New study on effects on brain of only one season of football...HS football at a crossroads
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160425143653.htm
Head impacts from single season of high school football produce measurable change in brain cells
Football has the highest concussion rate of any competitive contact sport, and there is growing concern -- reflected in the recent decrease in participation in the Pop Warner youth football program -- among parents, coaches, and physicians of youth athletes about the effects of subconcussive head impacts, those not directly resulting in a concussion diagnosis, researchers noted. Previous research has focused primarily on college football players, but recent studies have shown impact distributions for youth and high school players to be similar to those seen at the college level, with differences primarily in the highest impact magnitudes and total number of impacts, the researchers noted.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/11/23/high-schools-dropping-and-adding-football-safety-concerns
One program shuts down, another starts up. A look at two schools—one in Ohio forced to end its season early and another in Arizona playing its first-ever season—reveals the complexity behind the raw numbers regarding high school football in the new safety-conscious era
what you did there. Very heady stuff.
As a very young lad, I used to bash my head against the floor when I was angry... explains a lot
Well I had a strange dream last night... no wait, that wasn't me... nevermind.
Are they going to revisit these players later on?
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I agree. It's not like everybody who ever played high school football grows up to be an invalid or something.
do, but my research indicates that nearly all were invalids before their football experience.
or in the stands, huh? Don't worry, at least your brain is ok.
there Glory Days. Did I need to include an /s?
Do you have a problem with band people?
ears must be toast after those 4 years of band.
I was on the drumline. I should probably get my wrists checked for carpal tunnel.
even bother. You are completely screwed.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Yes. Kids are smarter than you think. They can see through the bullshit. I also find them to be very scientifically literate. Give a 9 year old a clinical study and he will systematically go through it and pick out the strengths and weaknesses. I also find kids to be great detectors of bias. When I show a 5th grader some interesting results from the New England Journal of Medicine the first thing he asks is who funded the study and whether the PI has any financial conflicts of interest. Why can't these young future leaders make their own decision as to whether it's safe for them to engage in some good, clean fun on the gridiron?
Because we glorify it by worshiping the people who are really good at an activity that involves getting hit in the head repeatedly. Yup, we really shouldn't condone boxing like that. It's dumb.
I think pepole misunderstand what these research studies are even asking. It's not a "yes/no" dichotomy addressing "is football linked to concussions?" They're asking questions of when, how often, how much, what is the mechanism, what are the clinical implications, etc. There are deeper, more useful questions being asked in the ongoing work. Now is when real questions and real work is being done, now is not the time to abandon entire lines of inquiry.
I get the sense that a lot of people really don't understand how research works.
There's also a kind of "but... but... FOOTBALL" thing going on, where people assume that the sport will live forever and so this type of research is useless/irrelevant.
Cool story bro time: my high school was one of the last to feature a boxing team, which ceased its activity right around the time I got there. Now boxing is no more.
In the 1800s competitive long-distance solo walking was insanely popular, as were sculling races in London. Times change and sports change with them.
Plus when people don't like the conclusions they call it obvious or biased or a conspiracy.
Many people (not limited to the thread above) don't understand how research works. For someone to make an informed decision they should have more information than the people saying, 'well, duhhh.'
The end game is unknown at this point. Maybe they make changes to tackling techniques, equipment, or rules that result in very little risk. Maybe none of that shit works and we find another game to play.
If I knew there was a risk of brain damage, I would not have played. As it was, I went though 3 knee surgeries and have early arthritis. I knew that was a risk though.
and having them play flag football at early ages is becoming common place in PeeWee leagues.
Teaching them the game doesnt require a chin strap.
I have lunch every Monday with a retired College football coach who is in the College Football HOF; thats his opinion...take the helmets off until a much later time.
I don't think the important thing here is the correlation, it's demonstrating the ability to measure relevant changes to a living brain. This paves the way for a whole new line of research.
But each state has a distinctive personality and set of nuances. Ohio, for example, has a pay-to-participate policy in some districts, where students are charged anywhere from $50 to $600 per co-curricular activity. “Is that discouraging young people from signing up?” asks Ohio state senator Cliff Hite, who coached high school football for 22 years. “We’re trying to find that out.”
This is in the posted MMQB article, and it reminded me that WXYZ here in Detroit did a story on plateaued, and in some cases declining participation in sports in Michigan as well. I have to wonder if it is more or less like that all over the Midwest as people move to warmer locations and districts lose money or are forced to consolidate as a result.
The Newbury, OH example was interesting in that respect because you see clearly how smaller districts can be disproportionately affected by the risks involved in football as well since they cannot maintain the sort of roster that larger districts can. It isn't something we often think about, but in any effort to preserve the high school game, I wonder how they address that phenomenon.
has the distinction of starting his son ahead of a little known qb from Findlay OH by the name of Ben Roethlisberger.
... or they're trying help quantify risk and to fix it.
I'm a football guy, so I may be labelled as putting my head in the sand, but we never really seem to get across to what this actually means. These two dozen players, are the worse off throughout life because of this? Are there actually impacts from this or just hypothesis about impacts? How different is it from other people in society at that age? Should we wrap our kids in bubble wrap and not let them go outside?
Someone said above that these articles use a lot of shock and awe and scare tactics, and I agree that they do. I understand that "just because I got spanked doesn't means everyone should." I understand that "just because I used to climb up to the top of 50 foot tall trees doesn't mean that all kids should do that". I understand that "just because I got in fist fights in grades school doesn't mean everyone should." I understand that "just because I played pickup tackle football doesn't mean everyone should." I understand that "just because I didn't wear a seatbelt all the time when I was a kid doesn't mean my kid shouldn't be in a child seat until she's 21 or whatever." But at what point are we doing kids and people and society a disservice? We're trying to argue objective data with subjective benefits, but we really aren't sure how to even quantify the "objective data". But all these new articles come across as knowing just how to do it: and it's all terrible.
I get parents being worried about their kids playing football. I loved football growing up. I learned a lot from football. I believe it's the best game in the world. I believe it helped me both physically and mentally and made me much of the man I am today. I believe it played, along with other sports, a significant role in my successes and how I've handled my failures. I've noticed a lot of people around me in my profession (aerospace engineering) that struggle socially, that struggle handling denial and failure, that aren't sure how to move on from either failure or success. At the same time (warning, not so humble brag coming), my boss and bosses boss and those around them have repeatedly praised since the day I started my (sample size of one) confidence, ability to present information, and ability to lead. That's something a lot of the people around me don't have experience with. And yes, there are tons of ways to learn those things, there are tons of ways to be competitive, but at some point as humans we aren't meant to just sit around and not twiddle our thumbs because my may get arthritis from doing it.
Football is dangerous, "contact sports" are dangerous, running is dangerous, walking is bad on your knees, whole milk is too fattening, skim milk leads to obesity, so on and so forth and so on and so forth. This isn't a sample size of one. Millions of kids have grown up playing football and been perfectly fine on the other end. I'd argue they were better off for it. Would we be a superior super-race if none of them played football? I highly doubt it. I'd argue we'd be a worse society without football and other sports. But that's subjective, and doesn't stur up the scariness that these articles do.
I'm all for making the game safer. I'm all for understanding how to do the things we do safer. But to scare it away completely seems misguided. It seems we're taking a small sample size, indicating that it has some form of impact, and assuming the worst. Weight lifting breaks down muscle. The muscle has a way of rebounding to grow stronger. The body has this amazing ability to adapt to its surroundings and environments to protect itself, and sometimes to come out the other end more protected against those bad things than it otherwise would. Maybe we don't need to spend out whole lives protecting ourselves from fear and bad things and prepare ourselves to deal with fear and bad things so that we can come out of it better than how we entered it.
This isn't a cry for fewer research. Not at all. But the way in which we are framing it. We frame it as this sort of scare tactic, which it shouldn't be.
I didn't read the SI piece, but there's really nothing "scary" about the Science Daily article. All the study did was measure brain changes that occurred in players who were likely exposed to brain insults of some severity. That's simply research; it's hardly a scare tactic. I'm quite perplexed as to why some people have taken an article about a study, one that makes no judgements whatsoever about football or other contact sports, as a "scare tactic."
In terms of what it means, we have no idea (and we likely won't have a thorough understanding for years, if not decades), hence the reason for studying it. To determine what it means, you first need to figure out what's actually happening and why. Once you get a baseline of what's going on, from there you can move on to larger, longer-term studies about the effects and risks. That's the type of research that can eventually inform things such as helmet design and other safety measures that might help to mitigate risk.
"Head impacts from single season of high school football produce measurable change in brain cells"
That implies, to most that read it, you are fucking up your brain if you even play a single season of football at the high school level. The text isn't nearly as bad. It's the title that is the scare tactic. Most people that "read" the article and most news outlet that "reference" the article likely won't actually read or reference much of the article itself, they are going to take that title and run with it.
You seem to be reading more into it than what it says. The title simply reflects what the study found, which is there were changes in brain cells in players after a year of football. There aren't any loaded terms or judgements made in the title. If people or other news sources are too lazy to read the actual details, I fail to see how that's the fault of the article itself.
"Measurable effects on brain cells due to non-concussive hits of high-school aged boys" isn't scary. It isn't implicating football as a killing your brain sport. It's still factually correct. But then, how many people would read an article with such a headline? How much more funding would they get? So, let's go with what sells.
The title implies much more than what you're acting like it does, thus the nearly 70+ replies already to this thread with the discussion it's bringing about.
So basically, your complaint centers around the inclusion of football players in the title, even though the study specifically studied football players. If it had been a study about soccer players, the title would have said soccer players. Research funding is hardly tied to how many people read a Science Daily article.
The number of replies in the thread simply reflect the interest in the subject matter and have no relationship with how people interpreted the title. Considering the number of pointless threads that get a lot of activity, it woudl be hard to make any conclusions about much of anything in that regard.
I don't have a dog in this fight particularly - I think football probably does cause some brain deterioration, but probably not a huge amount more than other contact sports - right now I'd let my kids play, hypothetically speaking, although that's probably because they don't have the build to play in the trenches, where the worst effects seem to be concentrated.
Having said that, I think one thing that passionate football supporters cannot afford to do at this stage is to adopt a siege mentality. This kind of research is long overdue (the NFL basically suppressed it for years) and people should absolutely study the long-term effects on the brain, which also means understanding the short-term effects. Complaining about scare tactics will not play well in that context.
I'm not disagreeing with the research. I'm not disagreeing with making the game safer. I'm not disagreeing with trying to understand the long and short-term effects of these things.
I'm arguing against the way it is being presented. It's being presented as an extreme, rather than the research for understanding and making the game safer that it really is. But that's tame, that's lame, that's just science, and that doesn't sell and provide more funding. The presentation is the "scare tactic", not the actual research (for the most part).
April 28th, 2016 at 12:34 PM ^
The research isn't "to make the game safer"
The research is to find out the effects on the brain. It is doing so for an understanding, not to help or hurt the game of football.
...and the presentation in the title is a direct, and straighforward summation of the objective facts of the study. Something that would be exactly expected in just about any research paper in just about any subject you read.
I mean, the way it is summarized in the short headline is basically what it boils down to, in my opinion. I guess you could add something like "Long-term clinical impact unknown," but that is a bit much.
The title of the study itself is Abnormalities in Diffusional Kurtosis Metrics Related to Head Impact Exposure in a Season of High School Varsity Football, which instananeously becomes something that few laypeople would probably want to read.
However, to the extent you would like a more nuanced headline, I can agree that headlines are often much more dramtic/polemic/simple than they could be. I don't know about this publication, but in most cases, the journalist writing the article does not write his own headline. And they often complain about how misleading they are.
There's a big difference between normal everyday living and an organized activity that involves ramming into other people at high rates of speed on a daily basis.
This research is important, not because of the fear-mongering in this thread and the whole WHAT ABOUT THE FANS bullshit, but rather how can we learn to better protect our kids and our players? New equipment? Changes to the game? New treatment options for CTE? Everything is on the table, but we have to understand the mechanism first.
Football is going to change. It's inevitable. We need to understand the scientific basis of the injuries so we can change it for the better, or else it's going to dry up and blow away as parents weigh the risks vs benefits.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Not sure what you mean by "doing away with the NCAA." I assume you are talking about NCAA football only? In any case, I wasn't aware that the NCAA forces anyone to play football. I think the bargain goes something like this: if you're good enough, you can go to school for free if you remain an amateur, follow the rules, and play on our team. If the bargain's not attractive to someone, then they shouldn't take it, plain and simple. Thousands of young men pursue this deal today, and maybe somewhat less in the future given what we know now about these potential injuries, but my guess based on the popularity of the game is it will not result in the end of football at any level anytime soon.
but doesn't tell us what they are. second, i played real football until 41, and now a dozen yrs later have no issues (some of you may differ with that ....) but more importantly, i am not aware of a single one of my teammates, college teammates, or even high school teammates who has had a problem - and we're getting pretty old at this point.
now, do i think kids need to be taught proper tackling and do i think concussions are bad, of course, who wouldn't. but i also think this all needs to be taken slowly, carefully, and without getting overly emotional about it. important topic, but a measured view needed.
The issue for others is that it isn't necessarily backed by data; it's backed by feels. Then we reference increased depression in retired professional athletes, etc. I bet former professional golfers that can no longer play golf because of, say, a back injury, would have a higher rate of depression than most.
I do think there is likely an impact from head injuries. It's the degree of which that are directly from head injuries, and the risk of playing vs the risk of not playing that I'm not certain about. I'm all for making the game safer so that the risk goes down. I'm against making it seem as if we understand the risk and the risk is too high and that by playing, you are going to have problems the rest of your life.
April 28th, 2016 at 12:11 PM ^
This is my feeling...having read your takes here.
There is an unequal, greater and opposite force in the interpretation of the data that downplays the significance and deters research. That force is also in the media, the economy and the social and familial structures of our country. This contrary force to the one you mention is stronger for the time being. It has been for decades.
Youth football is a dead man walking to families of affluence. High school football is under question. These data clicks are just that. If you want to say there is an attack on football in the media... fine - I feel that. There's also an attack on data, young boys and the millions of players who played this game not in the NFL or perhaps even D-1 but deserve answers all the same. No players settlement or rule change will compensate those who are not represented or informed for that matter.
There will never be a black and white answer here. The game will continue to change... forever.
Football does change the people who play it. We have to deal with that. What I thought was a greater good is no longer clear to me. Some men suffer long term issues. Football is a very profound statement and rite of passage for men... everywhere. I'm considering Soccer and Football as basically the same tradition in that statement. The American game is trending away from head trauma while bascially being the poster child for it. The game is so ingrained in our concept of manhood - I feel like the long term consequences are indistinguishable from my conception of normal.
Yes I agree with what you are saying. But head trauma is no longer determined by symptoms. Though the official definition of concussion is still symptomatic, this whole discussion is pivoting on real data. We have to go hmm... with every click.