UB says not so fast with this CTE stuff

[Dr.Sack]

CTE is real and found in many autopsy’s. Some players like Trent Edwards may be more susceptible to than a guy like Brady. I think has more to do with skull thickness than anything. That said why not conduct a scan of Trent Edwards cranium thickness as opposed to someone like Brady?

[TheFunPolice]

CTE is a serious issue, and one that should be addressed and I think is being addressed as such.

 

That said, many (most?) former NFL players are leading productive and fairly healthy lives. People suffer the consequences of aging regardless of their profession. Also, plenty of professions take a severe toll on the body and leave workers beat to hell and in constant pain. Not many pay millions in salary and endorsements, plus the lifetime of "hire this guy because he was an NFL player" secondary cash you can make too.

 

None of that takes away from the issue, but I think some have gone a bit too far with the over the top reactions to it. Let's figure out how to make the game safer and avoid the stupid hits, especially in practices, that add nothing to the game and just result in injury or unnecessary wear and tear on players' bodies.

 

I wonder what the effects of all these new rules will be on the current generation of NFL players whose entire careers will be played with the concussion protocol, targeting rule, helmet rule, defenseless WR rule, kickoff rule, practice rules, and shorter camps....

 

One would think that all of these major changes to the way the game is practiced, coached, played, and officiated would pay some major dividends in terms of reducing concussions.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

9 hours ago, The Tomcat said:

We aren't getting the same things they are.

 

Sure you are.  Oxy and toradol,  that’s prettty much it

[Ol Dirty B]

11 hours ago, musichunch said:

 

How much would a "large" or "good enough" sample be? 

 

It's basic statistics brah

[ToGoGo]

22 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:

 

500 to 1000, and certainly not all athletes who played in Buffalo.  Not only is the sample statistically insignificant, it's skewed to the point of mathematical uselessness.

 

Where did you pull those numbers from? Couple more questions:

 

1. Is it possible that these results could be pointing to a correct conclusion, regardless of sample size?

2. Is it possible that intuition is involved with research and good data can be pulled from traditionally small sample sizes?

3. If an unusual amount of athlete brains from Buffalo show a low CTE rate, would that not be interesting data?

4. Is it possible you are exaggerating significantly when you say it is nearly "mathematically useless"?

[apuszczalowski]

21 hours ago, TheFunPolice said:

CTE is a serious issue, and one that should be addressed and I think is being addressed as such.

 

That said, many (most?) former NFL players are leading productive and fairly healthy lives. People suffer the consequences of aging regardless of their profession. Also, plenty of professions take a severe toll on the body and leave workers beat to hell and in constant pain. Not many pay millions in salary and endorsements, plus the lifetime of "hire this guy because he was an NFL player" secondary cash you can make too.

 

None of that takes away from the issue, but I think some have gone a bit too far with the over the top reactions to it. Let's figure out how to make the game safer and avoid the stupid hits, especially in practices, that add nothing to the game and just result in injury or unnecessary wear and tear on players' bodies.

 

I wonder what the effects of all these new rules will be on the current generation of NFL players whose entire careers will be played with the concussion protocol, targeting rule, helmet rule, defenseless WR rule, kickoff rule, practice rules, and shorter camps....

 

One would think that all of these major changes to the way the game is practiced, coached, played, and officiated would pay some major dividends in terms of reducing concussions.

 

 

They are trying to make it safer and take out the stupid hits, but then everyone cries its becoming flag football and it's a physical game

[Freddie's Dead]

18 minutes ago, musichunch said:

 

Where did you pull those numbers from? Couple more questions:

 

1. Is it possible that these results could be pointing to a correct conclusion, regardless of sample size?

2. Is it possible that intuition is involved with research and good data can be pulled from traditionally small sample sizes?

3. If an unusual amount of athlete brains from Buffalo show a low CTE rate, would that not be interesting data?

4. Is it possible you are exaggerating significantly when you say it is nearly "mathematically useless"?

 

1.  Anything is possible, however unlikely.

2.  Anything is possible, however unlikely.

3.  Even in the superset known as Buffalo athlete brains, 21 is a ridiculously small sample size.  Interesting, perhaps.  Scientifically significant, highly unlikely.

4.  I don't think so.  When you have nearly no diversity in the sample, all members of the sample share a significant trait, and the sample is not compared to any kind of control group, I don't see how the sample could generate any mathematically relevant results.

[Misterbluesky]

On 8/9/2018 at 10:18 AM, DC Tom said:

 

They look for early-onset dementia.  

 

On the one hand, the quality of the study is increased because you're far more likely to get a more diverse sample of people participating (since healthy people are less likely to voluntarily donate their brains post-mortem for study.)  But on the other hand...they're looking for symptomatic markers of the disease, which isn't as reliable.

 

Ultimately, though, anything to do with the brain is a complex subject, and can't be boiled down to any single study.

I have a close friend who was diagnosed with frontal lobe dementia.We played high school football together,it was sad to see him try to entertain a simple chore...he's 54 and demands to weed and feed his lawn nearly weekly.He would have killed the lawn if he did that....the same bag of weed and feed has been in their walk behind Scott's bucket since mid April.

[Sky Diver]

On 8/9/2018 at 7:44 AM, Rochesterfan said:

 

Not surprising in the least.  The issue with most current studies published is that the donated brains were from people suffering from CTE at the time of death.  Duh - of course they are going to find CTE - so they naturally assumed that the concussions were the cause.

 

What more and more studies are finding is that it is not concussions that cause the issue - especially as they study more players that had concussions, but are not affected (the majority of players).  They also find CTE in people that had did not play sports and had no known history of concussions.  So there was always more to the story.  That is why the shift about 2 years ago from concussions being the big culprit to repeatedly being struck in the head.  Lots of little injuries, but that has not panned out either.

 

I believe they will find something genetic in the end that makes certain players more susceptible (similar to the narrowing of the spinal column that caused paralysis for some players) and that combined with both the physical toll (oxygen depletion- banging of the brain - etc.) increases the risk factors.

 

I will not argue that concussions and repeatedly getting blows to the head are bad for you long term and may have some impact, but I have always thought it stupid that a big deal has been made that in people with suspected CTE that donated their brains and CTE was found - they made assumptions with no control groups, no studies of brains in healthy football players, no studies of CTE brains in non-athletes, nothing to make it scientific and provide real insight.

 

Sadly, science has been politicized.

[boyst]

On 8/9/2018 at 12:14 AM, Ol Dirty B said:

Yea... I'll pass on being on the wrong side of history.

 

That sample size is wacked.

All the studies of this are whack.  It's in an infantile state and needs to be further examined because there has been no proof of what causes it.  Without proof one cannot draw a conclusion.

[Ol Dirty B]

38 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

All the studies of this are whack.  It's in an infantile state and needs to be further examined because there has been no proof of what causes it.  Without proof one cannot draw a conclusion.

 

Fair point. I can't argue with that. The sample sizes, and the population tend to lead towards the conclusions being drawn from these studies.

[GaryPinC]

11 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

All the studies of this are whack.  It's in an infantile state and needs to be further examined because there has been no proof of what causes it.  Without proof one cannot draw a conclusion.

Partially right, but there is one inescapable conclusion:  Until we know more, we must be cautious in how we treat concussions.  

 

And the treatment of them has changed drastically in a short time.

The UB study is valuable because part of the research effort must answer how prevalent CTE is in athletes and the general population.  We need perspective, not just scare tactics.

[boyst]

Just now, GaryPinC said:

Partially right, but there is one inescapable conclusion:  Until we know more, we must be cautious in how we treat concussions.  

 

And the treatment of them has changed drastically in a short time.

The UB study is valuable because part of the research effort must answer how prevalent CTE is in athletes and the general population.  We need perspective, not just scare tactics.

All head injuries. 

But, we have always been needing to do that and we need to coach student athletes better. But, the same fire that propelled me in to a game after being blacked out will always exist and cause issues. At 16 you think you're invincible.

I don't know anything about teaching kids to protect themselves from the dangers of injury. I'd be a hypocrite to believe I knew considering the waivers I signed AMA to continue playing.

[row_33]

yes, taking 10,000 unnecessary blows to the head by the time you are 30 isn't good for you.

 

 

 

 

[GaryPinC]

54 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

All head injuries. 

But, we have always been needing to do that and we need to coach student athletes better. But, the same fire that propelled me in to a game after being blacked out will always exist and cause issues. At 16 you think you're invincible.

I don't know anything about teaching kids to protect themselves from the dangers of injury. I'd be a hypocrite to believe I knew considering the waivers I signed AMA to continue playing.

Absolutely do we need to coach kids better.  In addition, the rules of the various sports are also being tweaked to mandate safer techniques during play and in the event of a head injury/concussion.

 

But my original point is that you sound dismissive of the data by saying there is no proof, therefore we can draw no conclusions.  As a researcher by trade, I am always a skeptic because so much of science is gray, but I am also leery of being overly dismissive of data as your statements appear to be.

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Absolutely do we need to coach kids better.  In addition, the rules of the various sports are also being tweaked to mandate safer techniques during play and in the event of a head injury/concussion.

 

But my original point is that you sound dismissive of the data by saying there is no proof, therefore we can draw no conclusions.  As a researcher by trade, I am always a skeptic because so much of science is gray, but I am also leery of being overly dismissive of data as your statements appear to be.

 

this is a good balance between 100% skepticism and wide-eyed embracing of every news headline about "science"

 

football is a horrible impingement on the body and the mind of its players, i don't need a study to see the grey matter has taken too much rattling for a comfortable 40 years of post-retirement life

 

 

[boyst]

5 minutes ago, GaryPinC said:

Absolutely do we need to coach kids better.  In addition, the rules of the various sports are also being tweaked to mandate safer techniques during play and in the event of a head injury/concussion.

 

But my original point is that you sound dismissive of the data by saying there is no proof, therefore we can draw no conclusions.  As a researcher by trade, I am always a skeptic because so much of science is gray, but I am also leery of being overly dismissive of data as your statements appear to be.

I'm not at all overly dismissive, not so much as I am dismissive of an overreaction. We don't know the long-term ramifications of many things in this world that we are still studying. But football in this case is a choice people are making the play knowing the injuries that can cause. Therefore, I have a hard time caving to the ideas that things must be turned upside down to appease those we should already know better.