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

The study you quoted was on a sample of 412 football players and read like an advertisement for dentists trying to sell custom-fitted mouth guards.

 

Good luck taking up hockey at 18 and going anywhere in the sport.

 

It was one example. Look for yourself. The research isn't clear because it hasn't really been done. The link I posted is one of the few I could find that actually differentiated among different types of mouth guard. I'm not the one claiming that the existing research is conclusive. I'm the one saying more research should be done.

In other words, folks like LTL are taking opinions or incomplete research and declaring it as fact and I am correctly pointing out the flaw in that approach. So, business as usual.

 

I believe the idea would be for everybody to pick it up at the same time, or play safer versions of the sport when they are younger.

 

Sounds like a workable plan.

LOL.

 

I've covered this issue before. I'm versed in it.

The consensus is the same thing LTL posted. I'll post it again. They're never going to say "mouth pieces don't prevent concussions," because that's not something you can prove. This is as good as you're going to get.

There is no good clinical evidence that currently available protective equipment will prevent concussion, although mouthguards have a definite role in preventing dental and orofacial injury. Biomechanical studies have shown a reduction in impact forces to the brain with the use of head gear and helmets, but these findings have not been translated to show a reduction in concussion incidence.

 

I never said I agree with it. I'm just explaining my understanding.

 

I've covered the issue before, too, and your claim about the consensus just isn't true.

And it wasn't LTL who posted that they won't say "mouth pieces don't prevent concussions." It was RickStain. If you are going to claim some expertise, get the details right. And I've clearly countered that point twice already and you either aren't getting it or you are approaching it with willful ignorance. I'm saying that would be fine if there was enough research out there to settle the matter, but there is not.

Also, please see the part in bold. This suggests the need for more research. Also, it is unclear what they mean by headgear other than helmets. Also, it raises the question of the specific research of mouth guards, if it even exists, and if there are other studies of the difference between custom ones and those bought at a sports equipment store.

The article I linked certainly isn't perfect and I get the point you made, but it is research that shows a difference between custom guards and others. Show me specific research on mouth guards that indicates a different result.

 

You win. Obviously you know better about what people should study to try to limit the scourge of concussions in sports.

 

Not really, but I do know enough to see an area that could use more research. I understand why not much has been done. For the most part, the consensus is that mouth guards are worth using just to protect the person's mouth regardless their value in protecting against brain injury, if there is any. So the more useful research would be what I pointed out, evaluating types of mouth guard to see if one is more effective than another.

And I won a long time ago. Sadly, I still don't think you realize it.

 

Winners win. I wonder why more research hasn't been done. I wonder why people aren't motivated about looking into mouth guards more. Maybe because they've figured out they don't prevent concussions.

If you feel more research needs to be done, it's miscarriage of these researchers' responsibilities that more people aren't studying such a potential groundbreaking aspect of concussion prevention.

 

We get it. You won the Ben Roethlisberger bad beard impersonation contest several years ago.