The Concussion Thread

[K92]

I played football.  Loved it.  If I was more athletic, I would have tried to play in college.  I actually still have a recurring nightmare where I decide not to play my Senior year and beg the coach to let me join the team late after the season started.

 

Both my nephews stopped playing football.  One played through 6th grade and the other played through 8th.  I tried to talk them out of it but they wanted to concentrate on baseball and basketball instead.  I am afraid they will regret not playing when they grow up.

 

So, I guess in a long-winded-beat-around-the-bush way I am saying I am an advocate of kids playing. ???

[CDMac]

I am an advocate of playing organized sports and specifically think football is the best of all of them in regards to teaching life lessons.

 

Of course I am also an adrenaline junkie & former Marine who's done many things much less safe than football in my 46 years (and enjoyed every one of them).

 

I look at all the hoopla surrounding the dangers of sports as sort of a natural selection process to some degree.

 

Sure we'll lose some great athletes along the way but the majority of kids that don't play because of their parents' objections probably wouldn't be the next coming of Deacon Jones, Randy White, Lawrence Taylor, or JJWatt anyway.

 

I guess I just feel like some kids will probably miss out on playing the greatest sport on earth but I don't have a desire to try to change their (or their parents') minds.

[Balsy]

3 hours ago, CDMac said:

I am an advocate of playing organized sports and specifically think football is the best of all of them in regards to teaching life lessons.

 

Which life lessons are those?  That adults with something to gain personally; will manipulate, scheme and otherwise rig things in order to guarantee the personal benefit?  Not to be a downer, but I have personally witnessed the, frankly, immoral manipulation/bending of academics and rules/standards held to other students; by adults in order to give byes to student athletes (mostly basketball and football).  I too am supporter because I can see the benefit, however I do think it's important to be cautiously vigilant 

[Balsy]

I guess the bottom-line here is that this in the end boils down to an assessment of risk-management.  Science can only tell us the data-driven probability...the chance...of something occurring based on current understanding.  What risk people decide to act on is ultimately up to them.  There is less than 1% chance your house will ever be robbed, yet most people act on that less than 1% risk and make sure they have insurance to cover it in case that it does.  The risk of pregnancy complications doubles after the age of 35 for women, from 0.04% to 0.08% (yes that's hundredths of a single percent), yet people act on that Risk, hell even freak out about that risk!

 

I'd argue that most likely those who play football are most likely at a higher risk for developing CTE than the general population.  How much so, and how much risk is what is currently unknown.  That is where Risk-management comes into play.  How many parents will encourage other sports over football.  Science can't tell us at which % you should act.  It can only tell us "hey watch out, there's a % chance of X, Y or Z occurring."  What you do as a result of that information is up to you.

 

 

[Spin]

The biggest problem with the research is that it ONLY DEALS WITH FOOTBALL.

 

So we have all these parents who mean well, who put their kids in soccer or baseball or volleyball, let them ride bicycles or horses or skateboards, drive cars, and do any of a number of other things that cause concussions. 

 

Is there a research program on concussions from repeated headers in soccer? Beanings in baseball? Is ESPN doing documentaries on the serious head injuries from hockey? 

 

No. 

 

Someone has a hard on for football, and skewing the research. Personally I've had worse symptoms from firefighter training accidents than my years playing football. Where's that research? How many fire dogs have been diagnosed with PTSD when it's really physical trauma?

Edited September 20, 2017 by Spin

[Balsy]

21 hours ago, Spin said:

The biggest problem with the research is that it ONLY DEALS WITH FOOTBALL.

 

So we have all these parents who mean well, who put their kids in soccer or baseball or volleyball, let them ride bicycles or horses or skateboards, drive cars, and do any of a number of other things that cause concussions. 

 

Is there a research program on concussions from repeated headers in soccer? Beanings in baseball? Is ESPN doing documentaries on the serious head injuries from hockey? 

 

No. 

 

Someone has a hard on for football, and skewing the research. Personally I've had worse symptoms from firefighter training accidents than my years playing football. Where's that research? How many fire dogs have been diagnosed with PTSD when it's really physical trauma?

 

Which I've pointed out before, and it's completely valid.  We don't know the static rate of CTE occurring in the general population either.  However, I offer a caveat because CTE was first observed in former boxers, and was later found in people of high contact sports (football, rugby, ice hocky, etc).  From my limited troll through the science research I haven't come across studies on former soccer players.

 

The problem with research is that it's mostly voluntary, and you must be dead in order for it to be confirmed.  Symptoms of people whom are given the post-mortem diagnosis of CTE are consistent, and fall within a predictable range.  The problem is, however, how do you separate the static occurrence of these symptoms vs. the random appearance of them in the general population.  However even with that in mind, it does appear that donated brains of former high contact sports listed above do in fact show a higher rate of CTE and other related brain trauma, than donated brains of other walks of life; which is what sparked the curiosity in the first place.
 

But I think it's also misleading to say that because we don't fully understand the static occurrence of a phenomena, or it's comparative diagnosis across all contact sports, doesn't mean that there isn't an increased risk that we can be highly confident about.  The reason Football is focused on, is because it is a high contact sport, that does involved a higher rate of incidental head contact.  It is known that CTE is caused by repeated head trauma, and there are an estimated 17.1 million people (mostly children) playing some sort of organized football in the US; making it more than legitimate and prudent to study.

 

The way the research is conducted is very similar to smoking and the link to cancer spin.  For nearly 30-years there was a corporate campaign against good science making similar arguments:  We don't know the static occurrence of lung cancer in all walks of life, therefore it's premature to act.  Anytime there is a "therefore" statement, it's a value-based judgement on risk-management.  Etymologically you'd have to be crazy to not research the connection between smoking and cancer because of the reported cases of lounge cancer in smokers.

The research, however, is rather conclusive that head trauma = bad.  You don't need to have studied the brain directly to observe this phenomena with boxers, and the higher diagnosis of brain related ailments that exists with them.  And it's something that I think people are beginning to think about.  Am I willing to risk my brain for X, Y, Z?  Is it worth the risk?  Even if the increased risk is small?  Not everyone who smokes develops lung cancer, but is it worth the increased risk?  Those are all questions of risk-management and are value-based.  Science can't tell you what to think, it can only report the relative chance of something happening.  The ESPN's of the world polarize the issue, because that's what media does.  They do it on Evolution, Climate Change, Smoking (once upon a time), Lead contamination (once upon a time), and now CTE; despite the science behind it being pretty well founded.

 

Addiction, brain chemistry, also has strong connections to habitual conditioning during adolescent brain development, putting adolescents at a higher risk of developing addictions.  Which is logical, because if you're tampering with brain chemistry/homeostasis during development...you should almost expect something to happen.  Which is another, legitimate, reason to target research to a sport that involves lots of children that is high contact, and involves a lot of incidental head trauma.  So the science research is unfounded.  

I'll leave with this: my own personal assessment of risk management.  Say it is found that 0.1% of those who play football competitively end up later in life being diagnosed with CTE.  There are 17.1 million people who play this year, making that number 17,100 people with CTE from playing a game....am I willing to take that risk?  That's better odds than winning the lottery.  Am I willing to risk my brain, to play that game competitively?  I'm not sure that I am.  With my luck, I would be the 0.001% .  But that's personal assessment of risk-management.  

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Balsy

[skip-zip]

9 hours ago, Spin said:

The biggest problem with the research is that it ONLY DEALS WITH FOOTBALL.

 

Someone has a hard on for football

 

As we all know today, the media can create a public frenzy about anything they choose, and put fuel on a fire that may not have started otherwise.  And too many people will believe whatever they are told, without considering any of the other points that some of you guys have mentioned.  

 

Football will be the target for now....until the public's interest in the topic fades, and the media moves on to something else that generates paper and magazine sales, and Website visitors.  Maybe it will be the impact of Soccer Headers.  Maybe it will be the impact on your body as a basketball player from increasing your Vertical Jump by almost a foot in 6 months.  Who knows.  

Edited September 20, 2017 by skip-zip

[LZIp]

I feel like I'm "liking" skip's posts too much recently....not sure what has gotten into me.

[CDMac]

14 hours ago, Balsy said:

Which life lessons are those?

Although I think this was a quasi-rhetorical question, I'll bite.

 

In no particular order and certainly not an exhaustive list:

• Learning teamwork
• Being focused on and dedicated to something bigger than self
• Server others
• Gaining an appreciating for hard work
• Setting, working toward, and (hopefully) achieving goals
• Coming to understand how discipline impacts performance
• How to face and overcome adversity

I understand your cynicism and share some of those frustrations regarding the complicated and sometimes nefarious system surrounding student athletes. 

 

I just want mine to enjoy his time playing this game, give everything he has to his team and his teammates, and to get his education so that he can go on to enjoy life after football; whenever that may come.

Edited September 20, 2017 by CDMac

[CDMac]

53 minutes ago, LZIp said:

I feel like I'm "liking" skip's posts too much recently....not sure what has gotten into me.

 Kangaroo milk maybe?

 

[skip-zip]

1 hour ago, LZIp said:

I feel like I'm "liking" skip's posts too much recently.

 

 That's a good morning laugh.

 

Even if some choose to comment more often about the things they don't agree on, and want to argue about, I think everyone would have to admit that there's a lot that we all actually agree on.  

[Balsy]

3 hours ago, CDMac said:

I just want mine to enjoy his time playing this game, give everything he has to his team and his teammates, and to get his education so that he can go on to enjoy life after football; whenever that may come.

 

I agree completely.  With this part.

[Z.I.P.]

19 hours ago, Spin said:

The biggest problem with the research is that it ONLY DEALS WITH FOOTBALL.

 

So we have all these parents who mean well, who put their kids in soccer or baseball or volleyball, let them ride bicycles or horses or skateboards, drive cars, and do any of a number of other things that cause concussions. 

 

Is there a research program on concussions from repeated headers in soccer? Beanings in baseball? Is ESPN doing documentaries on the serious head injuries from hockey? 

 

No. 

 

Someone has a hard on for football, and skewing the research. Personally I've had worse symptoms from firefighter training accidents than my years playing football. Where's that research? How many fire dogs have been diagnosed with PTSD when it's really physical trauma?

The medical research industry is a multi-billion $$ industry.  This is just one report on soccer concussions caused by heading the football.  There have been a number of such studies,  In fact, there are a number of studies just on the injurious prevalence of goalkeepers breathing in rubber pellet dust from artificial turf fields.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/health/soccer-headers-concussion-study/

[Balsy]

I put a lot more work into that previous post than I realize it did...clearly not well received?  

[CDMac]

51 minutes ago, Balsy said:

I put a lot more work into that previous post than I realize it did...clearly not well received?  

Too long...

 

We are now conditioned to 30-45 second attention spans.

 

Anything resembling a coherent paragraph, let alone several of them, will be passed over. ??

 

Just a guess.

[odhgibo]

Great posts can be ruined by simple math errors -- 0.001% of 17,100,000 = 17.1, not 17,100.

 

Good post overall, though.

[Balsy]

9 minutes ago, odhgibo said:

Great posts can be ruined by simple math errors -- 0.001% of 17,100,000 = 17.1, not 17,100.

 

Good post overall, though.

 Indeed, my mistake.  I wasn't paying attention to that stat that closely, I shall correct it to 0.1% ...so 1/10 of 1% making the 17,100,000 x 0.001 (which is what I had envisioned when I was writing at 5 this morning...).

Edited September 20, 2017 by Balsy

[Spin]

12 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

Which I've pointed out before, and it's completely valid.  We don't know the static rate of CTE occurring in the general population either.  However, I offer a caveat because CTE was first observed in former boxers, and was later found in people of high contact sports (football, rugby, ice hocky, etc).  From my limited troll through the science research I haven't come across studies on former soccer players.

 

We know that soccer players do suffer from concussions, we don't know how often. They're not going to say anything that might get them pulled from the game. As much of a worldwide sport soccer is, it surprises me that it's not being studied further.

 

And it's ironic a lot of parents are pushing their kids toward soccer as an alternative to football, in part because of the media, it might not be a hell of a lot safer.

 

12 hours ago, Balsy said:

The problem with research is that it's mostly voluntary, and you must be dead in order for it to be confirmed. Symptoms of people whom are given the post-mortem diagnosis of CTE are consistent, and fall within a predictable range.  The problem is, however, how do you separate the static occurrence of these symptoms vs. the random appearance of them in the general population.  However even with that in mind, it does appear that donated brains of former high contact sports listed above do in fact show a higher rate of CTE and other related brain trauma, than donated brains of other walks of life; which is what sparked the curiosity in the first place.

 

There definitely is a strong correlation between post traumatic symptoms among football players, and the evidence with the CTE testing is further proof.

 

I've seen people question the use of steroids and PED's, or drugs. But we don't see the same tendencies in other athletes.

 

12 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

But I think it's also misleading to say that because we don't fully understand the static occurrence of a phenomena, or it's comparative diagnosis across all contact sports, doesn't mean that there isn't an increased risk that we can be highly confident about.  The reason Football is focused on, is because it is a high contact sport, that does involved a higher rate of incidental head contact.  It is known that CTE is caused by repeated head trauma, and there are an estimated 17.1 million people (mostly children) playing some sort of organized football in the US; making it more than legitimate and prudent to study.

 

The research, however, is rather conclusive that head trauma = bad.  You don't need to have studied the brain directly to observe this phenomena with boxers, and the higher diagnosis of brain related ailments that exists with them.  And it's something that I think people are beginning to think about.  Am I willing to risk my brain for X, Y, Z?  Is it worth the risk?  Even if the increased risk is small?  Not everyone who smokes develops lung cancer, but is it worth the increased risk?  Those are all questions of risk-management and are value-based.  Science can't tell you what to think, it can only report the relative chance of something happening.  The ESPN's of the world polarize the issue, because that's what media does.  They do it on Evolution, Climate Change, Smoking (once upon a time), Lead contamination (once upon a time), and now CTE; despite the science behind it being pretty well founded.

 

That probably is the reason the spotlight is on football. The sheer numbers, and the violence involved. 

 

12 hours ago, Balsy said:

 

Addiction, brain chemistry, also has strong connections to habitual conditioning during adolescent brain development, putting adolescents at a higher risk of developing addictions.  Which is logical, because if you're tampering with brain chemistry/homeostasis during development...you should almost expect something to happen.  Which is another, legitimate, reason to target research to a sport that involves lots of children that is high contact, and involves a lot of incidental head trauma.  So the science research is unfounded.  

I'll leave with this: my own personal assessment of risk management.  Say it is found that 0.001% of those who play football competitively end up later in life being diagnosed with CTE.  There are 17.1 million people who play this year, making that number 17,100 people with CTE from playing a game....am I willing to take that risk?  That's better odds than winning the lottery.  Am I willing to risk my brain, to play that game competitively?  I'm not sure that I am.  With my luck, I would be the 0.001% .  But that's personal assessment of risk-management.  

 

 

It's a risk-reward type of thing. Being a football player in school, a race car driver, firefighter, etc there is a thrill involved, and part of that is the risk. There is a goal that you are working toward and a feeling of accomplishment if you do. But there's also that chance that things could turn out bad. Which is a thrill for some in itself. Another lure is the comraderie among football teammates and firefighters that I have not seen anywhere else besides the military (I wasn't in the military FTR). But that's another subject. Or is it? Maybe that all comes from the same part of the brain.

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[Dr Z]

Aaron Hernandez Found to Have Severe C.T.E.

 

Aaron Hernandez, the former New England Patriots tight end who committed suicide in April while serving a life sentence for murder, was found to have a severe form of C.T.E., the degenerative brain disease linked to repeated head trauma that has been found in more than 100 former N.F.L. players.

Researchers who examined the brain determined it was “the most severe case they had ever seen in someone of Aaron’s age,” said a lawyer for Hernandez in announcing the result at a news conference on Thursday. Hernandez was 27. C.T.E., or chronic traumatic encephalopathy, can be diagnosed only posthumously. Hernandez is the latest former N.F.L. player to have committed suicide and then been found to have C.T.E., joining Dave Duerson, Junior Seau, Andre Waters, Ray Easterling and Jovan Belcher, among others. Seau and Duerson shot themselves in the chest, apparently so that researchers would be able to examine their brain. Hernandez was found hanging in his prison cell.

[LZIp]

Did Hernandez commit suicide because he had CTE or because he was in prison the rest of his life?

[Spin]

Interesting question.

 

Was he a violent man because he was a football player, or was he a successful football player because he was a violent man?

 

Can the family sue the Patriots and the NFL without pinpointing when he developed CTE?

 

Was it in high school? College? Was he in a lot of fights outside the sport?

[Balsy]

3 hours ago, Spin said:

Interesting question.

 

Was he a violent man because he was a football player, or was he a successful football player because he was a violent man?

 

Can the family sue the Patriots and the NFL without pinpointing when he developed CTE?

 

Was it in high school? College? Was he in a lot of fights outside the sport?

 

I think it is completely logical to make the connection between football and CTE in the case of Aaron Hernandez.  CTE is not a "when you developed" condition, it's a cummulative condition with varying levels of severity, severity increasing with the constant exposure to head trauma, like boxing (which is the first instances of it's discovery).  One could make the argument "how do we know it wasn't some other thing that boxers were doing?" and it'd be rather illogical.  

 

How do we know there is a link between smoking and lung cancer: not all lung cancers are caused by smoking, but the majority are because lung cancer can be the result of constant exposure to carcinogenic chemicals being breathed in.  Lex Parsimoniae, the simplest solution is most likely the correct one.  

[Balsy]

My morning news reading turned up this from BU:   Study suggests link between youth football & later-life emotional, behavioral impairment

 

"This study adds to growing research suggesting that incurring repeated head impacts through tackle football before the age of 12 can lead to a greater risk for short- and long-term neurological consequences," said Michael Alosco, PhD, lead author of the study and a post-doctoral fellow at Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM).
 

However, more research on this topic is needed before any recommendations on policy or rule changes can be made," stated corresponding author Robert Stern, PhD, professor of neurology, neurosurgery and anatomy and neurobiology at BUSM.

 

The researchers point out there are many important health and psychosocial benefits of participating in athletics and team sports during pre-adolescence.

 

Certainly good research, I'm interested in seeing a larger sample size of course.

[Zipgrad01]

6 hours ago, Balsy said:

My morning news reading turned up this from BU:   Study suggests link between youth football & later-life emotional, behavioral impairment

 

"This study adds to growing research suggesting that incurring repeated head impacts through tackle football before the age of 12 can lead to a greater risk for short- and long-term neurological consequences," said Michael Alosco, PhD, lead author of the study and a post-doctoral fellow at Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM).
 

However, more research on this topic is needed before any recommendations on policy or rule changes can be made," stated corresponding author Robert Stern, PhD, professor of neurology, neurosurgery and anatomy and neurobiology at BUSM.

 

The researchers point out there are many important health and psychosocial benefits of participating in athletics and team sports during pre-adolescence.

 

Certainly good research, I'm interested in seeing a larger sample size of course.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.menshealth.com/guy-wisdom/women-prefer-dad-bod%3famp

 

This study (survey) also says that women prefer dad-bods. In what world do they live in where anyone believes this nonsense? I see women flocking to the theater to watch fat guys dance and strip on stage. I guess what I am trying to say is that to me studies are worth about as much as an AJ Milwee offensive game plan. Two months later someone will issue another study that is a 180 from this one. 

[Balsy]

On 9/22/2017 at 11:49 AM, Zipgrad01 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.menshealth.com/guy-wisdom/women-prefer-dad-bod%3famp

 

This study (survey) also says that women prefer dad-bods. In what world do they live in where anyone believes this nonsense? I see women flocking to the theater to watch fat guys dance and strip on stage. I guess what I am trying to say is that to me studies are worth about as much as an AJ Milwee offensive game plan. Two months later someone will issue another study that is a 180 from this one. 

 

False equivalency.  A survey (where you ask people what they think) isn't very scientific.  It can be, if you can control for a myriad of variables.  

 

The study I linked from BU followed people in their lives after football, and found the results they did.  It's just like with smoking.  Not all lung cancers are caused by smoking tobacco.  But smoking tobacco puts you at a higher risk for developing it.  You find that out by tracing the smoking and non-smoking subjects over time, and see what the comparison is.  In all statistical research you can run a myriad of tests to tell weather your data is significant or not; factoring in deviations, outliers etc.

 

Men's health magazine is hardly a peer-reviewed medical research journal.  So yeah, better luck next time.  See my next post.