The Atlantic: Football Alters the Brains of Kids as Young as 8. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwoIeDkTA
Printable View
The Atlantic: Football Alters the Brains of Kids as Young as 8. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwoIeDkTA
I have not read a serious suggestion of mandating helmets for soccer. No heading of the ball until they reach an age where the neck muscles are capable of resisting the weight of the ball sounds reasonable. Also kids don't always know how to properly head the ball. Why not wait until they reach an age where their skill level allows them to do it properly. This will have little impact on the game, kids will still learn the most important skills and can easily pick up heading at an appropriate age.
As someone with a close family member whose brain scans look worse than most long term NFL players due to repetitive concussions, it sucks. Like really, really sucks.
I think sports like football or boxing, where the risk is just huge, should have age limitations for people deciding to start the sport. It could be like deciding to smoke, you've gotta be 18 to play full contact.
That is great. Little turd wasn't even watching the game, too busy with his dam phone.Quote:
Originally Posted by steff
To be clear, there is no way to diagnose Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) with xray's, or scans. From the Mayo Clinic:Quote:
Originally Posted by single
"There is currently no reliable way to diagnose CTE. A diagnosis requires evidence of degeneration of brain tissue and deposits of tau and other proteins in the brain that can be seen only upon inspection after death (autopsy). Some researchers are actively trying to find a test for CTE that can be used while people are alive. Others continue to study the brains of deceased individuals who may have had CTE, such as football players"
As a follow up scans do not detect concussions. Bleeding in the brain which can accompany severe concussions will show up. That is why most concussions are not followed up with imaging unless there is some reason to suspect another injury, bleeding, fracture etc. The sub-concussive repetitive blows that are suspected of being a contributor to CTE will never show up. The defective TAU protein that they find in the brains of NFL football players that "muck" up their brains are also present in the brains of Alzheimer victims. If they could test for this then Alzheimer's would be easy to diagnose, it is not. They still use cognitive testing to confirm the diagnosis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdude2468
And if that is inconclusive, they PM Rontele
This is my experience of it, both as a former player, and now a parent/coach.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightRanger
Headers don't foster good technique. We should have young kids playing the ball on the ground, quick passing. Not boot the ball and head it.
I think the new rules for kids are going to make better footballers when kids are forced learn to play more technically.
Bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmm...pow!
But seriously I can't believe people are in here saying - 'kid took a direct hit to the head, seemed fine to me' Somehow your dumbass ability to detect internal damage outweighs medical science and medical research. Yeah you as some Dad coach can see that everything is fine. Just like every Dad in 1940 would have had no problem with lead based paint.
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l5...m_detector.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick
Agree with the rest though.
This reminded me of something. I'm coaching my kids soccer team this year and was reminded by a league rep about the no heading rule. My response was: "Most of the time their heads make contact with the ball it's completely unintentional." I've definitely seen some good blind-sided shots to the face this season... oh man.Quote:
Originally Posted by steff
Girl that played in the area takes one to the face in volleyball.
That needs to get turned into a .gif
sports change--instant replay, designated hitter, the trapezoid, the live ball, the 3 point line, etc, etc. Soccer would still be soccer without heading. Football is a bigger problem. I would be surprised if 25 years from now we are still playing football the way it is played today. It will still be football but it will look a lot different.
For starters--forget about defenseless player. You hit the head of a defenseless player you're ejected. Two non-defenseless players hit head on, they both get ejected. They'll figure out how to keep their heads out of the way in a hurry.
I used to work with an ex pro (offensive center) who's career was ended when a couple of opposing players purposely injured him and they admitted to it, one went high one went low and that was the end of the knee
I know nothing about volleyball, but it appears the rest of her team in the black jerseys were kinda pissed that she switched sides and were targetting her. She could learn a thing or two from this guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TNKen
https://youtu.be/oY2nVQNlUB8
He's got no issues heading a soccer ball, either
https://youtu.be/8F9jXYOH2c0
She is the libero, a purely defensive player that can substitute on the back row at will. Jersey must be totally different that the rest of her team.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmmm...pow!
This gets a big "meh" from me. I've been coaching for the past 15 yrs and have a B license. I spend very, very little time "coaching" heading. I spend much more time on technical and tactical passing. In light of the new rules I'll spend more time coaching chest traps to my younger players and eventually coach heading to kids as they get older... I like the emphasis but think USSF has gone a little far. When I grew up playing we were coached to not let the ball hit the ground on a goal/drop kick. Playing defense into college I took a TON of balls off the head. Only concussions I ever got were from hitting the ground. The ball is pretty safe, the players around you, not so much...
Based on the current research you or no one else has any idea if the sub-concussive impacts you received as a youth will result in cognitive impairment. Hopefully when you are old and gray you are not drinking soup through a straw.
I've been playing for 40 years now, coaching my daughter for 7. I have NEVER seen a concussion from a properly headed ball. Hitting the ground, elbows, other heads, goalposts, yes. Call it 40 years of antecdotal evidence if you like, but the drive to keep playing is the thing that has kept me in shape long after most of my peers from my youth have given in to the beer gut.
It is anecdotal. The best science can offer is that CTE does occur without concussions. Sub-concussive impacts, the kind from heading a soccer ball, football lineman who "bump" on every play can result in the development of CTE. One theory is that the full blown concussions may not be any worse than many smaller impacts as the disease is the result of cumulative impacts. Former NFL QB Jim McMahon has a serious issue with cognitive skills. As a QB he was certainly hit and tackled but not nearly as often as wide receivers, running backs, linebackers or DB's who are hitting / getting hit far more often than a QB.Quote:
Originally Posted by boarddad
As I mentioned before not developing CTE from multiple concussions only means you are lucky. There are certainly other factors and some people are just more likely than others to suffer the consequences.
RIP Vine.Quote:
Originally Posted by irul&ublo
Think of the brain as a boob, a firm one, not an old floppy one. Then attach it to a rubber garden hose for support and stuff it in the skull. Surround it by a thin layer of fluid.
Body, head, and boob are in motion, and the skull stops. Boob slams forward, impacts the front of the skull, rebounds, striking the rear of the skull.
Body, head and boob are stationary, and the skull is impacted, skull moves, boob remains stationary, and the skull strikes the boob, etc.
Depending on the impact, the boob is bruised a little, a lot, or it may bleed. Boob is not happy.
Just thought I would provide an illustrative example that some of you can follow and understand.
This is why helmets have limited effectiveness in preventing concussions or the danger from sub concussive impacts. The head stops moving and the brain slams into the skull...Quote:
Originally Posted by TNKen
the helmet has padding which compresses as the head moves into it. this slows the rate of deceleration of the head, which means the brain doesn't hit the skull quite as hard. the rigidity of the foam is a compromise--too hard and it doesn't compress at all, too soft and for harder blows it doesn't slow the head until the head impacts the shell of the helmet, so the deceleration is rapid. One can overcome softer foam by making it thicker but obviously there is a practical limit. the result of all this is that a helmet does reduce the severity of head injuries somewhat. A soft padded helmet will reduce injury with milder blows; with more rigid padding it will do nothing for milder blows but help more with more severe ones. How much injury is prevented or reduced is impossible to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdude2468
As your doctor, I think you have CTE. It's the only explanation for how you could chime in after it's been patiently explained that cumulative NON concussive impacts may lead to CTE...and you start posting anecdotal derpa derp about not seeing any concussions. :fmicon:Quote:
Originally Posted by 1080Rider
Obvious result of too much soccer...
http://youtu.be/evlrs5Bi_6E
This is not a direct comparison but here is what researchers are saying about the effect of ski helmets on head injuries, not much.. It has been suggested that helmets in football is the primary reason for the increase in concussions. Players would not launch themselves if they did have helmets with a face mask protecting them.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
The increase in helmet use has had positive results. Experts say helmets have reduced the numbers of less serious head injuries, like scalp lacerations, by 30 percent to 50 percent. But growing evidence indicates that helmets do not prevent some more serious injuries, like the tearing of delicate brain tissue, said Jasper Shealy, a professor emeritus at Rochester Institute of Technology.
Shealy, who has been studying snow-sports-related injuries at Sugarbush resort in Vermont for more than 30 years, said that could be because those injuries typically involve a rotational component that today’s helmets cannot mitigate. He said his research had not found any decline in what he called P.S.H.I.’s, for potentially serious head injuries, a classification that includes concussion, skull fracture, closed head injury, traumatic brain injury and death by head injury.
In fact, some studies indicate that the number of snow-sports-related head injuries has increased. A 2012 study at the Western Michigan University School of Medicine on head injuries among skiers and snowboarders in the United States found that the number of head injuries increased 60 percent in a seven-year period, from 9,308 in 2004 to 14,947 in 2010, even as helmet use increased by an almost identical percentage over the same period. A March 2013 study by the University of Washington concluded that the number of snow-sports-related head injuries among youths and adolescents increased 250 percent from 1996 to 2010.
Photo
Anecdotally they think helmets might be adding a false sense of security which is encouraging reckless behavior. While helmets may be a part of this I suspect better equipment is encouraging higher speeds. I see more novice skiers getting into terrain that they would never have skied 20 years ago on skinny 195 cm boards. The stability of wide skis with rocker, camber, space age components has to play a part.
We all should just wear one of these around 24/7
As I said before--football helmets probably do increase head injuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdude2468
As far as increases in head injuries in skiing--looking at raw numbers is meaningless. As you said better skis increase speeds, especially by people who can't handle the speed. A bigger cause is probably the increasing prevalence of videos, movies, and ads showing people skiing at breathtaking speed and doing increasingly insane aerials--stuff that people copy.
There's no way to know if a helmet made a concussion a little milder or a more severe head injury a little less severe in an individual case. My guess is that helmets reduce the incidence or severity of mild or very mild concussions--the kind that never get reported or make it to an ER but can cumulatively cause CTE--but not more serious injuries. But there's no real data on their effectiveness and I doubt there will ever be.
I understand your thoughts on helmets reducing the severity of concussions, seems only logical. However the experts don't agree.
But growing evidence indicates that helmets do not prevent some more serious injuries, like the tearing of delicate brain tissue, said Jasper Shealy, a professor emeritus at Rochester Institute of Technology.
how does that disagree? ". . .helmets do not prevent SOME more SERIOUS head injuries." Doesn't say they don't prevent any. Doesn't say they don't reduce severity. Says nothing about mild head injuries. You seem to want to extrapolate that sentence you quote to say that helmets do no good at all when the sentence says nothing of the sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdude2468
I got a Smith with the koroyd straws for road biking. Good research still isn't there though, unfortunately. I had a code though and it looks cool as fuck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Might be hard to totally quantify but this would indicate that helmets have had no effect on the number of concussions with the use of helmets while skiing.
He said his research had not found any decline in what he called P.S.H.I.’s, for potentially serious head injuries, a classification that includes concussion, skull fracture, closed head injury, traumatic brain injury and death by head injury.
[Sigh]. No it doesn't. Without factoring number of skier/boarder man hours, average speeds, prevalence of tree skiing, park skiing, and jumping, etc, etc--the raw number of injuries is meaningless. Another factor that has to be considered is the increased interest and concern with sports head injuries, which will result in increasing numbers of injuries being reported--injuries that in the past would not have been reported. Football is a great example of this. In any given week there are a number of players out of action because of concussions. Twenty years ago how many do you think there would have been--zero or close to it, because nobody paid any attention to concussions, they just kept playing. And finally, a mild concussion that is made a little milder by a helmet, or a cerebral hemmorhage that bleeds a little less still shows up in a study as an injury. But I've already explained most of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdude2468
You keep throwing quotes at us. Maybe I missed it, but would you please share the source.
Here are four articles from peer reviewed medical journals that do a show a reduction in head injuries in helmet wearers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27531522
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26827559
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23117389
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16493105
Note that there is some overlap here--a couple of review articles which may reference some of the same original studies. I haven't read the full studies so I don't know what methodologic problems they might have. Also, it's important to understand what 60% reduction--the highest degree of benefit cited means. If you have 10 skiers with helmets and 10 without and all of the skiers without have head injuries but only 4 of those with, that's a 60% reduction--a huge benefit. If you have 100,000 skiers in each group with 10 head injuries in the helmetless group and 4 in the helmet group--you have the same 60% reduction. Is that enough to justify 100,000 people wearing helmets. A lot harder to say. So one has to look at the actual numbers of people benefitted, not just percentages. This is a common problem in reading medical studies. Data is usually summarized as relative risk reduction--the way it is in the examples I just gave, assuming the researcher wants to show a benefit or a difference. But someone trying to understand the magnitude of the benefit or difference would want to look at the absolute risk reduction. In the case of the 100,000 skier study that would be 0.006%.
word. not a fan of the rule change. def no pro but played this game since 6, still playing and just have played a shit ton of games and can see how its changed the game a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1080Rider
my 10 yr old can play and its a blast watching him on his club team and he’s scored headers off crosses and corners before but with the rule change, it has been an adjustment for him. to someone’s earlier point, the philosophy is different now and the opportunities are less but absolutely still exist. i’ve told him to still head in crosses and corners on occasion in practice and his coach is cool about it because he knows its another component to his game that he will need soon. if its taught and practiced properly, they are some of the best goals you can score. diving headers, those sweet little skimmers that just mess with the gk enough to get by, redirects and of course a corner. a dangerous weapon imo
a big problem with the rule change is how its being enforced. or not. was at one tournament this summer where in quarters, heading was allowed, semis no heading, final you could head the ball again? just sat, at his first indoor game and after no whistles on two headers in middle of the field and then not again on an obvious headed shot. guess heading is on this session?
it was enforced in fall outdoor but you can see especially in the defensive half, the indecision it causes with the kids at times. not saying its a ton but when normally they’d just clear it, or head away a high bouncing ball or a defensive header of a throw in at certain times, you see kids not sure how to approach or attack the ball or hesitate. i would say there are usually a couple of headed balls each game, not many and sometimes none. it also changes corner and indirect kick strategy. never saw so many short corners as i have this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdude2468
i will say a positive result of the rule change is its forced my boys to learn how to chest trap the ball pretty well.
just think if you don’t want to head the ball, don’t. no one is making your kid head punts, goal and corner kicks or even at all but don’t take away a very effective method of scoring for those who want to head the ball. its not for everyone. i’m teaching the boys to head the ball in offensive positions when those opportunities present themselves and defending throw in’s for counterattacks but do tell them to keep away from heading punts and goal kicks, and just use your abilities to get it on the ground as quickly as you can.
I agree, I competed in Freestyle skiing for years, and sustained several concussions and even a KO, Dr. Mark Gordon has done extensive reaserch on Traumatic brain injury. and talks about how prolonged exposure ie. boxing, MMA and even water skiing can cause brain injury. Pretty interesting info.
Not saying we should wrap our selfs in bubble wrap and hide in the corner shredding newspaper but should take care of our noodle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grskier