Exclusion Diet - The tough 2 weeks are over

Finally, the first two weeks of the exclusion diet are over and I can start to re-introduce foods. I really got sick of the bland stuff by the end of it. It's rather disheartening when someone else in your house gets to eat whatever they want and all you can look forward to is a bit of chicken and rice. My monthly period arrived on Saturday evening, meaning I was in absolute agony then and all day Sunday, and I could not do with the hassle of the silly diet on top of everything else. I decided to pick corn as my first thing to re-introduce as it meant I could have my gluten-free pasta for lunch, seeing as I really didn't fancy spud innards (I'm not even allowed the skin of a potato on this thing). I was naughty and had two gluten-free chocolate biscuits because the cramping from the period was making me feel sick and I thought they might settle my stomach. As I said before, I didn't care about sticking to the rules anymore once I was in so much pain that I had to take morphene. 

On Monday, I was due to travel from Bristol to my mum's house in Gloucestershire, and then on to London to see WWE wrestling at the O2 arena. I couldn't go straight from Bristol to London as I was taking my 15 year old brother and he can't get on the train by himself. Of course, my period, instead of being its usual 4 days early, had come at exactly the right time in order to make my trip out as painful as possible. In the end, the pain wasn't so bad but I was hit by the most god awful hormonal nausea, which exacerbated my motion sickness. It's a bit like morning sickness but without being pregnant, and I spent the whole process of getting to my mum's house (bus, train, car) thinking I was going to vomit or faint. Needless to say, the stupid diet went completely out of the window. I grabbed a coke at the train station shop hoping it might alleviate the sick feeling, and my mum made me pasta with real, not soy, margerine on it (wow!) for lunch. Luckily, the motion sickness went away for the journey into London, as I was contemplating giving up and calling it a day (my mum would have had to go in my place, and wrestling isn't her cup of tea). But there was no chance of sticking to the diet when at the O2 arena. I had several more cokes, a chocolate milkshake, and steak and chips. I'd looked through the dining options the night before, and it was rather restrictive, given my usual allergies. At least I'm not vegetarian though, because there really isn't anywhere there to eat if you are. As it was, the waitress at the place we picked got a bit arsey when I politely asked them not to grill my steak on the same thing as the tomatoes. Then they must have gone out the back to slaughter the cow becase it took them forever to bring our food, and she got arsey again when my brother asked where it was! We got a total of 10 minutes to eat before having to get to our seats, so I shovelled the steak as fast as I could. 

Today, I've continued being naughty and had real margerine again, chocolate yogarts, and a gluten free beer. I know I'm being terrible but I've had enough. As I said to my mum, the dietician will just have to understand. My priority at the moment is to lessen the physical pain I'm in because of my period, and if that means shoving chocolate in my gob, then so be it. I'll probably go back to being strict when I get home tomorrow. 

Exclusion Diet - Now on day 10

Day ten of the exclusion diet and all I can think and dream about is food. It's not even food that I could have anyway; my mind is filled with images of pasta and burgers. Every single meal on this diet is so bland and boring. Even squid, which would usually be a tasty treat, is mediocre when all you can do with it is plop it on some rice (I usually have it on gluten free pasta). The george forman grill has been having a thorough workout since I can't be bothered to measure the oil I'd usually put in a pan like the diet booklet suggests, but cleaning the damn thing every day is not much fun, to say the least. I think if I have to munch rice krispies for breakfast again, I'll scream. Oh wait, that's what I've got for breakfast tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, ad infinitum. I just want something with a bit of flavour in it, is that too much to ask? Apparently it is. 

I think I'd be less irate if this diet was actually helping. Despite surviving on the handful of foods I'm allowed, I'm still having stomach problems. This is because the majority of my IBS is caused by stress, and I simply can't get rid of all the stress in my life. I had a lovely sore stomach all through the night sunday into monday because my father decided to spend half an hour telling me how useless I was when I simply rang to wish him happy birthday. This morning, I had to run to the loo 5 times to make 'lemon sherberts' because he'd phoned the house. You can see a pattern emerging, can't you. In fact, the gastroenterologist told me to cut off all contact with him because he's making me ill. The point is, I'll never be completely free of problems. My insides are just too 'special'. So I'm starting to question why I have to go through this daft diet at all. At least I only have a few more days of the crap bit left before I can start re-introducing things. I think 'that time of the month' is going to hit this weekend, so the first thing I'll bring back will be wine. 

Exclusion Diet - The first three days

Despite being gluten and wheat free (due to an intolerance) for four years, my digestive system still refuses to play ball. I can't have anything spicy, I can't have anything rich. Sometimes I just look at food and I can feel my insides cramping. Whatever's going on in there is certainly compounded by stress, and my stomach defines stress as 'going outside the house'. It's completely stupid. 

Trying to get doctors to believe that I'm not making this all up is rather difficult, to say the least. When I mention my gluten intolerance and my tomato allergy, I get what I call the 'yeah right' face. In fact, watching them go from that face to a 'actually you have a point' is hysterical. In the end, I've been given the notorious dead-end diagnosis of IBS, which is essentially medical speak for 'we don't know what's wrong, please go away'. The attitude of doctors in this country is that, unless you're dead or in hospital with tubes coming out the wazoo, there's nothing wrong with you. At all. Ever.

So, finally, after four years, I've been allowed to see a dietician, and that's only with the help of private medical insurance. Her first question was 'do you take your gluten free diet seriously?' Oh no, not at all, I actually like making Jackson Pollock style paintings up the back of the toilet whilst it feels like my internal organs are leaking out. Facepalm. After going through the usual routine to convince her that I wasn't a time waster or someone on a fad diet, she recommended I go on an 'exclusion diet', where I cut out everything except the blandest, plainest, most boring food, in an effort to see what is causing my insides to behave so badly. 

For the first two weeks, I'm only allowed fresh meat and fish (no pork), certain vegetables and fruits, rice, soya milk, ribena, and pineapple juice. That's it. No wheat (well duh), dairy produce, cups of tea, wine, chocolate, not even my ordinary gluten free bread (it's got corn in it). I can't even have a humble orange. I started the thing on Monday and the first three days have been tough. On Tuesday, I felt so feint and weak that I just lay down and cried for most of the afternoon. Things weren't helped by having another upset tummy, which is funny because the diet is meant to stop those. I had a bit more energy on Wednesday simply by following my mum's advice of putting sugar on my gluten-free rice krispies in the morning. My body obviously needs a certain amount of it to function by the looks of things. I'm already sick to the back teeth of rice cakes, as they're the only thing I'm allowed to snack on during the day. I'm constantly hungry. Michael isn't helping by eating delicious gooey burgers and ice-cream milkshakes right in front of me. I know I couldn't have the burger anyway, but at least I could think about having a nice gluten-free alternative. Now, I get to have another cardboard rice cake. What fun! 

I'm in two minds as to wether I should re-introduce wheat into my food as the exclusion diet suggests. My original diagnosis as gluten intolerant was, to put it bluntly, more my own work than that of the doctor. Part of me wants to go through with eating bread and be ok, the last four years just be a mistake, and life to return to normal. I don't think there's one person with an allergy who doesn't dream of that. The other part of me is scared witless by the prospect of eating bread again. What if it isn't ok, and I end up in the bathroom for an entire day? Is it worth the risk to find out? I'm getting on alright with being gluten free, it's the tomato allergy that's the real bummer. I'm also worried that the two weeks of plain food won't actually help my insides, and I'll be told to carry on for another month. Or maybe it'll turn out that I can't have proper milk anymore. That'll be fun, being gluten and dairy free, that won't make me suicidal at all! I guess all I can do is wait and see what happens, as usual.

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 3, Episode 4

• Aske is hanged in chains at York. He was haged in chains but, as far as I understand, this meant he was left chained to the wall to die of exposure/hunger etc, instead of being traditionally hanged with chains round him.
• Francis Bryan is sent to aprehend Reginald Pole, taking a rather young Thomas Seymour with him as some sort of aide. Thomas Seymour was an important man in his own right and would not have been suitable for such a role. The mission itself also did not occur in real life. 
• Edward Seymour is shown waiting in the Queen's chamber as Jane is in difficult labour near by. In reality, the Queen went into seclusion towards the end of her pregnancy and only women were allowed to attend her until she had given birth. 
• Bishop Gardiner is seen baptising Edward, when it was Archbishop Cranmer who did this (he seems to have disappeared after series 2). Also, Henry would not have attended.

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 3, Episode 3

• Hans Holbein, the painter, has a slight altercation with another man, who is meant to be the fiance of Lady Miselden, Henry's mistress. As Lady Miselden is a fictional character, this did not happen, although Henry's statement about seven lords not being equal to one Holbein is accurate.
• Suffolk is shown implementing punishment on the people for the rebellion. In fact, as stated previously, it was the Duke of Norfolk who was Henry's representative in the North. 
• The poker in the bum scene is rather unnecessary. I'm not sure if Constable was tortured but, if he was, it probably wasn't by Edward Seymour and a red hot poker. 
• Henry did not visit Aske in prison, as is depicted.

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 3, Episode 2

• When Brandon is arguing with the man about the cannons (or lack of), there is a large coach in the background. This type of coach would not have been around until the Victorian era, many hundreds of years later.
• Lord Darcy of Pontefract Castle is shown talking to, and then joining the rebels. The actual truth of Darcy's situation was much more complicated. He did indeed write many times to the King, asking for more men to hold the castle. Henry ignored him. However, Darcy may have gone along with the rebels fearful that, if he did not, he would be killed. 
• Lady Miselden, Henry's supposed mistress, is a completely fictional character. Henry did not take a mistress in the time he was married to Jane Seymour, although he was overheard making remarks about other 'beautiful' ladies etc.
• When Francis Bryan goes to touch Lady Miselden, she remarks 'you cannot touch me, for ceasar's I am'. This was actually a refrain from a poem by Thomas Wyatt (another character who has disappeared after season 2), and the poem is believed to be about Anne Boleyn.
• Robert Aske is shown with his family when, in reality, he was unmarried.

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 3, Episode 1

• Sir Francis Bryan is introduced as a character when he had in fact been present at court for a number of years previously and had been, at one time, close to the Boleyn family. He did only have one eye and was a notorious trouble-maker.
• After the scene in which Henry celebrates his marriage to Jane Seymour, the story cuts to events in Yorkshire, where the common people rise up against religious changes. This makes it seem like these things were happening around the same time. However, Henry married Jane in May but the uprisings did not begin until October 1536. 
• Richard Rich tells Cromwell that they have taken possession of monastic wealth worth 'many millions of pounds'. The wealth from the monastaries was great, but not the great. There was no concept of 'millions' of pounds in the Tudor age.
• When Edward Seymour is shown receiving his honours, Brandon is standing (once again) on the dias behind Henry's throne. Again, this would not have happened. The dias, throne, and canopy of estate were visual symbols of monarchy. If Brandon had stood there, it would have communicated that he was on the same level as the King, which would have been treasonous. Also, I swear that the door into the throne room has been replaced by a curtain in between series 2 and 3.
• In the scene where she talks to abassador Chapuys, Jane is shown wearing an elaborate lace collar, which was not in fashion at the time. That sort of collar is instantly recognisable as belonging to the Elizabethan era instead.
• When Jane is talking to her ladies, and then Lady Rochford, she is wearing a rediculous head-dress made of pointy bits of metal. This would never have been worn. Also, her ladies are wearing odd sort of flat 'bonnet' hats. In reality, since Anne Boleyn had favoured the 'french' head-dress, Jane ordered her ladies to wear the traditional English 'gable' hood instead.
• Cromwell is shown recieving offices and the title of Baron of Wimbledon. Again this means that the timing in the episode is wrong, as this was done in July and not at the beginning of the northern uprisings (shown alongside), which were in October.
• Henry appoints Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, as commander of forces against the rebels. In fact, it was the Duke of Norfolk who was appointed. For some reason, Norfolk has been written out of the show after series 1, even though he was an increadibly important figure in Henry's reign. In all the scenes that follow to do with the rebellion, Brandon's actions are meant to be what Norfolk actually did.