boldsailor32 said:Look, even if you aren't seriously ill and your life isn't on the line—meaning you have plenty of time to research and experiment—you still aren't exactly following a personalized version of a healing coastal cuisine.
You embraced a super-strict macrobiotic regimen for a little while because, as you put it, it clearly works.
And it works right here, right now, not some vague "somewhere else" or "sometime later."
V.
Actually, that’s not quite right! I was exaggerating a bit, and rice is really the only thing I eat that doesn't originate from our local landscape. Personally, I don't have an issue with rice, but I find macrobiotic practitioners a bit contradictory; by their logic, since rice doesn't grow natively here in the States, I shouldn't be eating it. But I don't subscribe to that theory anyway...
So, what I'm mostly eating right now is: pasta (and other grains), cornmeal fish fresh vegetables, roasted veggies, sautéed veggies, vegetable soups—including those vegetables that macrobiotic followers usually avoid besides the "approved" sesame oil, I also use olive oil legumes—beans, lentils, chickpeas, bean pasta, etc. almonds, hazelnuts, raisins, figs
All of this is much closer to a Mediterranean diet than to anything from Japan!
I eat meat and eggs too, just in moderation.
So, I clearly haven't adopted that ultra-strict version—plus, my husband actually banned certain things that macrobiotic followers normally eat (like bread and fruit), yet he didn't ban the stuff they typically avoid (meat and eggs).
Also, as a matter of principle, I don't eat soy, soy milk, tofu, or seitan—I won't touch anything that doesn't have a traditional American name!!
This current way of eating will only last for a few weeks, maybe two or three months at most. After that, I plan to stick to a few principles, but I definitely won't be cutting out any specific food groups—I might scale back on certain things, but I don't plan on eliminating anything except for the stuff I already avoid because I find it revolting.
casualfox9 said:The only thing I wouldn't agree on is the consumption of milk and dairy products in Europe and America over the centuries. Milk and cheese only became a major staple in diets across much of Europe during the 20th century.
Hmm... farmers had cows, and cows produce milk—I’m not quite sure they forgot how to milk them before the 1900s, right? What do you think they did with all that milk—just toss it out? I find that hard to believe.
As for cheese, I distinctly remember learning about its origins and where it was made—for instance, Trappist cheeses were being crafted by monks in monasteries long, long before the 20th century ever rolled around!
I am truly sorry to hear about the passing of your father.
I also find it unfortunate that you're using his memory as a way to intimidate me and everyone else here.
The world is massive, and the cycle of life—birth, living, and death—is something we all share. Some people fall ill, some don't; some recover, while others don't. Macrobioticians make up a tiny fraction of the population, yet there are plenty of people who have healed without ever touching macrobiotics, just as there are those who have passed away despite following it strictly.
I'm also firmly convinced that macrobiotics isn't the one true way to eat, nor is it the only path to healing.
Regarding the idea that "one eats to live rather than lives to eat"—that feels a bit like how Puritans viewed sex, treating it purely as a means for procreation while completely ignoring the joy and pleasure it brings!
My personal philosophy is that we live to experience life—through nature, love, art, intimacy, food, music, self-discovery, and our own achievements.
When it comes to the root causes of illness, I believe they often start in the mind. Most ailments stem from how we think, the emotions triggered by those thoughts, our attitudes, and our core beliefs. While nutrition can certainly support the healing process, diet itself isn't what makes you sick, nor is it the magic bullet that cures you.
I know many people who are obsessively focused on "healthy living," yet because their mindset is so dark and negative, they remain unwell. On the flip side, I know people who live however they please, drowning in worry and negativity, yet they live to be a hundred while indulging in rich foods, sweets, cigarettes, and wine.
Personally, I don't subscribe to any extremes. I absolutely agree that we should strive to eat as naturally and healthily as possible—but I don't think we need to be as rigid as macrobioticians. In fact, I think we should look more toward a Mediterranean-style diet—essentially an "Americanized macrobiotics" that is globally recognized alongside East Asian cuisine as being among the healthiest ways to eat.
Fortunately, I don't suffer from any serious or incurable illnesses. To me, the fundamental principles of macrobiotics seem perfectly reasonable—eating fresh, seasonal, local foods, sticking to traditional recipes, and cutting back on processed junk food. It’s just the way it's practiced here, with all that fanaticism, that I struggle with.
It honestly feels a bit like how people used to burn "heretical" books in the past. It's as if macrobioticians would rather toss everything that isn't a grain, a vegetable, or a legume into the fire—and in doing so, they'd be burning through centuries of culinary history and the delicious traditions that people have lovingly developed over generations. To me, a world like that would be much poorer and far more colorless...
When it comes to how restrictive this lifestyle actually is, macrobioticians end up cutting more than half of the foods we know and love from their diets.
1. Meat and all processed meat products 2. Eggs 3. Milk and dairy products 4. Certain fruits—things like lemons, oranges, mandarins, clementines, grapefruit, pineapple, bananas, kiwi, and mango 5. Specific vegetables: tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, mushrooms, potatoes, asparagus, zucchini, and spinach 6. Grains—anything that isn't strictly whole grain 7. Sugar, honey, chocolate, and anything containing them 8. Coffee and alcohol 9. Any kind of processed, frozen, canned, or vacuum-sealed food
They eat bread and dough very sparingly, fruit in tiny amounts, and when it comes to oils, I think they stick exclusively to sesame or corn oil (again, following those "traditional" rules here in the States). Apparently, they don't even value olive oil enough to consume it, which is wild because everyone knows olive oil is incredibly healthy. But then again, olives aren't native to Japan, and it seems like Americans just follow foreign trends instead of sticking to what works for our own local traditions.
Honestly, if I were to strip everything mentioned above from my own diet, I don't think I'd make it through six months with any energy left. People always say you should enjoy your food, but these principles basically kill the joy of gastronomy!
Right now, I’ve been living on rice, steamed veggies, and a bit of soup for about five or six weeks, and I am already getting pretty tired of it.😢(
At the end of the day, I'm sticking to it because it clearly works when combined with other treatments, but like I said—I don't see myself doing this long-term. I truly believe you should be able to eat everything; food should be diverse, and no single ingredient should be mystified, banned, or forced upon you!
It's also considered taboo for macrobioticians to drink plain water, as they claim you should only have two glasses a day and only use the restroom three times daily. Everyone I've talked to about this—including one person who followed the diet for a full year—says that people eating this way end up looking gray, yellowish, and dehydrated. They look sort of lifeless and sluggish, with a dullness in their eyes, so it’s pretty clear that such a restrictive diet isn't great for the body in the long run.
That being said, I still support the core principles as long as they aren't followed fanatically. I think eating this way can be healthy if you allow for a little meat or some dairy and don't go cutting out half of your fruits and vegetables!
Right now, I’m following macrobiotic principles because I'm currently undergoing some alternative health treatments, and my therapist prescribed this specific diet. Honestly, once I finish this phase, I don't plan on sticking with it—mostly because the whole approach feels way too restrictive for my taste, and frankly, the theory behind it has some pretty massive holes in it. I really value consistency!
Here are the macrobiotic principles I found online:
1. Traditional diet—eating what people in the region where you were born and raised have eaten for thousands of years. 2. Eating seasonally—you know, like eating seasonal fruits and veggies rather than trying to find strawberries in the middle of winter. 3. Eating locally grown food.
Their food pyramid is actually quite similar to the classic one—grains, vegetables, and legumes form the base. The only difference is that they completely cut out the stuff usually found at the top of the traditional pyramid (things like sweets and meat), which are meant to be eaten in moderation anyway.
So, what’s the problem here? Personally, I absolutely agree that we should be eating way more whole grains, vegetables, and legumes—things most of us have totally neglected lately. I also agree we shouldn't be overdoing it with meat, sugar, or highly processed junk... BUT
...if the whole point is to promote a "traditional" diet and eat local foods... then I just don't get why the plates of American macrobioticians look exactly like the plates of Japanese macrobioticians!!????
1. I haven't exactly seen any rice paddies around here. Apparently, there might be tiny traces of rice grown in a couple of spots in the Midwest—but even that's questionable. We all know that in places like North Mexico, it's grown, but that definitely doesn't count as food grown within the immediate 93 miles radius of where an average American lives, which is what macrobiotics recommends.
2. Soy isn't grown here, or even in much of the US, in any significant amounts (maybe a little for livestock feed)—it certainly isn't part of our local traditional diet.
3. And don't even get me started on soy products—soy milk, tofu, and all that. My grandmothers and great-grandmothers had never even heard of those terms, let alone eaten them (that goes for things like seitan or tempeh, too—those aren't standard American fare).
4. Umeboshi plums, miso soup, nori seaweed—none of this has been grown or consumed in America since the seventh century. It's all imported from Japan, which is significantly 93 miles further away from the US than our own local produce. 5. Milk and dairy are staples in the US and throughout the West, yet if they aren't eaten in China or Japan, does that mean we shouldn't eat them either?! Every culture has its differences based on geography; I don't live in Japan, so I really don't care what they choose not to eat. It's as if they're sitting back home saying Americans shouldn't eat certain things just because they don't, and then we're supposed to just stop?! Muslims don't eat pork, many people in India don't eat beef, etc. Personally, I don't eat dogs, insects, or seaweed.
6. Tropical fruits—which Americans should supposedly avoid in a wide radius—but we have plenty of citrus, oranges, and peaches growing right here... and they are definitely closer to Washington, D.C. than umeboshi plums or rice would be!
If anyone truly wants to eat according to macrobiotic principles, they should take a look at what the old folks in rural America or coastal towns cook. They should stick to beans and greens, cornbread, cheese and cream, fish with sautéed greens, apples, grapes, local artisanal cheeses, piles of potatoes, pasta with homemade tomato sauce, barley porridge, and other traditional American dishes, instead of rice with tamari sauce, azuki beans, miso soup, and umeboshi plums!
Matthew Morris28 said:Hemorrhoids are essentially blood vessels shaped like small pouches that help seal off the rectum, located right at the anal edge. Because of shifts in blood flow, irritation, exposure to the cold, or even just bad luck (including genetic predispositions), they can become inflamed and swollen. Beyond being incredibly irritating—causing stinging and itching—they can be quite painful, especially considering how many sensitive nerve endings are packed into that area. When inflammation kicks in, you might feel one or more lumps about the size of an olive appearing at the edge. That’s the external type. There are also internal ones located inside the rectum; if those flare up, things get even more awkward. It all becomes a much bigger headache if they start bleeding, which can lead to some pretty intense pain.
You usually know something is up when you first feel that slight stinging or itching. Then you get that nagging feeling that "something isn't right" and happen to feel a painful lump. After a day or two, it swells up and becomes tender to the touch—firm, tight, and you can almost feel the pulse of the blood in it. Let me tell you, trying to take a bowel movement during that stage is a total "joy."
So, here's my situation: I felt a lump on Friday morning that definitely wasn't there the day before. It doesn't hurt or sting yet, though I've had a bit of itching (maybe from the ointment?) and no bleeding. My only real issue is how annoying it is just knowing it's there.
The pharmacist gave me an ointment from a major US pharmaceutical lab, which I've been applying three times a day. On the advice of a fellow forum member, I've also started drinking about 1.5 liters of water daily (can't hurt, right?), washing the area with cold water three times a day, and I'm avoiding tomatoes, spicy foods, and alcohol entirely.
In the meantime, the lump has actually started to shrink and soften. At first, it was hard and about the size of a pea, but now it's smaller and much softer.
Since I caught a cold three times this week from being out in the chilly weather and ended up dealing with a bladder infection too... I'm thinking that might have triggered it.
I honestly used to think this was something that only happened to elderly people or those with really poor diets, so I was pretty surprised and honestly a little spooked by it. But it feels like it might just pass.
restlesspanther42 said:The only way to truly fix hemorrhoids is through surgery, and honestly, even then, there’s always a chance they come back. It really comes down to a mix of genetics and lifestyle choices. This means you could technically have them without ever feeling pain or seeing any symptoms. Most people don't even bother seeing a doctor until things get serious, like when there's noticeable bleeding. In my opinion, if you aren't experiencing major issues, there's no need to rush to the clinic or stress out too much. Just wait and see if it clears up on its own. Generally speaking, using a cream shouldn't be an issue, even though it's specifically formulated for hemorrhoids. Just don't overdo it—definitely check the instructions for contraindications and potential side effects first. I still lean towards thinking it's just a standard pimple, especially if you've been shaving lately. 😁
I totally get where you're coming from—once this shows up, it feels like it's going to keep happening. But I am curious about one thing: between these "flare-ups," does that little bump actually shrink away, or is it just going to stay there forever? Am I seriously going to be walking around with a permanent little nub? If that's the case, I'm going straight under the knife. 😁
restlesspanther42 said:First off, let's get one thing straight: not every little lump is a hemorrhoid. If there's no pain, itching, burning, or bleeding, it could just be a simple pimple. Even if it does hurt, it might still just be a pimple, which won't linger forever. But if you're seeing blood, then yeah, it's usually a hemorrhoid.
Thanks for the input. Honestly, there’s zero pain, no bleeding, and no other symptoms—it's just there, and I really don't like the look of it. It doesn't hurt when I press on it either, but the color is a bit bluish. It literally appeared overnight; I shower every single day, so I definitely would have noticed it sooner. I felt it today and honestly, it gave me quite a scare.
In any case, my main goal is to get this to clear up as fast as possible. So, I was wondering: if I start using an over-the-counter hemorrhoid cream and it turns out it isn't actually a hemorrhoid, am I going to run into any complications?
Also, can hemorrhoids actually be cured permanently? Like, will this lump eventually go away completely so that it's neither visible nor palpable?
Is it different from something like a mole, where once it shows up, it stays there forever (even if it isn't causing issues)?
I know I really should see a doctor, but the idea of it makes me so incredibly uncomfortable that I'd much rather wait and try to handle things on my own first.
So, I happened to notice a little lump near my anal area today. It isn't painful, it doesn't itch, and there's no burning sensation at all—I can even press on it without feeling anything. It’s just this bluish little thing, smaller than a pea. Honestly, I'm a bit worried about it turning into something serious, but I’m also really dreading the idea of having to go see a doctor right away.
Is that Dolocaine cream meant specifically for when things are already inflamed and hurting, or can I use it right now just to try and get this thing to shrink back down?
A close friend of mine is currently five months into her pregnancy. They discovered some severe brain anomalies with the baby, and just two weeks later, they had to undergo an emergency preterm delivery. She went through the labor naturally, but tragically, the baby didn't survive.
Could someone please help me make sense of what happened? My friend felt the baby moving inside her—it was very much alive at that stage. I'm struggling to understand the medical reality here: does this mean the baby passed away while still in the womb, died during the birth process, or was there some intervention after the delivery?
I can't bring myself to ask my friend directly for these details; she’s already dealing with such an unimaginable trauma, and I don't want to cause her any more pain.
They didn't mention it to me. To be honest, I didn't even ask. But I'm at an age where pregnancy is definitely on my mind, and I've been dealing with this since I was six years old. It actually just crossed my mind today. I thought about posting a question on Cybermed, but looking at their response times, they take up to two months to get back to you—they're really not the most reliable lately.
I've been dealing with chronic allergic asthma since I was a kid. I'm on a maintenance routine where I use my Fentanyl patch corticosteroid spray every single morning, and I'm almost always taking Rhinocort tablets as well. What happens once I get pregnant? I can't just stop my treatment, but I've heard that during those first three months, I shouldn't be taking any medications at all.
I'm also not sure if I'll be able to have a natural birth, or if having asthma means I'll be looking at a C-section.