I'm no stranger to this nonsense, and as I've said it's not my first time at this rodeo. But there are increments: you don't need to live on soup and gelatin (and hard-boiled eggs *shudder*) to be doing "low residue", but the diet does include those options.
Low residue is indicated for a variety of gastrointestinal maladies and you can actually eat quite well. I keep thinking that I'm breaking the diet, but the diet I'm breaking is clear liquids, which is broth and gelatin and egg whites, and which has not been specified as necessary. And, in fact, my improvement while eating only "low residue" indicates that a clear liquid diet is probably not mandated.
The problem is the box of Good N Plenty my wife gave me. Dinner was grilled cheese and tomato soup (all perfectly legal) but I followed it with a handful of GnP...and then after a post-prandial nap, got up and helped her work on her Halloween costume. And after that, hypoglycemia. *sigh*
And yes, candy is low residue as long as it does not have nuts in it. GnP is mostly corn syrup and flavoring. Dinner last night was tacos--tacos are low residue as long as there are no vegetables on it like lettuce. Also, avoid refried beans, because beans are not low-residue, not even in that state. Salsa, no-go. (I did have some hot sauce on my tacos, though. I feel fine.)
Peanut butter is okay, as is jelly. And white bread. (Not whole-wheat.)
Some well-cooked vegetables are okay. The hot and sour soup I had the other day? The only thing in it that I could not eat was the tofu. Carrots and mushrooms, in soup, are well-cooked, believe me. Hamburger on white bun, okay. Dairy, okay.
The pain has changed character again, of course. Part of me wants to go have a heaping bowl of cole slaw and wash it down with a big glass of Metamucil, just to see what happens if I eat a meal consisting of nothing but fiber, but I am generally not foolhardy and will heed the directions of medical professionals as long as they make any kind of sense to me. But the nurse practitioner's complete bafflement in that office yesterday shows that I'm not the only person who's stumped by this nonsense. Nothing makes sense and I'm starting to think that the urine test for blood was a hail mary; as I said, a kidney stone would have explained it very nicely.
She had me cross my arms over my chest, like a mummy, and then hold my head up off the exam table, so that my abdominal muscles were tight, and then palped my abdomen...and found nothing unusual. I think this was a way of checking for hernias, but it was negative. Poking and prodding my abdomen produces no extra pain. Only a trace of blood in the urine--not enough to indicate kidney stones. Moderate pain, not severe, when it's present. Output is all good. Oh, there isn't really a lot of it--a handful at best--since I'm not eating any fiber, but it's pretty consistent and there's no visible blood in it.
If I were a woman they could go with "ovarian cyst" and check for that, but since I'm not--
Gallstones happen on the upper right, so that's not it; that's literally on the opposite corner of the abdomen from where the pain is. It's the wrong spot for pancreatitis, too.
Well, in the worst case, new health insurance kicks in December 1. I've suffered with this nonsense for the entire month of October, and gotten on splendidly; what's another month? But I'd rather get it taken care of so I don't have to.
* * *
This bit at Liberty's Torch lays out rather neatly why a) I think Tulsi Gabbard is the Democrats' best bet, and b) why I actually don't want her to win nomination.
The problem with Gabbard is that she's a Democrat. She would not get into the Oval Office and govern the way she is talking; she would govern the way Barack Obama did, if not even further left than that. It would be disastrous for the average American citizen to suffer through a Gabbard presidency, exactly as it was during the Obama years.
Francis Porretto is exactly right when he says what he says in that post. She looks reasonable and she sounds reasonable, but Democrats have a history of not being reasonable and there is no reason to expect that she's any different.
On the plus side, her "oh so reasonable" demeanor may well keep her from winning nomination.
* * *
This is a telling point. Reporters are acting like Stormtroopers. For the Democrats, of course.
* * *
Democrats have always been anti-cop so it baffles me that so many police vote Democrat.
* * *
I'm sure the Democrats deplore this result because after all we're not supposed to care about what Democrats do in the bedroom. Only Republicans.
* * *
Rest is the best thing when you're not feeling good, and I got plenty of rest this weekend.