21 total posts
I'd say that's quite an accomplishment
I'm a bit older but my bones and joints are still ok. Still, the thought alone of walking that distance fatigues me enough to want 12 hours in the sack. Congrats on the personal success and commitment to a good cause are in order.
(NT) Thanks very much, Steve, I'll pass that along -- RTB
Nancy tells me I have the numbers wrong. $17.2 million and
5,300 walkers. They increased their take by more than 20% since last year. It all goes to Princess Margaret Hospital, the big cancer facility in Toronto, and a major North American research center. The CEO of Princess Margaret, and the Head of Research also did the walk.
Apparently people were out in force all along the way offering drinks, cheers, signs and encouragement the whole length of the walk both up to Downsview through a number of very posh neighbourhoods and then back to The Canadian National Exhibition grounds (think Agricultural Fair mixed with Amusement Park, both on steroids. The Exhibition lasts 3 weeks in August ending on Labor Day. There are a number of other things that take place on the same large multi building site. The Royal Winter Fair (Agricultural again), The Auto Show in the Automotive building, a huge Boat show and various other things), where they were received like champions and pumped up for next year. My wife's already planning her training regimen, although she came through it with only one blister, and surprisingly few aches and pains.
(NT) Good for her, Rob!
Great, but .... how long did it take?
I've never done a hike over 20 miles, but I'm guessing a 42 mile walk takes 12+ hours even for a fast walker. Was that all done in one day?
I spent the weekend doing a fundraiser bike ride. Much easier than walking. We rode roughly 50 miles Saturday and 40 on Sunday.
One additional thing (besides the length of the walk) surprises me about your wife's walk. The minimum fundraising goal was quite high. In the Multiple Sclerosis ride I just did the minimum fundraising goal was $200, so it was much easier to qualify.
I love(d) doing these fundraisers ...
... until I stopped working in a place where it was easy to get sponsors. Not a big fan of the "athons". If you work in a place where you can put the signup sheet up, it's a joke to get the sponsors. If you don't, you're just bugging your friends and neighbors to scrounge up the sponsorship. Usually to do what you enjoy anyway.
They can be a pain ...
You're right. I hate bugging folks.
From one perspective, I don't see the point to all the sponsorships and such. Why should somebody give charity XYZ money so that I can do something I'd probably do anyway?
The first year I rode in the Tour to Tanglewood I had never ridden a bike 50 miles in one day and I didn't really know if I COULD ride that far. Even when I rode my bike to school back in college I never rode more than about 20-25 miles in a day. The first 15 mile training ride just about killed me. At that point I didn't feel too weird asking for pledges. The next year, when I decided to do the 100 mile ride, I was asking for pledges in connection with something that I wasn't sure I could do. I'd done 70 mile rides that pretty much left me exhausted, but never attempted anything over 70 miles. The fundraising didn't feel too weird then, either.
This year I just paid the minimum pledge and didn't even ask for sponsors. It just felt weird to ask people to pledge in connection with something I do all the time on weekends just for fun. If I hadn't done the Tour, I would have been riding at least as many miles with friends from home. Also, when it comes to work, there are two of us who signed up for the Tour this year. I really feel funny asking the nurses and the clerical staff to make pledges connected to my hobby, and with two of us riding it would have been obnoxious. Last year I hit up the provider staff for pledges but I never even mentioned it to the others.
The flip side, though, is that these fundraisers apparently do work. I don't understand why, but they do raise a lot of money.
I may well ride in the Tour again next year. I may even solicit pledges next year. But I'll never understand why these events are effective as fund raisers.
"But I'll never understand why these events are effective ..
... as fund raisers."
Actually I think you hit on exactly why in your post. They involve things that people do as a hobby or sometimes personal goal. I used to play in a lot of charity volleyball tournaments. I used to play in rec leagues too. The minimum sponsorship to play in the former was on par with fees to play in the latter. In addition to getting to play volleyball, these were social gatherings. I would play anyway as would most all of the participants. For races, it can be more of a goal/personal accomplishment to work towards, if the money goes to charity ...
There was a bit of resentment among some with the charity "athons". It got to where there was almost always a signup sheet hanging by the coffee pot for all to see who was giving, and how much. And if X, Y & Z sponsored me, they would expect I sponsor to each of them. Obviously this is "fair", and I was not financially strapped at the time, but I had several co-worker/friends that were and it was stressful for them. In addition, some of the charities weren't necessarily my charities of choice so it got sticky a few times. There was a lot of pressure (as with giving to United Way via payroll deduction). I think that pressure must go on at bigger workplaces to this day and that no doubt inflates the fundraising for these charities.
In addition to the pressure on the givers, the functions provide an excuse to be a fundraiser. You know, every year various charities call around to get you to be the "block captain" or whatever to collect for them. If someone agrees, you get a letter from them (I think they are supposed to go door to door but that hasn't been my experience), if they don't you get the more generic solicitation from the national charity. Folks are simply more eager to seek donations of sponsorship if they are going to be doing something, even if they aren't really passionate about the charity then they would be just to ask for money, even if more passionate for the cause.
according to their site
it's a 2 day event
Princess Margaret Hospital announced that 5,382 walkers raised $17.2 million in The Weekend to End Breast Cancer, a two-day, 60 kilometre walk to raise funds for breast cancer research in Toronto.
well done i say....
Sorry Bill, 34 km Saturday, 26 km Sunday.
My wife got in about 3 PM Sunday having left about 8:30 that morning. Closing ceremonies at 4:30. They slept in tents and ate food provided by support staff. They got cheered as I think I mentioned by virtually every neighborhood they went through and there were drinks and Watermelon and Banana bread provided by the bystanders/cheering crowds, and water and other drinks and Porta-Potties provided by the organizers at various stages along the way. A number of people also had signs saying "You can use our bathroom".
Nancy is now suffering from foot ankle and knee pain, but not too bad, though she wore her braces to work for the first time today. She works standing all day so its hard on the feet etc, especially after 60 k.
A friend of ours bicycled from Toronto to Montreal (500 miles)in late August in 5 days for the Gay Games in Montreal. It almost killed him though 100 mile stages in a day he doesn't have problems with, just not back to back.
I fail to see how walking ANY distance will "cure"...
breast cancer unless maybe they are trying to abrasively remove them.
A blonde, a brunette and a read head entered a competition to swim the English Channel using only the breast stroke.
When the blonde, a far distant last place finisher, finally arrived in France she, although clearly exhausted, demanded to see the judges.
When asked why she said "Because those other two CHEATED! They used their arms right from the start!".
If it cannot be cured ''abrasively''
it surely cannot be cured by being abrasive.
(NT) But "he" had to try.
Had that been my intent...
I would have used DEBRIDE!
(NT) I know what your "intent" was.
Well the long term cure rate is up thanks to new treatments
so I think you'll find your answer there. If you want to be cynical, prostate cancer and colo-rectal cancer each kill more people than Breast Cancer does now with the advances in treatment, or so I've heard. I have not researched this myself so I advance this argument tentatively.
I can't speak for any one but myself, and I don't know what the response of the women here will be, but I think your joke neither funny nor in good taste, considering the subject of Breast Cancer.
Prostate cancer needs a much greater priority because by the time they find it its usually too late, and the incidence of false positives on the blood test is high. Colo-rectal cancer can be caught and often treated with screening colonoscopy. It occurs most frequently in those with polyps, which are easily removed during the colonoscopy. So long as the neck of the polyp is benign and you are screened annually and all polyps removed quickly, it doesn't have to turn into cancer. My father, in the United States, despite having had a history of polyps was not checked until he had a tumor the size of a grapefruit in his lower abdomen. It was successfully removed along with his entire colon. He died before he left hospital possibly because of operative stress (he had a respiratory arrest during recovery after surgery), possibly because he was so depressed that he didn't want to live with a colostomy or ileostomy, whichever it was. He received limited instruction and education in hospital.
In Britain they have Stoma Nurses who see the patients from the day after surgery and then forever, visiting them in their homes to check on how they're coping and to give advice and support. The Home Visitor Stoma Nurse wasn't scheduled to see him until he'd been home for two weeks. He received little support and little education on stoma care and bag attachment and utilization except from my wife and myself, and while he brightened up for the duration of our visit and a couple of days afterwards, he then sank into depression again. Nobody intervened. I'm not happy about his treatment as you may have guessed, though I tried to get the Post Op people more involved.
(NT) See the difference between "new treatments" and "walking"?
Of course you well know that the ''walk''
was a fundraiser to pay for research to find new treatments for the disease. Fundraising has it's creative aspects and borrows from marketing practices. You know that. So why the need to pick nits? Yes, the truth is that ''walking'' is not a treatment or a cure. Anyone who says otherwise, technically, is reporting a lie. But an ill stated ''truth'' can do more harm to or capture a smaller following for ones cause than can a well stated lie. Your way of pointing out the truth here, I will say, is a good example of such. Where did I hear something about ''If you cannot say something nice........''
I think you are off base with prostate cancer
Prostate cancer needs a much greater priority because by the time they find it its usually too late
Often it is found early after an alert on a PSA test.
Your Stoma Nurses sound wonderful. Too good to be true as described indeed.
Prostate screening is more complex than that ...
I'm not much in favor of PSA screening and such because there are fundamental problems with current technology for screening.
There are two fundamental questions that have to be addressed:
(1) Does the screening test offer adequate discrimination between people who do and do not have the disease? PSA does poorly at this during the early stages of the disease.
(2) Does early intervention based on the results of the screening test actually improve disease outcomes? In the case of prostate cancer screening the data are conflicting and the answer is 'nobody really knows' but we will presumably have more information in a few years.
I'm not alone in my skepticism. Although there are groups (like most urologists) who advocate PSA screening, the best evidence-based reviewers (eg: USPSTF) do not recommend screening:
The National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the American Academy of Family Physicians have refrained from recommending for or against routine prostate cancer screening for those at low risk.
Prostate Cancer Screening
Most professional societies do not recommend routine screening for prostate cancer with DRE or serum tumor markers (e.g., PSA). These include the American Academy of Family Physicians, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement, the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, the American Society for Internal Medicine and American College of Physicians, the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the technology assessment agencies of Canada, England, Sweden, and Australia.