'Concussion' doctor in NYT op-ed: No high-impact sports until age 18

Chastain and her husband (who was her coach in college) are part of a group trying to ban headers until age 14.

There's no need to ban kids from playing soccer because you can just ban the header (which I'm in favor of) and the sport can continue. You simply can't take concussions and sub-concussive hits out of football.

 

Helmets and Mouthguards Don’t Prevent Concussions | TIME.com

 

I can remember playing soccer as a 9 year old.

I headed the ball once in a game, and it hurt like hell. I felt mildly stunned and disoriented. But all the parents clapped and yelled, "Yaaaaaay !!!! Great job !!!!"

And I thought to myself: Why was that a 'great job' ? I headed the ball squarely and it went to a random spot-- matter of fact, I think the other team took control of the ball. What does me heading the ball have anything to do with the outcome of this game?

Needless to say, that was my last year of soccer.

 

Misleading headline, but I'm going to share that one with some coaches and trainers I know. Actually, the data (which is not included in the article) indicates a lack of proof that mouthguards help, not definitive evidence that they don't.

Do you really buy the theory that less equipment is better because athletes will be more careful?

 

Yes.

If you watch films from the '50s and '60s, before the helmets had such hard shells and elaborate face masks and (especially) the shoulder pads got to be Transformers size, you never see players leaving their feet to launch themselves. Very little using the head as a weapon in any way.

Regarding the mouthguards, there's lots of proof and it is not a misleading headline. They've been studying it since the late '90s and every study comes back as no connection. If they study it that much and find no connection, there's no connection.

BTW this is generally accepted by now among those in the industry. In fact my friend, a PT who works with pro and college teams around here, is the one who told me about it.

 

Just because that was the approach of players in the '50s and '60s doesn't mean it would be the approach now. Given cultural changes and factors such as the money involved at the professional level, wouldn't it make sense that the psychology of the football player is not the same now as it was 50 years ago?

I'm not saying there isn't some sound logic to the theory, but the evidence is limited and questionable at best. Also, I just can't imagine the NFL going that route, at least not any time soon.

Regarding mouthguards, I've had quite a few trainers and coaches tell me the exact opposite. The headline is misleading in that it makes a definitive statement while much of the research shows a lack of evidence that the mouthguards prevent concussions rather than definitive evidence that they do not. I consider that to be misleading. I can certainly understand taking a different point of view.

"Helmets and Mouthguards May Not Prevent Concussions" would have been more appropriate, but I understand why they didn't write it that way.

 

I knew you'd find a way to be right and dismiss the researchers who have actually studied the matter for 20 years. Thanks for never disappointing.

 

And here, I was hoping you might want to engage in a genuine discussion. My mistake.

Our understanding of concussions is limited and evolving. When I said I want to share what you linked with some coaches and trainers I know, I meant it. I did not dismiss the research. I simply said the headline as a bit misleading because the research seems to be incomplete. When I read your link, I went searching for more detailed information because I have a great deal of interest in this topic. There is very little detail regarding protective equipment in the article you linked. Others I read said that there is little evidence that mouthguards help, but it has not been proven that they don't.

I do disagree with the theory that getting rid of some of the protective equipment will make football players and other athletes more careful, but I think it is worth further discussion and study. In fact, I went out of my way to say I completely understand you or anybody else taking a different view from mine on this.

I'm trying to be reasonable because this concussions are an important discussion. For a moment, I thought you got past your personal issues with me long enough to engage in that discussion. Sadly, I was mistaken.

 

Ok Vizzini, you're exhausting. Direct any further inquiries to the authors of the scientific study.

 

Just proving my point that while I am reading and posting on this thread for the sake of genuine conversation regarding an important topic, you are just here to attack me again.

 

Science literally has no tools for proving a negative. Looking for a positive and not finding it is all the proof of a negative that could ever exist.