Lent

So I have a religious lent coming up in a few days. What I give up is carbohydrates. Completely. Do you guys have any ideas for foods with no carbs (not low carb)? Please don't tell me it's unhealthy because I already know. Thank you

Replies

BoxerBrawler

My religion, and my God, wants me to nourish, cherish and take care of my body, not hurt it. But whatev's. As my nana used to say with regard to lent. "What you put into your mouth is not important... it's what comes out that's important".

vanmep

Do you eat any beef or chicken? Have you ever noticed any difference in your health / weight / physical being when you practice your Lenten discipline? Good luck with your next six weeks!

(btw - sausage and bacon do have carbs as well since they are processed meats.)

WinoGelato

kiiibbb112253 wrote: »

VeryKatie wrote: »

Yikes! The thought of giving up all grains, vegetables and fruits as well as anything with fibre or sugar in it (beans, milk, cheese, etc.) sounds awful and not what Lent is intended for. That'll make you sick!

Lent isn't a way for people to lose the weight they want to - is that what you're trying to do?

No. It's a family tradition to go no carb

A family tradition to eat only meat and oil, and no fruits, vegetables, grains or dairy for forty days?

How many in the family? Children?

maryrosehunt

Its not what you give up for Lent but what you do to please God. so you could do some good deeds or give to charities but of course don't brag about it, you could say extra prayers also. Good luck and may God bless you

ronjsteele1

Raised and confirmed catholic. Even in high school, giving up something for lent was impressed upon us to be used as a time of sacrifice (like giving up chocolate or whatever) and any money that would have been spent on what was given up was suppose to be given to charity or the church. On a spiritual level we were told to spend the time reflecting on God. In some ways, they were even a bit vague when teaching us about lent (I'm not sure some of the teachers even understood what it was for).

Now? As a born again Christian I'm going to do what the Bible says. "Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." That includes eating and drinking. I will be thankful for what I have to eat and drink and not worry about lent since it's not even in the Bible.

lemurcat12

Kind of like Christmas, hmm. That's what the Puritans thought and it's a fair point if that's your approach, but I'm glad my tradition is otherwise. I teach CCD, and am pretty sure we explain it better, but I know religious ed can be dreadful some places.

French_Peasant

ronjsteele1 wrote: »

Raised and confirmed catholic. Even in high school, giving up something for lent was impressed upon us to be used as a time of sacrifice (like giving up chocolate or whatever) and any money that would have been spent on what was given up was suppose to be given to charity or the church. On a spiritual level we were told to spend the time reflecting on God. In some ways, they were even a bit vague when teaching us about lent (I'm not sure some of the teachers even understood what it was for).

Now? As a born again Christian I'm going to do what the Bible says. "Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." That includes eating and drinking. I will be thankful for what I have to eat and drink and not worry about lent since it's not even in the Bible.

Jesus fasting in the wilderness for 40 days is in everyone's Bible, in the environs of the Book of Matthew (4:2 to be exact). This is what Lent is based on. As new Christians prepared to be baptized they would fast before the Easter vigil (both to prepare themselves mentally and to separate themselves from the pagan sacrifice foods), which was the traditional day for baptism in the early church. The fact that it eventually became forced on all Christians is not in the Bible (and this was a critique of the Reformation) but in general it seems laudatory to act as Christ did, whether as a community or as a private discipline.

amusedmonkey

Guys, let's tone it down. I really hope this interesting thread doesn't get closed.

VioletRojo

cushman5279 wrote: »

My religion, and my God, wants me to nourish, cherish and take care of my body, not hurt it. But whatev's. As my nana used to say with regard to lent. "What you put into your mouth is not important... it's what comes out that's important".

And this thread was going so well. I don't think it's kosher to tell someone how they should practice their own religion and traditions.

kiiibbb112253

WinoGelato wrote: »

kiiibbb112253 wrote: »

VeryKatie wrote: »

Yikes! The thought of giving up all grains, vegetables and fruits as well as anything with fibre or sugar in it (beans, milk, cheese, etc.) sounds awful and not what Lent is intended for. That'll make you sick!

Lent isn't a way for people to lose the weight they want to - is that what you're trying to do?

No. It's a family tradition to go no carb

A family tradition to eat only meat and oil, and no fruits, vegetables, grains or dairy for forty days?

How many in the family? Children?

Oh no the children don't give up carbs. They just give up bread. Most of us who do the no carb thing started when we were 20

ronjsteele1

French_Peasant wrote: »

ronjsteele1 wrote: »

Raised and confirmed catholic. Even in high school, giving up something for lent was impressed upon us to be used as a time of sacrifice (like giving up chocolate or whatever) and any money that would have been spent on what was given up was suppose to be given to charity or the church. On a spiritual level we were told to spend the time reflecting on God. In some ways, they were even a bit vague when teaching us about lent (I'm not sure some of the teachers even understood what it was for).

Now? As a born again Christian I'm going to do what the Bible says. "Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." That includes eating and drinking. I will be thankful for what I have to eat and drink and not worry about lent since it's not even in the Bible.

Jesus fasting in the wilderness for 40 days is in everyone's Bible, in the environs of the Book of Matthew (4:2 to be exact). This is what Lent is based on. As new Christians prepared to be baptized they would fast before the Easter vigil (both to prepare themselves mentally and to separate themselves from the pagan sacrifice foods), which was the traditional day for baptism in the early church. The fact that it eventually became forced on all Christians is not in the Bible (and this was a critique of the Reformation) but in general it seems laudatory to act as Christ did, whether as a community or as a private discipline.

For sure, because people have different understandings of lent, it will be taught based on what the teacher knows/understands it to be. I was just sharing what I was taught in catholic h.s.

Definitely, biblical fasting is a different animal and for different reasons then what is stated for lent.

savithny

I was just waiting to see how long we got to discuss different traditions before someone showed up with the "Papists! Papists ALL OF YOU!" finger shake.

savithny

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I would certainly not limit "processed" foods to microwaveable meals or cured meats. Dried is a process. I eat canned beans sometimes (the low sodium, no added ingredients kind), and those are processed. Pasta and bread are processed, dairy is all processed, skinless, boneless chicken breast and smoked salmon is processed. Fish and vegetables at a church fish fry (even if prepared really healthfully, not that it usually is, admittedly) = processed, since it's prepared for you (I'm assuming people are not including food they then process themselves).

I would interpret all unprocessed to mean (1) meat (and not skinless varieties or, of course, sausage or bacon or cured foods, canned fish, smoked fish), (2) eggs, (3) maybe plain milk, but not any kind of yogurt, cheese, etc., and (4) fresh fruits and veg and tubers. Pretty much that. And of course "fresh" fruits and veg many places (like in Chicago where I live) isn't really any more natural or whatever than processed (i.e., frozen veg and fruit) given that they have to be brought in from far away. One reason I use canned tomatoes this time of year is that I think grocery store tomatoes now are tasteless. (In the summer I buy local or grow my own, as they are one of the only things I consistently grow successfully.)

Probably a distraction from the main topic, though! It just always puzzles me given how diverse processed foods are that people see them as inherently bad.

I think the "inherently bad' thing comes in part from the majority of people having a different defintion of "processed" than you do.

Example: I've grown beans in my garden. I've let them dry down on the vine, shelled them, and stored them. That is literally all you have to do to get a "Dried" bean. I 100% think of dried beans as "unprocessed." I don't keep goats or cows, but I have friends that do, and you can literally milk an animal, walk into the house, and consume it - that's unprocessed. You shake it a little in a jar and you've got butter, you let it stand for awhile and you've got yogurt. CUrdle that milk, strain it, and press it, and you've got cheese.

While there are debates over the definition of "processed," most people, when shown a dried bean or a stick of butter or glass of milk, would call those "whole foods." For most of us, "processed" requires at least some mechanization and some alteration of the basic structure of the plant or animal.

lemurcat12

savithny wrote: »

I was just waiting to see how long we got to discuss different traditions before someone showed up with the "Papists! Papists ALL OF YOU!" finger shake.

Heh. We can avoid getting sucked in, however. (Telling myself.)

savithny wrote: »

I think the "inherently bad' thing comes in part from the majority of people having a different defintion of "processed" than you do.

Well, processed means processed. If people mean something else I think it's better to be more clear, as my definition is not unique to me. Lots of foods that are undeniably processed are highly nutritious (greek yogurt or smoked salmon or a meal made with dried whole wheat pasta, plus some vegetables, lean meat, and olive oil). Others are not, or are high cal for the satisfaction one gets (but that's true of lots of non processed foods). I find it confusing that some generalize about all processed foods even if one excludes dried and frozen food items.

While there are debates over the definition of "processed," most people, when shown a dried bean or a stick of butter or glass of milk, would call those "whole foods." For most of us, "processed" requires at least some mechanization and some alteration of the basic structure of the plant or animal.

I actually don't think this is true: I think butter and cheese would be accepted as unquestionably processed. Maybe not dried beans, but anything canned (whether or not it contains lots of added salt). It really does not say much about nutrient content or whether it's bad for you. (I personally say I mostly eat whole foods and I definitely use a variety of processed foods, like olive oil and greek yogurt and tofu and dried pasta, etc. -- the whole "mostly" thing covers that in my mind. What I wouldn't claim, because it's not true and would be confusing to others, is that I eat unprocessed only.)

Anyway, so the point is just that I wouldn't consider "processed foods" bad for you (which is actually off the topic of the thread, as I don't think anyone said they were before I said they weren't) ;-) and I do find that when I eat more simply/avoid meat in Lent I end up eating more things that are processed (including dried beans, which I buy from the store in a bag since I never do a good job growing enough to can and dry myself, although I think it's really cool that you do).

TR0berts

Back to important stuff:

lemurcat12

This is fun and kind of relevant:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/once-upon-a-time-the-catholic-church-decided-that-beavers-were-fish/

As for this bit: "The Church, by the way, also classified another semi-aquatic rodent, the capybara, as a fish for dietary purposes. The critter, the largest rodent in the world, is commonly eaten during Lent in Venezuela. 'It's delicious," one restaurant owner told the New York Sun in 2005. "I know it's a rat, but it tastes really good.'"

A friend of mine told me about capybara and its relative cuy (basically, guinea pig), after a trip to Venezuela. There's a Last Supper painting in the Cuzco Cathedral with cuy as the main dish. Apparently the story is that when the painter (Zapata) was painting it he thought that obviously for a feast they would have had to have cuy. Judas seems really displeased about it!

BruinsGal_91

They all look as if they're praying for the Domino's pizza guy to turn up.

ccsernica

BruinsGal_91 wrote: »

They all look as if they're praying for the Domino's pizza guy to turn up.

I'd be too, if I found a giant roast hamster on my supper table.

kenyonhaff

Jruzer wrote: »

kommodevaran wrote: »

Why would you do something you think is unhealthy? You're abstaining to show religious piety, not to lose weight.

"Giving up carbs" is so impossible that you'd practically have to stop eating.

Times really are achanging. In them olden days, you gave up meat for Lent and some could only eat bread. These days, bread is the sinful food

Liquid bread is the best kind.

This is probably a legend, but I love it anyway:

Around 700 years ago, German monks in the town of Einbeck developed a specific style of malty, dark, high alcohol beer to help sustain them during intense periods of fasting. This beer became known as Bock, a corruption of the name Einbeck. Later, discontent with the strength of Bock style beer, monks developed an even stronger variant known as Doppelbock, meaning double Bock. This beer was so laden with nutrition that some dubbed it “liquid bread.”

Now, these beers were so delicious that the monks began to wonder if they were contrary to the spirit of Lenten penance. Being faithful sons of the Church, they decided to consult the pope. On the journey to Rome, however, the beer was subjected to extreme weather conditions, causing it to spoil and turn sour. When the pope tasted it, he was so appalled by the spoiled beer that he immediately deemed it an excellent Lenten penance.

Well...as I understand it it was more likely that the Pope, who lived in Rome drank wine and not beer which was a more Northern European thing. So beer would be an unfamiliar beverage and likely taste very bitter and strange.

I also heard it caused concern because some monks were actually looking forward a bit to Lent because of the Dopplebock...and that was arguably not the spirit of giving up and suffering for Lent. But neither could the monks not go without the Dopplebock because it filled a nutritional need remember, these monks were often doing physical work.

kenyonhaff

Well, I came from a "Lent is not a mandatory thing but we encourage it" background. And as I was taught it, it is giving up something temporarily in order to reach a greater good.

The idea is that Christ sacrificed in order to reach a higher perfection. We as ordinary people are just asked to give up something that brings us brings us farther from our potential. It could be something we want to give up permanently like smoking, or temporarily to prove to ourselves we can live without it, like TV, Facebook, or chocolate.

So the spirit of Lent is giving up something we don't need. We actually DO need carbs. If you believe in God, and that God created man, then God created man with the idea that carbs are needed. God loves us and wants us to be healthy.

What I think would be more sensible is giving up a source of TOO MANY carbs: bread, bagels, pasta and such as others have described.

lemurcat12

From a Catholic perspective, giving up carbs would be a problem too, because of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation, yeah, but the "accidents" stay the same, and I'm pretty sure that includes the macros.

Afura

lemurcat12 wrote: »

This is fun and kind of relevant:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/once-upon-a-time-the-catholic-church-decided-that-beavers-were-fish/

As for this bit: "The Church, by the way, also classified another semi-aquatic rodent, the capybara, as a fish for dietary purposes. The critter, the largest rodent in the world, is commonly eaten during Lent in Venezuela. 'It's delicious," one restaurant owner told the New York Sun in 2005. "I know it's a rat, but it tastes really good.'"

A friend of mine told me about capybara and its relative cuy (basically, guinea pig), after a trip to Venezuela. There's a Last Supper painting in the Cuzco Cathedral with cuy as the main dish. Apparently the story is that when the painter (Zapata) was painting it he thought that obviously for a feast they would have had to have cuy. Judas seems really displeased about it!

Judas thinks that cuy is small. And that it's trying to tell on him to Jesus.

Edit: I also think this has been a really interesting discussion into the different diets used during Lent by the different branches of Catholicism.

VioletRojo

lemurcat12 wrote: »

From a Catholic perspective, giving up carbs would be a problem too, because of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation, yeah, but the "accidents" stay the same, and I'm pretty sure that includes the macros.

Except that Sundays are feast days and excluded from Lenten fasts.

gradchica27

VioletRojo wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

From a Catholic perspective, giving up carbs would be a problem too, because of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation, yeah, but the "accidents" stay the same, and I'm pretty sure that includes the macros.

Except that Sundays are feast days and excluded from Lenten fasts.

But Catholics are able to go to Mass and receive Communion every day. Many take up going to one or more weekday Masses as the "prayer" part of the three-fold Lenten observance (prayer, alms giving, and fasting). Priests are required to offer the Mass daily (even if no one attends), nuns and brothers attend daily Mass, so Sunday exclusion doesn't really help there.

VioletRojo

gradchica27 wrote: »

VioletRojo wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

From a Catholic perspective, giving up carbs would be a problem too, because of the Eucharist. Transubstantiation, yeah, but the "accidents" stay the same, and I'm pretty sure that includes the macros.

Except that Sundays are feast days and excluded from Lenten fasts.

But Catholics are able to go to Mass and receive Communion every day. Many take up going to one or more weekday Masses as the "prayer" part of the three-fold Lenten observance (prayer, alms giving, and fasting). Priests are required to offer the Mass daily (even if no one attends), nuns and brothers attend daily Mass, so Sunday exclusion doesn't really help there.

This is true, but the vast majority of Catholics, in my experience, only attend Mass on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation. And we're not talking about priests and sisters; we're talking about the OP. At least I am.

kshama2001

ccsernica wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Froxen wrote: »

I have given up processed food for lent

I tend to eat more of certain kinds of processed foods during Lent, like dried beans, oats, tofu/tempeh, rice. Plenty of veg too, of course, but I don't tend to buy a lot of frozen veg even though nutritionally I think it's preferable at this time of year and of course it's cheaper. It just doesn't fit as well with how I usually cook. I'll probably try to do more soups and chilis, though, and that would work well with frozen. Canned tomatoes are something I use during this time of year too.

Those mostly aren't processed in the sense people mean when they say "processed foods" though, are they? Beans and rice are simply dried; oats are just rolled or cut. It's not as if we're talking about microwavable meals or cured meats or something. (Tofu/tempeh are indeed processed though.)

Right, no one I know outside MFP considers dried beans and rolled or cut oats to be processed foods. However, since the drying and rolling or cutting is technically processing, here on MFP I say "ultra processed" and refer to the Brazilian definition, which breaks out "processed" into:

1. Natural/minimally processed
2. Processed
3. Ultra processed

http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf

onward1

BruinsGal_91 wrote: »

They all look as if they're praying for the Domino's pizza guy to turn up.

Too funny. ^ After years of Catholic school, the old days at that, I've always taken it that you should make a sacrifice, give up something you enjoy for lent.

Except that Sundays are feast days and excluded from Lenten fasts.[/quote]

^Wait, what? I'm liking the sounds of this, does this mean I can have coffee on Sunday?

mitch16

onward1 wrote: »

BruinsGal_91 wrote: »

They all look as if they're praying for the Domino's pizza guy to turn up.

Too funny. ^ After years of Catholic school, the old days at that, I've always taken it that you should make a sacrifice, give up something you enjoy for lent.

Except that Sundays are feast days and excluded from Lenten fasts.

^Wait, what? I'm liking the sounds of this, does this mean I can have coffee on Sunday?

[/quote]

Yes--Sundays are excluded. Ash Wednesday is March 1st this year; Easter is April 16th--46 days apart. Lent is only 40 days though.

VioletRojo

onward1 wrote: »

^Wait, what? I'm liking the sounds of this, does this mean I can have coffee on Sunday?

Yes, Sundays are feast days and not included in Lent.

whiplashy

St. Patrick's day is also not included, in Ireland at least.