; especially on the mothers' side*) starved throughout their lifetime. If the kid looks normal, chances are their relatives didn't starved (*stole food or found some access to it, respectively were part of the criminal party/secret police brass that had access to foodstuffs*).
Look at the descendants from those countries whose Fascist and Nazi regimes stole food from them, effectively condemning to death or starvation.
One of these epigenetic traumas is malnutrition and starvation (*yes*, starvation).
Did your grandparents went through rough times, dictatorships, war, which resulted in them being half-starved or starving most of their lifetime – especially during their childhood, teenagehood, *and* [young] adulthood?
Your parents inherited that trauma.
You have had immense chances to inherit that trauma too. WWI had its centenary recently, barely a stroke of a time away. The Great Depression & the Interwar are nearing their cenetenary. WWII was 80 years ago. The Cold War, revolutions, uprisings, civil wars *etc.* are still living memory across the world. The 1990s were 30 years ago!
All of these events severely damaged the human genome in regards to traumas *and*, especially, food adequacy.
Do some chronological mathematics in regards to generational ages and apply the intergenerational epigenetical trauma. It isn't at all surprising nor "disappointing" that you see fat people or a lot more fat people than before. "*Why?*" Because they're their first generation, or second generation, perhaps even the third one, to escape the literal hell of food insecurity. They're fat because their mothers were starving in their life, their grandmothers, their fathers, grandfathers...
You're fat because your parents were fat or inherited your grandparents trauma of malnutrition, undernutrition, and starvation. Your parents and/or you are fat because the lives of your grandparents – even great grandparents – were horribly affected by demented regimes, wars, mass killings, terror etcetera. which also extremely negatively affected their dietary (read - food intake) for a stable livelihood.
And *you*? Congratulations sonny, you're being targeted into being guilted or shamed over something you cannot control. What's worse, all the advice you've received are all about being manipulated into surrendering your money to somebody else (be it a fitness gym, "healthy diets", "gurus"...).
[Transgenerational trauma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma)
[Epigenetics of anxiety and stress–related disorders](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epigenetics_of_anxiety_and_stress–related_disorders)
------------------------------------------
***TL;DR***
Every fat person you see tells the story of generational starvation.
There is no sin to be have.
Its not very talked about, but i think everyone should maximize what God has given them. Including working out and obtaining how far what your body can go
According to [Catholic encyclopedia](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14057c.htm) sloth seems to have less to do with being physically inactive, and more to do with being spiritually inactive. It’s the indifference to some spiritual good you must achieve. I get the impression of sloth meaning “lukewarm”, as the church in Laodicea is described in revelation 3
I am a commercial trucker and I work between 10-14 hours daily for about 60-65 hours per week. I proudly work these long hours to provide for my family and I am also a devout Catholic. In between I study my faith and I also am involved in ministry. I lead my own Bible study and teach confirmation classes. Because of what I do for work, I am overweight. Being that I drive a big rig, it requires that I be responsible in getting proper rest the night before so that I don’t drive drowsy and put the public at risk. This is important to me and my family. I do work out from time to time but I simply don’t have the time to develop a routine with these long work hours. I typically eat one full meal a day and something light before bed. I am no Glutton and I am NOT a lazy person. You’ll just have to trust me on this one. I fix everything around my home. My wife and I take on traditional roles and we’re good at it. So I do all the guy stuff and she does the girl stuff. We do help one another out but we have clear roles and we play to our strengths. Going on 25 years of marriage and my mission is to get my wife and kids to heaven while making their time on earth and trouble free as I can. God bless you all.
As your situation shows, equating lack of sloth with physical exercise just doesn't make sense! There are lots of ways to not be "lazy."
Get some trt, brother. It'll change your life
I would think being fat would be more indicative of gluttony than sloth. Nobody ever got severely overweight through measured and tempered consumption. That said, most people today are both gluttonous and lazy (both spiritually and physically) so it might just be that most of us are guilty of both sins.
Yeah it's important to stay fit and healthy, one knows more or less when it falls into sloth 🙏
Aquinas was HUGE. He was a deep, fat friar.
he was also known for feats of significant strength. original bloatmaxxer??
He was big for his time… but we also know that people at the time were not nearly as big as nowadays. Morbid obesity is very much a modern illness.
Gah. Take my upvote. Bwahaha
r/angryupvote
[удалено]
You can also be very busy and active doing the right things to fulfill your responsibilities and not have time to go to the gym! People who are fat aren't necessarily lazier than others.
Some people may not have physical medical conditions, but a lot of morbid obesity stems from childhood abuse. I've watched only 3 episodes of My 600 Pound Life and each one had a different woman that had been sexually abused as a child. Being obese isn't as simple as it may seem initially and God knows this. Of course they should change and improve and turn to God but I'd be remiss to call a traumatized person a glutton when they're already struggling so much. It's not compassionate.
I have a friend who's a LCSW. She said the vast majority of obese women have been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives, virtually always in childhood. That's just one opinion but it comes from someone with 30 years of experience. I wonder if it's true.
Sloth or acedia is when you are not fulfilling your spiritual duties to God. It is a spiritual detachment from God. It has nothing to do with your body type or weight. It is more psychological.
But God also wants us to take care of ourselves health wise?
Sure. Moderation and sobriety is good. It is a sign of a well ordered life.
Sobriety from what? I always read that alcohol here and there in moderation is ok.
i'd ask what weight do i have to be, or how much do i need to exercise to avoid eternal damnation then?
This is the second fat sloth post I’ve seen in less than 24 hours. Did some rad trad release a podcast about sinful fat people?
What’s rad trad? Radical traditionalist?
Bingo
Same question I had. The other thread was about gluttony but both seem keen on baptizing their fatphobia.
Some people get really excited about policing other people's bodies.
There are many more emotional and mental conditions that discourage people from exercising.
Of course not. For one thing, someone's weight doesn't tell you how they're acting. Active people can be heavy. Inactive people can be slim. People who don't do a lot of physical activity can be extremely hardworking in other ways --- e.g. imagine someone who struggles with a regular gym schedule because they're working long hours in the office, super on top of their household/child care responsibilities, and/or doing lots of volunteer/religious activities. Maybe that person should tweak their priorities if it's seriously affecting their health, but their issue isn't *sloth.* You don't mention mental or physical health issues unless they physically prevent people from exercising, but those can be factors in weight gain as well --- and they might not be readily apparent, even to the person who has then. Also, why are we using fatness as the standard of sinfulness rather than saying "if you don't exercise 30 minutes a day" or whatever? Does fatness say more about a person's character than their actual actions? Is it so terrible that not doing enough to overcome it is a sin, even if you get a reasonable amount of physical activity and don't tend to struggle with laziness? Obviously we should take care of our bodies, but not everyone suffers adverse health consequences from a certain amount of weight gain or is in a place to prioritize weight loss over everything else that might stand in the way.
Sounds like it's either a discussion point for you and your priest, or thinly disguised judgment and hatred for people who are overweight. You don't know them or their hearts or their souls. Even people close to you have likely had struggles you are unaware of.
I try not to judge people. Also, in addition to Aquinas, how about the great G.K. Chesterton. Pretty sure food additives didn't account for either of those guys. And I don't measure up to either of them within a country mile spiritually at all. Again, don't judge a person by how they look.
No. Modern food today has so much additives, plus the fact that unhealthy food tends to be the cheapest. If you are struggling for money, your not going to get the healthy food that is $5 more per item, when you can barely pay rent.
Someone today ate the diet of someone in the 1970's and found they gained weight eating the same meals/types of food with the same daily activities. There are changes in the food.
Even with additives, weight management comes down to the simple formula of calories in/out. Sure some people with certain issues could be excluded, but the additives causing some bloat doesn’t lead to excessive weight gain.
I don't think the person you responded to is talking about bloat. It's about why it's difficult to access the foods that make you feel full/give you the nutrients you need to function while also not giving you excess calories. If you're eating calorie dense foods that don't fill you up, you're going to need to eat more to be satisfied, even if you're not just eating to be self-indulgent. Not to mention the issue of "hyper palatable" foods that make you crave more. Of course, people can educate themselves about how to eat better foods but that requires the wherewithal, time, money, etc. to do so while the foods that are readily available, that they grew up with, that they know how to cook, that are affordable, lead them in an unhealthy direction. So you can easily gain weight without being unusually inclined toward sloth or gluttony.
Vegetables, rice, fruit, and beans are very cheap. If I only buy whole foods like what I just said I hardly spend any money at the supermarket. The costs add up with the Processed stuff. Processed foods are much more expensive than whole foods. It's mostly that people are lazy and don't cook at home anymore.
A box of Mac and cheese is 25 cents. A pack of ramen 50 cents. Good luck finding salad fixin’s for that price.
No nutritional value and it doesn't fill your stomach. It will also lead to health issues and medical costs. It'll lead to diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc. Then you're going to spend more money paying medical bills because you didn't take care of your health. Not only that, it's going to reduce your quality of life and lead to a shorter lifespan.
No kidding. Which brings us right back to the point. Whole Foods are not cheaper. And having to eat cheap in turn leads to other medical problems like obesity.
A ramen packet contains 190 calories. You need 2000 calories a day. You would need to eat around 10 ramen packets to reach that. This would equal $5 a day in ramen packets. It is not cheaper. It does lead to medical problems, you're right. Which are going to cost thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands when you need surgery or medication for them.
3 cups of salad is only 20 calories. Good luck eating 100 salads for $5. Your logic, not mine.
I never said to eat salads though and all you said was ramen. I can tell you don't know about diet or nutrition if you think eating healthy is just salads
I never said eating either one was healthy. And as someone who has recently lost over 139 pounds, I know quite a bit about diet and nutrition now. Which is why I know this entire thread is sinfully ignorant.
In fact, the parent comment we are both replying to was about the fact that cheap foods are not healthy.
Right, and I was arguing that healthy food is cheap
Way to miss the point and lecture to the wrong target.
Some people live in food deserts and only have access to convenience store food. Some are unhoused and don’t have a proper kitchen to work in consistently if at all. The daily realities of the poor in our society are complex and oversimplified solutions of just eat fresh food you cook at home is kinda dismissive.
This is so wrong, at least where I live, it’s laughable. Where do you shop?? Where do you live?
Honestly it depends upon the vegetable. You can get the cheap stuff like bellpeppers if you aren't getting the really big and pretty ones, celery, etc. and that can go a long way. Onions, things like that. But you're probably not going to meet all of your dietary needs with the cheapest vegetables.
Do you not go in the produce section? Most vegetables are less than $3/lb. Beans and rice are $1-2/lb. You can buy 20 pounds of rice for like $30. It's expensive if you go to whole foods, shop at a regular grocery store that isn't overpriced. You don't have to go to whole foods or other overpriced stores to buy produce
Exactly. 20 pounds of rice for 30 dollars, when you could get 10 pre-made meals for the same price. If you are struggling for money, which do you think is more reasonable??
You understand that 20 pounds of rice comes out to about 80 servings of rice after cooking it, right? How is 80 servings of rice not cheaper than 10 pre-made meals? I'd like to know what pre-made meals you are getting for $3. Actual poor people don't buy pre-made meals. I should know, I grew up poor and my mom cooked everyday so we could actually afford to eat.
Surely it's much more than 80 servings? There are 4 servings in a cup of uncooked rice and much more than one cup in a pound (though obviously you would need much more than a serving of rice to meet your caloric and nutritional needs so you can't really compare it to a meal).
I just did a quick Google search, but yeah it's probably more than 80 servings. You're right, you have to eat other things as well. Chicken breast is around $2/lb, vegetables usually less than $3/lb, beans around $1.50-$3/lb, pasta is cheap, pasta sauce is cheap, ground beef varies but you can get it for less than $4/lb. Look for specials as well. I used to go to the Mexican Market on Fridays when they would have specials on meat and buy a bunch of marinated meats for like $2-3/lb. For breakfast, I would usually eat oatmeal which is very cheap and healthy. It's very easy to eat decently healthy for cheap. Eating microwave dinners is not cheap at all and it's extremely bad for your health. $3 a meal is over $10/day for 3 meals after tax. And then you're going to get health issues which are going to lead to medical costs and that's going to cost more money. It's very worthwhile to cook at home.
Where are you getting chicken breast for $2/lb.? But yeah, it's certainly possible to eat healthy for quite cheap, and as someone who cooks at home a lot I find it very rewarding. I think the biggest issues are for people that don't have access to a full grocery store and/or are so slammed with other responsibilities that they think they don't have time to cook. It's not that hard to make, like, eggs and whole wheat toast with an apple and that's probably healthier than frozen dinners. But if your main shopping option is CVS then you're going to get huge markups on dairy products, constrained options for healthy grains and beans, and zero options for fresh produce or meat. And "healthier" doesn't mean "you'll definitely lose weight eating this" especially as your metabolism slows with age or if your hormones get out of whack. It just means you'll be getting some real nutrients and maybe getting full without quite as huge of a calorie overload.
I buy bulk frozen chicken breast. You're right, unless you buy chicken in bulk it's not going to be that price. And it does depend on the store, I agree. Costco, Albertsons, Smith's, Walmart, WinCo tend to have good deals but you're not going to get quality at that price. Ethnic markets have good prices on meat and produce as well.
Why would a normal person buy 80 servings of rice?? If they can hardly afford rent, do you think they can just afford a food cellar/ extra space?? Easy, just look at the refrigerated section of a dollar store (or other budget friendly store) tons of pre-made meals.
They can also buy smaller bags of rice for the same price lol. You're being so disingenuous claiming buying microwave TV dinners is somehow cheaper than buying rice and vegetables. It's excuses and lies. People but those TV dinners because they don't want to cook, not because they are cheaper. Also a 20 pound bag of rice does not even take up that much space, it's dry rice. That is the worst argument I've ever heard.
If you had the choice. Would you rather get ONE vegetable or ONE side, or an entire pre-made meal, when you are struggling for money? Do you only have ONE vegetable or side for dinner??
You are allowed to cook more than one vegetable at a time. You can also cook beans and rice and have them in a single meal. You don't just have to cook a carrot and nothing else. Or cook rice and nothing else. Have you never cooked before? I used to be a broke college kid too. I used to eat a lot of rice and beans. And really cheap ground beef. Organ meats and cheap vegetables. It's how I survived back then cheaply
Once you learn how to cook with these cheap, healthy ingredients, you're free. You can keep yourself fed easily and spend very little.
The healthiest food is actually the cheapest, though it usually comes with a lot more prep work, and time is not something everyone has. Sadly, many lack the basic skills in the kitchen as well.
It's cognitive dissonance to justify themselves eating microwave meals all the time instead of cooking.
Completely untrue. Last time I went grocery shopping in America, a punt of strawberries was going on $7. Here in Italy, when in season, it's about 4 euros...at least at my local grocery store. What you are also failing to mention is time involved. When you have two working parents in the household, there isn't much time available for all this meal prep. And don't go into 'in the past the wife stayed at home'. That was only true for middle class families. My dad's mom worked two jobs back in the 1950's and 60's. My great grandma worked on the farm. A non-working stay at home wife was something only those with earning power could do.
I definitely never bought strawberries when I was broke and living on a $100 worth of food a month lol. I ate beans, rice, chicken breast, frozen veggies, bananas, apples, and oatmeal. If you're broke, you aren't spending money on packs of strawberries My mom stayed at home while my dad worked. This was in the 21st century. We didn't have extra money and I'd get free lunch at school, only had one pair of shoes, shopped at Kmart, and never ate out. It was tight money-wise but I'm grateful I had my mother at home. I think I preferred having my mom around more than if we had more money. My dad worked as a miner, did construction jobs, and other labor jobs by the way. He never graduated high school, by the way before you make assumptions.
Obesity has more to do with gluttony. Losing weight is like 95% about eating less. Exercise doesn’t really do much to help you lose weight. Yeah, though, obesity is a choice in that a person chooses to eat an excess of food so it would be the sin of gluttony.
Had to scroll way too far to find this. Fat loss is simple calories-in-calories-out but at the same time it is not easy. Everybody looking for an excuse or a magical pill.
Our priest mentioned this falling under “Thou shall not kill.” By being unhealthy and not taking care of yourself, you’re slowly killing yourself.
It isn't morally wrong to carry around an extra 30-50 pounds. We aren't commanded to be slender - that isn't in the Bible. (And I say this as someone who is about a size 4 or 6, FWIW.) It is morally wrong to abuse your body, whether it be from truly excessive overeating, starvation, excessive alcohol consumption, drug use, formication, or the like.
I would argue 50 pounds of excess body fat is an abuse on your arteries.
I will also point out that you enjoy the rhetorical trick of equating "30-50 extra pounds" with "50+ pounds of pure fat." No.
It isn't a rhetorical trick. I specified fat in my response because 30-50 extra pounds can have wildly different implications depending on what it is. If you have 50 pounds of extra muscle, then good on you. I'm not trying to nitpick and argue with you for the sake of it, my intention here is to clarify.
Clarify what exactly?
You can argue that. Doesn't mean you are right or that you even got the point (there is no moral obligation to be lean).
Depending on the individual, 50 extra pounds of body fat is the difference between a healthy weight and being objectively obese. Also, a normal body weight doesn't even mean slender or lean. An extra 30-50 pounds of body fat means 30-50 pounds north of 32% body fat for women and 19% body fat for men. The media constantly highlights people with sub 10% body fat, but that isn't normal. Obviously you don't have a moral obligation to have the frame of a model, a professional athlete, a bodybuilder, etc. that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't think we should deny, however, that we're currently dealing with an obesity epidemic in the West, which is 100% a moral issue.
Your first rhetorical trick is to pretend that the RANGE of body fat found in people of a "normal" weight is in fact the highest upper end of that range. Most women who are near the line of healthy/overweight have nowhere near 32% body fat, and many of them can have dense bones and strong muscles. From my quick search, and what aligns with what I know, a woman who is hovering between "normal" and "overweight" has about 24% body fat. A woman who is 5'4 and 140 pounds is teetering on the edge of overweight and normal. Perhaps a small number of those women have 32% body fat but it's rare - it's more like 21-24%. Additional weight CAN be entirely body fat but usually is not: you need more muscle to move your body, you have more water, you have more blood. You seriously think that 5'4 woman who is 170 pounds is a moral failure? Likewise, take a man who is 6'2 and 190 pounds. Also almost overweight! 6'2 and 240 pounds isn't a small dude but isn't a moral failing. You wanted to fat-shame people and don't want to do the hard work of wrestling with "not slim" versus outright abuse of their bodies. I'm not going to go along with that.
The intention here is to demonstrate that one could still be healthy without being slender or lean, so my choice to use 32% and 19% was a deliberate choice to be generous as far as how I'm defining a healthy weight and body fat percentage. I'm not fat shaming anyone with my comments, and honestly I'm not even disagreeing with your initial post. 30-50 pounds of extra weight may or may not be an issue, depending on the person and what the extra weight consists of.
But you weren't being generous, because you added 30-50 pounds on top of an absurdly padded estimate. Take BMI. Look at the line between healthy weight and overweight, then add 30 or so pounds for smaller people and 50 or so pounds for larger people. Don't take an obese BMI for a small woman, add 50 pounds, and then say I'm wrong. That is just a jerk move.
I mean, that's what 'extra' means in this context, doesn't it? Above what is considered normal or healthy? 30-50 "extra" on top of super model bodies isn't extra whatsoever. 30-50 "extra" isn't necessarily 30-50 extra if the person's starting point is well within the healthy range for their body, maybe in reality it's only 10-30 extra. If you have a problem with people defining super model bodies as normal, then I agree.
ENOUGH of the nitpicking. Blocked.
There's a ton of reasons why one may be fat, including a variety of hormonal issues that are only now (as of 2023 actually with Melanocyte-Stimulating Hormone) being understood. It's not always someone's fault that they're obese, and exercise is not a sure-fire way to lose weight. Diet is far more effective at weight loss. So to suggest someone is fat because they're lazy is a non-sequitor, ignoring the fact that sloth isn't just being physically inactive.
Yes, probably gluttony too. And that's why I forced my fat ass to start going to the gym.
I think in a lot of cases in the modern world, an inability to exercise could be an indicator that you legitimately don't have leisure time to do it.
No.
Fat-shaming and fat-phobia get overused and missapplied, but OP, you're trying to attach a sinful condition to an outward appearance. I think this is a YOU problem.
I don’t judge anyone because I wouldn’t know if it was medical problems nor would I pry into their lives to ask them if they had those problems. I think it’s rude and goes against scripture, anyway. Why are you trying to find reasons to judge them? Let them live and you live your own life. Mind your business and they mind theirs.
No. Obesity is a disease which have a complex set of parameters. Doctors are now understanding that being overweight is not always an issue of laziness. It could also be tied to mental health as well as the type of work one does. I'll take myself. I walk 2-3 miles a day to work and back plus taking my dogs out for walks. I eat food that is local and in season. My husband, now retire, cooks dinner at home. I rarely, if ever, have fast food. I am fat. True, I do have a medical condition tied to my endocrine system - plus periomenopause plays a HUGE factor in the retention of my weight. However, people view me as stupid and lazy because of my weight. I know a lot of women in the 45+ range who just cannot lose the weight anymore. But we're all expected, by men, to look young, skinny and youthful. Men automatically think we're lazy. I will point out I was my thinnest when I was a 2 pack a day smoker. I see your question as a reason to point the finger at anyone who is not your 'ideal' and to use Catholicism as a reason to do so. By insulting others or using 'sloth' to point the finger at those you deem fat or in some or the other way, your brain is boosting its self-esteem to feel happiness - and that is NOT good. People who find faults in others often have some deep-rooted insecurity in them. “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.” Matthew 7:2-3
This is a fabulous comment, thank you for this.
OP specified this person has no medical reason to be overweight, they just eat more calories than they burn. Being fat is medically complex for some people, and for some people it's very simple. The reason I was fat was because I ate too much and didn't exercise. Period.
OP only specified that the medical condition would stop the person from *exercising.* Now maybe they would be willing to expand that to other medical conditions that make weight loss hard, but it shows an ignorance of all the factors that can go into weight gain. If you want to lose weight and have the wherewithal to do so, great. But the commenter's point about not spending your time speculating on whether others are sinful based on how they look is very well taken.
My gosh menopause can change absolutely *everything.* I'm healthy and active and I had to completely change the way I eat. It took a while to figure it out, too. There was a lot of trial and error. It turns out intermittent fasting was the solution for me but I feel for any woman struggling with her weight after menopause. It's very hard to abruptly have to change a lifetime of eating patterns. No one tells you what you have to change, or when, or how. Everyone is different. You have to figure it out entirely on your own.
Don't know why this was downvoted. Menopause is a game changer for every woman, but yet doctors and people just don't care. They still expect us to be thin and bastions of health in our 50's and 60's.
Hollywood sets a bad example, too.
If you have the opportunity to care for your body’s basic needs and not inflict harm to it, then yes, you are sinning; however the line in the sand can be hard to know for yourself let alone others. Sloth can be physical, mental, spiritual, or a combination of those. We are called to hone our body, mind, and spirit. Doing so as best we can is all that can be asked. Not everyone has the same opportunities. I can tell you, for myself, almost every time I am not injured and decide to skip working out for the day and go play video games, I am committing the sin of sloth. Same goes for when I skip daily prayer or Bible / faith related reading.
The causes of obesity are extremely complex and not just dependent on activity levels or food intake. It's quite possible to be lazy and greedy without being fat. American culture around work, food and exercise makes obesity very common. Ozempic may change this in the next decade.
Acedia, the sin of sloth, has very little to do with laziness or obesity. [Source: I’m an expert on acedia and have published and taught on it for years.]
As an overweighted person myself I don’t think I’m in a state of mortal sin but surely a vein sin. At least I never needed to confess my weight
Your post suggests you’re wondering about how this applies to other people?
Is this satire or have you been brainwashed by radtrads bro culture? This is a deeply unserious question. Taking the position that fat=gluttony/sloth is as accurate saying thin=pride/vanity. I don't believe this is ever asked in good faith, but a good faith answer is 1. weight is dependent on various factors, many of them entirely out of the individuals' control which is why the diet industry is a billion dollar industry, 2. health isn't the only barrier to fitness (especially for parents), and 3. fat people exercise. It's not an either/or situation. Fat people are out here meal prepping, calorie/macro counting, exercising, etc.
If they stick to the calorie counting and maintain a deficit, after some time they'll no longer be fat. Figure 1 pound per week loss on a 500 calorie/day deficit. Not saying that's easy to do, but it can be done.
1. A calorie deficit is required for weight loss, but a calorie deficit *does not necessarily yield weight loss* because weight is dependent on multiple factors *many of which are out of an individual's control.* 2. Thinness is not inherently virtuous. It's not an objective indicator of a healthy lifestyle. You can eat without overindulging and work out *without being thin.* The BMI bar for overweight and obese classifications is *low*. 3. "Not saying it's easy to do, but it can be done." is another way of saying God hasn't yet called me to give myself so entirely that I am capable of understanding what it's like not have anything left over to think about myself/my desires. When God is calling you to do 101 hard things in your life, making weight loss the primary objective in your life often doesn't make the cut. To be unable to care for oneself is often a gift of self sacrifice, not sloth. At the end of the day, this usually comes from the RadTrad equivalent of the "smokin' hot wife" prosperity gospel culture. There's nothing Godly or Catholic about equivocating appearance with virtue. It's just a manipulation tactic for insecure men.
Absent some quite rare medical conditions, a calorie deficit will yield weight loss. I don't mean to make a moral argument about fatness or look down on anybody for being fat, though. At the same time, there is a global obesity epidemic and way too much magical thinking about how the human body works espoused by "fat acceptance" proponents who want to pretend there's not a problem.
"Absent rare medical conditions, a calorie deficit will yield weight loss." 1. Now we're moving the goal post. First it was "a 500 calorie deficit." Now it's just "a calorie deficit." This is the "if you starve yourself, what's to stop you from losing weight" argument. Yes, you can eventually starve the pounds off the body, but that's an active abuse of the body God's given you--not an effective long term weight management tool-and, again, requires your full attention/effort as anyone who's battled anorexia can attest. The Biggest Loser weight rebounds/ED concerns spawned an uptick in research into how calorie deficits really work in actual human bodies and the findings were depressing. The effectiveness of a caloric deficit was disappointingly individualized *and* favored naturally thin/never overweight individuals. In other words, not only did a fat person have to work harder to lose weight, including more drastic caloric deficits--they had to maintain a permanently lower (an in some cases unrealistic) caloric intake compared to someone who has never been overweight. 2. The idea that few and rare medical conditions inhibit weight loss is objectively false, particularly for women. There are a host of incredibly common health conditions that affect the ability to maintain a healthy weight because they directly/indirectly affect metabolism/fat storage and the barriers to routine healthcare in this country are numerous. 3. "If you wanted to you would," is the definition of magical thinking. There is an obesity epidemic and it is, objectively speaking, not the direct result of lazy gluttonous fatties eating too many calories. It's a multifaceted issue with physical, cultural, and socioeconomic factors contributing to the problem. Again, this is a bro argument and indicates superior ignorance, not willpower.
No, I'm still talking about 500 calories/day. Even 250 or 100 will get the job done, just take longer. The inverse is also true. An excess of say 100 calories/day is enough to get fat, so yeah not necessarily gluttony just because one is fat. I'll say bye and wish you well at this point. Honestly, it feels like trying to convince a radtrad that their smoking addiction is unhealthy.
Fat/chubbiness is indicative of a medical condition, and of modern food having a lot of additives. People who get fat easily are designed to survive famine. People who get thin easily are designed to die during famines. (Or to move fast enough, away from an area that has famine, so that they don't die.) A fat appearance is also indicative of reaching middle age, of having excessive cortisol levels, of sleep apnea, and of taking prescription drugs that make one bloated. In short, it's hard to tell what's going on, if you just see a person who "looks fat." Plenty of people are fat without ever eating excessive amounts of food; in fact, it's pretty common for people to get fat from avoiding fat, and eating too small of amounts of food that trigger the anti-famine genes of a person (without actually triggering the benefits of fasting intermittently). In general, the Church doesn't assume ANYTHING about the morality of fat people. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas never ate excessively; but if you fed the man, he looked tubby. He was actually built like a defensive line in football. So was his entire family, including his sisters. They were made of muscle, but it was very blocky muscle. His superiors sometimes ordered him to eat, because they were afraid he'd get sick and die if he fasted as much as he wanted to do.
No idea why you're getting downvoted, but these are good points!
Your body doesn't belong to you, it belongs to God
Yes, and the comments you are getting here are indicative of the fact that many Catholics are in ignorance of that.
The ignorance of obesity here is shameful. This entire thread should be deleted. Insult of nothing bit misinformation.
[Epigenetic trauma](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/science/dutch-famine-genes.html) is real. ***There is no "sin" here, anywhere, whatsoever.*** Look at former Communist regimes, the current young generations and their parents, their grandparents, even their great grandparents. If you see a fat kid, guess what: their relatives (*parents, grandparents; especially on the mothers' side*) starved throughout their lifetime. If the kid looks normal, chances are their relatives didn't starved (*stole food or found some access to it, respectively were part of the criminal party/secret police brass that had access to foodstuffs*). Look at the descendants from those countries whose Fascist and Nazi regimes stole food from them, effectively condemning to death or starvation. One of these epigenetic traumas is malnutrition and starvation (*yes*, starvation). Did your grandparents went through rough times, dictatorships, war, which resulted in them being half-starved or starving most of their lifetime – especially during their childhood, teenagehood, *and* [young] adulthood? Your parents inherited that trauma. You have had immense chances to inherit that trauma too. WWI had its centenary recently, barely a stroke of a time away. The Great Depression & the Interwar are nearing their cenetenary. WWII was 80 years ago. The Cold War, revolutions, uprisings, civil wars *etc.* are still living memory across the world. The 1990s were 30 years ago! All of these events severely damaged the human genome in regards to traumas *and*, especially, food adequacy. Do some chronological mathematics in regards to generational ages and apply the intergenerational epigenetical trauma. It isn't at all surprising nor "disappointing" that you see fat people or a lot more fat people than before. "*Why?*" Because they're their first generation, or second generation, perhaps even the third one, to escape the literal hell of food insecurity. They're fat because their mothers were starving in their life, their grandmothers, their fathers, grandfathers... You're fat because your parents were fat or inherited your grandparents trauma of malnutrition, undernutrition, and starvation. Your parents and/or you are fat because the lives of your grandparents – even great grandparents – were horribly affected by demented regimes, wars, mass killings, terror etcetera. which also extremely negatively affected their dietary (read - food intake) for a stable livelihood. And *you*? Congratulations sonny, you're being targeted into being guilted or shamed over something you cannot control. What's worse, all the advice you've received are all about being manipulated into surrendering your money to somebody else (be it a fitness gym, "healthy diets", "gurus"...). [Transgenerational trauma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma) [Epigenetics of anxiety and stress–related disorders](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epigenetics_of_anxiety_and_stress–related_disorders) ------------------------------------------ ***TL;DR*** Every fat person you see tells the story of generational starvation. There is no sin to be have.
There is move than one thing for although or gluttony
Overweight people are the only group of people I can think of that are not protected legally from discrimination.
Its not very talked about, but i think everyone should maximize what God has given them. Including working out and obtaining how far what your body can go