Football Head Injuries

[iamshack]

Yes, it's out there.

 

As for your last paragraph, you can do those things without football. Plenty of other activities. Stop turning this into a football OR nothing debate.

 

The data and the stories on TV have been out there. Everyone can use Google, and then make decisions for themselves as a parent.

 

 

That's exactly the case.

It is not out there.

 

Show me a study where it clearly shows that children who play pop warner football are at some increased risk for traumatic brain injuries or other adverse health affects later in life.

 

"Stories" are just stories. You can find a story for anything.

 

And it is a football or nothing debate if your child happens to love playing football or be incredibly gifted at it.

 

You played hockey, right?

[southsider2k5]

It is not out there.

 

Show me a study where it clearly shows that children who play pop warner football are at some increased risk for traumatic brain injuries or other adverse health affects later in life.

 

"Stories" are just stories. You can find a story for anything.

 

And it is a football or nothing debate if your child happens to love playing football or be incredibly gifted at it.

 

You played hockey, right?

 

It is worth a watch.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/league-of-denial/

[IlliniKrush]

It is not out there.

 

Show me a study where it clearly shows that children who play pop warner football are at some increased risk for traumatic brain injuries or other adverse health affects later in life.

 

"Stories" are just stories. You can find a story for anything.

 

And it is a football or nothing debate if your child happens to love playing football or be incredibly gifted at it.

 

You played hockey, right?

There are studies out there that clearly point to it being dangerous. You can dismiss anything you want at this point because we don't have 100 years of data, I guess. Your choice.

 

No, it's not football or nothing. There are other sports or activities. And he's only good at it if you let him play in the first place. Your kid might love juggling knives, but it doesn't mean you have to let him do it. Who's in charge?

 

Yes, I played hockey. I know where you're going, but it's not going to end how you expect it to.

[Harry Chappas]

There are studies out there that clearly point to it being dangerous. You can dismiss anything you want at this point because we don't have 100 years of data, I guess. Your choice.

 

No, it's not football or nothing. There are other sports or activities. And he's only good at it if you let him play in the first place. Your kid might love juggling knives, but it doesn't mean you have to let him do it. Who's in charge?

 

Yes, I played hockey. I know where you're going, but it's not going to end how you expect it to.

 

Youth hockey and cheer-leading are just as dangerous as youth football if not more dangerous. Hockey players are moving faster than football player and rapid deceleration is greater in hockey than in football at a younger age which along with ice makes for a harder impact when you fall. One of the best wrestlers in high school had to quite the sport because of concussions.

 

Here is one of the more recent reports I read on this matter and it again basically says, nobody has a degree of certainty about what is going on or if any of this is even new.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/hea...a4dd_story.html

[ptatc]

The problem is...if the results can only be diagnosed post-mortem, in order to build up a statistically significant correlation, you'd need to establish 2 groups, one control and one playing football (preferably several groups playing for distinct lengths), record their concussions when they occur (which only has really happened the last few years), then wait 40 years for them to die.

 

It's pretty much impossible to make a statistically significant correlation in this case until better techniques of diagnosing brain injuries and long-term damage become available. If playing football increased the chances of CTE by 10,000%, right now we wouldn't be able to say there was a strong correlation.

Correct. That's why we need to find a way to determine CTE in living subjects. They are getting close to this and we should have it in the near future.

[ptatc]

Yes, it's out there.

 

As for your last paragraph, you can do those things without football. Plenty of other activities. Stop turning this into a football OR nothing debate.

 

The data and the stories on TV have been out there. Everyone can use Google, and then make decisions for themselves as a parent.

 

 

That's exactly the case.

It's being talked about, but there isn't any hard research behind it. There are tentative links and educated guess by the researchers but no research that shows a strong correlation, let alone a causal effect.

[ptatc]

There are studies out there that clearly point to it being dangerous. You can dismiss anything you want at this point because we don't have 100 years of data, I guess. Your choice.

 

No, it's not football or nothing. There are other sports or activities. And he's only good at it if you let him play in the first place. Your kid might love juggling knives, but it doesn't mean you have to let him do it. Who's in charge?

 

Yes, I played hockey. I know where you're going, but it's not going to end how you expect it to.

There are studies but no good results. As the discussion has said, since the only current data is post mortem there isn't a good relevant study.

However you are right it's a choice. But to make the choice based on the current evidence isn't really an informed choice. If you feel that way regardless of the evidence that's different.

[Balta1701]

It's being talked about, but there isn't any hard research behind it. There are tentative links and educated guess by the researchers but no research that shows a strong correlation, let alone a causal effect.

Again though..."no research showing a strong correlation" doesn't translate to "there is no strong correlation". There could be an immensely strong correlation and it would be nearly impossible to see with current studies and technology.

[ptatc]

Youth hockey and cheer-leading are just as dangerous as youth football if not more dangerous. Hockey players are moving faster than football player and rapid deceleration is greater in hockey than in football at a younger age which along with ice makes for a harder impact when you fall. One of the best wrestlers in high school had to quite the sport because of concussions.

 

Here is one of the more recent reports I read on this matter and it again basically says, nobody has a degree of certainty about what is going on or if any of this is even new.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/hea...a4dd_story.html

While it is true that no sport is immune, let's not kid ourselves, football has the highest rate of concussions per athlete. It doesn't have the highest rate of overall injuries but the rate of significant injuries (missing practice and game time) is highest in football.

[IlliniKrush]

Youth hockey and cheer-leading are just as dangerous as youth football if not more dangerous. Hockey players are moving faster than football player and rapid deceleration is greater in hockey than in football at a younger age which along with ice makes for a harder impact when you fall. One of the best wrestlers in high school had to quite the sport because of concussions.

 

Here is one of the more recent reports I read on this matter and it again basically says, nobody has a degree of certainty about what is going on or if any of this is even new.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/hea...a4dd_story.html

Hockey is certainly dangerous, too. It has the potential for bigger hits, but not as many are head shots, and there aren't the number of sub-concussive blows like there is in football on every play, especially for lineman.

 

You'd be kidding yourself if you don't think I'm hoping a lot more information comes out for hockey.

 

The one thing I found in that article which was odd was that there's a high concussion rate in women's hockey, since it's no-check. That obviously doesn't mean no contact, but no checking takes big hits out of the equation. That's pretty interesting.

 

There are studies but no good results. As the discussion has said, since the only current data is post mortem there isn't a good relevant study.

However you are right it's a choice. But to make the choice based on the current evidence isn't really an informed choice. If you feel that way regardless of the evidence that's different.

Disagree with that. There's plenty of information out there, even if it's not a complete black and white picture at this point. There's enough out there for me, and plenty of others. I don't need to be convinced to 100% certainty that I shouldn't let my kid play football. That's just where I draw my line, though.

[ptatc]

Again though..."no research showing a strong correlation" doesn't translate to "there is no strong correlation". There could be an immensely strong correlation and it would be nearly impossible to see with current studies and technology.

Ok. if you want to put it that way. However, the current research as is allowed does not show it. By your definition the rate of concussion and CTE in murder/death ball is higher but we can't study it because the league isn't invented yet. It could be there but we can't study it.

 

We can only make conclusions based on current information. The current information does not support it.

[ptatc]

Hockey is certainly dangerous, too. It has the potential for bigger hits, but not as many are head shots, and there aren't the number of sub-concussive blows like there is in football on every play, especially for lineman.

 

You'd be kidding yourself if you don't think I'm hoping a lot more information comes out for hockey.

 

The one thing I found in that article which was odd was that there's a high concussion rate in women's hockey, since it's no-check. That obviously doesn't mean no contact, but no checking takes big hits out of the equation. That's pretty interesting.

 

 

Disagree with that. There's plenty of information out there, even if it's not a complete black and white picture at this point. There's enough out there for me, and plenty of others. I don't need to be convinced to 100% certainty that I shouldn't let my kid play football. That's just where I draw my line, though.

No it's not there. There is no evidence. There are hypotheses and guesses but it's not there. Some of the researchers think that in time they'll find it but it's not there.

 

You can make the decision, that's fine but the evidence is not there.

 

edit: I you want to say you are going with the opinion of some of the researchers that this will eventually come out, that is one thing. However, as stated there isn't evidence yet, to support it.

Edited December 19, 2013 by ptatc

[RockRaines]

I dont like full contact sports for children until they get to HS level. I especially dont like how early some of those sports get kids doing weight training.

 

However, even as a soccer player I've had multiple concussions. I got one in HS and played 2 days later only to take another direct head shot that had me lights out.

[Balta1701]

Ok. if you want to put it that way. However, the current research as is allowed does not show it. By your definition the rate of concussion and CTE in murder/death ball is higher but we can't study it because the league isn't invented yet. It could be there but we can't study it.

 

We can only make conclusions based on current information. The current information does not support it.

But it also does not oppose it.

 

The right way to say it would be "The current information neither supports nor opposes it" or "it is currently inconclusive/statistically insignificant". Saying "It does not support it" is technically accurate but somewhat misleading when stated on its own.

[Rowand44]

I dont like full contact sports for children until they get to HS level. I especially dont like how early some of those sports get kids doing weight training.

 

However, even as a soccer player I've had multiple concussions. I got one in HS and played 2 days later only to take another direct head shot that had me lights out.

That's kind of a vicious cycle though. If you don't let kids play until they're older, they won't have been able to practice proper technique and that's going to make them more dangerous when they're bigger and stronger.

[ptatc]

But it also does not oppose it.

 

The right way to say it would be "The current information neither supports nor opposes it" or "it is currently inconclusive/statistically insignificant". Saying "It does not support it" is technically accurate but somewhat misleading when stated on its own.

I guess it's the researcher in me. I cannot support a conclusion unless there is evidence to support it. So saying I don't want my kid to play football based on this evidence to me is wrong, because there is no evidence. Right now I would say it opposes it because no research has found a causal relationship or even a correlation.

 

However, as stated people can make and should make their own decisions about their own children.

[Balta1701]

I guess it's the researcher in me. I cannot support a conclusion unless there is evidence to support it. So saying I don't want my kid to play football based on this evidence to me is wrong, because there is no evidence. Right now I would say it opposes it because no research has found a causal relationship or even a correlation.

Coming at that from a research perspective though...you also can't oppose a conclusion unless there is evidence to oppose it. We're in a case of "lack of applicable data", not one where there is strong counter evidence.

 

There are a number of ways I feel you could say it accurately without giving the connotation I'm coming down on you for. "Some researchers believe there is an increased risk associated with repeated head trauma, while others disagree, and current studies are insufficient to determine either way." or "The current science cannot offer an answer to the question as to whether you're putting your kid at risk".

[iamshack]

Hockey is certainly dangerous, too. It has the potential for bigger hits, but not as many are head shots, and there aren't the number of sub-concussive blows like there is in football on every play, especially for lineman.

 

You'd be kidding yourself if you don't think I'm hoping a lot more information comes out for hockey.

 

The one thing I found in that article which was odd was that there's a high concussion rate in women's hockey, since it's no-check. That obviously doesn't mean no contact, but no checking takes big hits out of the equation. That's pretty interesting.

 

 

Disagree with that. There's plenty of information out there, even if it's not a complete black and white picture at this point. There's enough out there for me, and plenty of others. I don't need to be convinced to 100% certainty that I shouldn't let my kid play football. That's just where I draw my line, though.

You play a sport where people shoot frozen pucks at speeds that reach the triple digits...are you going to disallow your child from playing hockey?

 

Where does one draw the line? At some arbitrary point.

 

I guess what I am saying is I haven't seen enough to draw any lines yet when it comes to playing football.

 

We all have or will have choices when it comes to our children, and I wouldn't criticize your choice to hold your kid out of football. I just think it's wrong for you to tell someone else to hold their kid out of football.

[ptatc]

Coming at that from a research perspective though...you also can't oppose a conclusion unless there is evidence to oppose it. We're in a case of "lack of applicable data", not one where there is strong counter evidence.

 

There are a number of ways I feel you could say it accurately without giving the connotation I'm coming down on you for. "Some researchers believe there is an increased risk associated with repeated head trauma, while others disagree, and current studies are insufficient to determine either way." or "The current science cannot offer an answer to the question as to whether you're putting your kid at risk".

I would still disagree but it's somewhat semantics. The hypothesis or research question here is cumulative head trauma will cause CTE and in turn cause degenerative brain issues later in life. I can conclusively say there is no data to support this hypothesis. I would not say there is a lack of data. There is plenty of data that says there is no causal relationship between cumulative head trauma and CTE in living subjects.

 

Now, you could put a caveat on there research, which is what some researchers have done. They say they believe they will find a relationship once the current technology is upgraded. However, that is pure speculation without any data. It makes logical sense but is not supported with data.

 

So right now with current technology and information it can be said that there is no causal relationship between the two. Some speculate there could be but until new data is found (and they are working on it, the first person to find it will get their weight in gold in research dollars) there is no relationship.

[RockRaines]

That's kind of a vicious cycle though. If you don't let kids play until they're older, they won't have been able to practice proper technique and that's going to make them more dangerous when they're bigger and stronger.

Eh. Freshman ball is the perfect time to learn those techniques. I believe the body starts becoming injury prone at a very young age and its a huge benefit to limit the early mileage.

[dasox24]

I dont like full contact sports for children until they get to HS level. I especially dont like how early some of those sports get kids doing weight training.

However, even as a soccer player I've had multiple concussions. I got one in HS and played 2 days later only to take another direct head shot that had me lights out.

This I agree with.

[ptatc]

This I agree with.

research shows that weight lifting is fine for kids once the growth plates close. This is usually somewhere between 7 grade and junior year of high school. Highly individualized.

[ptatc]

Eh. Freshman ball is the perfect time to learn those techniques. I believe the body starts becoming injury prone at a very young age and its a huge benefit to limit the early mileage.

Depends on the point of view. Something like running is highly mechanically oriented and the younger you teach them good "form" the better. Junior high is a good time for this.

[dasox24]

research shows that weight lifting is fine for kids once the growth plates close. This is usually somewhere between 7 grade and junior year of high school. Highly individualized.

Interesting. That's good to know.

[IlliniKrush]

You play a sport where people shoot frozen pucks at speeds that reach the triple digits...are you going to disallow your child from playing hockey?

 

Where does one draw the line? At some arbitrary point.

 

I guess what I am saying is I haven't seen enough to draw any lines yet when it comes to playing football.

 

We all have or will have choices when it comes to our children, and I wouldn't criticize your choice to hold your kid out of football. I just think it's wrong for you to tell someone else to hold their kid out of football.

To answer your first question - quite possibly. Which shows you where I'm at on this. Right now I don't have a son, I do have a daughter. Women's hockey is no check, which helps. In that regard, it's like soccer, just with walls instead of an open pitch.

 

Anyway, this shows you it isn't a battle against one sport since I didn't play football. I'd love to have a son that plays hockey, but as information comes out (there's not nearly as much on hockey as football), I'll make that decision if/when the time comes. So, I'm not biased by sport here. There are definitely concussions in hockey, there just aren't as many sub-concussive hits and head to head contact like there is in football. Definitely want to see more research done there.

 

As an aside, hockey has a similar issue to football in that they are trying to teach youngsters how to hit correctly, i.e. shoulder to shoulder, shoulder to chest, etc. Too many kids hit with hands going up towards the head when they are in their teens.

 

******

 

It's an opinion. I don't know how any parent can let their kid play football given the risk and the information we've seen coming out. But as I've stated many times, that's for every parent to make themselves. It'd be the same thing if you said your kids don't have to wear their seat belt. I would think you're crazy given what we know about car accidents.

 

Do whatever you want, I don't control whether or not anyone's kid plays football but my own.

 

Really, it's a discussion about risk for your child. Everyone's going to draw a different line.

Edited December 20, 2013 by IlliniKrush