(no message)
There might be a better source but expect the factual information here is a current as there is ...
https://concussionfoundation.org/CTE-resources/what-is-CTE
If I looked at this as parent with children who want to play contact sports am sure I would find it very disconcerting and would proceed warily if the decision was to go ahead.
Can see why the author wrote this article as it isn't as simple as playing contact sports or being in a combat until means CTE for sure at some future point but it does mean there is a risk factor that goes up as exposure is greater.
This pathologist, who has an important role in the field per the cite, seems to have gone into televangelist mode with a very specific message. Have learned from life experience that most anyone who is super passionate about anything doesn't want to discuss complexities and is largely immune to empirical evidence or pretty much any argument that conflicts with "the message." My reaction if what is described in the article is accurate would be to do my own research from medical sites or one like the cite.
Even without this guy doing anything think there is already enough in the mainstream media (real news sources) that parents are doing the research. Am guessing that has a lot to do with the drop in youth participating in contact sports which will ripple up the line as time goes on. Also am guessing DoD is pouring money into research on how better to protect military personnel.
Mothers (and probably fathers!) are holding their kids out of football. Participation rates are dropping.
To deny it is just silly.
I love football--especially college football--but this is a real deal.
(no message)
When asked by a reporter in Davos whether he considers as serious injuries the concussions and other traumatic head injuries suffered by 12 soldiers hit by Iranian missiles to be serious he said, "No. Those are not serious injuries. Not as bad as some I've see." So there. Resume play.
(no message)
which he of course duly accepted and subsequently dropped his lawsuit.
Fast guys would then outrun big guys avoiding many huge collisions. When people did make contact it wouldn't be like a car wreck it would just be a tackle. 6'7" 300lb guys wouldn't run 4.5 40s and would no longer be able to run down 5'10 200lb guys that run 4.4s.
It's really pretty simple. I believe it's ignored because of the loss of money if PEDs were removed (the game wouldn't be as exciting). There likely is a link between CTE and football collisions, but if they really wanted to reduce CTE they would remove PEDs as they likely play a much larger role than anything else.
If we're reviewing true likely causes why not review all likely causes?
Or not.
Steroids are connected to the severity of head injuries by association but not directly.
Head injuries are head injuries -
Pre mass steroids guys were smaller and impact and collisions were much less severe.
Pre-steroids interior defensive linemen were slow and fat. They didn't run down RBs from behind 8 yards down the field or didn't chase them to the sidelines. For the most part, LBs didn't either, some but very few.
Greater muscle mass leads to more force on contact. The sheer strength of players now is causing collisions that rival car wrecks that's where the head traumas are coming from IMO.
If they are going to turn over every rock in search of an issue why not start at the place that is well known to allow the human body to grow and generate abnormal strength which leads to excessive force.
and others don't. There doesn't seem to be an understanding on why this is. Yes, steroids make these guys bigger, stronger, faster but that doesn't
mean that CTE is the outcome. What appears to be the diabolical part of steroid use is, it may cause CTE to be far worse than it might have
been, or rather the head injury far worse, not because of the pounding, but because the steroid explodes the Tau Protein and creates more
damage something as a side effect where steroids don't help in the recovery. There is no direct correlation with the two but CTE appears
to be worse in those who use steroids. This is believed to cause unusual on the field and off the field behavior in many athletes.
at point of contact.
So, if two heads or head and knee collide with greater impact due to a roid'd body applying more force than an unroid'd body, then the negative effect of the collision will be greater. More CTE issues / concussions. A harder pounding to the head = increased likely hood of head trauma, or greater head trauma than if the overall body mass / strength had not be jacked up by roids. The direct link here is the ability to apply more force due to the increased strength and muscle mass + speed from roids. Without roids all of these would be lower and collisions would be less threatening on an overall basis, hense not as many concussions in the pre-steroid era of sports.
I wasn't looking from the angle you mentioned of chemical/nerve reactions based on use. But, to your point, if there is a higher CTE rate in those that use because of the nerve reactions in the brain... again remove steroids and that rate drops.
Based on the new insight, for me that you shared, if you remove steroids then we likely remove 2 very plausible causes of increase CTE. Reduced strength/collision impact and reduce nerve issues you brought up. Two wins should reduce concussion rates even more than I'd previously thought.
So, it's a win-win for those actually playing the game? Yes, the fans are the loser her as the game likely loses some of its luster due to a decrease in athletic performance without all the enhancers, but that's a complete guess. You never know until you get there.
to help lessen the amount of concussions. No way to tell. What it would likely do is lessen the severity of the results of continuous concussions or as Omalu noted ( and so did the U of Oklahoma research) the severity of subconcussions. Subconcussions are minor hits along the way, glancing blows like a receiver putting a body on a CB while in his route. Blocking down field by a receiver and so on. Think of it like minor scrapes you could get on your hands laying bricks only it’s in your brain reverberating inside your skull. By the end of the day your hands are sore and have some light abrasions you hadn’t noticed earlier. Now imagine subconcussions over a life span of football and the effects on the brain bouncing around year after year. Again note, this doesn’t bother many players but somehow it does to others. No known reason has been found.
(no message)
(no message)
I didn’t fact check the references, but if they’re accurate it seems Omalu is deserving of the criticism at the very least.
He did discover the connection between concussions (closed headed injuries) in football and dementia and that they are long lasting injuries.
This piece is nothing more than someone airing their grievance with a personality.
You should do a little more reading on sports team owners and their constant attack (verbally and monetarily) on the science of head injuries.
ESPN back in the early 2000's and late 1990's on concussions, Mike Webster and the medical science of closed headed injuries.
The University of Oklahoma did studies on concussions and sub-concussions in football athletes which basically supported Omalu's conclusions on
the head issues with contact sports.
Much of what is in this article is factual but slanted to make Omalu's findings. BC/BU has been funded by the NFL since the early 2000's. Those who
are supported financially by sports corps often skew their information to please their benefactors. The oil company supporting scientists working on Climate Change
is another perfect example.
A little bit of truth behind a whole lot of bullshit.
(no message)