A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Circumcision is a common procedure, but regional and societal attitudes differ on whether there is a need for a male to be circumcised and, if so, at what age. This is an important issue for many parents, but also pediatricians, other doctors, policy makers, public health authorities, medical bodies, and males themselves.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.</p

Endurance Exercise and Leg Strength In Older Women

Quadriceps strength and mass peak in the third decade of life, plateau, and then decline from the fifth decade on. To examine the influence of chronic endurance training and age on lean mass and leg strength, women runners (n = 62, age 43-69 years) and sedentary participants (n = 33, age 43-66 years) were divided into 40-, 50-, and 60-year age groups. Absolute isokinetic concentric torque did not differ between runners and sedentary women (97.9 +/- 19.5 and 104.6 +/- 22.7 N . m, respectively, p = .18) but was different between age groups independent of exercise status (107.6 +/- 18.4, 97.1 +/- 19.9, and 90.1 +/- 21.4 N . m, for 40s, 50s, and 60s, respectively, p \u3c .05). Lean body mass also differed by age group (P \u3c .05) but did not change differently among runners and sedentary women. These findings suggest that chronic endurance training might not influence the loss of muscle mass and muscle strength that occur with aging