ptatc

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 08:00 AM) 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 20, 2013 -> 06:22 AM) 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 05:00 PM) You really ought to learn the rules of the game before playin'. I know, I'm sorry. I just love that movie and had to throw that in there. Yes, I am a geek.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 08:11 PM) 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.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 05:48 PM) 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.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 06:02 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 05:14 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 04:55 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) Very possible that that word does not mean what you think it means. Never go against a Sicilian when death is involved.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 04:24 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 04:22 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 04:10 PM) 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.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 03:52 PM) 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.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 03:02 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 02:00 PM) 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:35 PM) I thought that's what the research out of Boston University has found? Not really. It's still mostly focused around concussions. The problem being that until recently, concussions weren't understood well. Back in the day it was "he got his bell rung". They sat the player for a few plays and sent him back out. There were many concussions undiagnosed so it's difficult to tell in ex-Nfl players what was from concussions and what wasn't. In the younger kids found to have CTE forming there was a history of concussions or it wasn't reported if there ewas a concussion or not and if there were other variables like drugs.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:30 PM) Yeah, there seems to be a very strong correlation with sub-concussive brain trauma and CTE, but it's not 100% well-understood at this point. I haven't seen a strong correlation with concussion symptoms and CTE let alone sub-concussion symptoms.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:28 PM) I wonder if those that are saying they wouldn't say no to football would say no to anything their child wants to do? And what that might be? I allowed my son to play football but said no to him going to an overnight skateboard open house with mostly kids he didn't know.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:23 PM) I dunno, this is just not enough for me to tell my kid he can't play pop warner football. It shouldn't be. It does show that if the kids plays and has multiple concussions without allowing the symptoms to go away before returning is probably going to cause degenerative brain problems later in life. However, any parent should hold their kids out of sports with concussion symptoms and not allow them to return until the symptoms are gone for a week anyway. If it happens multiple times, I would n't allow my kids to play anyway.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:17 PM) It was an 18 year old who died (committed suicide I believe, maybe someone else who saw the episode remembers better than I). The key to this study is still linking concussions to degenerative brain symptoms later in life. I don't think most people would argue that multiple concussions would do this even though the link is still very thin based on all of the research. where the true discussion lies in that idea that cumulative head trauma without concussion symptoms causes CTE or degenerative problems later in life.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:17 PM) It was an 18 year old who died (committed suicide I believe, maybe someone else who saw the episode remembers better than I). Got it. Makes sense then. Still need to look at symptoms and other variables. This is why single case studies are considered very low on the research hierarchy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 01:03 PM) The frontline study sited a kid who had barely played HS football who was showing CTE. I don't believe this is accurrate. At least from the studies I've read, CTE can only be diagnosed post mortem. Even if it did I still haven't seen the link or correlation.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 11:15 AM) Im not sure that I am the best comparison for what people should do. But I do wear my seat belt, I try and avoid completely unnecessary risks, but I dont find sports to be a completely unnecessary risk. Its the same theory. You either run the numbers and create a baseline that is unacceptable risk. If football is above that threshold any non-necessary activity that is more risky than football should also be. IE You may need to drive a car to get to work. But do you really need to take your kid in a car for a ride to a baseball game, if there is a higher risk your child will die in the car getting there than playing football? I cant answer that question for you, I can only say that I accept a certain level of risk in life and I will allow my child the same. This is what every parent should do. It's just that the current literature doesn't support anything for kids and cumulative head trauma without concussion symptoms. Once concussive symptoms appear the literature is fairly solid.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 11:06 AM) It is not arbitrary. This is like smoking in the 1980s. We now have a pretty firm grasp on what we are talking about here. Not really as far as cumulative head trauma is concerned.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) Last I saw, the group hired to investigate brains of ex-football players said 18 of 19 autopsies brains had CTE. Do you as a professional have access to other studies that aren't as compelling for CTE? I'd be curious to hear if there is another side to this. There are other studies done on individuals similar to this. So far they are similar in results. The post mortem found CTE in some, not in others. There are limitations in all of this. There is still no causal effect linking CTE and any previous symptoms or specific things like alzheimer's or parkinson's rate. The primary limitation is you can only do it postmortem so even if there is a link, we don't know if it takes 30 years of hitting to cause significant symptoms or 5. Once they find a way to evaluate it in a living person we will have a better idea. There has been a lot of concussion research lately and much better medical procedures with them. It's the idea of trauma without significant concussion symptoms that is still unknown. I'm not saying there isn't any. I'm just saying that using the current research as a reason to absolutely not let someone play is over reacting. If someone doesn't want their kids to play because they don't want the injuries, that's fine. We know that the most significant injuries ( not thing like sprained ankles) occur in football. However, to use this research to say kids shouldn't play football due to cumulative head injuries is just inaccurrate.