lou gehrig and concussions

thanks

Concussions, real issue.
Football should be leading the research and educational charge.

That being said there is some real sensational and yellow journalism out there. "Concussions sells" on the news like they say "sex scandals" sell magazines.

I didn't see the ESPN piece. How do they know Lou Gerhig had concussions?

I don't think that there's any denying that repeated brain trauma can cause brain damage. You can watch old movies from the '40's and see "punchdrunk" ex-boxers. This isn't new. Watch "The Thrilla in Manila" about the Ali-Frazier fights. You need captions to understand them. The concussion protocols that are in place now make sense. 

What bothers me is:

1. That researchers are looking at subconcussive hits. I'm not bothered that they're looking. I'm angry that many in the media are taking the fact that researchers are looking at it and treating it as though it's proven fact. 

2. That the media is taking data about veteran NFL players and extrapolating it to high school and youth football. This was not an accident. As part of their defense strategy in the concussion law suits, the NFL threw us under the bus. I have yet to see anything that says that HS or youth players are at any particular risk for brain damage but you wouldn't know that from the media. 

3, That every story about concussions becomes about football. You mentioned that one of the early studies was about soccer but we don't hear about that. I didn't see the piece about Gehrig but I've seen other stories about Gehrig's disease being linked to concussions but they were always about baseball concussions. If they're trying to link it to football, that's just par for the course. 

This might sound way off track here, and maybe like somebody in the media, but I've often wondered if changing what and how we coach (not talking about tackling) to help reduce concussions.

Case in point, we are Wing T/Shoulder Blocking (throwing the foremarm, striking a blow, all of that)...in college, for two of the years, I played in a Zone Blocking schemed offense; in high school....shoulder blocking. Fact is, using your hands obviously creates so much more separation compared to shoulder blocking (I get having our heads up, preaching that, etc..but, the motion of shooting your hands naturally throws your head back and out of the line of fire).

....my high school helmet was beat all to he11 and back. My college helmet, I still have from my senior year, and it looks like I never played a snap (started every game at Center).

Thoughts? Crazy/Dumb? Ok.

Apples to oranges when you compare a high school situation to the NFL.

You raise some excellent points, coach. The reason that sub-concussive hits are being looked at is that they have been shown to lead to Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), whereas major concussions are less likely to lead to CTE. Dr. Robert Cantu, the foremost concussion expert in the world, has done much work in this area. He's also a consultant to the NFL. I do agree that more research must be done.

As for the media, I suppose it depends on who you're willing to believe. Personally, I don't believe what I read from major news sources the vast majority of the time. I certainly wouldn't trust ESPN, the TMZ of the sports world, to offer credible evidence in a case such as this. And, you're right on the money about them unfairly (and unethically) extrapolating scientific evidence to similar instances.

I looked at the paper ESPN's Gehrig piece was based on. It doesn't say that concussions caused his ALS to become active. It says that concussions may contribute to ALS becoming active, and, if that's the case, it's possible that Lou Gehrig may have suffered from an alternative form of ALS, since he had a lengthy history of concussions from both his days as a football player at Columbia and as a professional baseball player.

The main thing I would warn most non-researchers about is that, in this instance, we are talking about a single study that was conducted. All scientific research, whether it's based in biology, psychology, medicine, mathematics, or the like, must pass through the rigors of the scientific method. In part, this means that the results derived from these experiments must be both falsifiable and reproducible. When significant results are found, independent researchers will attempt to reproduce these results in an independent lab. Often times, they are unable to do so, and so, the original researchers have to go back to the drawing board. Of course, we rarely, if ever, hear about this.

It's important to remember than when we read articles online or hear them on the news, they're often talking about a single study, not a body of scientific evidence, and there's a world of difference between these two ideas. If you read something that references a single study, you should ask yourself: A) Has this study been independently reproduced, and if so, how many times? and B) What other evidence exists that fits in-line w/ this study being referenced? And, most importantly, consider your sources. Just b/c it's a major news source doesn't make them credible.

I'm reading the book right now. Can you provide links to these criticisms? In the interest of full disclosure I'll admit that I agree with just about every point that he's made so far and point out that it was never intended to be a scholarly work. 

I tried to look at the Flynn book, but unfortunately, it is all over the place. He makes the mistake that we often do, where he reduces the discussion down to NEGATIVE and POSITIVE positions, with the assumption that if you can make more POSITIVE statements, then you'll provide a convincing argument.

The problem is that his positive statements (rite of passage, team sports, self improvement, etc) has nothing to do with the position where the 'negative' statements reside (just the physiological effects of brain trauma).

One is a position of just cold science/facts.......the other is just pathos and rhetoric.  Sloppy arguing like this, while providing temporary affirmation for the sport, only hurt our attempts at educating our kids and parents (and at worse, destroy the trust they have in our judgment) on what the true risk IS and ISN'T

150% agreement on all those points.

And 0% actually address ANY facet of the concern du jour of CTE/brain trauma, which is why our job as ambassadors of the game need to honestly focus on the true issue/argument.  In the other thread on this, there was a "debate" between Whitlock/Tim Ryan vs Gladwell, where football supporters did the exact same thing.  Its like arguing that smoking feels good therefore the scientific studies that show it contributes to lung cancer is invalid.

It doesn't take freaking Mickey Spillane to simply stay on topic.  For what its worth, that debate was a circus.  Gladwell was all over the place, too and spent most of his time arguing for NCAA unionization rather than brain trauma

Our position is discounted, our credibility is shot, our parents distrust us, our players resent us when we selfishly lie.



There is a TON of data to support that football is a great sport that benefits everyone that gets involved with it.
That has zero bearing on how the body deals with trauma.

We kind of had these discussions as representatives of the game 20-30 years ago, when we were facing a rash of ligament injuries (mainly knee), so maybe that is why some of these talking points are so convenient, because we've used them before. Football (physical) injuries can be argued/justified based on the value of the sport. "Sure, you may get injured and may face pain.....but it is the process that creates the value, that makes that risk worth it in the end".


That doesn't hold sway when we are in the discovery phase of an issue. We're trying to identify if brain injuries cause irreparable damage. Discounting the hypothesis before all the evidence has come in, only hurts our position. Misstating our position for the sake of misguiding the discussion is only hurts us in the end.

AMEN!!!!