They can't english either.

https://rutgers.scout.com/a.z?s=183&p=8&c=1&nid=3773429

VV, This guy was RU's biggest pickup. I want you to look at his GPA etc. He chose RU over the other schools that gave him offers (Auburn, Vols, etc.) because of the superiour academics.

I was very happy with Schiano's job this year. Filled a lot of holes with fast, quality guys

Speed is always a good thing.

I will try to sum it up as simply as possible:

A digital exam, not controversial, should be done yearly for men over 50 or younger for those at high risk

However, by the time a prostate tumor is noted on a digital (finger up the butt), it is often advanced....so nowadays the controversy surrounds the PSA (prostate specific antigen) test....it's a BLOOD test.

There are really two problems with detection with a PSA:

First, the MAJORITY of men who have an elevated PSA do NOT have prostate cancer. But like a "shadow" on a mammogram, a PSA slightly above 4.0 raises the specter of cancer and must be investigated - next step is a prostate biopsy. Not pleasant. And it turns out that about 75% of men with a PSA a bit above 4 do NOT have a cancer, but you have to get the biopsy to find out.

That's annoying but the real controversy is that even men WITH prostate cancer, a large number of them have a cancer that is indolent (very slow growing), that would not become serious or life threatening for 20-30 years. So a lot of guys in their 60's are diagnosed with prostate cancer are getting treated (most often with surgery) to treat a cancer that might not be life threatening until they are 90ish. However, once you have a diagnosis of cancer most men want to be treated/cured.

Now there are SOME prostate cancers that are serious and aggressive and really should be treated. But not all of them.

Anyway I still order PSA's on all my patients who have a life expectancy of say 10 or more years (generally up to age 80) because it's "standard of care" and it's the best test we have.

But I am hoping we eventually find a better test that will (A) find folks with cancer and leave the ones without cancer alone (better specificity) and (B) detect only cancers that are aggressive or potentially so.

This is seriously terrifying to me in so many ways and i'm only 25!

Cancer? Or the digital exam?

Probably both.

Rutgers had the best class in the Big East?

One good thing about real "student athletes" is they're probably less likely to get into trouble.

I saw a tweet about UT's class having a 3.0 GPA or something to that effect. Yet deep down, I doubt many fans really care.

if that colonoscopy post had been made in this thread, i dread to think how differently that would have gone.

datlas, my internist checked my PSA last month, he told me that my level rose by 0.3 over the past 3 years. I asked him why he was checking it at all, since I am in my 40's. He was not able to answer me, and won't be checking again.

more the cancer, but not looking forward to the exam

most fans don't care, but I do. I am proud of my degree, and want to remain proud. The dumbing down of good academic schools in exchange for athletic prowess pisses me off. I would rather be a fan of a school with good academics and a mediocre team than the converse

That is reasonable. I am lucky I am "only" 45 so I would not even start checking mine until age 50.

But whether to continue to check is very controversial, there are potential risks and benefits on both sides. In my community it is standard of care so I order it unless the patient doesn't want it (and I document this fact).

When it get closer, I have a few suggestions:

1. Find a doctor with long skinny fingers (which is what I have, btw)
2. It's not really a big deal, it takes approx 10 seconds and compared to what the women have to go through, it's really quick, easy, and painless.
3. Don't pinch if you can help it.

A few months ago the blood center was offering free PSA screening. (I don't believe you even had to donate). I thought about going, but didn't.

I'm not sure how helpful of a public health exercise that kind of thing is, given that it's apparently not targeted toward any particular group.

My doc hired a female PA a couple years ago who is 5'2", with small hands. I didn't know the exam could be that painless.
MUCH easier to do if #1 above is true.

but what does this have to do with road cycling?

Finger up the butt. HTFU all of you.

haha. i didn't have the nerve to post that. you is shameless.

Harden TFU? really VG?

I know, I know.

That's why I was happy to see Stanford do so well this year. My parent's alma mater, I grew up going to games and remember so many years of getting beat up by UCLA, USC, Washington and God forbid, Cal. I'd be curious whether they relaxed their standards for atheletes but I'd like to think not.

There were many "big games" against Cal, where the Stanford students would cheer to the Cal fans "That's alright, that's okay, you're gonna work for us someday!"

Agreed. Compared to what you women go through (presumably) with pelvics and PAPs etc, it's not a big deal.

I was rooting for Stanford too. But Cal is not what I would call a slacker school either.