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

If the research were comprehensive and conclusive, that would be enough. It is not.

Here's one article saying custom mouthguards make a difference, but more research should be done.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140501101133.htm

Unlike certain folks who found one article in their desperate search for a gotcha moment, when I read something that doesn't agree with what I've read and what I've been told, I started reading more. What I've found is a mix of opinions that suggests that more direct research needs to be done.

 

Hmmmm ... on the one side we have the peer-reviewed British Journal of Sports Medicine. On the other side we have outofplace.

It's a tough call to be sure.

 

Except the article, and you, aren't properly reflecting that research. One of us is interested in understanding the data available. That would be me. The other is interested in a lazy attack on another poster. That would be you.

Do you know what type of mouth guards were studied? Do you know anything about the studies at all? Nah. You found one article you thought you could attack me with and ran with it.

Please come back when you are ready to have a legitimate discussion of the issue.

 

IMPACT FACTORS OF VARIOUS JOURNALS
according to ResearchGate

British Journal of Sports Medicine (LTL's citation)
2014 / 2015 Impact Factor 5.025
2013 Impact Factor 4.171
2012 Impact Factor 3.668
2011 Impact Factor 4.144
2010 Impact Factor 3.545

Journal of the American Dentistry Association
2014 / 2015 Impact Factor 2.01
2013 Impact Factor 2.238
2012 Impact Factor 1.822
2011 Impact Factor 1.773
2010 Impact Factor 2.195

General Dentistry Journal (oop's citation)
5-year impact 0.00
Cited half-life 0.00
Immediacy index 0.00
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.00

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, oop.

 

No, it isn't. You really should cut out the drinking and start dealing with the other two issues.

Again, I'm not disputing the validity of the source. I never did. I'm saying you are misrepresenting the result and the article you cited and that the headline is misleading, both of which are true.

 

From the source material (i.e., the authors of the study):

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.

Consensus statement on concussion in sport: the 4th International Conference on Concussion in Sport held in Zurich, November 2012 -- McCrory et al. 47 (5): 250 -- British Journal of Sports Medicine

 

I was just reading that. For all of the laziness of your original approach, I give you credit for going to the source.

Here's the thing. That doesn't contradict what I have been saying. All it says is that evidence of a reduction in concussions does not exist. It does not say if or how that has been studied. It does not clarify what types of mouthguards were studied, which makes a difference. It does say that there is evidence of reduced impact to the brain due to helmets and head gear, but it is not clear if mouth guards were included as part of that information.

It is certainly worthy of discussion and investigation. So is the idea of cutting back on protective equipment to force athletes to play safer, but the evidence to back that up doesn't really exist, either. I'm sorry, but anecdotal evidence based on how football was played 50 years ago doesn't qualify.

 

Well, Viz, you've officially worn me out. Your ability to create controversy where none exists is nonpareil.

I'm done, Crazy Guy On Train Platform. Have a nice day.

 

That was a good Q and A with Chastain.

The problem with headers goes beyond heads striking a rapidly-moving ball. There are often jarring collisions as two players leap to make a header ... and just like in (American) football, the sudden jolt that stops your head as it's moving can cause concussions, too.

 

Translation: LTL knows I'm right so he's running away.

Despite your ill intentions, thank you for sharing the initial link. It actually does add some value to the discussion, though I doubt that is what you intended.

 

OOP strikes again. It's been pretty roundly recognized for years that mouth guards are only really useful for, well, protecting your mouth.

You should wear a mouth guard to protect your mouth, but it won't prevent concussions. The passage LTL quoted is about as clear a scientific opinion as you're going to get.

 

Actually, your first statement is false and your second statement is an opinion based on incomplete information, not a proven fact. The passage that LTL quoted from the original text, once I pushed him to look it up, actually confirms that headgear and helmets can lessen impact on the brain, though it is unclear if that includes mouth guards.

The conclusion is that the evidence of mouth guards preventing concussions does not exist, but other reports make it clear that the studies are incomplete at best.

LTL thought he had a gotcha moment and turned to personal insults when he realized he did not. But hey, if you want to be a follower and dive on a pile even though the target has long since escaped, please feel free to continue to display your lack of understanding for the class.