eating nutritionless food

[philothea]

[quote name='slywakka250' date='Apr 26 2005, 03:28 PM'] I believe that this is a pretty important issue. The question I have is how do you know when you are being glutonous? I really don't know what would be the proper ammount of food strictly following nutritional guidelines. [/quote]
Me and my scruples have been all over this issue, many, many times! (Argh!)

The ideal seems to be what saints all seem to exemplify: food is a tool to serve God, and what you eat should not matter to you at all. Feasting, fasting, good stuff, icky stuff, it doesn't matter -- like St. Bernard who drank a glass of oil instead of wine and didn't even notice it.

However, not being a saint (grr) I get hungry and I want yummy stuff. I also have a lot of weird dietary concerns. And I obsess. It gets complicated.

I want to eat only healthy things in moderate quantities, and ideally to eat "poorer" food when I have the choice rather than luxurious stuff. In practice I sometimes go overboard. I tried LOTS of fasting, but that seemed to just make me more food obsessed than ever. I have finally concluded that what I eat is not really that big a deal, so long as I don't commit any sins against charity, get attached to any particular food or preparation, or make myself ill.

I'm sure this wasn't helpful at all, sorry. Just babbling.

[argent_paladin]

1. The Church has, as mentioned before, declared that gluttony, the unreasonable desire for food, is a sin. It is important to note that it is not the type or amount of food that is sinful, but the desire that is against reason that is sinful. One could then argue that food with no nutritional value is against reason. It is funny because this week we have been discussing temperance in my virtue class. We even asked if it was ok to eat a snickers bar for breakfast. There doesn't seem to be any food that is intrinsically immoral to eat, that is for any reason and in any circumstance. See Thomas's treatment here: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/314804.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/314804.htm[/url]

2. dairygurl is asking this question because she wants to dissent from the Church's teaching on contraception. Since the Church says that it is a sin to engage in sex purely for pleasure, why doesn't the Church condemn eating purely for pleasure? Especially artifical means, like Nutrasweet, Olestra, etc.

I want other people to contribute and so I will will save my reply for later. Plus, I am tired.

[MichaelFilo]

Here is the problem with the "nutrionless" food arguement:
No food is devoid of nutrition. Even eating wood will nourish you (albiet, it is not recommended, and highly worth the risk of eating wood). A candy bar does give you calories, and you need said calories to function. Of course, there are better sources for calories, candy bars still provide them.

Simply stated, your nutrional health is not a case of moral vs immorality. The food you consume is not to be judged as more or immoral because of it's iron and vitamin A content. It will be judged as to WHY you consume the food. Is it purely for pleasure, or a desire for food? Is it because you want to use a gift from God in the most effecient way possible without abusing it?

The point: Why you consume what you do is what matters, not just simply what you consume.

God bless,
Mikey

[philothea]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Apr 27 2005, 03:43 AM'] Here is the problem with the "nutrionless" food arguement:
No food is devoid of nutrition. Even eating wood will nourish you (albiet, it is not recommended, and highly worth the risk of eating wood). [/quote]
Olean (olestra), Splenda (sucralose), and Nutraasweet (aspartame) have made the possibility of nutritionless food real. It's only possible with high-tech manufacturing, of course.

I think there weill be truly zero-calorie foods not too far in the future.

Then would there be a moral issue, do you think?

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='philothea' date='Apr 28 2005, 12:47 PM'] Olean (olestra), Splenda (sucralose), and Nutraasweet (aspartame) have made the possibility of nutritionless food real. It's only possible with high-tech manufacturing, of course.

I think there weill be truly zero-calorie foods not too far in the future.

Then would there be a moral issue, do you think? [/quote]
yes, eating food with no nutrition is the same as using contraceptives.......you are distorting the true intention of food.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='philothea' date='Apr 28 2005, 01:47 PM'] Olean (olestra), Splenda (sucralose), and Nutraasweet (aspartame) have made the possibility of nutritionless food real. It's only possible with high-tech manufacturing, of course.

I think there weill be truly zero-calorie foods not too far in the future.

Then would there be a moral issue, do you think? [/quote]
There is one thing you should notice. Even if you remove the nutrition from something, it will still at least include basic things like fat (which is neccessary for the body). Unless a food can be devoid of all things (thus becoming nothing, which is impossible) it will have at least some positive effect on your body.

Even eating radioactive uranium has nutrious value..... of course it'd be immoral since it's suicide, but the nutrition is still there.

God bless,
Mikey

[Carnanc]

right, even if nutrition is lacking, you have to also look at the negative aspects of any food. What may have a good range of vitamins, may have a high ammount of transfats.

[philothea]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Apr 28 2005, 07:42 PM'] There is one thing you should notice. Even if you remove the nutrition from something, it will still at least include basic things like fat (which is neccessary for the body). Unless a food can be devoid of all things (thus becoming nothing, which is impossible) it will have at least some positive effect on your body.
[/quote]
(Shoot. Sorry about all the typos. No idea what happened.)

Umm, no. Only certain organic substances have nutritious value. Your body has very specific requirements. Olestra is synthetic combination of a fat molecule and a sugar molecule. It looks like an oil. It's 100% free of [b]any[/b] nutritive value because it is too large to be absorbed by your intestinal wall. It passes right though, untouched.

Olestra is used to fry "Wow" brand Frito-Lay snack foods. There are no calories from fat in those products.

Obviously if people could eat any old thing and get nutrition from it, no one would starve to death!

Just theoretically: if you could eat, say, big cheeseburgers that had absolutely no nutritive value, do you think that would be sinful? I tend to think so, personally.

[Socrates]

[quote name='philothea' date='Apr 27 2005, 12:49 AM'] Me and my scruples have been all over this issue, many, many times! (Argh!)

The ideal seems to be what saints all seem to exemplify: food is a tool to serve God, and what you eat should not matter to you at all. Feasting, fasting, good stuff, icky stuff, it doesn't matter -- like St. Bernard who drank a glass of oil instead of wine and didn't even notice it.

However, not being a saint (grr) I get hungry and I want yummy stuff. I also have a lot of weird dietary concerns. And I obsess. It gets complicated.

I want to eat only healthy things in moderate quantities, and ideally to eat "poorer" food when I have the choice rather than luxurious stuff. In practice I sometimes go overboard. I tried LOTS of fasting, but that seemed to just make me more food obsessed than ever. I have finally concluded that what I eat is not really that big a deal, so long as I don't commit any sins against charity, get attached to any particular food or preparation, or make myself ill.

I'm sure this wasn't helpful at all, sorry. Just babbling. [/quote]
In all seriousness, it sounds like you might have an eating disorder. Eating and food should not be a source of obsession or scruples (and is not for psychologically healthy people).

[philothea]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 29 2005, 01:25 PM'] In all seriousness, it sounds like you might have an eating disorder. Eating and food should not be a source of obsession or scruples (and is not for psychologically healthy people). [/quote]
Mmmmmaybe.

But, I am not any more messed up and scrupulous about food than I am about anything else. I think I have a universal disorder.

Anyway, I am getting more sensible about the food thing. Could be there's hope for me yet.

(I replied to this a few days ago and hit "Add Reply", and the Phorum vanished. I hope it doesn't happen again!)

[dairygirl4u2c]

There's a difference btween gluttony and simpy eating a few nutrietionless snacks here and there. As you've noted, there's a parrlllell to contraception. One doesn't necessarily become a sex addict because he uses contraception once inawhile. You shouldn't expain why gluttony is wrong, but why eating nutrionless food once in awhile is wrong.

[Resurrexi]

this is stupid. of course it shouldn't

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='577959' date='Apr 25 2005, 03:33 PM']
*declared by the pope for catholics, that is*

I assume it could be, as it could just be something that has been overlooked.

Isn't eating food/candy that provides no calories and no nutrition separating the good taste aspect of food from the nutritional aspect and thus going against the natural law? Furthermore, abuse of said food/candy could lead to addiction..

This thread should have these focuses: one explaining whether or not it is immoral and two on discussing whether or not it's possible to have it and/or something overlooked in general be declared immoral.
[/quote]


Interesting question. As for declaring it immoral due solely to the taste factor being separate from other aspects of food, I don't think so. After all, the Church does not forbid things of purely entertainment value (that I know of). Now, getting addicted to it, that might be something to think about as addiction to anything is not good. And eating too much of it can affect your body in a negative way. And we are called to care for our physical bodies as well as our spiritual bodies and I think if eating these things too much can harm our bodies, then yes it's not too nuts to think that it might be considered immoral to do so.

[Loyola]

I voted maybe. I think America at large (no pun intended) should tone down on the bad food we eat. It is hard with all of the easy and cheap options available to us. Plus add in the advertising or brainwashing campaigns that push us to eat the junk. [u]SuperSize Me[/u] was a great movie.