Head gear?

dad4 said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is not a new argument. Helmets marketed for use by soccer players have been shown to provide excellent protection against cuts, bruises, and fractures, but almost zero help in reducing concussions. They are in the wrong place - concussions occur when the brain slaps the inside of the skull when the skull suddenly accelerates (or decelerates). Head to head, head to ground, head to knee, head to goalpost, and whiplash with no sharp head contact with anything can cause concussions. Unless the protective device is capable of drastically reducing that intercranial shock, it will not stop concussions. Even football and hockey players get concussions with the big contraptions they wear.

In the game of physics vs marketing - the player loses.

If you didn't like the bench idea, how about this?

Amazon.com: Popsport Inflatable Bumper Ball 4FT/5FT Bubble Soccer Ball 0.8mm Eco-Friendly PVC Zorb Ball Human Hamster Ball for Adults and Kids (5FT 2Pcs): Sports & Outdoors

Amazon.com: Popsport Inflatable Bumper Ball 4FT/5FT Bubble Soccer Ball 0.8mm Eco-Friendly PVC Zorb Ball Human Hamster Ball for Adults and Kids (5FT 2Pcs): Sports & Outdoors
www.amazon.com
 
The argument is that the Wisconsin study showed kids wearing Storelli had about 65 percent fewer concussions per AE, as compared with the control group. Significant at the 79%, but not 95%.

Not sure how it can be an old argument, because it is based on a relatively new data.

If you want to understand the physics, the skull accelerates more slowly if peak force is reduced. Foam reduces the peak force, which reduces skull acceleration.

You can skip the link to bubble ball suits. I am trying to have a serious discussion here.
 
dad4 said:
The argument is that the Wisconsin study showed kids wearing Storelli had about 65 percent fewer concussions per AE, as compared with the control group. Significant at the 79%, but not 95%.

Not sure how it can be an old argument, because it is based on a relatively new data.

If you want to understand the physics, the skull accelerates more slowly if peak force is reduced. Foam reduces the peak force, which reduces skull acceleration.

You can skip the link to bubble ball suits. I am trying to have a serious discussion here.
Click to expand...

Can you help me out here? I scanned through the whole thread and I couldn't find a link to a "Wisconsin study".
 
dad4 said:

be sure to read the while thing, not just the abstract. The conclusion makes an “absence of evidence/ evidence of absence“ error. (just because you didnt get your 95% doesn‘t mean you proved the negative. It means you failed to prove the positive.)
Click to expand...

Foolish me - I didn't think of looking for Wisconsin results in a British medical journal.

All those claims of "no difference" had me fooled.

Have you written a rebuttal to the journal article informing them of their error?
 
espola said:
Foolish me - I didn't think of looking for Wisconsin results in a British medical journal.

All those claims of "no difference" had me fooled.

Have you written a rebuttal to the journal article informing them of their error?
Click to expand...
I take it you didn't bother to read the whole thing.

Hope you feel clever. Good night.
 
dad4 said:
I take it you didn't bother to read the whole thing.

Hope you feel clever. Good night.
Click to expand...

Not only did I read the whole thing, but I also looked through the data tables and did some research on the authors (at least two Doctors, and at least one of them an MD) and the journal.

I don't see any reason to toss their "no difference" conclusions.
 
espola said:
Not only did I read the whole thing, but I also looked through the data tables and did some research on the authors (at least two Doctors, and at least one of them an MD) and the journal.

I don't see any reason to toss their "no difference" conclusions.
Click to expand...
No reason, other than the fact that one group had triple the concussion rate of the other.

MD is the wrong author to cite. They do the medicine. Tell me who did the stats on it. That's who made the mistake.

Not an issue for the journal. Actual researchers will see the middling p value and know what it means.
 
dad4 said:
No reason, other than the fact that one group had triple the concussion rate of the other.

MD is the wrong author to cite. They do the medicine. Tell me who did the stats on it. That's who made the mistake.

Not an issue for the journal. Actual researchers will see the middling p value and know what it means.
Click to expand...

Scott Hetzel is listed as affiliated with Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. I couldn't find out anything more about him. Maybe he is your target?
 
espola said:
Scott Hetzel is listed as affiliated with Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. I couldn't find out anything more about him. Maybe he is your target?
Click to expand...
Main problem is you. Telling parents that a bare head is equal to a foam headband.

As I said, actual statisticians can read the p value.
 
dad4 said:
Main problem is you. Telling parents that a bare head is equal to a foam headband.

As I said, actual statisticians can read the p value.
Click to expand...

I have not said that. Read the thread.

My position is that the foam headbands are effective against external injuries (cuts and bruises) and by spreading the area of impact would probably have some benefit in reducing the incidence of fractures. I agree with the study conclusions that there is no demonstrated benefit for reducing concussions.
 
dad4 said:
The argument is that the Wisconsin study showed kids wearing Storelli had about 65 percent fewer concussions per AE, as compared with the control group. Significant at the 79%, but not 95%.

Not sure how it can be an old argument, because it is based on a relatively new data.

If you want to understand the physics, the skull accelerates more slowly if peak force is reduced. Foam reduces the peak force, which reduces skull acceleration.

You can skip the link to bubble ball suits. I am trying to have a serious discussion here.
Click to expand...

The following is from a recently published book on sports related concussions co-authored by Julian Bailes, neurosurgeon who cofounded the Brain Injury Research Institute with Bennet Omalu (the pathologist who discovered CTE in ex football players and set off the whole CTE/NFL debate):

"Researchers have studied and proposed changes to current helmet designs in many sports through addition of external foam pieces to reduce peak intensities, specifically in football and baseball pitcher's helmets. Though this technology is shown to reduce the peak G force experienced, Tong et al demonstrated, through a forensic head model, that external protective layers just increased the duration and therefore did not change the overall total energy that the brain is exposed to. By reducing peak force applied focally to the skull but not total intracranial strain, helmets reduce impact injuries like skull fractures, but have limitations in concussion prevention. This concept has been echoed in the many studies that have published conflicting data in support and against helmets, even specific models, in their ability, or lack thereof, at reducing concussion incidence." (Apologies- there are many references cited in this passage that didn't copy over).

I can't imagine it is much different when it comes to soccer and wearing head gear. You may gain some protection from cracking your skull/splitting your head open, and it might make you feel better having it on rather than wearing no gear, but I'm not so sure it meaningfully reduces your concussion risk.
 
dejong21 said:
The following is from a recently published book on sports related concussions co-authored by Julian Bailes, neurosurgeon who cofounded the Brain Injury Research Institute with Bennet Omalu (the pathologist who discovered CTE in ex football players and set off the whole CTE/NFL debate):

"Researchers have studied and proposed changes to current helmet designs in many sports through addition of external foam pieces to reduce peak intensities, specifically in football and baseball pitcher's helmets. Though this technology is shown to reduce the peak G force experienced, Tong et al demonstrated, through a forensic head model, that external protective layers just increased the duration and therefore did not change the overall total energy that the brain is exposed to. By reducing peak force applied focally to the skull but not total intracranial strain, helmets reduce impact injuries like skull fractures, but have limitations in concussion prevention. This concept has been echoed in the many studies that have published conflicting data in support and against helmets, even specific models, in their ability, or lack thereof, at reducing concussion incidence." (Apologies- there are many references cited in this passage that didn't copy over).

I can't imagine it is much different when it comes to soccer and wearing head gear. You may gain some protection from cracking your skull/splitting your head open, and it might make you feel better having it on rather than wearing no gear, but I'm not so sure it meaningfully reduces your concussion risk.
Click to expand...

Thanks. link?

Totally agree the benefits are limited. Same impulse, different acceleration profile. Total energy to the head is the same, but the longer time may, or may not, mean that some of it is transmitted in a less traumatic fashion. Which is why we need the large scale field studies before we can say anything definite.

Even then, it is a question of the magnitude of a small change and personal risk tolerance. For me, even a 30% reduction is enough to make it worth wearing. For other people, a 30% reduction just means 70% of the risk is still there.
 
dad4 said:
Thanks. link?

Totally agree the benefits are limited. Same impulse, different acceleration profile. Total energy to the head is the same, but the longer time may, or may not, mean that some of it is transmitted in a less traumatic fashion. Which is why we need the large scale field studies before we can say anything definite.

Even then, it is a question of the magnitude of a small change and personal risk tolerance. For me, even a 30% reduction is enough to make it worth wearing. For other people, a 30% reduction just means 70% of the risk is still there.
Click to expand...

I suggest that without anything definite, people stop saying that they have found a solution.
 
espola said:
I suggest that without anything definite, people stop saying that they have found a solution.
Click to expand...

Who, other than corporate salesmen, is saying there is a soluion?

I’m just trying to figure out what can be done now, with the limited information there is. Headbands seem a small step in the right direction. Nothing definitive either way, as yet. Just partial data saying it might help a bit.

A solution would be more along the lines of banning headers entirely for girls under 18 and boys under 16. The game, as called, causes far more concussions than it needs to. Unfortunately, I can’t see USSF doing that without a second lawsuit, even if it would help the kids.
 
@dad4

books.google.com

Sports-Related Concussion

This new edition reflects the explosion of knowledge in basic science and clinical care for athletes with mild traumatic brain injury or concussion. Interest in management and methodology for making diagnoses and improving the clinical outcomes have changed dramatically. All U.S. states have...
books.google.com
 
dad4 said:
Who, other than corporate salesmen, is saying there is a soluion?

I’m just trying to figure out what can be done now, with the limited information there is. Headbands seem a small step in the right direction. Nothing definitive either way, as yet. Just partial data saying it might help a bit.

A solution would be more along the lines of banning headers entirely for girls under 18 and boys under 16. The game, as called, causes far more concussions than it needs to. Unfortunately, I can’t see USSF doing that without a second lawsuit, even if it would help the kids.
Click to expand...

Very few concussions are caused by headers.
 
If you allow headers, you have far more head to head collisions. Two people aiming their skulls at the same spot.

That’s about 40% of soccer concussions, from Dejong’s book, among others.

So no, not ”very few.” More like “almost half”.
 
dad4 said:
If you allow headers, you have far more head to head collisions. Two people aiming their skulls at the same spot.

That’s about 40% of soccer concussions, from Dejong’s book, among others.

So no, not ”very few.” More like “almost half”.
Click to expand...

I'll concede that.
 
Forbes put up an article on headgear.

www.forbes.com

Head Protection Can Greatly Improve The Safety Of High School Soccer

High school soccer has an alarmingly high incidence of concussion--for girls it is even higher than for football. However, recent research suggests that top-of-the-line headgear can significantly reduce concussion incidence. Communities should consider mandating the use of such headgear.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

The author strongly agrees with the pro headgear argument, but this is pretty much one journalist‘s opinion. The data is still just the Wisconson and Virginia Tech studies. ( Strong enough for me to make my kid wear one until she is 18. Still with Storelli until someone designs a better one. )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top