|
Post by brophy on Jul 25, 2017 11:11:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jul 25, 2017 11:33:58 GMT -6
Study proves that people who exhibit symptoms of a disease, actually have the disease. The study even says it was a highly biased sample group, players who already had symptoms of CTE whose brains were donated by the families.
|
|
|
Post by gccwolverine on Jul 25, 2017 12:21:57 GMT -6
Study proves that people who exhibit symptoms of a disease, actually have the disease. The study even says it was a highly biased sample group, players who already had symptoms of CTE whose brains were donated by the families. {censored} thank you. A self selecting study where we study the brains of people who are expericing neurodegenerative symptoms tells us nothing. Look everyone dies no one fets out alive might as well live life while we are here.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 25, 2017 12:28:53 GMT -6
Study proves that people who exhibit symptoms of a disease, actually have the disease. The study even says it was a highly biased sample group, players who already had symptoms of CTE whose brains were donated by the families. sounds like something someone with CTE would say
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jul 25, 2017 13:27:21 GMT -6
Looks like 100% of punters and kickers studied have CTE in this study. Yet they don't block, hit, or tackle. Point being this wasn't a scientific study that proves anything, other than most of the people who thought they had CTE ended up having it.
|
|
|
Post by stilltryin on Jul 25, 2017 14:19:41 GMT -6
And where is the data on CTE in the general population, which would give us some sort of perspective on the risk for football players relative to everybody else?
|
|
|
Post by gccwolverine on Jul 25, 2017 20:31:07 GMT -6
And where is the data on CTE in the general population, which would give us some sort of perspective on the risk for football players relative to everybody else? 100/
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jul 25, 2017 20:42:15 GMT -6
All good points, but as coaches I think we want to objectively look at the research, objectively communicate the view that more research needs to be done, and at the same time keep doing what we can to minimize possible damage. Two most obvious ways right now seem to be 1) teaching techniques that attempt to minimize head contact 2) reducing the amount of live contact in practice I think the vast majority of us are working on #1, I think #2 is more complex. What is the "sweet spot" of full contact during practice?
As representatives of the game, the worst thing we can do is try to "blow off" these studies.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 25, 2017 20:46:37 GMT -6
I have been telling parents this: If you aren't going to let your son play football because of CTE, yet let your children ride a bike or snow mobile (since this is MN) without a helmet they you are a hypocrite.
I am tired of the fake-news, hype-news not only about concussions but about just about everything else.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jul 25, 2017 21:02:40 GMT -6
Groundchuck,
I feel you on the hype, but I disagree with your comparison. If the theory that CTE is a result of multiple subconcussive hits turns out to be correct, you cannot compare it to bike riding or snowmobiling (but I would agree that they should wear helmets).
At 43, I have spent countless more hours on a bike than I have playing/practicing football. Thankfully, I cannot think of a single time where I have hit my head falling off a bike. But if I think about an average high school football practice for me when I was a senior in high school, I could have easily had 30-50 subconcussive hits in a single practice.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 25, 2017 22:13:08 GMT -6
Statistically, this study is kind of meaningless as far as football below the NFL level.
|
|
|
Post by tippecanoe41 on Jul 25, 2017 22:59:16 GMT -6
Not sure how this fits into the discussion, but I remember at some point probably 10 years ago or so hearing someone say that MMA was safer than boxing in the long run because since they have very thin gloves in MMA, so any big punch where a fighter "catches" the other fighter will end up with the lights being turned out on that guy and the fight being over, immediately. It might look a lot more violent or scary, but it's technically safer than boxing because so many boxers get tagged pretty repetitively during a fight, but since they have thick gloves, they get a whole bunch of "almost-concussions" rather than just one big hit that puts them out and ends the fight.
I played recently enough that we had pretty much the same helmets as these "new-age" helmets of today; I also played with a coaches who told me, specifically, to put my facemask in the QB's ear hole if he was looking at an OLB to decide whether to pitch or keep. I remember hitting RB's helmet to helmet and seeing them helped off the field only to return the next quarter. Today, there's ZERO chance they'd be allowed to return after that. Also, NONE OF US would have a job if we relayed this type of coaching to our players.
I remember hearing a story of a game that took place about 15-17 years ago that, today, if the story was true, would have coaches for the team in question in handcuffs. This coach tells me that at half time they had beat an opposing RB, according to him, to the point that the go-to RB was LITERALLY bleeding out of his ears, the way he tells it--won't swear to it because I wasn't there to see it actually happen and I'm sure by the time he heard the "bleeding out of the ears" part, it was at least second hand because he wasn't in the trainer's office to examine the kid during halftime, obviously. They were worried about the kid as far as health, but at the same time found a little bit of happiness about the fact that they wouldn't have to deal with the only RB the opposing team had for the 2nd half. To his disbelief, that kid came out after half time and played every offensive down and gained a ton of yards to help the opposing team win.
I remember times of taking on a lead back on blast at waist height at the same time that he decided to take me (LB) on at waist height. You can imagine this ended up being helmet to helmet, dead on contact at dangerous speeds. I remember a couple times this caused me to need to be shook in the huddle to snap me back to the reality that I was playing football and in a huddle.
These scenarios make me realize that, Yah, it's likely that that sort of impact on your brain is probably a bad deal in the long run, and I coach all players to keep their head out of things on both sides of the ball, but I think that the best way to put out intelligent information is always to have studies that are done in the correct manner. When you have studies that aren't done in the correct manner (I haven't read this article, but some have stated that its cross-section is not adequate to do a truly great study), you only serve to allow people to keep their sense of skepticism if they have any.
Anyway, just telling stories. I definitely agree that we need to keep heads out of football, but I want to make sure that we don't create unnecessary fear if it isn't due, etc.
|
|
|
Post by option1 on Jul 26, 2017 4:01:45 GMT -6
What is the point?
Safer protocols and acknowledgement, end of story. Let's play ball!
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 26, 2017 14:19:05 GMT -6
One thing I'd like to see as a coach is linemen being penalized for leading with their head. Start calling 15 yard penalties and force coaches to teach better or to remove players from the field if they are ignoring their teaching.
Whatever they want to do at the college and pro levels is on them but we can surely go further in attempting to make the game safer below those levels even if it means paying for an additional official on the field to only watch such things.
|
|
|
Post by fkaboneyard on Jul 26, 2017 15:07:40 GMT -6
This stupid ass study and the people that take it as gospel should be thrown off a tall building. My wife has an aunt that is worth a couple hundred million. A few years ago she funded an education trust for my two sons and one daughter that will pay for them to attend private university, all expenses paid. Last night she emailed this article (or one similar) to my wife and said she "couldn't, in good conscience, allow them to receive those funds if they play football because it would be a waste since they will suffer irreparable brain damage."
My daughter said she's glad she doesn't play football, my younger son is relieved because deep down he'd rather be playing baseball and my oldest son (who is a senior this year) was unfazed, saying, "I guess I'll just have to get a football scholarship." I really hate stupid people.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 26, 2017 15:27:42 GMT -6
I have been telling parents this: If you aren't going to let your son play football because of CTE, yet let your children ride a bike or snow mobile (since this is MN) without a helmet they you are a hypocrite. I am tired of the fake-news, hype-news not only about concussions but about just about everything else. While I understand your sentiments here coach, I don't know if that is an accurate approach. Seems to me that evidence is all pointing to CTE being caused by repetitive impacts on the brain, not simply "concussions". The amount of sub-concussive blows to the head in football would greatly outnumber those caused by bike or snow mobile accidents. I am not saying that I think this study is groundbreaking. As someone mentioned earlier, it seems like all they did was examine brains of people who complained of CTE induced symptoms. Unfortunately for the football community, those people happened to be football players. It is a crappy study seemingly with an agenda and some sexy numerical results that will absolutely get twisted. I am just saying that the evidence seems to pretty clearly point to the fact that repeated collisions are bad for the brain. In football, there are repeated collisions. So, what is the next step?
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 26, 2017 15:57:20 GMT -6
I have been telling parents this: If you aren't going to let your son play football because of CTE, yet let your children ride a bike or snow mobile (since this is MN) without a helmet they you are a hypocrite. I am tired of the fake-news, hype-news not only about concussions but about just about everything else. While I understand your sentiments here coach, I don't know if that is an accurate approach. Seems to me that evidence is all pointing to CTE being caused by repetitive impacts on the brain, not simply "concussions". The amount of sub-concussive blows to the head in football would greatly outnumber those caused by bike or snow mobile accidents. I am not saying that I think this study is groundbreaking. As someone mentioned earlier, it seems like all they did was examine brains of people who complained of CTE induced symptoms. Unfortunately for the football community, those people happened to be football players. It is a crappy study seemingly with an agenda and some sexy numerical results that will absolutely get twisted. I am just saying that the evidence seems to pretty clearly point to the fact that repeated collisions are bad for the brain. In football, there are repeated collisions. So, what is the next step? I have commented numerous times on this issue. Helmets are better. Rules are better. Techniques are better. People understand to try and not use your head or hit the head. They understand to not play with a concussion. The game is tremendously safer now. Here is a new study that came out this month. Not one that just checked people who had problems, but the population at large. jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/article-abstract/2635831Here are the key points: Question Does playing high school football have a statistically and clinically significant adverse association with cognitive impairment and depression at 65 years of age? Findings In this cohort study using data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study among men graduating high school in Wisconsin in 1957, there was no statistically or clinically significant harmful association between playing football in high school and increased cognitive impairment or depression later in life, on average. Meaning For men who attended high school in the late 1950s, playing high school football did not appear to be a major risk factor for later-life cognitive impairment or depression; for current athletes, this study provides information on the risk of playing sports today that have a similar head trauma exposure risk as high school football played in the 1950s. This is what I have been saying for years. If football was that much of a problem then our fathers, grandfathers, uncles, coaches, NFL analyst on TV, etc., all those guys would be having problems as a result of football. But they are not. Someone who played in the NFL for years, using their head over and over, playing through concussions, wearing old technology helmets, continuing to not upgrade their helmet because that is what they always played with, possibly using steroids, using illicit drugs, using alcohol, well, yeah, some of those guys probably will have CTE and we all realize that is no way to continue playing football. And football is not played that way anymore as we speak!
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jul 26, 2017 16:42:57 GMT -6
This stupid ass study and the people that take it as gospel should be thrown off a tall building. My wife has an aunt that is worth a couple hundred million. A few years ago she funded an education trust for my two sons and one daughter that will pay for them to attend private university, all expenses paid. Last night she emailed this article (or one similar) to my wife and said she "couldn't, in good conscience, allow them to receive those funds if they play football because it would be a waste since they will suffer irreparable brain damage." My daughter said she's glad she doesn't play football, my younger son is relieved because deep down he'd rather be playing baseball and my oldest son (who is a senior this year) was unfazed, saying, "I guess I'll just have to get a football scholarship." I really hate stupid people. fkaboneyard, Did you read the article? Even the head researcher admits there needs to be much more research. So I don't know who would take it as gospel? But IMO your reaction coming from a football coach, can also be a danger to our sport. It shows an unwillingness to be open to new information and act on it. If I had a kid playing football and I asked the head of the organization what steps if any they were taking to continue to minimize the risks, I would expect an objective reasonable answer. If the head of the organization blew this stuff off entirely, I would not enroll my son.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 26, 2017 17:54:46 GMT -6
This stupid ass study and the people that take it as gospel should be thrown off a tall building. My wife has an aunt that is worth a couple hundred million. A few years ago she funded an education trust for my two sons and one daughter that will pay for them to attend private university, all expenses paid. Last night she emailed this article (or one similar) to my wife and said she "couldn't, in good conscience, allow them to receive those funds if they play football because it would be a waste since they will suffer irreparable brain damage." My daughter said she's glad she doesn't play football, my younger son is relieved because deep down he'd rather be playing baseball and my oldest son (who is a senior this year) was unfazed, saying, "I guess I'll just have to get a football scholarship." I really hate stupid people. fkaboneyard, Did you read the article? Even the head researcher admits there needs to be much more research. So I don't know who would take it as gospel? But IMO your reaction coming from a football coach, can also be a danger to our sport. It shows an unwillingness to be open to new information and act on it. If I had a kid playing football and I asked the head of the organization what steps if any they were taking to continue to minimize the risks, I would expect an objective reasonable answer. If the head of the organization blew this stuff off entirely, I would not enroll my son. And did you read his post. I ask because nowhere in there did he say that they weren't taking any steps to minimize the risks. Of course, I played football so mebbe I don't think so good.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jul 26, 2017 19:35:42 GMT -6
I was mainly referring to his characterization of the study as "stupid ass". My point was that if we as a profession respond to new research like that, we will lose support from people IMO.
So in my example above, if I asked the head of league how they are responding to the current research and he replied "it's stupid", I would walk away from that league.
|
|
|
Post by vanden48 on Jul 26, 2017 20:57:25 GMT -6
These studies are painting a one sided picture about football. This is no different then the Global Warming studies. All skewed and hand picked data to paint a picture of doom and gloom so that you don't question the study. How old are these brains, what era of football did they come from, what else did they do in their life, what other variables are there that these people had in common, besides football, that could lead to "CTE"? If you took skin samples of every football player that dies of skin cancer, and determined that the football player died of skin cancer, coming to the conclusion that football causes skin cancer would be basically the same study.
I am not ignoring the fact that concussions happen in football. I have been knocked out playing high school football, and went blind in one eye for a half playing college football. The helmets, if you are spending $300+ are much better then what I played in from 1995-2003. And the way that we coach now is so much better than the coaching that was going on just 15-20 years ago.
I would like to see a study done that shows how many people play football and are just fine.
|
|
|
Post by fkaboneyard on Jul 26, 2017 21:07:29 GMT -6
I was mainly referring to his characterization of the study as "stupid ass". My point was that if we as a profession respond to new research like that, we will lose support from people IMO. So in my example above, if I asked the head of league how they are responding to the current research and he replied "it's stupid", I would walk away from that league. It is a stupid ass study, or at least the article is for all the reasons that people posted before I posted. If you can't see the difference between affirming good research and calling out bad research I don't know how to help you. That's an excellent strawman argument, though.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jul 26, 2017 21:27:00 GMT -6
I'm still not sure you have read the article. They are reporting on what they have found up to this point. They caution not to jump to conclusions and state that they need much more research. The researchers in this article are extremely objective and measured in what they are saying.
My point is that we need to be objective and measured in how we respond to it.
I guess I need more help understanding why you think this is a stupid ass study.
It seems to me that you are upset that people are using this study to completely vilify football, but that's not what the researchers are doing.
|
|
|
Post by tothehouse on Jul 26, 2017 21:38:49 GMT -6
I was going to add something here...
but I forgot what I was going to say.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 26, 2017 21:43:12 GMT -6
I'm still not sure you have read the article. They are reporting on what they have found up to this point. They caution not to jump to conclusions and state that they need much more research. The researchers in this article are extremely objective and measured in what they are saying. My point is that we need to be objective and measured in how we respond to it. I guess I need more help understanding why you think this is a stupid ass study. It seems to me that you are upset that people are using this study to completely vilify football, but that's not what the researchers are doing. They do say that they need more study. That's obvious from our point of view as HS coaches, The numbers in this study are very low, far below anything of statistical significance. The problem is that that's not how it's being reported. I'm not a guy who yells "Fake news". I don't think that there's an agenda. I just think that news organizations have no idea how to report medical or scientific stories.
|
|
|
Post by gccwolverine on Jul 26, 2017 21:45:19 GMT -6
This stupid ass study and the people that take it as gospel should be thrown off a tall building. My wife has an aunt that is worth a couple hundred million. A few years ago she funded an education trust for my two sons and one daughter that will pay for them to attend private university, all expenses paid. Last night she emailed this article (or one similar) to my wife and said she "couldn't, in good conscience, allow them to receive those funds if they play football because it would be a waste since they will suffer irreparable brain damage." My daughter said she's glad she doesn't play football, my younger son is relieved because deep down he'd rather be playing baseball and my oldest son (who is a senior this year) was unfazed, saying, "I guess I'll just have to get a football scholarship." I really hate stupid people. Thanksgiving dinner must be a {censored} blast. Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 26, 2017 22:18:33 GMT -6
I'm still not sure you have read the article. They are reporting on what they have found up to this point. They caution not to jump to conclusions and state that they need much more research. The researchers in this article are extremely objective and measured in what they are saying. My point is that we need to be objective and measured in how we respond to it. I guess I need more help understanding why you think this is a stupid ass study. It seems to me that you are upset that people are using this study to completely vilify football, but that's not what the researchers are doing. Coach, I understand you are trying to be impartial and your efforts here are noble. HOWEVER, IMO, the fact that they are doing THIS particular study shows they are very one sided. After this report came out, I went on the net and did some research and found a study that reported girls soccer having more concussion issues than FB due to heading the ball. I would be more open to these kind of studies if they included other sports stats, along with non athletes. But, since so many of these studies ONLY seem to concentrate on FB I FEEL like this is more about some of these people making a name for themselves. None of them would receive any notoriety or attention if they went after girls soccer. But the NFL is the big corp. and getting their name stamped on reports that make the NFL walk on egg shells seems to be at least partial motivation in some of these studies, again IMO. Furthermore, I did not see the film "Concussion", but did read an expose that one of the main characters depicted in the movie who was involved in much of the study actually had a son who played football...after he was aware of the study. Again, haven't watched the movie but the expose seemed to suggest that this was not information portrayed in the movie. My question: Why not? Maybe makes the information less sensational if the people portrayed as so horrified by the sport actually allow their kids to play? I also find it ironic that Will Smith's son played FB with Joe Montana's kid at a private school in CA. I'm open to information, but not open to the targeting of one sport over another. Compare FB to hockey, wrestling, soccer, non athletes, etc REGULARLY & stop making FB the big bad bogeyman & I will be willing to listen to what they have to say. Again, JMO.
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Jul 26, 2017 22:58:51 GMT -6
I'm still not sure you have read the article. They are reporting on what they have found up to this point. They caution not to jump to conclusions and state that they need much more research. The researchers in this article are extremely objective and measured in what they are saying. My point is that we need to be objective and measured in how we respond to it. I guess I need more help understanding why you think this is a stupid ass study. It seems to me that you are upset that people are using this study to completely vilify football, but that's not what the researchers are doing. Coach, I understand you are trying to be impartial and your efforts here are noble. HOWEVER, IMO, the fact that they are doing THIS particular study shows they are very one sided. After this report came out, I went on the net and did some research and found a study that reported girls soccer having more concussion issues than FB due to heading the ball. I would be more open to these kind of studies if they included other sports stats, along with non athletes. But, since so many of these studies ONLY seem to concentrate on FB I FEEL like this is more about some of these people making a name for themselves. None of them would receive any notoriety or attention if they went after girls soccer. But the NFL is the big corp. and getting their name stamped on reports that make the NFL walk on egg shells seems to be at least partial motivation in some of these studies, again IMO. Furthermore, I did not see the film "Concussion", but did read an expose that one of the main characters depicted in the movie who was involved in much of the study actually had a son who played football...after he was aware of the study. Again, haven't watched the movie but the expose seemed to suggest that this was not information portrayed in the movie. My question: Why not? Maybe makes the information less sensational if the people portrayed as so horrified by the sport actually allow their kids to play? I also find it ironic that Will Smith's son played FB with Joe Montana's kid at a private school in CA. I'm open to information, but not open to the targeting of one sport over another. Compare FB to hockey, wrestling, soccer, non athletes, etc REGULARLY & stop making FB the big bad bogeyman & I will be willing to listen to what they have to say. Again, JMO. Coach, I think you make some good points. I do think that the media seems to focus on football because it probably draws more viewers than if it focused on soccer. I would point out though that the research team that did this study has studied other sports and wants to study the general population. So while the media and Hollywood might be trying to make $$ by demonizing the NFL, or sensationalizing this issue, the researchers are trying to understand CTE. It just so happens, due to the popularity of the NFL, the most accessible brains they have to study are from former football players. But they want to expand that to the general population. That's why they publish studies like this to make an argument for why they need more funding/participants. These very researchers that some people seem to be attacking, might end up being our greatest allies 10 yrs from now. They may someday find that the incidence of CTE among football players is not all that different than that of the general pop. And of course they might find that there is a big difference. But I think we need to objectively accept the new findings and not blow them off as stupid.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 26, 2017 23:09:08 GMT -6
Coach, I understand you are trying to be impartial and your efforts here are noble. HOWEVER, IMO, the fact that they are doing THIS particular study shows they are very one sided. After this report came out, I went on the net and did some research and found a study that reported girls soccer having more concussion issues than FB due to heading the ball. I would be more open to these kind of studies if they included other sports stats, along with non athletes. But, since so many of these studies ONLY seem to concentrate on FB I FEEL like this is more about some of these people making a name for themselves. None of them would receive any notoriety or attention if they went after girls soccer. But the NFL is the big corp. and getting their name stamped on reports that make the NFL walk on egg shells seems to be at least partial motivation in some of these studies, again IMO. Furthermore, I did not see the film "Concussion", but did read an expose that one of the main characters depicted in the movie who was involved in much of the study actually had a son who played football...after he was aware of the study. Again, haven't watched the movie but the expose seemed to suggest that this was not information portrayed in the movie. My question: Why not? Maybe makes the information less sensational if the people portrayed as so horrified by the sport actually allow their kids to play? I also find it ironic that Will Smith's son played FB with Joe Montana's kid at a private school in CA. I'm open to information, but not open to the targeting of one sport over another. Compare FB to hockey, wrestling, soccer, non athletes, etc REGULARLY & stop making FB the big bad bogeyman & I will be willing to listen to what they have to say. Again, JMO. Coach, I think you make some good points. I do think that the media seems to focus on football because it probably draws more viewers than if it focused on soccer. I would point out though that the research team that did this study has studied other sports and wants to study the general population. So while the media and Hollywood might be trying to make $$ by demonizing the NFL, or sensationalizing this issue, the researchers are trying to understand CTE. It just so happens, due to the popularity of the NFL, the most accessible brains they have to study are from former football players. But they want to expand that to the general population. That's why they publish studies like this to make an argument for why they need more funding/participants. These very researchers that some people seem to be attacking, might end up being our greatest allies 10 yrs from now. They may someday find that the incidence of CTE among football players is not all that different than that of the general pop. And of course they might find that there is a big difference. But I think we need to objectively accept the new findings and not blow them off as stupid. Agreed. But if that's the case AND IF THEY WANT MORE COOPERATION FROM THE LIKES OF US, then I think they need to do at least as good a job of mentioning that more research needs to be done as they do demonizing FB. Other studies have published simultaneous results of other sports in concurrence with FB studies, I think more Dr.'s should take care to do the same. IF that happens, I will be more open, and I suspect others will as well, to listening to what they have to say. If you want to "feed the birds" you don't run around waving your arms trying to scare them off. You stay low key & develop a rapport with them. Build trust. This has not been done very well by the scientific and medical community IMO.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 27, 2017 3:47:21 GMT -6
NC1974 and s73 , Scroll back up, and click on my link. There is your study. But of course this study doesn't make headlines.
|
|