A Lot of Bills stars Were at OTA's But 1 Star Was Not .

[Royale with Cheese]

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Hi.  The article quoted by NewEra said that the repeat MRI back when Star was drafted found "no evidence of dysfunction".

 

A low ejection fraction would be a dysfunction, usually caused by an underlying abnormality detectable by MRI.

 

Therefore it's a reasonable presumption that the low ejection fraction found on the first exam was a transient condition.  If it weren't transient, the abnormality would have been found in the MRI.

 

The most common cause of a transient low ejection volume (to my knowledge, not a cardiologist) is cardiomyopathy due to a recent viral infection. 

 

However, it's a valid point that none of us have access to Star's medical records since the draft, therefore it's an inappropriate conclusion that he has no medical reason for wishing to opt out.  His heart condition may have evolved, or there might be a different preexisting condition (such as diabetes) that puts him at higher risk than just being a big dude.

 

Yes!

 

Not to mention not even considering other family members.

 

Our main instructor at my gym took the entire year off and returned once he got the vaccine.  He's not a high risk but his brother has diabetes and they live together....so he literally quarantined himself and went nowhere.  He didn't want to put him at risk.

[ngbills]

I heard Star was out at Applebees and only tipped 5%...

Edited May 27, 2021 by ngbills

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

The fact that you cannot understand the difference between 300 lbs professional athlete and 300 lbs regular Joe is astonishing.

Like jaw dropping.

 

You have no idea the medical conditions of these offensive and defensive lineman....none.  Quit pretending like you do.  It's just nonsense.

Diabetes you say?  There are only 2 known NFL players who are known to have diabetes.

 

I think the earlier allusion was a statistical argument that based on population incidence, there are probably more we don't know about.

I'm not sure that's correct.

 

Per the CDC, between 3 and 5 per 1000 adults age 18-44 are diagnosed with diabetes.   There are ~2200 players on an NFL roster each season (counting PS).  Therefore just using that metric, we might expect that there are between 7 and 11 diabetic players. 

 

Two counters:

1) like a lot of "bin" statistics, it probably skews towards the older end of the range, as type II diabetes becomes more frequent with age.  I'm not inspired to dig for an actual age/incidence chart with finer gradation

2) bigger point - which you have made in an altered form - is that statistics established for a general population should not properly be applied to a non-random subset.  And elite, professional athletes are most definitely a non-random subset.

 

[BADOLBILZ]

10 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

The fact that you cannot understand the difference between 300 lbs professional athlete and 300 lbs regular Joe is astonishing.

Like jaw dropping.

 

You have no idea the medical conditions of these offensive and defensive lineman....none.  Quit pretending like you do.  It's just nonsense.

Diabetes you say?  There are only 2 known NFL players who are known to have diabetes.

 

 

 

 

If you think these 300# guys are in great physical condition because they are being paid to play football I suggest you read up on Matt Birk. 

 

He was considered a very athletic lineman and yet even in the offseason he had to one-foot walk down stairs and couldn't go on walks with his family because it was too exhausting.    He dropped 75 pounds and now he is running marathons.  

 

These dudes operate athletically in a relative phone booth.   They are not necessarily in good cardiovascular condition.  

 

If you want to debate the point provide actual counterpoints.   If you are so certain there only 2 players in the NFL that have diabetic/insulin issues that you declare it as FACT then at least NAME them.    

 

Show some kind of work instead of just insisting that obese people aren't more susceptible to disease concerns.........because that position is medically accepted as fact.   

[TheFunPolice]

We've come a long way as fans...

 

When I was a kid it was "check out my Thurmanator poster!"

 

Now, we're discussing the ejection fraction of Star's heart and whether he has underlying medical conditions that explain his absence from a voluntary minicamp in May

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

47 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

2) As I said earlier.........according to the AHA........more than 1/3 of adult males have heart disease.

 

I'd appreciate a source for this statement (the prevalence numbers I've seen are higher) but even taken as read it probably has little bearing on this topic.

 

First, to the AHA, "heart disease" uses an inclusive definition encompassing hypertension, coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, and atrial fibrullation.  Of these, by far the most prevalent is hypertension (usually controlled with medication), but which the general public doesn't necessarily think of when they read "more than 1/3 of adult males have heart disease".  Conditions such as CHD and CHF are much lower prevalence - CHF, the condition associated with low ejection fraction, being estimated as 2.5%.

 

Second, like many health conditions, heart disease incidence is strongly age related.  So the incidence at age 18-44 is less than half the overall incidence (20%) and again, predominantly hypertension, and skewed towards the upper end of that age range. 

 

Third and most important, it's not appropriate to apply statistics developed on a whole population to a non-random subset of that population.  And  elite athletes such as football players are most definitely a non-random subset.

[Royale with Cheese]

12 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

If you think these 300# guys are in great physical condition because they are being paid to play football I suggest you read up on Matt Birk. 

 

He was considered a very athletic lineman and yet even in the offseason he had to one-foot walk down stairs and couldn't go on walks with his family because it was too exhausting.    He dropped 75 pounds and now he is running marathons.  

 

These dudes operate athletically in a relative phone booth.   They are not necessarily in good cardiovascular condition.  

 

If you want to debate the point provide actual counterpoints.   If you are so certain there only 2 players in the NFL that have diabetic/insulin issues that you declare it as FACT then at least NAME them.    

 

Show some kind of work instead of just insisting that obese people aren't more susceptible to disease concerns.........because that position is medically accepted as fact.   

 

They aren't in the same cardiovascular shape as a runner but they are in better shape than your regular 300 lbs that does nothing.  NFL lineman work out constantly.  I can't believe this has to be explained.

 

Matt Birk you say?  Here's his exact quote below.  Show me the quote where his cardio was so bad he couldn't walk with his family.  But could play a 60 minute game?

 

Birk was relegated to the life of a lineman at a young age. He was obese as a kid and playing football in the trenches was a good excuse for him to stay big.

But when Birk got to the NFL, he became a freak about nutrition and training.

“That was the only way I was going to be able to survive in the NFL,” he said. “That was really the only edge I had on my competition was to know more and learn more and do more.”

After 15 years in the league, Birk knew it was time for a change to his diet and lifestyle. He wasn’t going through grueling practices anymore and it wasn’t healthy for him to stay that large.

“I wasn’t going to go to Chipotle and get two burrito bowls at 9:30 at night anymore,” Birk joked.

 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/10/matt-birk-baltimore-ravens-weight-loss-model

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

24 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

Show some kind of work instead of just insisting that obese people aren't more susceptible to disease concerns.........because that position is medically accepted as fact.   

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone is insisting that obese people aren't more susceptible to disease concerns.  

 

The question is whether general population statistics are applicable to elite athletes, even heavy obese athletes.

 

I googled Matt Birk and while I could find stuff about him losing weight, I couldn't find anything that he was so cardiovascularly unfit he couldn't walk down stairs or go for a walk when he played.  Since these big guys usually manage to get out in front of RBs and block all game, I'd be very surprised indeed if any issues with going downstairs or for walks involved cardiovascular fitness vs. injuries to knees and feet lingering into the off-season.

 

 

[Solomon Grundy]

30 minutes ago, ngbills said:

I heard Star was out at Applebees and only tipped 5%...

At least he tipped!! Class is not only an assembly of children/people in an organized setting 😎

I thought burrito bowls were healthy 🤦🏽‍♂️🤷🏽‍♂️

[BADOLBILZ]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'd appreciate a source for this statement (the prevalence numbers I've seen are higher) but even taken as read it probably has little bearing on this topic.

 

First, to the AHA, "heart disease" uses an inclusive definition encompassing hypertension, coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, and atrial fibrullation.  Of these, by far the most prevalent is hypertension (usually controlled with medication), but which the general public doesn't necessarily think of when they read "more than 1/3 of adult males have heart disease".  Conditions such as CHD and CHF are much lower prevalence - CHF, the condition associated with low ejection fraction, being estimated as 2.5%.

 

Second, like many health conditions, heart disease incidence is strongly age related.  So the incidence at age 18-44 is less than half the overall incidence (20%) and again, predominantly hypertension, and skewed towards the upper end of that age range. 

 

Third and most important, it's not appropriate to apply statistics developed on a whole population to a non-random subset of that population.  And  elite athletes such as football players are most definitely a non-random subset.

 

 

I'm an aware that you present yourself as a medical expert.......at least on the internet.........but before bothering to go thru all of those pointless gymnastics and THEN have you decide that they have little bearing on the topic.........what % of players do you presume would have qualified as being at a higher than normal risk..........thus qualifying for the $350K non-refundable opt out?  

 

That's what we are talking about here.   

 

The only point I am making with regard to the general medical aspect of the opt outs is that obesity is considered to put one at a much higher risk for any number of diseases/afflictions.     That is generally accepted as fact.     If you are basing your need to argue that point on some straw man devised by Royale then you are wasting your time.  

 

[Royale with Cheese]

11 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'd appreciate a source for this statement (the prevalence numbers I've seen are higher) but even taken as read it probably has little bearing on this topic.

 

First, to the AHA, "heart disease" uses an inclusive definition encompassing hypertension, coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, and atrial fibrullation.  Of these, by far the most prevalent is hypertension (usually controlled with medication), but which the general public doesn't necessarily think of when they read "more than 1/3 of adult males have heart disease".  Conditions such as CHD and CHF are much lower prevalence - CHF, the condition associated with low ejection fraction, being estimated as 2.5%.

 

Second, like many health conditions, heart disease incidence is strongly age related.  So the incidence at age 18-44 is less than half the overall incidence (20%) and again, predominantly hypertension, and skewed towards the upper end of that age range. 

 

Third and most important, it's not appropriate to apply statistics developed on a whole population to a non-random subset of that population.  And  elite athletes such as football players are most definitely a non-random subset.

 

I've made this point multiple times.

 

Here's the AHA chart on prevalence of heart disease and age.

 

Am I reading this right?  .6% of people ages 20-39?

5 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

I'm an aware that you present yourself as a medical expert.......at least on the internet.........but before bothering to go thru all of those pointless gymnastics and THEN have you decide that they have little bearing on the topic.........what % of players do you presume would have qualified as being at a higher than normal risk..........thus qualifying for the $350K non-refundable opt out?  

 

That's what we are talking about here.   

 

The only point I am making with regard to the general medical aspect of the opt outs is that obesity is considered to put one at a much higher risk for any number of diseases/afflictions.     That is generally accepted as fact.     If you are basing your need to argue that point on some straw man devised by Royale then you are wasting your time.  

 

 

Wow.

[BADOLBILZ]

11 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

They aren't in the same cardiovascular shape as a runner but they are in better shape than your regular 300 lbs that does nothing.  NFL lineman work out constantly.  I can't believe this has to be explained.

 

Matt Birk you say?  Here's his exact quote below.  Show me the quote where his cardio was so bad he couldn't walk with his family.  But could play a 60 minute game?

 

Birk was relegated to the life of a lineman at a young age. He was obese as a kid and playing football in the trenches was a good excuse for him to stay big.

But when Birk got to the NFL, he became a freak about nutrition and training.

“That was the only way I was going to be able to survive in the NFL,” he said. “That was really the only edge I had on my competition was to know more and learn more and do more.”

After 15 years in the league, Birk knew it was time for a change to his diet and lifestyle. He wasn’t going through grueling practices anymore and it wasn’t healthy for him to stay that large.

“I wasn’t going to go to Chipotle and get two burrito bowls at 9:30 at night anymore,” Birk joked.

 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/10/matt-birk-baltimore-ravens-weight-loss-model

 

 

 

 

Less than 2% of the general population of adult males in the US weigh 300# or more.

 

What would you say that % is on an NFL team?    

 

11 - 13 out of 53?

 

 So 20-25%.

 

Yeah..........thanks for your assistance with my larger point.

 

And congratulations on combining "he became a freak about nutrition" with "going to Chipotle to get two burrito bowls at 9:30 at night" and selling the latter as PROOF of the former.

10 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I've made this point multiple times.

 

Here's the AHA chart on prevalence of heart disease and age(or maybe something else......like erectile dysfunction.......yeah that's probably it......nevermind)

 

 

 

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

1 minute ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Less than 2% of the general population of adult males in the US weigh 300# or more.

 

What would you say that % is on an NFL team?    

 

11 - 13 out of 53?

 

 So 20-25%.

 

Yeah..........thanks for your assistance with my larger point.

 

And congratulations on combining "he became a freak about nutrition" with "going to Chipotle to get two burrito bowls at 9:30 at night" and selling the latter as PROOF of the former.

 

Wow.  

 

You cannot use the general population as evidence when comparing professional football players.  How many times does this need to be explained to you?  Why is this so hard for you?

 

You're mocking Hapless for being a "medical expert" but you're telling us you know most big men have underlying conditions?  What is wrong with you?

 

Those are Matt Birk's words, he said it, not me.  He specifically mentions he had to change his diet after he retired because he wasn't going through grueling practices anymore.  How does it not make sense that NFL big men at 300# aren't the same as your general population at the same weight?  How is this so hard for you....my god.

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

Generally speaking I don't care if veteran players go to the voluntary OTA's or not. 

 

Specifically to Star, I will say that it would've been nice if the guy that opted out of the entire 2020 season showed up for voluntary workouts in 2021. Probably safe to say he has a lot of catching up to do. 

 

Star's contract was an overpayment from day 1. He hasn't been a terrible player, but I'm pretty happy we have an out on his contract after this season. 

[BADOLBILZ]

13 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Wow.  

 

You cannot use the general population as evidence when comparing professional football players.  How many times does this need to be explained to you?  Why is this so hard for you?

 

You're mocking Hapless for being a "medical expert" but you're telling us you know most big men have underlying conditions?  What is wrong with you?

 

Those are Matt Birk's words, he said it, not me.  He specifically mentions he had to change his diet after he retired because he wasn't going through grueling practices anymore.  How does it not make sense that NFL big men at 300# aren't the same as your general population at the same weight?  How is this so hard for you....my god.

 

Mmmkay, yeah.

 

Which can bring us back to my first take..........cardiac issues are very broadly defined.

 

Since Star's opt out was reportedly based on a test that gave very conflicting results we don't even know if he was at a higher risk than any other 300# PLUS player in the NFL.

 

But we accept it as fact because he was allowed to opt out and collect that $350K..........a figure well below league veteran minimum and therefore not much of an incentive for a motivated NFL player to accept rather than play.

 

That's fine with me..........as I said........he sucked the last time he was on the field 17 months ago.........he was NOT missed last year,  IMO and I see little left for him to offer for the $10M he has coming in guaranteed Beane-bucks.

[BADOLBILZ]

31 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Wow - hope you can find this as the rest of the thread has devolved into a petty war.

 

We do not know what pre-existing condition Star has.  I believe he was one of a very limited number of Opt outs that was given the higher level of stipend being given for players with confirmed pre-existing conditions and diagnosis.
 

He was given the $350,000 stipend - whereas most players - even the overweight ones - were given the 150,000 stipend.  I also believe the players given the lower stipend have to pay it back out of 2021 salary (essentially it was a loan), but I believe the high risk players were given the money with fewer restrictions.

 

 

It's simpler than that.

 

Players who qualified got the unconditional $350K..........those who did NOT got the $150K(and that comes back out of any 2021 salary).    

 

If Star, in fact, had two very conflicting test results it's entirely possible that the mere possibility that the poor result  might be correct was enough liability risk for the league for him to get the extra $350K in guaranteed pay that he might never have seen(or have had to earn by showing up for offseason activities). 

 

Another thing people need to remember..........people are still dying from covid-19.......if Star is in fact at great risk from it and/or if he has chosen not to be vaccinated there is no guarantee he's any safer in a OTA setting than he was last year.    Maybe less so as vaxed players may be using less precaution to prevent transmitting a virus they may be carrying unknowingly.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by BADOLBILZ

[SydneyBillsFan]

Not sure how he can have heart problems if he doesn't have a heart.

 

The man is clearly lacking in ticker.

[BADOLBILZ]

20 minutes ago, SydneyBillsFan said:

Not sure how he can have heart problems if he doesn't have a heart.

 

The man is clearly lacking in ticker.

 

 

 

"Golly......I recognize you fella's........why you're Star Lotulelei........and you're a @Royale with Cheese special"

[Royale with Cheese]

15 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

 

"Golly......I recognize you fella's........why you're Star Lotulelei........and you're a @Royale with Cheese special"

Sensitive.

[Thurman#1]

On 5/28/2021 at 3:36 AM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Hi.  The article quoted by NewEra said that the repeat MRI back when Star was drafted found "no evidence of dysfunction".

 

A low ejection fraction would be a dysfunction, usually caused by an underlying abnormality detectable by MRI.

 

Therefore it's a reasonable presumption that the low ejection fraction found on the first exam was a transient condition.  If it weren't transient, the abnormality would have been found in the MRI.

 

The most common cause of a transient low ejection volume (to my knowledge, not a cardiologist) is cardiomyopathy due to a recent viral infection. 

 

However, it's a valid point that none of us have access to Star's medical records since the draft, therefore it's an inappropriate conclusion that he has no medical reason for wishing to opt out.  His heart condition may have evolved, or there might be a different preexisting condition (such as diabetes) that puts him at higher risk than just being a big dude.

 

 

No evidence of dysfunction." Yup. No evidence of a lack of dysfunction either. 

 

Agreed with your last paragraph.

 

But the reason the doctors at the time said it was "likely" and "might" be the reason the second was normal after the first had a low ejection fraction, is that without much more detailed tests, it's the best guess. But there's no way to know without looking much further.

 

Yeah, it's a reasonable presumption. There are others that are also possible and reasonable. The doctors might well have said that was the most likely explanation. They could not really have gone beyond that with only the results of two MRIs.