Encouraging study on youth football and mental effects

It’s worth noting that researchers were only able to account for “intent” to play football. Additionally, they weren’t able to determine how long each participant played football, what position they played, and if they had sustained any recorded head injuries. With these facts in mind, the study’s authors stress that additional research is needed before any conclusions can be drawn from their research.

That's a big qualifier there. Furthermore, the research only followed the kids for 14 years to determine if any cognitive decline would be evident in early adulthood. That does not mean there could not still be more damage that could manifest later on in life. Even if you look at MRIs of their brain, you would still not see any difference between someone with CTE vs someone who doesn't, until you actually biopsy their brain in postmortem.

Finally for the depression aspect, that seems like it's a given considering you're getting kids more active and interacting in social activities. 

The study by The University of Colorado in Boulder, didn't track actual injury data, nor how long the individual played.  Weak data, it basically seems like they collected data through response forms and no actual hands on. 

More studies are needed, but it's honestly up to the kids and their parents to weigh the cost to benefit. Every sport can be dangerous. 

Negative press coming from attributable scientific examinations of brains of football players. 

Do what you will with your own kids. Everybody needs to do what’s best for them and their families. Personally, my kids won’t be going anywhere near a football field. 

This is a bullshit study that's nowhere near as comprehensive as other studies. This is just the kind of study that allows fans to rationalize.

To play or not to play, that is the question......

Hmm wonder what the rates of cancer, stroke, heart attack and other maladies of over 40 Michigan fans are vs fans of Bana, Clemson and OSU?

"Ex-players live longer and have lower cancer rates than non-players."

Have a citation for that?

"Working out for years to play ball produces lasting benefits to the body."

Right, but you could just do that and not play football.

"... cheerleading leads to almost as many concussions as football ..."

Its danger definitely seems to be underrated.

- - -

As for the lack of observed mental impairment, lots of maladies tend to be related to the number of total "insults" to health. It could be that NFL players tend to be vulnerable because they've accumulated a lot of insults (which, of course, increase in intensity as the level of play gets more difficult).

I think football is dangerous, period. It *might* make some sense for kids of limited means with clear NFL potential. For everyone else, the risk:reward isn't good. (That includes quite a few guys on Michigan's roster.) There are other ways to stay active and fit.

If you look at the details of this study they are clearly juggling more variables than they can truly account for in the results. Then when he mentions the limitations of the study toward the end there is a pretty ominous list.

This is why "content writers" and journalists are terrible at relating scientific information even when they speak directly with the scientists. They have dumb headlines that declare that a conclusion has been reached when the study isn't even comprehensive enough to suggest a conclusion.

The scientist who consented to the interview contributes to these misunderstandings by making some statements that will be misconstrued as more declarative than they ought to be while also making other statements that are too declarative. Sometimes scientists are just excited about their work, sometimes they realize the professional benefits of receiving attention, but either way they make the field look bad when they do this.

The other one…it's The New York Post and the headline is stupid enough for me not to even bother digging into it. When we rely on journalists with no scientific background to translate the material in academic papers the truth is often lost along the way (if it was ever there to begin with).

A little odd to me that the study relied on surveys to gauge "intended participation" in various sports in the study as opposed to retroactively finding out who actually played. I'd be at least somewhat curious to know what percentage of kids (esp. those intending to play football) actually follow through, and how many played for x number of years. From the research article:

Intended participation in contact sports was not significantly associated with any of our outcomes in the full-sample analysis, although it was trending toward an association with suicide attempt.

EDIT: I guess this was already noted earlier in the thread. Nothing to see here. Move along.