Bicycle nose, that is.

This may be the science-of-the-obvious, but that title in the latest edition of The Journal of Sexual Medicine is just too irresistible.

Here’s the punch line: Using a nose-less bicycle seat greatly reduces the penile numbness and erectile dysfunction that has been a complaint among many male riders since the bicycle was invented. I didn’t even know there was such a seat until I read this study, but apparently they are readily available. Here is a sampling of styles.

Not exactly the coolest looking things around.

In biking, erectile dysfunction is caused by pressure on the perineum, the area between the anus and scrotum that house the nerves and arteries that go to the penis. The pressure, which comes from sitting on a bicycle seat with a nose extension, restricts blood flow to the penis. Bike long enough, and in some men the damage can be permanent.

In this study, researchers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health studied 90 bike-riding police officers from five different metropolitan areas. The number of officers who said they had no numbness while cycling rose from 27 percent to 82 percent after they started using the no-nose saddles. The best part is they also experienced a significant improvement in erectile function. The officers liked the seats so much better that virtually all of them made the switch permanently.

“Different saddle designs may require some re-learning of ‘how to ride a bicycle,’ ” the researchers said. “But the health benefits to having unrestricted vascular flow to and from the penis and less penile numbness is self-evident.”

Indeed.

Most bike seats these days come with some kind of anatomical design to reduce pressure in that sensitive, and most of them work pretty well, said Bill Kempton, parts manager for Freewheel Bike in Minneapolis. Still, a fifth of the saddles they sell are returned or exchanged.

He said the store has two nose-less seats in stock, a C-shaped style made by Issimo. The down side of no-nose seats, he said, is that it you may not have as good a grip on the bike. “You’re sort of perched on them,” he said. “If you move a quarter inch the wrong way, you could slide off the seat.”

Are you convinced enough to be seen on such a seat in public? And is there any reason why this wouldn’t work for women, too?

Batman, the dog, the who had surgery and received an expermental treatment for a brain tumor, was up and groggy late yesterday, but he’s fine. The ten-year-old mutt has a row of surgical staples down his nose. “He looks like Frankendog,” said his owner, Anna Brailovsky. Now, the waiting begins to see if the treatment works. To read the story about Batman and the research to find a brain cancer treatment for dogs and people go here.

(Editor’s note: A new feature, Second Opinion, will occasionally ask Twin Cities doctors to elaborate on health news.) 

The case: Let’s say a 76-year-old man is worried about prostate cancer and goes to his doctor for a routine screening test. If you were his doctor, what would you tell him, in light of Monday’s recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that doctors should stop doing those tests on men 75 or older?

Today’s doctor: Dr. Daniel Zapzalka, a urologist at Park Nicollet Clinic in St. Louis Park.

“I think it’s actually not too far from what people, urologists, have been recommending for a long time,” Zapzalka said. “For years I’ve been recommending after around 80ish to stop checking PSAs (prostate-specific antigens, the test for prostate cancer).”
Why? By the time a man reaches his late 70s or early 80s, there’s little chance, statistically speaking, that prostate cancer will cut his life short. Meanwhile, the treatment — from biopsies to surgery — can cause infections, impotence and incontinence.
“This is one area where you can easily get caught in where the treatment is worse than the disease…. What I tell these guys…when they’re around 80, don’t let anybody check your PSA anymore unless you develop any new urinary symptoms, such as difficulty urinating or blood in your urine.”

 Usually, they’re happy to hear it. “Most men are pretty realistic. Most of them say, sounds good to me,” Zapzalka said.
Of course, if they have symptoms, they should “absolutely” check them out, he added. The debate is about routine screening for cancer, not about treatment.

Exception to the rule: If someone is unusually active and healthy, Zapzalka might give the test past age 75. Also, if someone insists, “I say, well this is America, you have that right.”

Who should get routine tests for prostate cancer?  Men 50 and older, or 40 and older if they have a family history of prostate cancer.

For more information:
• U.S. Preventive Services Task Force report on prostate cancer screening
• The National Cancer Institute

Believe it or not, we’re not eating any more than we did 100 years ago. We’re just moving a whole lot less.

“There is not a relationship between obesity and caloric intake,” says Dr. James Levine, an obesity expert at the Mayo Clinic. Our national weight gain is driven primarily by the fact that we’re far more sedentary than we used to be. Our caloric intake, however, has remained the same. Ergo, obesity epidemic.

(As I write this, I’m sitting in front of a computer, where I sit for a goodly number of hours most days of the week. Not burning many calories at the moment.)

Not surprisingly, then, exercise is also the key to weight loss. Lots of exercise. More than many of us trapped in the modern age have time for.

This week the Archives of Internal Medicine published a study that looked at how much exercise overweight women need to do in order to lose weight, and keep it off. Researchers from the University of Pittsburgh and elsewhere tracked 191 overweight and obese women for 24 months. The women were assigned one of four different weight loss programs — various types of diets, counseling and exercise regimens.

Most regained lost weight because they could not do enough physical activity. The 47 women who succeeded in losing at least 10 percent of their weight and keeping off for two years exercised for an average of at least 68 minutes per day. They were burning about 2,000 calories a week — about what most adult women eat in a day — with moderate to vigorous physical activity.

Earlier this week when I was sitting at my desk talking to Levine, he was walking — at his desk. Levine has designed a treadmill-desk combo that allows him walk while he works at the computer or talks on the phone. Steelcase, the office furniture manufacturer, is now selling it under the name Walkstation. He designed it because he recognizes that most people just can’t exercise enough outside of their jobs and the other demands of modern life. We have to move more when are at work and watching TV.

“I’m walking at one mile per hour,” he said. “That will be 140 calories per hour. I can burn an extra thousand calories per day. ”

As you can see in this photo, he’s not even breaking a sweat.

“Day time physical activity has a lot to answer for,” he said. Creating opportunities during the day to promote simple movement as a way to burn calories is phenomenally important, he said.

He got the idea from studying people who fidget. They burn a whole lot more calories than people who don’t just because they move around a lot more.

Now, having written this, it’s time to stop typing and start fidgeting. Or something. Do you build movement into your day?

Some readers have raised some questions about the proposed federal rule that would redefine abortion, and which could override a state law that requires hospitals to offer rape victims emergency contraception.

Here is some clarity: The rule has not been officially made public, but a draft was leaked to the New York Times two weeks ago. The federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which manages federal health care dollars, has declined to respond to questions about it from reporters, including this one. The agency will not say who proposed the changes or why.

If enacted, the rule would not forbid Minnesota hospitals from providing emergency contraception, also known as Plan B. But a hospital or hospital employee could refuse to do so for moral or religious reasons. Hospitals and clinics that require employees to put patient care above their beliefs would be denied federal money from Medicare or Medicaid, or Title 10 funds, which pay for family planning services to low income women.

Doctors offices and family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood would have to accept as employees anyone who believed providing birth control was tantamount to an abortion. They, too, would risk losing federal reimbursements if they “discriminated” against employees on the basis of their moral and religious beliefs.

The process to make this rule official is not clear. HHS said that there is not timetable. But it would work something like this: HHS would publish a proposed rule — which could be the same or be different than the draft version — in the Federal Register, a federal publication. The agency would invite comments from the public and interested parties. After 30 days HHS or President Bush would convene a panel to consider it.  HHS could then implement a new rule — or not.

To read more about it you can go here, here and here. For the original New York Times piece, go here.