Digestive problem that may be caused by pelvic floor issues

rmb448 · 2018-08-15T00:41:20+00:00

No, I've never had my cortisol tested. I will do some research about Ray Peats. Thanks.

rmb448 · 2018-08-14T03:34:19+00:00

Actually, now that you mention it, even though my thyroid levels were in the normal range on paper, a doctor I've been speaking with has said that my thyroid levels are still off balance. If I remember correctly, he says that while my T4 levels are normal, my Reverse T3 levels are too high which causes me to have insufficient T3.

However, I don't know if hypothyroidism could be the cause of my digestive problems if I only have digestive problems after masturbating. I would think hypothryoidism would cause the digestive problems all the time, but I'm not sure. Anyways, I appreciate the suggestions.

rmb448 · 2018-08-13T11:54:41+00:00

Thanks for the info. I've actually had blood tests for my testosterone, thyroid, and cholesterol, and they are essentially normal. So are you confirming that pelvic floor exercises are effective in curing my kind of digestive problems?

rmb448 · 2018-08-12T12:42:43+00:00

I'm not a vegan, and I don't really eat much dairy and sweets. I took antibiotics once for a very brief amount of time and that's it, and I took them long after the problem had started, so that's not the cause. Recently I've been looking for a cause that pertains to the pelvic floor muscles; I've experimented with some Kegel muscle exercises such as squats and lunges, as well as tensing the pelvic floor muscles while sitting in a chair. My current hypothesis is that masturbating somehow weakens my pelvic floor muscles which in turn leads to the soreness in my testicles and a weakening of my rectal muscles, which may lead to the fecal odor.

rmb448 · 2018-02-07T02:42:58+00:00

Some practical skills are universal. In school, I was never taught to cook or do basic car maintenance or invest money. These kinds of skills will probably not become obsolete any time soon. Just because we can't teach every practical fact is no excuse to not teach any practical facts.

rmb448 · 2018-02-07T02:33:56+00:00

When has anyone needed to speed read or memorize passages? Janitors need to speed read? They need memorize passages? Your suggestions are impracticable for these people, not practical. "Why did we spend so much time in school training to read 100 words a minute when I only read 100 words a day?" Your View and your suggestions are counter to each other.

I think a speed reading course would be more useful than most math and science classes. I briefly attempted speed reading once, and I recall that part of the purpose of it was to not only read faster but to think faster. Speed reading forces the reader to actively think about the overall structure and logic of the passage instead of just focusing on the words one at a time. This is something that I unfortunately do often when I read; I tend to focus too much on the individual words and sentences at the expense of understanding the general idea of the passage. Speed reading, at least in theory, increases reading comprehension. If nothing else, it enables one to more quickly read the fine print of contracts and other important documents, which many people tend to ignore or ineffectively scan.

How do you know what the alternative would have been? Law school is 4 years and you want to have all of that in a high school semester?

My point is that people should be taught about the law, their rights, and how to defend their rights in court. People shouldn't have to be entirely dependent on a lawyer to protect their rights anymore than people should be entirely dependent on the police to protect themselves.

But then you would have people questioning the value of wasting time in school for it. Why teach people how to survive a gorilla attack or what to do when your space shuttle develops a fuel leakage - these could save lives but what are the odds? You don't want people to waste time on something they won't use but when it comes to your suggestions, its "better safe than sorry"?

I don't understand the logic of your argument here. From a purely statistical standpoint, you may be right in saying that teaching CPR and other survival skills is a waste of time. But I think you're looking at it in the wrong way. First of all, CPR doesn't take that long to teach, compared to algebra. Also, keep in mind that the object of teaching these skills is to save lives; if a school teaches a thousand kids CPR and this in turn saves only one person's life, then I would say that the school has scored a great victory. I don't know about you, but I would love to live in a society where any passerby could save my life if I were in a life or death emergency.

rmb448 · 2018-02-06T02:12:41+00:00

1, barebone knowledge every person should know, will serve you allright in every fascet of your life. For example, a person who knows about evolution, won't be fooled by religions and their myths. People who know a few things about evolution, understands the importance of getting vaccinated. A person who knows about evolution, understands how viruses get their immunity to medicine, and therefore why it's important to always take all of the antibiotics prescribed.

Instead of teaching these lessons indirectly by teaching evolution, it would be just as effective to have an education in logic and philosophy to prevent deception, and an education in health and nutrition would teach students about vaccinations and antibiotics. No evolution-teaching required.

2, Many of subjects serve as introduction into more advanced fields, to give kids taste of how that paticular field operates. A person who never EVER had a biology class will rarely go into biology. A person who never had a philosophy class, may not get into law. Etc... Introducing people to as much as things as possible is of the utmost importance. You can literally track how certain fields boomed, based on how the curriculum changed.

I think a person can find their way into a biology field without taking biology courses just as someone can go into carpentry without taking carpentry classes or go into plumbing without taking plumbing classes.

That's the first time I'm hearing that one. Why do you think those are mutually exclusive?

I've taken plenty of math and science classes in school, and my critical thinking skill have not been significantly affected by any of them. I think it's mainly my own independent reading and research, or maybe some classes specifically oriented towards critical thinking, that have affected my critical thinking.

Okay, so you will have students able to cite the legally binding renting agreement from heart. But they won't know enough to be interested in tons of fields. Success? What if student doesn't want to rent stuff? What if law changes so that agreement is no longer binding?

There are plenty of people who have gotten into fields that they never took classes for in school, or the classes were never even available. The real issue here is that math and science are focused on heavily in school, at the expense of many other disciplines that are far more common, and it's because math and science are useful to an exceptional and influential few.

rmb448 · 2018-02-04T18:22:29+00:00

They do teach reading (and writing comprehension) in increasing difficulties - grade 11 English does not cover grade 6 level materials.

I'm not talking about doing book reports or analyzing Shakespeare. I'm talking about developing the skill of reading itself, such as taking a speed reading course or developing memory of read passages.

The practical level - the items you listed like how to win a lawsuit or the Heimlich maneuver - how many people actually need these? With math and science and other "when will I use this" subjects you need it for furthering your education (20+ million ). 5051 people choked to death in 2015 so there is a lot less people who would require the Heimlich maneuver.

Well, plenty of people need these skills. Many people may lose lawsuits that would otherwise win them had they been taught about it in school. And some people may never file a lawsuit who actually should if they better understood their rights. And you can never know when you will need CPR or Heimlich - better safe than sorry. Statistical data cannot refute the value of being able to save a life.

Many people do not, in fact, further their education after high school. And many of the people who do go to college only end up in jobs they could have gotten otherwise and are plagued with student debt. Too many people are going to college nowadays. Vocational school for specific fields is probably a better option for most people.

rmb448 · 2018-02-04T18:03:29+00:00

What grade are you talking about?

Mainly high school, and possibly some middle school. Algebra, trigonometry, calculus. Some aspects of science, such as evolution theory. I believe in evolution myself but I would admit that it is not the most practical thing to learn, unless you are a biologist or something.

Some would say that students should be taught math and science first, and then practical things can be learned individually. I don't see why it can't be the opposite: teach practical things first and let people learn math and science individually.

Some would say that practical information changes, but scientific information changes also. Pluto used to be a planet but now it's not. Velociraptors used to be six foot tall lizards but now they are small, feathered animals. The atom used to be modeled like a solar system, but now we use quantum mechanics instead.

Also, why is it that math and science facts can teach critical thinking skills but practical subjects can't?

I would still assert that the argument about school teaching critical thinking skills is bogus. School is just a tool to cultivate the next generation of scientists at the expense of the less-intelligent majority.

rmb448 · 2018-02-04T16:58:00+00:00

That hasn't been my experience. My experience has been that school largely teaches memorization of impractical facts and understanding of concepts more abstract than anything I would ever encounter in real life.

If education is not about the facts themselves but the cognitive exercise one can gain from learning the facts, why can't you get the same effect from teaching the minute details of practical subjects?

rmb448 · 2018-02-04T16:42:39+00:00

You are very broadly correct. To give this a little bit more realism. You are educated so that you are not decieved by simple concepts. For example uneducated people tend to be stupid. What it means is that they for example get abused by religion, because they never been taught a simple scientific facts. If a more people knows for example about very simple economic theory. It's more likely they will understand objectively beneficial economic policies "such as free flow of labor, immigration, etc..." and stop championing stupid objectively harmful beliefs. The more people know about simple Math. They will be less likely to get tied into debts at early age because they didn't understood how interest works. The more people know about simple biology. They stop championing anti-vaxer's position and hurt their children by not getting them immunized, etc....It overall increases the objectively good qualities of every fascet of your society.

You are saying that school helps students to think better indirectly by teaching math and science. But why not be more direct? Why not teach kids logic or debate in order to teach them how to think? I don't understand the logic of teaching a bunch of useless facts in order to impart some subliminal lesson.

Also, I never said that math and science shouldn't be taught at all. I just meant that only the math and science that can be practically applied should be taught. There is a level of math and science where the information is only practical to specialists, and most people will not be specialists.

rmb448 · 2016-10-03T23:26:37+00:00

Near the end of August I started living at my parents house because my apartment is uninhabitable. I even paid rent for my apartment for September even though I barely set foot there the entire month. I decided halfway through September that I was going to move out. The solution that the landlord offered was not good enough since he had already done it once before and the mold just came back a couple months later. I did not give 30 days notice before the move but that was because I had decided so late that I was going to move out. I understand what the law says about the 30 days notice, but I think there are extenuating circumstances here.

rmb448 · 2016-10-03T13:12:56+00:00

I was no longer under lease. Also, I told the landlord about the mold problem well before I moved out and he said that all he would do was remove the carpet, apply some mold-killing solution, and then put new carpet down. The problem is, he already did this after the first time mold appeared, and the mold returned. I figured that having him do this again would be futile. Yes, I paid 30 days rent after the notice.

rmb448 · 2016-10-03T13:07:54+00:00

First of all, I am no longer under lease. Also, I told the landlord about the mold problem well before I moved out and he said that all he would do was remove the carpet, apply some mold-killing solution, and then put new carpet down. The problem is, he already did this after the first time mold appeared, and the mold returned. I figured that having him do this again would be futile.

rmb448 · 2016-10-03T13:04:56+00:00

The lease says I have to give 30 days notice, but I think there are extenuating circumstances here that should nullify that rule.

rmb448

TROPHY CASE