On the formation of a proper stool

[dlb]

The matter I am about to discuss is not one on which I would expect those of tender years and little experiece to have dwelt at great length. But as with many matters, advancing age and the wish to avoid past unpleasantries often require one to give thought where once nary a care was taken. I refer, of course, to the matter of forming a proper stool; or, as Robin Williams' character in The Fisher King would have it, "a really satisfying bowel movement."

Of course, when discussing the proper formation of anything, it is best to begin what that thing might be in its proper, if not its ideal, form. Some here might argue that a proper stool is simply one that gets the job done, that effectively relieves the body of its excess solid wastes. Here, I think is where age brings a man a certain wisdom: there are so many and so very unpleasant - and so few satisfying - ways of achieving this objective, that it seems best to devote at least some thought to, as it were, eliminating the unpleasantries that often accompany the elimination of the unnecessaries.

Perhaps the question of texture or firmness (the favored expression of the textile trade in describing its products - "hand" - does not seem appropriate to this discussion, though members of that trade might quickly grasp the connection). An overly loose stool is a terribly messy bit of business, often requiring an excess of wiping and concommitant expense of tissues that leaves one feeling more than a bit unclean, even after arduous efforts. I should say, then, that the loose stool is to be avoided and, therefore, all laxatives (Ex-Lax being the first brand to mind), that produce such a product. Of course, when one is stricken with diarrhea, one's choices as to stool texture are terribly limited; but our concern here is with stools formed in a state of health that does not restrict our freedom to choose.

Next up from the overly loose (or should we say "semi-liquid"?), stool, is the runny variety. These are often the result of poor choices in diet, and they, too, are messy, requiring too much effort in clean-up and yet again often leaving one feeling less than fresh when the cleaning is complete. The runny stool, it is my belief, results mainly from a diet containing an excess of fruits and vegetables (and I would include beans, here; not to mention an overindulgence in fibers). Further, I do not believe that this excess can be effectively addressed merely by the consumption of dairy products (though perhaps large portions of cheese might help). No, proper stool consistency requires one to eat meat.

However, too much meat can cause one to miss the target, so to speak, where consistency is concerned, and leave one straining against a hard and obstreperous projectile that seems determined to either stay in its place forever, or blast itself with great violence from the shelter of the bowel.

It should be said, though, that while such igneous formations can be ignominious in the passing, they can be quite agreeable in the cleaning up. They often leave with nary a trace behind them, except, in the worst cases, perhaps a bit of blood from fissuring.

The texture we are seeking, then, is firm, but not so firm that it prohibits the sphincter from, without a great bit of trouble, providing a gentle taper to the turd that prevents one's anal orifice from slamming shut. There is truly a delicate balance to be struck between the runny and the hard, but this is the balance we desire, found in a fecal product that corresponds - actually gives the impression of cooperating - with the body.

We should also consider, albeit briefly, the question of volume. Should one ever have need to inquire into recommended techiniques for avoiding hemmorhoids (and I sincerely hope, good reader, that you never shall), one will find that it is not advisable to sit upon the - shall we say - throne, in the - shall we say - act of legislation, for more than five minutes at a time. Therefore, one ought to endeavor to intake one's necessary nutrients without consuming either a great volume of victuals, or those that are overly given to expansion in the intestinal tract.

Another matter that must be considered is that of irritants. Highly and exotically spiced foods have become quite popular in recent years. A dinner in which one consumes an excess of capsacin (usually found in various hot peppers), while pleasant on the front end, may lead to great discomfort on the back end. It would, therefore, seem prudent to avoid overindulgence in very spicy foods, regardless of how popular the same might be.

Last, but certainly not least, is the matter of odor. This is of course a matter of content, but is also tied to the question of volume, as a stool that takes some time in passing has greater opportunity to mark the air with its signature. Further, foods that produce high levels of intestinal gas in their digestion are almost certain to befoul the air in passing. Again, we see that beans and fibers are called into question, as a result of their backstage performance. It should be noted, though, that the offense of the voluminous defecation can be somewhat mitigated by judicious use of the "courtesy flush."

Considering all of these matters together, it becomes apparent that there is much to be gained by paying closer attention to one's defecations than society would encourage us to. There should be no doubt that the person who takes care to consume types and quantities of foods that lead to desired results on the back end, will be the happier person in many other aspects of his or her life. Or, as Stephen Covey so succinctly put it in The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People, the first step is to begin with the end in mind.

[perfectstormhits]

Thread Of The Year.

[skrable]

I'm so impressed, my eyes are watering. I think that's why my eyes are watering.

[heyterry]

Very well thought out. Outstanding research and theory. I'm pooped out after reading it.

[nanwynnfan]

Reasonable amounts of Swiss cheese melted with sliced jalapeno pepper on whole wheat pita bread presents [eventually] an almost geometric cylinder, with trailing taper and of sufficient tensile consistency as to afford the exit muscles a reasonable, but not deforming, stretch.

The slamming shut syndrome suggested in the subject treatise is one I have not experience to date. [Does it render an alarming sound? Is it structurally jarmful or damaging?]

Since you have now so clearly revealed yourself to be an expert on this particular matter, how's your carpentry? I noticed the thread title and grabbed a notebook, hammer, saw, bag of dowels [not bowels] and was hoping for a how-to on building a nifty three-legged stool [which, in this context, might be painful, indeed].

[Top Cat]

Why that motivated me. After my 2nd double shot of espresso...I just gave birth to a triple bowl curler.

Life is good

[dlb]

...my eyes are watering.

Are you sure it wasn't just the buffalo wings?

Reasonable amounts of Swiss cheese melted with sliced jalapeno pepper on whole wheat pita bread presents [eventually] an almost geometric cylinder, with trailing taper and of sufficient tensile consistency as to afford the exit muscles a reasonable, but not deforming, stretch.

I've heard that the same effect can be achieved with a microwavable lunch product named "Hot Pockets."

Sphincter slam syndrome, for those who have not experienced it, is unpleasant, but to the best of my knowledge, does not have long-term deleterious effects.

I just gave birth to a triple bowl curler.

This strikes me (speaking metaphorically, of course), as perhaps overly voluminous, but I would say that the "streaming effect," when accomplished with a product of proper firmness, is much to be desired.

[heyterry]

You guys are full of crap. Well, not any more.

[nanwynnfan]

Heygoode vander Merde, in his final memoir, traced the etymology of "stool" attempting to link the linguistics of the bodily function to the logistics of ancient warriors in executing winning strategies as a warrior function.

He traced the Olde English STOL to the Frisian STOL and the Old Norse STOLL as describing a "seat for one person" [understood here to be one person at a time], a seemly concept in terms of mess avoidance with a degree of privacy.

Old High Germans used the word STUOL, while standard German preferred STUHL, possible just to be contrary or wrong-headed in the process; or perhaps because the "O" in the former was viwed as too-intimate a form of graffiti.

The Goths, perhaps taking a cue from the birds, used STOLS to describe a high, elevated seat, still assumed with a capacity of one [at a time] but introducing a recognition of gravity and the advantages of having the high ground. [Did battlements serve also as privy stations, giving birth to rear-guard actions as a military strategy?]

Of course it took the French to further define small seats without arms or backs and by 1440 relegating them to their specialized roles.

The Romans saw "de faecatus" as a purifying process of removing that which is unwanted.

Heygoode, alas, died pondering such matters seated on a private little "chaise d'un," and presumably purified.

P.S. The late HvM also contributed to an earlier study on the dietary habits and digestive functions of fire-breathing dragons, if anyone recalls that old thread.

[dlb]

Your post reminds me of something my grandfather used to say, nan: "It is better to sit on the throne than to sit on the stool."

[perfectstormhits]

Why haven't bidets caught on over here?

[dlb]

Your inquiry into bidets, PSH, brings me to another matter. I think it quite possible that women do not defecate.

The evidence for this conclusion comes from my attempts to discuss the subject with several women on several occasions. All such attempts at discussion are met with looks both querulous and puzzled, perhaps at best a flush and stammer, but never any genuine attempt to carry the conversation forward.

I'm sure some would insist that women just don't like to discuss such private and personal matters with mere acquaintances. For these people, I would note that women seem to have no trouble discussing, sometimes in most indelicate detail, the travails of their monthly cycles.

Which brings me to another possibility. Perhaps, with women, defecation is tied to menstruation and is conducted in such a way that they are unaware of their separate function.

Working from home, I haven't the resources to explore this question on my own. I would however, encourage other readers to broach this matter with their female friends, acquaintances and co-workers, to see if we can shed any light upon the mystery.

[jtur88]

Perhaps one of you experts can answer this qustion, which I think I once posed to Grandstander, but I cannot recall the response. To wit:

If you are a guest in someone's home, and you lay a floater which does not respond to a reasonablel number of flush repeats, what is the best course of follow-up action?

[dlb]

I must apologize, jtur, my interests are in the formation, rather than the ultimate disposition, of stools.

[Hawkeye4]

I think this thread is full of sh_t, but to keep you regular, eat brocco-sprouts, works great.