[cite] Joe:[/cite]I've been letting myself feel hungry, instead of eating 3 square meals. I too also have more energy. In fact, when I go for a morning 1 hr. bike ride, if I don't eat beforehand, I actually feel better putting out the energy.
It seems like the big claim on fad diets is that you never feel hungry. I never lost a pound when I wasn't willing to feel hungry.
I eat 3 meals a day with small amounts of complex carbs and protein, moderate amounts of fruits (fresh, unprocessed), and liberal amounts of vegetables (fresh or frozen). I begin to feel hungry after about 3 or 4 hours and I eat again after 5 or 6 hours. It is nice to be hungry when I eat. So often I had snacked so much in between meals, I ate because it was time and not because I was hungry.
After being off sugar and flour for a week or so, my hunger between meals is less severe. When I eat sugar or flour, the hunger is more piercing and it occurs more often. I don't think that is a natural hunger. It is more like withdrawal. In the last 10 months, I have slipped back and forth a few times. I wish I wouldn't do that.
Comments
Chapter 75
The people are hungry:
It is because those in authority eat up too much in taxes,
That the people are hungry.
The people are difficult to govern:
It is because those in authority are too fond of action,
That the people are difficult to govern.
The people treat death lightly:
It is because the people set too much store by life,
That they treat death lightly.
It is just because one has no use for life that one is wiser than the man who
values life.
Read commentary previously posted for this chapter.
As I recall, this chapter is usually translated in the context of the 'people' versus 'authority', as we see here. I suppose this way of looking at it is fine when we are looking for a scapegoat. However, the Chinese characters make no mention of those in authority (see literal translation below). For my part, I see those in authority are actually just us,... depending on circumstance. So, pondering this chapter personally, as it points to my life feels most relevant.
Although, my experience with people have certainly demonstrated that 'It is because those in authority are too fond of action, that the people are difficult to govern'. This was especially evident in parenting - perhaps the most intense and intimate governing situation we can experience. The most effective 'tool' I used in parenting was waiting patiently. Kids understand action; non-action is for them the deepest [chref=1]mystery[/chref]. The non-action of waiting patiently is the most effective governing / child rearing technique I used. Mind you I had my first son when I was 45, and had by that time matured enough to be able to [chref=48]do nothing at all[/chref]. Simply put, our [chref=37]desire[/chref] to control life makes it more difficult to [chref=64]deal with and maintain[/chref] it. We lead instead of [chref=59]follow[/chref] and chaos ensues.
Why is one who has no use for life wiser than the man who values life? We are instinctively biased to value life, i.e., the survival instinct. Bias, regardless of its focus, always blinds. Wisdom, if nothing else, requires the ability to see beyond our 'blindness' (emotional biases, attachments) and [chref=79]show no favoritism[/chref]. Clearly, the man who values life is less able to do that; instinct is completely in charge of his perspective.
The only real difference in the literal Chinese is the absence of pointing fingers at 'those in authority'. Perhaps translators of the Tao Te Ching tend have a problem with authority? True, Taoism doesn't cheer authority on, but [chref=8]it does not contend[/chref] with it either.
people of hungry because their eat taxes of much,
is because hungry.
people of difficult govern because their of have activity,
is because difficult govern.
people of lightly death because their seek life of generous,
is because unimportant death.
man only without use life do
is able at noble existence.