Head gear?
- Thread starter EmmaruthM
- Start date
Can't discuss a point without making irrelevant exaggerations?
You forgot the part about “in your opinion”.
Why does it would like you are talking to yourself?
Bananacorner
SILVER ELITE
Unfortunately, a cushion slowing a rubber ball is a little different than what a cushion does on the outside of the skull with a very soft, vascularized brain inside surrounded by a little bit of fluid. I'm skeptical of how effective these headbands are given what I know about brain injury and coup contracoup injuries. It is the sudden change in being completely stationary to movement that causes the brain to "bounce" against the interior of the skull. And then when the neck (or worse, the ground or another object) causes the head to stop moving again, it bounces against the other side.
Take a look at this video to see how this works.
So although it is true that if you slow down the object that is coming at your head, there will be less coup and contracoup forces, the amount a 1/8 inch cushion ON THE OUTSIDE slows down an elbow/head or a goalpost may not be very much. The sudden impact will still move the brain inside of its bony cavity and "bounce" it against the sides. Will it move less? I think that is up for debate -- but for now these companies are making a killing from all the headbands.
What we need is a 1/8 inch cushion to put INSIDE of the skull around the brain -- now that would work.
Would you agree that if you can reduce the amount of force impacting the skull you concurrently reduce the amount of force transferred into the brain cavity which may not prevent the brain bouncing off the skull but reduce the force that the brain bounces off the skull?
There is no prevention only protection. Can we agree on that?
Bananacorner
SILVER ELITE
I've just seen way too many traumatic brain injuries, even with people wearing full helmets and not moving very fast at all. The brain is like an egg in there.
BUT I will say that it does absolutely NO HARM to wear the protective headgear and it could only help, so why not wear one?
As of 2019,
we’ve tried Full 90 helmets, Unequal headbands, and Storelli headbands.
of the three, my field player prefers the Storelli headband, mostly because it has a better fit. my goalie preferred the full 90 helmet- more awkward, but better coverage.
unequal 3 was a nice fit, but thinner and less protective then Storelli. Unequal 1 and 2 did not fit well.
Aura also has a headband that does well in lab tests. Have not tried it yet, but I will repost when we get a sample and a kid review.
overall, everyone in the house is convinced the headband decreases the severity of collisions. Partly this is experience, and partly we read the Virginia Tech study on the ability of headbands to reduce acceleration and jerk on the head.
www.helmet.beam.vt.edu
we’ve tried Full 90 helmets, Unequal headbands, and Storelli headbands.
of the three, my field player prefers the Storelli headband, mostly because it has a better fit. my goalie preferred the full 90 helmet- more awkward, but better coverage.
unequal 3 was a nice fit, but thinner and less protective then Storelli. Unequal 1 and 2 did not fit well.
Aura also has a headband that does well in lab tests. Have not tried it yet, but I will repost when we get a sample and a kid review.
overall, everyone in the house is convinced the headband decreases the severity of collisions. Partly this is experience, and partly we read the Virginia Tech study on the ability of headbands to reduce acceleration and jerk on the head.
Soccer Headgear Ratings
Virginia Tech Helmet Ratings - Soccer headgear have been tested to evaluate their ability to reduce linear and rotational acceleration of the head.
www.helmet.beam.vt.edu
How about some actual scientific research on the subject? Conclusion is that headgear did not reduce concussion risk.
futboldad1
PREMIER
The issue is the 'science' here is shaky.....in an ideal world you'd crack sex offenders heads with a blunt object with and without headgear.....but since we can't do that any study is going to be entirely random as some of the kids wearing headgear may have had some big hits and some without avoided this kind of contact....then of course there's the issue that no two people react the exact same way to a impact to the head....both my DDs got concussions when younger....I wish they'd had a padded head guard on as every doctor and neurologist I've spoken to has recommended them.....just like a bike helmet....it's not 100% failsafe or anywhere close to 100%.....but any kid banging their head against the turf is going to have the impact lessened by good quality foam....whether it's enough depends on the exact impact and kid involved....
If you read the study, the correct conclusion is that the study failed to demonstrate a change to concussion risk, in part because it included only 130 events.
Proving that there is no change is a much more difficult problem, and one that the study did not attempt.
If you look at the data from the study, the no headgear participants had a 55% higher rate of SRC. ( 6.5% versus 4.2%.) If this holds for larger sample sizes, it is a 35% reduction in risk. However, with a sample size of only 130 events, this is not enough to draw a conclusion.
That's why researchers use a large sample size - 2766 participants for an entire season in this case.
Just to clarify, 130 is the number of concussions experienced by the 2766 participants over the season so it's the number of events that resulted in concussion - presumably much less than the total number of knocks to the head.
Yak- I think we are mostly agreeing. For small probability events, you need much larger sample sizes. In this case, 2766 (130 events) is too small a sample size to demonstrate the existence or absence of a moderate protective effect.
What we have is a 35% reduction that might be 60% and might be zero. What that means to you as a parent is a whole different question.
What we have is a 35% reduction that might be 60% and might be zero. What that means to you as a parent is a whole different question.
Any other studies on this?
The UW study had an 80% chance of discovering a protective effect, if that effect was 50% or greater. It failed to discover such an effect.
The actual data had a 35% reduction in risk, but only after statistically adjusting for age. I am not good enough at stats to say whether this is reason to doubt the existence of a reduction. Also, only 75% confidence. (another way of saying the evidence is weak)
Some headbands did better than others. Storelli looked the best, with a 62% reduction. However, the sample size only gave you a 79% confidence.
The UW study had an 80% chance of discovering a protective effect, if that effect was 50% or greater. It failed to discover such an effect.
The actual data had a 35% reduction in risk, but only after statistically adjusting for age. I am not good enough at stats to say whether this is reason to doubt the existence of a reduction. Also, only 75% confidence. (another way of saying the evidence is weak)
Some headbands did better than others. Storelli looked the best, with a 62% reduction. However, the sample size only gave you a 79% confidence.
Here is a different take on the headband. My DD suffered a concussion in high school and the coach wanted her to get one before he would let her play. She was resistant at first but has been playing with Storelli and likes it. She says by wearing it it makes her more cognizant of her head and has actually made her better aware and more creative with her play by playing differently rather than just heading the ball all the time.
I don't know of any helmet intended for use by soccer players that would help to meaningfully reduce the incidence of concussions.
The links to research articles are pretty good. Take the time to read the data tables and not just the abstract/conclusions. If you do, you will see that there is evidence of a moderate protective effect.
Or poke some giant holes in the stats argument I made. That is also productive.
But why waste time with unsupported claims and pictures of a bench?