My husband Glenn got a FitDesk that lets you exercise while working on your laptop. We finally got around to putting it together (well, he did, sadly, I watched, handed out tools and cleaned up). Anyway, I have had a great deal of hand and back pain from all the time I spend at the computer and thought this would be a great way to change up my routine. It turns out I was correct to think so.
The pedals are smooth and fluid — you just adjust resistance with the knob. It tracks distance, time, and calories. There are elastic bands to hold your laptop in place.
It’s easy to ride and it’s easy to blog or surf from a laptop while you’re on it. I can see how spending just 20 or 30 minutes at a time on this several times a week would help you lose weight and improve your fitness. Will I stick with it? Stay tuned.
A reader sent me an article about sudden cardiac arrest in those who seem healthy and athletic:
Athletic, healthy, fit –– sudden cardiac arrest often picks the least likely victims. Just ask Marla Sewall.
By 2011, the 42-year-old had 11 marathons under her belt. She’d also made quite the name for herself on the tennis court. By Labor Day weekend, the University Park mother was even combining the two, running 20 miles one day and then competing in a three-hour tennis tournament in the next.
For good measure, Sewall ran 10 miles the day after that and played in the same tennis tournament for three more hours. Which is why it was so shocking when her husband found her face-up unconscious in the family’s tub one night.
This woman’s husband luckily knew CPR and saved her life. I often think how important it is to keep up with these skills. The last time I had a CPR class was probably 15 years ago. I need a refresher. If you are reading this, perhaps you need one also. I am lucky that, like the woman described in the story, I have a built in defibrillator in my chest, but most people don’t. Saving a loved one’s life is certainly worth the time to take a course or there are even CPR books, CDs and products that might be helpful or if you want to be even more prepared, you can even buy your own defibrillator. Even if you or your family seems fairly young and healthy, it’s good to be prepared.
I don’t think of myself as any kind of “Crunchy Con,” author Rod Dreher’s phrase for those who live a kind of hippy, organic lifestyle but who are conservative in their outlook and politics. I like meat and guns, and I am a libertarian rather than a conservative for the most part, though I often think of myself as conservative since that’s what others say I am and I lean to the right on most fiscal and defense issues (though not on many social ones). What it really means, of course, is that I don’t follow or believe much about liberal dogma; thus, I am the “other.” But one thing I have found is that my lifestyle is often similar to someone on the other side of the aisle, and I find it puzzling that lifestyle choices are often reflective of one’s politics because — for me — they are not.
I am reading Hank Reinhardt’s Book of Knives: A Practical and Illustrated Guide to Knife Fighting. Reinhardt describes the “quick and dirty business” of knife fighting and has chapters on “The Street Knife,” “Knife Concealment”, “Wounds” and “Using the Knife.”
There is good information in each chapter, it seems, though I am certainly no expert. In the chapter on “Using the Knife,” Reinhardt makes the point that some instructors have decided the best way to hold a knife is in the “icepick grip” with the blade lying flat along the underside of the forearm. He is not a fan of this hold. “The first thing it costs you is reach. When you try to close in on an opponent, and you’re holding your knife in that way and he isn’t, he will probably cut you first. That’s the second thing it costs you.” The author says it’s important to hold the edge down and elaborates on why.
If you want to learn more about knives, basic skill and some history, this book seems like a good one. There are a number of instructions and illustrations that make it easy to understand what the author is telling you about how to master knife skills.
You would think so if you watched Suze Orman’s show last week where she discussed gay marriage and the four financial advantages of being married. On her show, she mentioned that married people have all kinds of advantages in terms of health insurance, pensions, social security, and estate taxes. She says that you can leave your spouse 100% of your assets tax-free, get higher social security benefits if your spouse dies, and pension plans at corporations often let you leave money to your spouse. Employers often insure a spouse and not a life partner. Okay, fair enough but maybe that just says more about how our tax structure and employee benefits are set than about marriage. For example, your kids get screwed if you leave them your money too as part of your estate by high estate taxes. Why not change the estate law to make this more fair? But this post is about the other side that Orman did not touch on: What are the financial disadvantages of being married?
There are many. First, what about the marriage penalty? Two high earners who are married pay more than if they were single. Is this fair? Not in my book. Another disadvantage of being married is that spouses are often responsible for the other’s debt. If your spouse racks up a great deal of debt and bails on it, that can become your problem, depending on the state you live in. According to Nolo.com:
In community property states, most debts incurred by either spouse during the marriage are owed by the “community” (the couple), even if only one spouse signed the paperwork for a debt. The key here is during the marriage.
And what if you don’t want to leave your retirement account to your spouse? According to Nolo.com “your spouse–or former spouse–may have a legal claim to your retirement account, so proceed with caution.”
Finally, if you get divorced, you may end up giving most of your assets away, even if you earned them. And then, of course, there are the non-financial restrictions on you when married, especially if male. You often need your wife’s permission to get a vasectomy. Even your own body is no longer your own once you become wedded to a woman.
Can you name some more financial disadvantages of marriage that I missed?
I see that author and attorney Lisa Bloom has a new book out on raising boys called Swagger: 10 Urgent Rules for Raising Boys in an Era of Failing Schools, Mass Joblessness, and Thug Culture. At first glance reading about the book at Yahoo Shine, it didn’t look too bad:
At this very moment, through no fault of their own, our boys are caught in the vortex of four powerful, insidious, often invisible forces that conspire to rob them of their future. First, our heartbreakingly subpar schools. To say that twenty-first-century America doesn’t value education is like saying Donald Trump doesn’t prioritize humility
However, as I read more about the book and checked out the the excerpt on Amazon, I was not impressed with what I read. Of course the full book might prove otherwise, but I doubt it. The author talks about the failing schools, then offers up a longer school day as a solution! Yeah, right. Maybe she should check into the gender stereotypes at the schools and how badly boys are treated there. Why add to the misery with a longer day? And of course teachers need more money to educate these boys, apparently. So now you are going to pay teachers and schools more to run the same programs that are treating boys like second class citizens? Yeah, that will work. The author states, “I wish my country valued education.” Well, I wish my country valued male traits without trying to turn boys into girls.
Charlie Martin has the correct response to the rather prudish question asked by Dave Swindle here at PJ Lifestyle. Swindle is “revolted” by Kendall and Kylie Jenner (who are 16 and 14, respectively) posing in bathing suits and goes on to add:
But as we grow older and mature beyond the shock of puberty we’re supposed to transcend this animal nature. (See point #2 here in my review of Dennis Prager’s new book Still the Best Hope for more on the subject.)
A question for the men out there: at what moment in your life did you stop finding young women attractive? (And I don’t mean just jailbait. I mean 18-22-year-old — legal — but still looking young and girly.) When did the thought of youthful sex shift from a fantasy to a stomach-churning nightmare? When did the natural thought shift from “mmm… good time” to “I wonder what the daughter I have someday will look like at that age?” When did you stop being attracted to “sexy” girls and only interested in mature women?
Women are often at their most fertile and attractive at the ages (18-22) that Swindle is describing. Men being attracted to women of this age is called normal. Should you act on it? Maybe not, but that’s not the point that Swindle is making. He doesn’t even seem to think that you should be fantasizing about women who are of age 18-22. Why not? Why should men only be interested in “mature women,” especially for a fantasy?
When will men stop finding young women attractive? As Martin states, at death and maybe not even then.
Update: Swindle responds here at PJ Lifestyle: “Boys Vs Men and Girls Vs Women. Who’s Sexier?”
So says Steven Pressfield who has a new book out called Turning Pro: Tap Your Inner Power and Create Your Life’s Work. Pressfield discusses how bad habits make us amateurs at life and good habits make us professionals at our life’s work. Bad habits such as addictions — to love, sex, worship of parents or children — are distractions, from becoming the “artist” or professional that one wants to be. Through these addictions, people waste their lives one repetition at a time. Instead of finding their life’s work, they run from it with habits that keep them from doing what they love. The book is a good one for entrepeneurs, writers and others who find themselves in need of some inspiration.
I read with interest Kathy Shaidle’s post here at PJ Lifestyle called “I Kid You Not: Top Four Reasons I Don’t Have Children.”
She mentions a couple of reasons such as bad personal experiences whereby you might end up ruining your kid’s life and bad genetics and other reasons such as your temperament and pop culture. Okay, the latter two, especially the former, I understand. You don’t have the temperament for children. Okay, fair enough, but as for ruining your kid’s life, why does it have to be that way? If you had a bad childhood, doesn’t it make sense to have children so that you can give them a better life than you had? As for genetics, don’t we all know people who don’t seem that great who have kids who are fine, or at least okay? Even people who are depressed don’t necessarily have kids who are depressed. And if they are? Get them treatment, just as you would for diabetes or other ailments. Apparently, comedian Sarah Silverman does not want kids because they might have mental illness which runs in her family. Human beings have problems – do you have to be perfect to be born? I hope not because we would all be goners.
Kids can be amazing. Those of us with offspring know that though raising kids can be the most frustrating of experiences, it can also be the most rewarding. Kids can show you a side of yourself that you never knew existed. How many times did you think some habit or trait in yourself was because of your childhood, only to find out that your child had the same trait or habit even though they were raised totally differently than you? How many times has your child said something and made you see the world a different way and made you re-examine yourself in a way that is fascinating or reflective?
A reader (thanks!) sent me this article from MSNBC showing that training programs can lead to more pay, especially for men:
A small amount of education can go a long way toward improving your earnings potential, especially if you’re a man, according to a new study.
The study from Georgetown University found that certificates in fields like computer and information services, transportation and business can boost earnings by 20 percent, on average, over people who just have high school diplomas.
That’s not the result researchers were expecting when they started delving into the little-researched world of certificates, which are generally offered by for-profit institutions and community colleges in specific fields and trades.
“We were surprised,” said lead author Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Maybe this is where the men are going rather than college.
I am reading a new updated version of the book Getting the Best Out of College, Revised and Updated: Insider Advice for Success from a Professor, a Dean, and a Recent Grad. The book gives tips for students on how to cope with being in college and some of the tips have to do with dealing with your parents back home now that you are “on your own.”
There is a chapter on leaving home and how to maintain your relationships with your parents now that you no longer live under their roof. Of course, the first part of the chapter sterotypically describes the “antiquated” parents and their version of what their kid will go through in this new environment and how difficult it will be for the parents, especially mom, to let go. However, the authors are quite insightful in that they look at two different emotional reactions to a child leaving for college: neediness or dismissal.
There is a section on the “too-involved” parent who wants to be involved in many aspects of the student’s life such as grades, medical issues, etc. Frankly, given that parents have to pay for the hefty fees that colleges charge, I don’t blame them for wanting some information. According to the book, there are federal laws that restrict communication between the parent and school — for example, a student’s educational record can generally not be shared without the student’s authorization. It’s one thing to be a “helicopter parent” trying to micro-manage your kid’s life, and another to be concerned that their child is healthy and doing well in school. Frankly, given that students are not allowed to be independent and receive aid and must rely on their parents to pay for the most part, this seems fairly hypocritical. “Hand us the money” but you have no right to certain information, including the grades that you are paying for your child to get.
A new study shows that for some people, exercise may increase your heart risk:
Could exercise actually be bad for some healthy people? A well-known group of researchers, including one who helped write the scientific paper justifying national guidelines that promote exercise for all, say the answer may be a qualified yes.
By analyzing data from six rigorous exercise studies involving 1,687 people, the group found that about 10 percent actually got worse on at least one of the measures related to heart disease:blood pressure and levels of insulin, HDL cholesterolortriglycerides. About 7 percent got worse on at least two measures. And the researchers say they do not know why….
Dr. Kraus said researchers needed to figure out how to tailor exercise prescriptions to individual needs.
Just like with diet, I have always wondered why people always think more exercise is better. People respond differently to different interventions. Some exercise is good for some people and some diets are good for some people but there are those of us for whom too much exercise and dieting is not such a good thing.
A reader sent me an interesting article from the Daily Mail about why older men have a hard time finding love again. The author, Liz Hodgkinson, is a woman, of course. Men unfortunately, rarely write about relationships from their perspective. I wish they would. Anyway, the author “explores” why older men are no longer interested in a relationship with a woman and talks about psychiatrist Dennis Friedman’s new book The Lonely Hearts Club:
Dr Friedman tells the stories of about a dozen men between 50 and 80 — all but one divorced, widowed or never married — who are composites of his former patients, and investigates why there’s such a cavernous gulf between them and their female peers. He wants to explore why, despite the fact that more of us than ever before are finding ourselves single later in life, we are incapable of pairing up with each other.
Friedman’s male characters are discontented and disorientated, wondering where they have gone wrong, and whether they can put things right. Above all, they agonise over whether they will ever again be able to find happiness in an intimate relationship.
They may be partly fictional, but they certainly ring bells with me; they are all examples of the kind of standard issue, unattractive older men I come across all the time.
Later on, the author of the piece gives us a glimpse of the real reason she and possibly her cohorts have no man:
At the moment, I have three rather persistent admirers — one is a friend of my late partner and I met the other two through mutual friends — but there is no rapport or chemistry between us.
When I asked one of them what he had to offer me, he replied: ‘Well, nothing really.’
A commenter to this article, Jim, summed it up nicely:
If you’re immediately asking men “what have you got to offer me”, don’t be surprised if you’re alone.
- Jim, Abroad, 30/5/2012 11:58
This, the first “Hard Truth” in Rory Miller’s excellent new book Force Decisions: A Citizen’s Guide – Understanding How Police Determine Appropriate Use of Force. Miller, a veteran corrections officer who taught and designed courses on the use of police force, writes this particular book for the average person to understand how and why the police use force the way they do. The book does more than that, though, as it helps the reader understand violence, how and why people become violent, and what it is like to be an officer having to make split decisions about those who wish to do others harm.
Miller discusses how officers determine how much force is needed and looks at such things as age, skill, mental state and gender of the perpetrator. He makes the point that men and women fight differently but both are dangerous. Though he says men are generally stronger and have more power when trying to hurt an officer, women “have fewer socially conditioned predispositions on how they are ‘suposed’ to fight. Women just try to injure you. Scratching at eyes and biting and using weapons are more likely (in my experience) with women than with men.”
Miller also points out that the most important factor in any fight is will. I try to explain this to people when I discuss domestic violence between men and women, as most people think that because women are typically weaker than men, they don’t start fights, but this is untrue. It is the will to fight, as Miller says, that is more important than size or strength, as fighting is more mental than physical.
Anyway, Force Decisions is a great book if you want to get inside the head of an officer and see what the world looks like through his or her eyes.
More from Dr. Helen:
While women continue to make inroads into prestigious, high-wage professions dominated by men, more men are reaching for the dream in female-dominated occupations that their fathers might never have considered.
The trend began well before the crash, and appears to be driven by a variety of factors, including financial concerns, quality-of-life issues and a gradual erosion of gender stereotypes. An analysis of census data by The New York Times shows that from 2000 to 2010, occupations that are more than 70 percent female accounted for almost a third of all job growth for men, double the share of the previous decade. …
Several men cited the same reasons for seeking out pink-collar work that have drawn women to such careers: less stress and more time at home.
The article pointed out that men were making more money in these fields. However, I wonder if men are working longer hours or are willing to do things that make them worth higher pay?
I was heavily involved in the third and fourth editions of the manual but have reluctantly concluded that the association should lose its nearly century-old monopoly on defining mental illness. Times have changed, the role of psychiatric diagnosis has changed, and the association has changed. It is no longer capable of being sole fiduciary of a task that has become so consequential to public health and public policy.
Until now, the American Psychiatric Association seemed the entity best equipped to monitor the diagnostic system. Unfortunately, this is no longer true. D.S.M.-5 promises to be a disaster — even after the changes approved this week, it will introduce many new and unproven diagnoses that will medicalize normality and result in a glut of unnecessary and harmful drug prescription. The association has been largely deaf to the widespread criticism of D.S.M.-5, stubbornly refusing to subject the proposals to independent scientific review.
New diagnoses in psychiatry can be far more dangerous than new drugs. We need some equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration to mind the store and control diagnostic exuberance.
I don’t know about an organization like the FDA -but I agree there should be more oversight in how diagnoses are determined and there should be more scientific rigor. I remember when talking with past APA president and author of the book Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well Intentioned Path to Harm, Nicholas Cummings, that he mentioned that psychiatric diagnoses were just made by consensus of the task force. This is hardly science and it should be, at least as much as possible.
I was sitting here this morning reading a book I picked up at the drugstore called the Flat Belly Diet! (what was I thinking??) when I turned on the computer and saw the headline at Drudge about this article: “Obesity could affect 42% of Americans by 2030″:
A new forecast on America’s obesity crisis has health experts fearing a dramatic jump in health care costs if nothing is done to bring the epidemic under control.The new projection, released here Monday, warns that 42% of Americans may end up obese by 2030, and 11% could be severely obese, adding billions of dollars to health care costs.
“If nothing is done (about obesity), it’s going to hinder efforts for health care cost containment,” says Justin Trogdon, a research economist with RTI International, a non-profit research organization in North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park.
Have you noticed how everything now is about containing health care costs? I understand that obesity can cost money, though if people are dying early as the article implies, isn’t that a savings? It seems that there always has to be some target with this administration: the bankers, the rich, the 1%, now the overweight.
Pretty soon, there will be a “war on the obese” which will probably insure that more people than ever will gain weight. Excuse me while I go throw my diet book in the trash.
That’s the advice from this article from the Wall Street Journal:
Returns vary sharply; they are negative for more than 100 schools and over 11% a year for ones like Harvey Mudd College in California, the Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of Virginia. Dartmouth, Harvard, Stanford and Princeton are over 10%, but so is Queens College in New York—where state residents pay just over $5,000 a year in tuition, versus about $41,000 for Stanford.
The worst returns tend to come from schools whose programs focus on nursing, criminal justice, sociology and education, says Katie Bardaro, an analyst at PayScale. The best returns are often from schools with strong engineering, computer science, economics and natural-science programs.
After reading Lloyd Tackett’s A Distant Eden about how to deal with a solar storm, I decided that I needed to learn more about survivalism, particularly the practical things that one should do to prepare for disasters of all types. I picked up a copy of a new book by a woman named Bernie Carr called The Prepper’s Pocket Guide: 101 Easy Things You Can Do to Ready Your Home for a Disaster. It’s a good guide for those of you who just want the basics of DIY projects that you can do to get your home prepared for a variety of problems from earthquakes to hurricanes. She also gives a step-by-step guide to such 101 things to do such as disinfecting water with sunlight, learning to build a solar still, learning to distill water, and learning to purify water. Separate sections give information for different disasters such as how to prepare for a tornado, hurricane or even an ice storm.
I’ve noticed that there are a number of other books on survivalism written by women such as Survival Mom: How to Prepare Your Family for Everyday Disasters and Worst-Case Scenarios. Some of these women seem to be coming around due to the economic decline. For example, according to the author’s biography on the Amazon page for “Survival Mom,” the recession made her think more about survivalism:
I was always the mom with a case of water bottles and blankets in the trunk of her car and famous for saying, “Just in case…” Four years ago when I began to see signs of a deteriorating economy, I wondered, “Is there a way I can be proactive and get my family ready for an uncertain future?”
Well, I guess whatever makes you think about to deal with a disaster before it strikes is good. Now excuse me while I go try and learn how to make a safe from a hollowed-out book: Tip #60 in The Prepper’s Pocket Guide: 101 Easy Things You Can Do to Ready Your Home for a Disaster.
For the first time ever, the percentage of married households fell below 50 percent, according to the Census Bureau, which released a brief Wednesday about families and households from the results of the 2010 Census.
The percentage of married households fell to 48.4 in 2010, down from 55.2 percent in 1990 and 51.7 percent in 2000.
“The 48 percent of husband-and-wife households in 2010 was the first time since at least 1940 that this has fallen below 50 percent,” said Daphne Lofquist, Statistician for the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch for the Census Bureau.
I wonder how much of the decline is caused by the men’s marriage strike and how much is caused by other factors? Is marriage just on the way out or is there something more at play?
I made the mistake last night of watching MTV’s “16 and Pregnant.” In the episode I saw, a 17-year-old black teen girl named Jordan was having a baby with her white teen boyfriend, Tyler. Jordan says she chose Tyler at school because he was unpopular and basically not very attractive (he is overweight but so is she) and a nerd. Thinking that he would be so grateful just to get a girl that he would do anything for her, she chooses him as a boyfriend. Her friends make fun of her for dating him but he actually seems to be one of the few guys on this show who actually want her and the baby. He gives her foot rubs and buys her a $300.00 baby crib for when their son arrives.
Jordan’s mother, Kelly, is a domineering woman who doesn’t want a “white boy in her house” and doesn’t allow Tyler over, even with Jordan having his baby. Eventually Jordan wises up and moves over to Tyler’s house as his parents are accepting of the relationship and welcome her there. However, once Jordan’s mother tells her that Tyler can come in their house to see the baby, Jordan moves back home. Tyler is as welcome as a leper at their home, however. Even though he is allowed in, Tyler is seen as an outside threat who has no rights in her home.
Naturally, once the baby comes, Tyler doesn’t feel welcome and rarely sees his son, Chase. Jordan refers to the child as “my son” and acts as though Tyler is a visitor. At one point, Tyler doesn’t call for a while and then comes over and asks to see his son and Jordan says he is sleeping and he cannot even look at him. Tyler curses at her and her brothers come down the stairs to beat him up. It’s disturbing that Tyler is chased to his car by the two brothers and then later, Jordan is sitting with the baby talking about how Tyler abandoned the child and how she was going to get custody and not allow him to see Chase at all. Welcome to the new state of fatherhood in America.
Men are thrown out of their children’s lives, while mothers tell themselves, their family and the child how dad abandoned them. All mom has to do is tell the courts that the dad has “abandoned” the family (i.e. he didn’t submit to all of my demands) and he can lose his child and/or be forced to pay for a child that he may never see. This episode made it clear that this father had few rights, if any, to his own child. Sure, in the next episode, Jordan may relent, but his rights depend only on how generous she decides to be. It’s a sad state of affairs.
So says Richard Whitmire, author of Why Boys Fail: Saving Our Sons from an Educational System That’s Leaving Them Behind, and Rishawn Biddle in an article in the New York Daily News:
We have no way of knowing who will win the “war on women” political debate now topping broadcasts and newspaper pages. But with great certainty, we can identify the losers in this battle: boys.
Contrary to what you hear in the political campaign broadsides, females are actually doing pretty well. In our elementary, middle and high schools, they earn the best grades, win most of the academic prizes, get suspended less and graduate at very high rates. That success helps explain why women currently dominate higher education, with many college campuses spilling over the 60% female threshold.
Workforce trends favoring women continue to rain down, with record numbers of women in the workforce. Well-educated women living in large cities out-earn their male counterparts. Their biggest challenge: finding equally educated males to marry.
But that’s not what you’ll hear from either President Obama or Mitt Romney.
It seems like there have been a number of these articles written lately about the real war on boys. This is a good sign. However, the problem is, no one, especially the politicians, is listening. As the legal and psychological landscapes for men and boys worsen, many are going on strike and the country will become worse off because of it. The problem is, pandering to the female vote and the needs of women takes precedence over the life, liberty and happiness of men. This is reverse discrimination, but equally as harmful.
I saw the article from the Financial Times linked on Drudge today on how those 14-34 are turning away from driving:
Figures from the Federal Highway Administration show the share of 14 to 34-year-olds without a driver’s licence rose to 26 per cent in 2010, from 21 per cent a decade earlier, according to a study by the Frontier Group and the US PIRG Education Fund released this month. (Some US states allow 14-year-olds to get a learner’s permit to drive.) Another study from the University of Michigan showed that people under 30 accounted for 22 per cent of all licensed drivers, down from a third in 1983, with the steepest declines among teenagers.
The article gave several reasons for the low driving rate among teens, including the economy and social media: people don’t meet face-to-face anymore and don’t need cars as much. It’s hard for me to believe that teens and younger people don’t want to drive. I wonder how much of it is the difficulty and regulations of getting a license that are so much higher today and how much is that younger people are used to being hauled around and taken care of by parents or how much is just fear and antagonism towards cars that the government and environmentalists put out? I can’t believe how few people know how to even drive a stick shift. Shouldn’t people learn these skills or are they obsolete?
Driving used to mean freedom — now it doesn’t. Is that a good thing? I don’t think so.
I read a new book yesterday called The Great Experiment: The States, the Feds, and Your Healthcare that looks at the Massachussetts reform plan for health care and lays out the pros and cons.
However, what caught my eye was a figure in the book that looked at the rates of preventative health services in Massachussetts from 2004-2010. Men over 40 who had a prostate screening test in the past 2 years was only 50.9% in 2004, 56.1% in 2006, 58.5% in 2008 and 54% in 2010. Compare that to women over 40 getting a mammogram in the past 2 years: 82.5% in 2004, 84.8% in 2006, 84.9% in 2008 and 83.6% in 2010.
I wonder why so few men get prostate exams compared to women who get mammograms? I realize that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has told healthy men that they should no longer receive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood tests as part of routine cancer screening. However, that is a fairly recent recommendation and wouldn’t have affected men in 2004.
I wonder if reluctance to seek medical care plays a part in why men die so much earlier than women?