Had my first colonoscopy 4 months ago, after going for a couple of years with every red flag symptom under the sun.
The procedure was a piece of cake. As the standard is where I'm from (Norway), I was only administered some sedatives - but honestly I couldn't feel much difference. I watched the procedure on the screen, which was quite fascinating.
The worst part, by far, was the emptying / prepping. A month prior to the colonoscopy I took a stool sample (negative for blood), but my doc wanted to be safe.
In the end they nothing was found, not even polyps.
EDIT: I had put of going to it for the longest time, but a friend of mine (35 years old) was diagnosed with stage 4 last year, which pushed me to get it checked out. He had experienced prolonged constipation, that's it. When the tumor was found, the cancer had spread to both of his lungs and liver. He's still alive, and fighting it.
My doctor recommended a combination FIT+DNA test instead of colonoscopy (brand name "Cologuard"). She said it's not quite as good as the "gold standard" colonoscopy, but it also doesn't have the risks of colonoscopy.
And the FIT+DNA test is so cheap and easy, you can do it every year or three instead of every 10 years with the colonoscopy.
She still recommends colonoscopies for high-risk patients, but she thinks the risks outweigh the benefits for low-risk patients, so she recommends Cologuard in those situations.
I appreciate this risk-adjusted and probabilistic approach rather than one-size-fits all recommendations.
> The worst part, by far, was the emptying / prepping.
This. The procedure itself was a snap (I was completely sedated; I'm in Canada), but it was NOT a fun 2 days of "pooping" pure liquid and being hungry. I don't think I was away from the toilet for more than 20 minutes at a time.
I didn't actually mind the prepping too much personally. Just to be safe I started early to go on the long end of what they suggested with the diet and basically just ate baked, unseasoned chicken for 10 days. Then did the bowel prep; a lot of people hate the drink, but idk. I thought it was fine. Maybe better to assume it will suck though, that way you at least can't be disappointed.
> In the end they nothing was found, not even polyps.
> The worst part, by far, was the emptying / prepping.
Protip to those who have it coming up: Ask for the pill prep instead of the "sludge" prep. You end up spending the day on the toilet either way, but at least it doesn't taste as bad with the pills.
It depends, if you want the best possible colonoscopy quality, do the liquid/"sludge" prep, the general consensus is it cleans you out the best and gives the best possible view during the procedure. However that's only true if you actually do it properly and drink all the liquid.
A decent number of patients can't/don't get through all the liquid in which case the pills are far better.
> Oral sodium sulfate in a single dose has been found to cause increased gastrointestinal (GI) events
> Sodium phosphate is no longer recommended as a bowel preparation regimen due to its serious side effects
Essentially, put in the effort and do the liquid bowel prep.
Consider adding flavour drops to your drink, icing it or turn it into a slushie to make it slightly more interesting to drink. The PEG will make the ice crystals slightly more smoother.
I can’t compare the two, but fwiw, in my experience, while the drink is mildly unpleasant it’s only the texture of the drink itself that’s bad and the fact that you have to drink quite a bit of it. It doesn’t taste bad per se (and you can add flavored drink mix to help) and the “purging” part is painless, ie no cramps or anything.
I had a colonoscopy without any sedatives and I agree, the prepping was worse. Not eating for 24 hours was easy, drinking the solution the night before was unpleasant, and drinking the solution the day of was awful.
My pro tip would be to take the day off work. Trying to work while drinking the solution in the morning didn't really work.
Seeing young adults around me going through this made me change my dietary habits 1 year ago. I went to the extreme by modern food industry standards, but now:
- I take 100g proteins, 30g fibers daily
- Red meat once a week but never fried
- Most of the protein comes from eggs, yoggurt, chicken and various plant based sources
- No white bread
- No added sugars, no deserts except fruits
- Nothing fried
- No added salt
- No canned food
- Saturated fats kept at minimum.
- No spicy food
- No alcohol
The results are incredible. I lost 8 kg, my blood samples are perfect, my pulse dropped with 10, I sleep better, no migraines (I had those for years). Also this year I was the only one in the family that didn't got any cold, and that's quite hard with two kids going to kindergarten.
It's hard in the first two weeks, but afterwards it's becoming your daily routine. I also use an app to track various stats. The gameification of the diet also helped me a little.
I urge you to try this. To make it more manageable start small. For example avoid fast food for 2 weeks. Don't put any mayonnaise in your food for 1month. Stop eating white bread. And then add more and more restrictions.
One thing I can't figure out from the content or the graphs (where I can read the legends with my 1975 eyes) is whether this adjusts for overall mortality rate, which is to say, is any of this effect due to the fact people are more and more likely to wear seat belts, not die of (now-)preventable diseases, etc.?
EDIT: having thought that over a third time, I am not sure it makes any sense.
People should be reminded that colonoscopy is not just a screening, it is also preventative. They often find growths that may develop into cancer, and remove them during the procedure.
Does insurance see it this way? I've had a couple precancerous moles (melanoma in situ) removed, which seems similar, and my health insurance provider billed me more than I was expecting because they didn't categorize it as preventive care.
Nice to have a good data-based take on this question make it to the front of HN!
One of our better microscopes these days is DNA sequencing, especially for cancer, and the particular base mutations and the sequences in which they occur give heavy clues about the types of mutagens that are going on. The DNA damage from UV radiation from the sun and bulky adduct repair from smoking damage are vastly different. Even when cells have a defect in a repair mechanism, you can tell which repair mechanism is broken based on the particular base changes in which context.
A study from 2025 reapplied these Alexandronv signatures to colorectal cancer with a global set of cohorts, and suggests that colibactin, a mutagen produced by some strains of E. coli and related bacteria, could be driving some of the increase in early age colorectal cancer:
Of course we don't know exactly how much of the increase, or the other explanations; causality is multi-causal and I bring this particular cause up because it's one of the stronger leads so far. But when we've lost our keys in the night, even if its easiest to look under the light of the streetlamp, that doesn't mean its the only place we might find them.
what is rate per 100.000 tracking? I guess it means among living persons at every datapoint. If so decreasing mortality overall and final diagnosis specifically plays a large role in the numbers
I recommend getting a colonoscopy if you have any symptoms. There is a lot of stigma that prevents people from being proactive about this type of issue.
My anecdote (M, 35) is that I got one after experiencing symptoms that turned out to be unrelated, but they did find pre-cancerous polyps so now I will be getting them more regularly. I received received meaningful early detection and peace of mind. Also aside from the prep, its a very convenient procedure. You get put under anesthesia and do a quick time travel.
All this talk about different groupings (and overlapping kinds of time) makes me think of Simpson's Paradox [0], where how we slice things can be very important to what trend we see.
> We don’t yet know if colonoscopies are better than other methods of screening
My Gastroentrologist told me just recently that the stool test (Cologuard) is very accurate but must be repeated every 3 years as opposed to getting a Colonoscopy which should be repeated every 7 to 10 years
Personally I am hesitant to do colonoscopy after a relative had a botched procedure. Just this month two celebrities revealed botched colonoscopies. I hope they figure out ways to make this procedure safer.
Those articles don't really say what the "botch" is. Was it the anesthesia? The actual endoscopic examination? Removal of polyps?
If its the polyp removal, I can certainly see how that could lead to problems. But you're a little stuck: even if you use another technique to do the scan, you still have to remove any polyps you find, don't you?
yes I've had both a colonoscopy and a sigmoidoscopy (less invasive colonoscopy).
I'm not sure what the botches are here. In the sigmoidoscopy they took out a couple of polyps, in the colonoscopy (more recently than the sigmoidoscopy) they just did a cancer check-up given family history.
I wish those articles discusses the "botches", I'd like to know since from my understanding these are pretty safe procedures
I did mine without anesthesia/sedatives. There were moments of discomfort when they pump gas to expand the area - feels like a big fart is stuck in your gut - but otherwise no big deal, especially knowing that the pain is not dangerous. Recommend. It eliminates recovery time afterwards (you can drive yourself home) and increases safety.
Might try that this time. OTOH, I get the greatest nap of my life shaking off the sedative (get the lighter, cheaper option like Versed instead of anesthesiologist-administered propofol) and my spouse makes me a milkshake.
Healthy skepticism of procedure over-prescription is reasonable and maybe even wise, but I wouldn't really take the celebrities section of USA Today as a data point, maybe not even as a reliable anecdote.
Based on your concern, the question is whether 'botched' procedures are more or less of a risk (both in incidence and consequence) than non-screening.
It is one of the most common procedures and is generally very safe. Even a botched procedure probably just means some temp discomfort after the procedure. Much better than the alternative.
My doctor actually doesn't recommend colonoscopy until age 50. But starting at age 40 they have you do the "poop in a box" test instead, and then only have you come in if that shows anything.
The complication rate for colonoscopy is about 3 in 1000, and that is skewed towards people who have polyps, which in and of themselves could be dangerous if not removed.
So it's always a risk tradeoff. You can skip the procedure and risk the effects of the disease it's supposed to detect instead. But if you do the math, you're statistically better off doing the procedure.
Very good visualization repair. I particularly appreciate the TL;DR at the end. In a world of mostly bad popular medical advice this seems competent and at least facially correct.
Did you miss the BILLIONS in lawsuits against RoundUp and other herbicides?
Did you miss all the deregulation by the first and now second Trump administration allowing crazy levels of pollution and toxicity among all the industries?
They are still using leaded fuel in prop aircraft at hundreds of airports around the country and world, spraying it on unknowning population
Our environment has never been more dangerous yet people never more ignorant or carefree
Human biology is such a horror...I've been through it with enough loved ones that I've been left with two obsessions: a) a dignified way to go when my time comes, and b) we should either fix human biology, go post-biological, or simply surrender as a species and be replaced by AI. I know there are many counter-arguments to the above, but I've come to suspect the integrity of our species' rationality under the savage ravaging of Dog.
Had my first colonoscopy 4 months ago, after going for a couple of years with every red flag symptom under the sun.
The procedure was a piece of cake. As the standard is where I'm from (Norway), I was only administered some sedatives - but honestly I couldn't feel much difference. I watched the procedure on the screen, which was quite fascinating.
The worst part, by far, was the emptying / prepping. A month prior to the colonoscopy I took a stool sample (negative for blood), but my doc wanted to be safe.
In the end they nothing was found, not even polyps.
EDIT: I had put of going to it for the longest time, but a friend of mine (35 years old) was diagnosed with stage 4 last year, which pushed me to get it checked out. He had experienced prolonged constipation, that's it. When the tumor was found, the cancer had spread to both of his lungs and liver. He's still alive, and fighting it.
My doctor recommended a combination FIT+DNA test instead of colonoscopy (brand name "Cologuard"). She said it's not quite as good as the "gold standard" colonoscopy, but it also doesn't have the risks of colonoscopy.
And the FIT+DNA test is so cheap and easy, you can do it every year or three instead of every 10 years with the colonoscopy.
She still recommends colonoscopies for high-risk patients, but she thinks the risks outweigh the benefits for low-risk patients, so she recommends Cologuard in those situations.
I appreciate this risk-adjusted and probabilistic approach rather than one-size-fits all recommendations.
> The worst part, by far, was the emptying / prepping.
This. The procedure itself was a snap (I was completely sedated; I'm in Canada), but it was NOT a fun 2 days of "pooping" pure liquid and being hungry. I don't think I was away from the toilet for more than 20 minutes at a time.
Yeh if you want to improve the screening rate then someone needs to figure out how to make the prep easier.
I didn't actually mind the prepping too much personally. Just to be safe I started early to go on the long end of what they suggested with the diet and basically just ate baked, unseasoned chicken for 10 days. Then did the bowel prep; a lot of people hate the drink, but idk. I thought it was fine. Maybe better to assume it will suck though, that way you at least can't be disappointed.
> In the end they nothing was found, not even polyps.
Same here, thank god.
> The worst part, by far, was the emptying / prepping.
Protip to those who have it coming up: Ask for the pill prep instead of the "sludge" prep. You end up spending the day on the toilet either way, but at least it doesn't taste as bad with the pills.
It depends, if you want the best possible colonoscopy quality, do the liquid/"sludge" prep, the general consensus is it cleans you out the best and gives the best possible view during the procedure. However that's only true if you actually do it properly and drink all the liquid.
A decent number of patients can't/don't get through all the liquid in which case the pills are far better.
I’m doing it this year. Does the pill work as effectively as the drink?
> Oral sodium sulfate in a single dose has been found to cause increased gastrointestinal (GI) events
> Sodium phosphate is no longer recommended as a bowel preparation regimen due to its serious side effects
Essentially, put in the effort and do the liquid bowel prep.
Consider adding flavour drops to your drink, icing it or turn it into a slushie to make it slightly more interesting to drink. The PEG will make the ice crystals slightly more smoother.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535368/
Some doctors will say yes, some no. Best bet is to do what your doctor suggests, but at least ask if the pills are an option.
I can’t compare the two, but fwiw, in my experience, while the drink is mildly unpleasant it’s only the texture of the drink itself that’s bad and the fact that you have to drink quite a bit of it. It doesn’t taste bad per se (and you can add flavored drink mix to help) and the “purging” part is painless, ie no cramps or anything.
I had a colonoscopy without any sedatives and I agree, the prepping was worse. Not eating for 24 hours was easy, drinking the solution the night before was unpleasant, and drinking the solution the day of was awful.
My pro tip would be to take the day off work. Trying to work while drinking the solution in the morning didn't really work.
I ended up paying 15000 usd due tó complications.. that was the worst part for me
Which country are you in? Did you have insurance? What kind of complications? Have you recovered completely?
Seeing young adults around me going through this made me change my dietary habits 1 year ago. I went to the extreme by modern food industry standards, but now:
- I take 100g proteins, 30g fibers daily - Red meat once a week but never fried - Most of the protein comes from eggs, yoggurt, chicken and various plant based sources - No white bread - No added sugars, no deserts except fruits - Nothing fried - No added salt - No canned food - Saturated fats kept at minimum. - No spicy food - No alcohol
The results are incredible. I lost 8 kg, my blood samples are perfect, my pulse dropped with 10, I sleep better, no migraines (I had those for years). Also this year I was the only one in the family that didn't got any cold, and that's quite hard with two kids going to kindergarten.
It's hard in the first two weeks, but afterwards it's becoming your daily routine. I also use an app to track various stats. The gameification of the diet also helped me a little.
I urge you to try this. To make it more manageable start small. For example avoid fast food for 2 weeks. Don't put any mayonnaise in your food for 1month. Stop eating white bread. And then add more and more restrictions.
> Yes, if you are currently young, you face higher CRC risk than previous generations did when they were young. That’s the bad news.
Unlike the usual Bettridge's law, the answer to the headline is only a qualified "No".
It is a "So is all other cancers!", which is pretty bad news for folks who are young and healthy right now.
One thing I can't figure out from the content or the graphs (where I can read the legends with my 1975 eyes) is whether this adjusts for overall mortality rate, which is to say, is any of this effect due to the fact people are more and more likely to wear seat belts, not die of (now-)preventable diseases, etc.?
EDIT: having thought that over a third time, I am not sure it makes any sense.
Thanks for the PFAS old codgers.
People should be reminded that colonoscopy is not just a screening, it is also preventative. They often find growths that may develop into cancer, and remove them during the procedure.
Does insurance see it this way? I've had a couple precancerous moles (melanoma in situ) removed, which seems similar, and my health insurance provider billed me more than I was expecting because they didn't categorize it as preventive care.
Most US insurance has very strict guidelines about what is diagnostic vs preventative for a colonoscopy. And its almost certianly diagnostic.
I think so, even with shitty U.S. providers. I've never had a problem.
Nice to have a good data-based take on this question make it to the front of HN!
One of our better microscopes these days is DNA sequencing, especially for cancer, and the particular base mutations and the sequences in which they occur give heavy clues about the types of mutagens that are going on. The DNA damage from UV radiation from the sun and bulky adduct repair from smoking damage are vastly different. Even when cells have a defect in a repair mechanism, you can tell which repair mechanism is broken based on the particular base changes in which context.
A study from 2025 reapplied these Alexandronv signatures to colorectal cancer with a global set of cohorts, and suggests that colibactin, a mutagen produced by some strains of E. coli and related bacteria, could be driving some of the increase in early age colorectal cancer:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09025-8
Of course we don't know exactly how much of the increase, or the other explanations; causality is multi-causal and I bring this particular cause up because it's one of the stronger leads so far. But when we've lost our keys in the night, even if its easiest to look under the light of the streetlamp, that doesn't mean its the only place we might find them.
what is rate per 100.000 tracking? I guess it means among living persons at every datapoint. If so decreasing mortality overall and final diagnosis specifically plays a large role in the numbers
I recommend getting a colonoscopy if you have any symptoms. There is a lot of stigma that prevents people from being proactive about this type of issue.
My anecdote (M, 35) is that I got one after experiencing symptoms that turned out to be unrelated, but they did find pre-cancerous polyps so now I will be getting them more regularly. I received received meaningful early detection and peace of mind. Also aside from the prep, its a very convenient procedure. You get put under anesthesia and do a quick time travel.
All this talk about different groupings (and overlapping kinds of time) makes me think of Simpson's Paradox [0], where how we slice things can be very important to what trend we see.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
> We don’t yet know if colonoscopies are better than other methods of screening
My Gastroentrologist told me just recently that the stool test (Cologuard) is very accurate but must be repeated every 3 years as opposed to getting a Colonoscopy which should be repeated every 7 to 10 years
Is "medical term" used "appropriately"?
Yes. Nothing to see here. And stop abusing quotation marks.
Personally I am hesitant to do colonoscopy after a relative had a botched procedure. Just this month two celebrities revealed botched colonoscopies. I hope they figure out ways to make this procedure safer.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/kathy...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/202...
Those articles don't really say what the "botch" is. Was it the anesthesia? The actual endoscopic examination? Removal of polyps?
If its the polyp removal, I can certainly see how that could lead to problems. But you're a little stuck: even if you use another technique to do the scan, you still have to remove any polyps you find, don't you?
yes I've had both a colonoscopy and a sigmoidoscopy (less invasive colonoscopy).
I'm not sure what the botches are here. In the sigmoidoscopy they took out a couple of polyps, in the colonoscopy (more recently than the sigmoidoscopy) they just did a cancer check-up given family history.
I wish those articles discusses the "botches", I'd like to know since from my understanding these are pretty safe procedures
I did mine without anesthesia/sedatives. There were moments of discomfort when they pump gas to expand the area - feels like a big fart is stuck in your gut - but otherwise no big deal, especially knowing that the pain is not dangerous. Recommend. It eliminates recovery time afterwards (you can drive yourself home) and increases safety.
Might try that this time. OTOH, I get the greatest nap of my life shaking off the sedative (get the lighter, cheaper option like Versed instead of anesthesiologist-administered propofol) and my spouse makes me a milkshake.
Healthy skepticism of procedure over-prescription is reasonable and maybe even wise, but I wouldn't really take the celebrities section of USA Today as a data point, maybe not even as a reliable anecdote.
Based on your concern, the question is whether 'botched' procedures are more or less of a risk (both in incidence and consequence) than non-screening.
Nothing you do is risk free.
It is one of the most common procedures and is generally very safe. Even a botched procedure probably just means some temp discomfort after the procedure. Much better than the alternative.
You can do a FIT test instead which can be done at home.
My doctor actually doesn't recommend colonoscopy until age 50. But starting at age 40 they have you do the "poop in a box" test instead, and then only have you come in if that shows anything.
The complication rate for colonoscopy is about 3 in 1000, and that is skewed towards people who have polyps, which in and of themselves could be dangerous if not removed.
So it's always a risk tradeoff. You can skip the procedure and risk the effects of the disease it's supposed to detect instead. But if you do the math, you're statistically better off doing the procedure.
FYI there are other options besides a full scope for screening now, especially if you are low risk
Also increased, or we're now aware of, higher rates in long distance runners.
I'd love to know the causation for that correlation
Perhaps higher sugar consumption from fueling techniques?
Why are the "critical terms" in "that headline" in quotes?
Then some clown downvotes this straightforward question. Brilliant.
Probably because one of the main explorations of the articles is quantifying "young people."
If the headline merely had quotes around "young," that would make sense.
Get it done!
But not at Kaiser.
$17k later…
Maybe they're all running too many marathons.
Well turning off P53 had nothing to do with it. It is anything but vaccines.
The same vaccines that can't be tested against a control group for ethical reasons.
Kind of pointless to inject a bunch of corpses anyway.
Excess deaths occured in the vaccinated rather than the unvaccinated.
N =20 million using single payer data:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12095670/
Very good visualization repair. I particularly appreciate the TL;DR at the end. In a world of mostly bad popular medical advice this seems competent and at least facially correct.
I guess cancer is the new climate denial
Did you miss the BILLIONS in lawsuits against RoundUp and other herbicides?
Did you miss all the deregulation by the first and now second Trump administration allowing crazy levels of pollution and toxicity among all the industries?
They are still using leaded fuel in prop aircraft at hundreds of airports around the country and world, spraying it on unknowning population
Our environment has never been more dangerous yet people never more ignorant or carefree
Less MTTF and more MTTR
Human biology is such a horror...I've been through it with enough loved ones that I've been left with two obsessions: a) a dignified way to go when my time comes, and b) we should either fix human biology, go post-biological, or simply surrender as a species and be replaced by AI. I know there are many counter-arguments to the above, but I've come to suspect the integrity of our species' rationality under the savage ravaging of Dog.