Football Head Injuries

[Jake]

I hope my kid likes baseball. I gave a shoulder and a bunch of teeth to baseball. If my kid isn't a pitcher, he probably won't tear up his shoulder or take a line drive to the mouth and can have even more fun with it.

 

Basketball would be great too. Really popular with girls too.

 

I like to run and I'll encourage my kids to do that too. Would have to do some research as to how much running is appropriate for a pre-pubescent child as I have personally witnessed a lot of girls in particular not even start their periods until late high school/early college because they were such intense runners.

 

They can look into other stuff too, but I have a feeling my and my partner's likes and dislikes will unintentionally influence child's likes and dislikes. In my dream scenario my kid is basically conceived at US Cellular Field so baseball should be very important

[Balta1701]

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.

The only way that this makes sense to me is if you believe there is an accurate rests for CTE that has been performed on living people. That's the only way you could say there is "no lack of data." Am I wrong in that? Because it seems to disagree with what you said about diagnosing the problem earlier in this thread.

[ptatc]

The only way that this makes sense to me is if you believe there is an accurate rests for CTE that has been performed on living people. That's the only way you could say there is "no lack of data." Am I wrong in that? Because it seems to disagree with what you said about diagnosing the problem earlier in this thread.

It doesn't disagree with it. It just says that there is no reason as of now to think that once the technology is available that they will find CTE in cumulative head trauma. Some researchers are guessing that it might but that is based on an opinion but not any hard evidence. They currently can't look for it but that doesn't mean it's there. It might be but them again it might not. We don't know. In theory it's possible that repeated mild blows might cause this but so far all we know is that blows hard enough to cause concussive symptoms do in post mortem brains. First they will need to find that mild blows cause CTE then they will need to find it in living subjects in a significant amount.

 

There was one study done at Purdue that looked at around 100 athletes in football and hockey. None of them had concussion symptoms. They looked at changes in the white matter of the brain. This isn't CTE but it shows some possible changes. They found that 11% had changes. The rate for the normal population not involved in sports was 7%.

 

So I guess my thought process is that we can't look for CTE yet but just because we can't look doesn't mean it's there. Again it's somewhat semantics because it could be there. I just wouldn't deny my kid something he really wanted to do based on really no evidence, only guesses. That may change soon, then again it may not.

 

edit: this is the Schroedinger's cat in the box paradox. The cat is both dead and alive until the box is opened. I just prerfer proof before I make a decision.

Edited December 20, 2013 by ptatc

[StrangeSox]

assuming there is a link between white matter and CTE, an increase from 7% in the general population to 11% in the sports population is a huge increase.

[Balta1701]

assuming there is a link between white matter and CTE, an increase from 7% in the general population to 11% in the sports population is a huge increase.

The problem there is sample size. If the sample of athletes is 100, that's within the statistical margin of error of 7%.

 

So again...that could be saying "There's an incredible problem" or "There's no problem" and there's no credible way to state it either way.

[Balta1701]

It doesn't disagree with it. It just says that there is no reason as of now to think that once the technology is available that they will find CTE in cumulative head trauma. Some researchers are guessing that it might but that is based on an opinion but not any hard evidence. They currently can't look for it but that doesn't mean it's there. It might be but them again it might not. We don't know. In theory it's possible that repeated mild blows might cause this but so far all we know is that blows hard enough to cause concussive symptoms do in post mortem brains. First they will need to find that mild blows cause CTE then they will need to find it in living subjects in a significant amount.

 

There was one study done at Purdue that looked at around 100 athletes in football and hockey. None of them had concussion symptoms. They looked at changes in the white matter of the brain. This isn't CTE but it shows some possible changes. They found that 11% had changes. The rate for the normal population not involved in sports was 7%.

 

So I guess my thought process is that we can't look for CTE yet but just because we can't look doesn't mean it's there. Again it's somewhat semantics because it could be there. I just wouldn't deny my kid something he really wanted to do based on really no evidence, only guesses. That may change soon, then again it may not.

 

edit: this is the Schroedinger's cat in the box paradox. The cat is both dead and alive until the box is opened. I just prerfer proof before I make a decision.

It's completely fine that you prefer proof beforehand...all I'm harping on is that it's exactly as valid to say you prefer proof that it's safe beforehand.

 

The same way you say there's no reason to think that an appropriate technology will find a difference in CTE cases between football players and non-football-players, I get to say there's no reason to think that we won't find a difference.

 

All I've seen right now is autopsy reports saying that the brains of these guys are mush...and some counterproposals saying that brains of non-athletes have done the same thing. To me, those push both ways.

[ptatc]

assuming there is a link between white matter and CTE, an increase from 7% in the general population to 11% in the sports population is a huge increase.

There isnt a link. It just shows changes in the brain. Its different area of the brain.

[ptatc]

It's completely fine that you prefer proof beforehand...all I'm harping on is that it's exactly as valid to say you prefer proof that it's safe beforehand.

 

The same way you say there's no reason to think that an appropriate technology will find a difference in CTE cases between football players and non-football-players, I get to say there's no reason to think that we won't find a difference.

 

All I've seen right now is autopsy reports saying that the brains of these guys are mush...and some counterproposals saying that brains of non-athletes have done the same thing. To me, those push both ways.

I understand what you are saying I just disagree with the application of the research. Its not the same as proof to say its safe before hand. Because there could be anything waitng there that we can't detect yet. If anyone wrote a an article and tried to get something published with this concept, it would get laughed at. You can't base a conclusion on the this. Again, you can interpret an opinion and base your decision on it but to say it is a valid conclusion based on the research isn't correct.

It's sound like to me you;ve done quite a bit of qualitative research. Mine has revolved around quantitative. I have this same discussion with some of my co-workers.I can't support a conclusion unless there is evidence to support it.

Working with the human body I cannot justify doing something to a patient unless there is evidence for it. Sometimes we find a better way later but I use the best evidence I have at the time.

[StrangeSox]

FWIW some local area high schools have been working on the concussion problem for years. I took an athletic training class in high school and our teacher was really excited about it. Here's an article from 2002 on their program

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-09...ting-first-test

[Balta1701]

I understand what you are saying I just disagree with the application of the research. Its not the same as proof to say its safe before hand. Because there could be anything waitng there that we can't detect yet. If anyone wrote a an article and tried to get something published with this concept, it would get laughed at. You can't base a conclusion on the this. Again, you can interpret an opinion and base your decision on it but to say it is a valid conclusion based on the research isn't correct.

It's sound like to me you;ve done quite a bit of qualitative research. Mine has revolved around quantitative. I have this same discussion with some of my co-workers.I can't support a conclusion unless there is evidence to support it.

Working with the human body I cannot justify doing something to a patient unless there is evidence for it. Sometimes we find a better way later but I use the best evidence I have at the time.

I've done plenty of quantitative research and I think part of our difference here is the requirements for giving medical advice being different.

 

I'm not trying to base a conclusion on anything. All I've said is you can't prove there isn't a problem and I think your language is too strong when you focus solely on the "there's no correlation" part.

[RockRaines]

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.

 

 

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.

I consider junior high past the "kid age."

 

I was playing year round sports starting at age 7. It was too early.

[IlliniKrush]

I consider junior high past the "kid age."

 

I was playing year round sports starting at age 7. It was too early.

Travel baseball used to be 11U, 12U, 13U, 14U. Then 10U's started creeping up. Recently, I've seen 9U's. I've actually heard of 8U's. I've umped those 9U games in a pinch. I may as well had a chair.

 

There's nothing travel about it, maybe the kids are slightly more athletic and interested, but there's no real need for travel teams at 9U besides parents saying "I need my kids to play travel!" And if they play any sort of regular travel schedule, those kids will be wiped. Play once or twice a week in house, have a tournament or all-star team at the end, and call it a day.

 

On top of that, EVERYONE has to play travel. Growing up, each town had one travel team. You don't make it? You play in-house, and the play would still be decent. If it was a really big town, maybe, they'd have 2. Now? Each town has 3-4 travel teams and at least 2 of them are filled with in-house players and have no business being travel teams. But anyone can put one together so they can say they are playing travel. Oh, and they've dropped A, B, C from teams, now it goes by color so you don't hurt anyone's feelings.

 

As a result, you get games in tournaments that are 16-1. Fun for everyone, and brutal to umpire.

[Harry Chappas]

Travel baseball used to be 11U, 12U, 13U, 14U. Then 10U's started creeping up. Recently, I've seen 9U's. I've actually heard of 8U's. I've umped those 9U games in a pinch. I may as well had a chair.

 

There's nothing travel about it, maybe the kids are slightly more athletic and interested, but there's no real need for travel teams at 9U besides parents saying "I need my kids to play travel!" And if they play any sort of regular travel schedule, those kids will be wiped. Play once or twice a week in house, have a tournament or all-star team at the end, and call it a day.

 

On top of that, EVERYONE has to play travel. Growing up, each town had one travel team. You don't make it? You play in-house, and the play would still be decent. If it was a really big town, maybe, they'd have 2. Now? Each town has 3-4 travel teams and at least 2 of them are filled with in-house players and have no business being travel teams. But anyone can put one together so they can say they are playing travel. Oh, and they've dropped A, B, C from teams, now it goes by color so you don't hurt anyone's feelings.

 

As a result, you get games in tournaments that are 16-1. Fun for everyone, and brutal to umpire.

 

There are 7U all-star tourneys and sadly yes travel baseball has taken on a mind of its own and it sucks. All leagues start their teams at 8 and by 11 just about every player is playing some sort of travel ball with in-house (neighborhood) leagues becoming non-existent. People running these leagues have to bust their ass to get the neighborhood kids competition. Youth sports in general are out of hand but for some reason baseball brings out all kinds of stupid.

[IlliniKrush]

There are 7U all-star tourneys and sadly yes travel baseball has taken on a mind of its own and it sucks. All leagues start their teams at 8 and by 11 just about every player is playing some sort of travel ball with in-house (neighborhood) leagues becoming non-existent. People running these leagues have to bust their ass to get the neighborhood kids competition. Youth sports in general are out of hand but for some reason baseball brings out all kinds of stupid.

And that sucks. The Barrington in house league for 11-12 and then 13-14 used to be pretty good, as there was only one travel team for each age level. There used to be 12-14 teams. There were good players that played for the HS team later on. Last time I checked it was down to like 4 teams.

 

There should be an avenue for kids who are decent, but either not good enough/can't afford/don't want the commitment of travel to still be able to play somewhere. Everything now is travel or nothing, and I use the word "travel"very lightly, obviously.

 

I look at some of these kids on travel teams and I feel bad for them. Some legit travel team is crushing them, and this likely happens every game based on their skill level. I know winning isn't everything, but getting crushed every time for an 8-14 year old has to to be tough. Those parents don't realize that at that point, it's just about playing, not about bragging to everyone that you are on the 5th travel team in the town and have a fancy uniform. And I got news for you, you can make the HS team even if you don't play travel. If you play enough and are active and have the skills, no one will care what travel team you were on. At least that's what happened at Barrington.

[RockRaines]

I was more of a serious soccer player at least early on so I was on U8 travel and went everywhere year round including indoor. It was the only team in town and the in house teams were crap comparatively. I know that stressing myself out with that and then two other year round sports since that age f***ed up my body later on.

[Texsox]

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.

 

I guess part of this though is predicting where the research will lead. Take someone making a decision about smoking in the 1950s. There wasn't enough data. I believe we are at the same point with concussions and football. I don't see it leading to a conclusion that getting hit repeatedly in the head is a good thing.

[ptatc]

I consider junior high past the "kid age."

 

I was playing year round sports starting at age 7. It was too early.

Most defintely.

[ptatc]

I guess part of this though is predicting where the research will lead. Take someone making a decision about smoking in the 1950s. There wasn't enough data. I believe we are at the same point with concussions and football. I don't see it leading to a conclusion that getting hit repeatedly in the head is a good thing.

Not necessarily. Repeated micro trauma to muscles make the muscles stronger. We don't know that micro trauma to the brain causes problems.

[Jake]

Even in the absence of injury, I've always felt there's less to be gained by playing youth football than any other sport. If you start out in high school, you'll be fine if you're a good enough athlete. If you're a QB, I might suggest starting a year before high school on technique. There's always flag football too for those things.

 

Not necessarily. Repeated micro trauma to muscles make the muscles stronger. We don't know that micro trauma to the brain causes problems.

 

I agree that it is important not to jump to conclusions, but the theorized link between micro trauma to the brain is much more credible than micro trauma to the muscles.

[ptatc]

I've done plenty of quantitative research and I think part of our difference here is the requirements for giving medical advice being different.

 

I'm not trying to base a conclusion on anything. All I've said is you can't prove there isn't a problem and I think your language is too strong when you focus solely on the "there's no correlation" part.

Ok. I disagree because the data is still minimal on concussions and the link to CTE let alone the cumulative trauma without symptoms.

But that's life.

[IlliniKrush]

Even in the absence of injury, I've always felt there's less to be gained by playing youth football than any other sport. If you start out in high school, you'll be fine if you're a good enough athlete. If you're a QB, I might suggest starting a year before high school on technique. There's always flag football too for those things.

 

 

 

I agree that it is important not to jump to conclusions, but the theorized link between micro trauma to the brain is much more credible than micro trauma to the muscles.

Good point. Little kid football just appears to be "here, go run into each other for an hour, and one of you gets to carry the ball." It does seem like a sport that you'd be able to "catch up" easier than some others.

[Jake]

Good point. Little kid football just appears to be "here, go run into each other for an hour, and one of you gets to carry the ball." It does seem like a sport that you'd be able to "catch up" easier than some others.

 

I've seen these things from experience, too. I remember the guys who were great youth league players and it had essentially no correlation to who was good in high school. I played one year as an offensive lineman when I was 10 and then quit. I started at QB as a freshman for a 5A playoff team. My older brother played golf throughout all of pre-high school and did the same, eventually getting a full ride as a QB for college.

 

In baseball, you can get away with lack of experience to some extent but there is a ton to be gained at certain positions. There is also the whole hitting thing, which can be really hard to jump into at a high level. In basketball, if you want to be anything but a giant, unskilled player, you're best off starting young and becoming a good ballhandler, shooter, etc.

[Texsox]

Those that said players take the risk, it's on them . . .

 

Should we say the same thing about mine workers? Agricultural employees? Firefighters? OSHA exists to make workplaces safer, why should we treat athletes differently than other workers?

[witesoxfan]

Those that said players take the risk, it's on them . . .

 

Should we say the same thing about mine workers? Agricultural employees? Firefighters? OSHA exists to make workplaces safer, why should we treat athletes differently than other workers?

 

Are you suggesting that the NFL and NCAA and whoever else are not working to make the workplace safer? I think they're doing everything they can and are continuing their research and development into the area to make the sport safer.