T Nation

Bangers to Cancer > Neknomination

Fed up with the escalating binge-drinking trend neknomination, a U.K. woman created a spin-off to raise funds for breast cancer.

As usual some have found it offensive, and began complaining via social media about this noble cause. Since I’m not female, I’d be curious about the T-Nation Ladies take on it. Feel free to discuss below, but here is TK’s take on the issue.

Why hate and criticize efforts to raise money to fight a deadly disease. The beauty of the female form should be celebrated, and protected not scorned.

How come nobody complains about The Biggest Looser showing off man boobs with pancake nipples on TV, without warning? Or gun violence glorified by the media and video games? Or holding bake sales held to raise funds to study juvenile diabetes or breast cancer.

Research is fine and dandy, but also very expensive and time consuming, hence not all that effective. Especially since it’s already been proven that cupcakes, muffins and sweets that spike insulin levels that lead to inflammation and obesity. These are major preventable causes of breast cancer.

So let’s start to raise awareness and fund prevention instead; through fitness, diet and healthy living.

Don’t hate, celebrate the beauty of the female breasts!

Prostate and testicular cancer each claim more lives than breast cancer, yet no one says anything about it.
Someone should start a neknomination for that. I’m pretty sure it’s called chat roulette, but work with me here.

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Prostate and testicular cancer each claim more lives than breast cancer, yet no one says anything about it.
Someone should start a neknomination for that. I’m pretty sure it’s called chat roulette, but work with me here.[/quote]

I’m not sure your numbers are accurate, but point made.

To support prostate cancer awareness, he’s a pic of an asshole:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Prostate and testicular cancer each claim more lives than breast cancer, yet no one says anything about it.
Someone should start a neknomination for that. I’m pretty sure it’s called chat roulette, but work with me here.[/quote]
I actually have heard some doctors talking about being kind of fed up with all the extra attention breast cancer specifically gets rather than simply raising money for center research and treatment in general. The numbers don’t necessarily justify it.

I agree that a lot more attention is paid to breast cancer than prostate and testicular. I’ve known multiple women that have had breast cancer but do not know of any guys that have had prostate or testicular. Then again, isn’t the whole month of November, or as we call it Movember, there for prostate cancer and testicular cancer awareness and to help raise money?

Old men get prostate cancer. No one want to think about old men’s prostates.

And testicular cancer is the most survivable type.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Prostate and testicular cancer each claim more lives than breast cancer, yet no one says anything about it.
Someone should start a neknomination for that. I’m pretty sure it’s called chat roulette, but work with me here.[/quote]
I actually have heard some doctors talking about being kind of fed up with all the extra attention breast cancer specifically gets rather than simply raising money for center research and treatment in general. The numbers don’t necessarily justify it.[/quote]

Oh? where are you two getting your numbers?
Here are mine for cancer deaths in 2013:

Prostate…29,720…5.1% of cancer deaths
Testicle…370…0.1%
Breast…39,620…6.9%

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/index.html

As a testicular cancer survivor I would like to weigh in on survival rates. I had stage III and that still boasts an over 70% survival rate. Stage I and II have over 90% survival rate. Breast cancer on the other hand claims many lives.

The numbers posted are misleading. Some cancers are much more deadly but less common (pancreatic) and some are less deadly and more common, so going by total % of cancer deaths to justify how much research money a particular cancer gets is a little misguided. I must admit though, as someone who does cancer research for a living, it can be a little frustrating when many other cancers seem to get overlooked. But in reality, any attention being brought to the research field is a positive thing.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Prostate and testicular cancer each claim more lives than breast cancer, yet no one says anything about it.
Someone should start a neknomination for that. I’m pretty sure it’s called chat roulette, but work with me here.[/quote]
I actually have heard some doctors talking about being kind of fed up with all the extra attention breast cancer specifically gets rather than simply raising money for center research and treatment in general. The numbers don’t necessarily justify it.[/quote]

Oh? where are you two getting your numbers?
Here are mine for cancer deaths in 2013:

Prostate…29,720…5.1% of cancer deaths
Testicle…370…0.1%
Breast…39,620…6.9%

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/index.html
[/quote]
I’ll use your numbers. 6.9% of cancer deaths are from breast cancer. That leaves 93.1% of people dying from some other kind of cancer.

I never specified any type (testicular or prostate or whatever), so I don’t know what you think you caught me on. You basically proved my point.


.

meant to post this one

Should we start a T-Nation neknominate thread?

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Should we start a T-Nation neknominate thread? [/quote]
You should neknominate someone, and they have to do the max number of squats with 225 in a minute.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Prostate and testicular cancer each claim more lives than breast cancer, yet no one says anything about it.
Someone should start a neknomination for that. I’m pretty sure it’s called chat roulette, but work with me here.[/quote]
I actually have heard some doctors talking about being kind of fed up with all the extra attention breast cancer specifically gets rather than simply raising money for center research and treatment in general. The numbers don’t necessarily justify it.[/quote]

Oh? where are you two getting your numbers?
Here are mine for cancer deaths in 2013:

Prostate…29,720…5.1% of cancer deaths
Testicle…370…0.1%
Breast…39,620…6.9%

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/index.html
[/quote]
I’ll use your numbers. 6.9% of cancer deaths are from breast cancer. That leaves 93.1% of people dying from some other kind of cancer.

I never specified any type (testicular or prostate or whatever), so I don’t know what you think you caught me on. You basically proved my point.[/quote]

Apologies…I unfairly painted you with that brush because of the context of the response; it seemed that you were supporting legendary blaze’s inaccuracy in this matter.

Next, observe relentless’ charts. You will see that second only to lung cancer, breast cancer is the greatest cause of mortality among women. If the question is the allocation of research funds, well, about 3/4 of lung cancer is smoking-associated. Were there no cigarettes, lung cancer would be a minor cause of morbidity and mortality, and research would be appropriately directed to non-smokers’ lung cancer. And breast cancer would remain a major problem.

A comment on this data: I don’t know how SEER data are collated for the cause of death statistic. Breast cancer is a major killer of women of all ages over 40, and women with recurrent or metastatic disease do die of it, as a general rule. Not so for prostate cancer. It may be the case that SEER data include all men who die “with” prostate cancer, and and not just those men who die of it. My experience is that a large number of men with prostate cancer die of other causes.

Last, government funding for cancer research is not strictly a “popularity” context. The investments made in breast cancer, HIV, lung cancer are dwarfed by those made in basic science, with more general applicability. Or money is spent where there is the anticipation of important progress, breast cancer, leukemia, lymphoma. Lung and prostate cancer–not so much.

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Should we start a T-Nation neknominate thread? [/quote]
You should neknominate someone, and they have to do the max number of squats with 225 in a minute.[/quote]

Count me in team.

I self nominate me; just did 225 x 20 in 56 seconds.

What a f’rush!

I think that people are missing my point here.

Fact: Cancer sucks!

Fact: Some cancers kill more than others.

Fact: Cancer has been around for millions of years.

In my opinion though, some fund raising efforts are misguided and money is wasted on researching the cure, where awareness and prevention is much cheaper, if not free.

Case in point; the Pink Cup Cakes for Breast Cancer. More harm is done by people eating that crap and getting fat, than by raising a few dollars through the sales. As the women and men ingest baked goods and sweets, their insulin levels spike, causing weight gain and inflammation in their bodies. As they get fatter, their breast size increase. And I bet that there is a direct co-relation between breast size and likelihood of breast cancer risk. Hence it’s all a self-defeating effort.

Another point is Prostate Cancer fundraising through Movember. Here in Canada, the events are sponsored by Whiskey companies, bars and restaurants. Guess what causes the prostate gland to swell? Yup, fatty foods like burgers and bacon wrapped sausages and liquor. Ever hear of ‘whiskey dick’? This observation is purely anecdotal, but I’d be willing to wager that a Liquor Free Movember - Ass To Grass Squat Campaign would do much more good.

So what I don’t get is that the media and sheeple choose to flame really creative and beneficial efforts such as Bangers to Cancer or Run for the Cure.

Ps. I love to drink and boobs too, and want to live forever to enjoy them all, in moderation.