110 N.F.L. Brains • Hacker News Board

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#31

Post by im_down_w_otp » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:16 PM UTC

chasing wrote: post #25

Touche wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, is it true that everyone with CTE dies "horribly"? I think that might be overstating things a bit.

Not every single person with CTE dies horribly. As I understand it, some simply live decades happily forgetting their children's names and what day of the week it is.

This is currently happening to my grandfather. He played football most of his life and up through adulthood for the Philadelphia Eagles before leaving the sport to pursue his passion for flying (eventually becoming a captain for Delta).

He's had a charmed life. Lots of great experiences, like a real-life Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn, and the stories to go along with them.

Now's he battling (and losing) with the late-stage effects of dozens of concussions, which is manifesting itself as severe short-term memory loss, increasingly poor long-term recall, and eventually the inevitable situation where he doesn't recognize his own children, only grandchild, and only great grandchild. My father also played football most of his life (but not at the same level), and I'm concerned the same thing will eventually happen to him.

I'm very thankful to have had my grandfather in my life for so long (I'm now 37), and I have so many really wonderful memories and experiences that I can attribute to him (sitting in the cockpit of a 727 as a toddler, flying in the family little Piper Cub, countless lovely tailgate parties, a huge loving extended family of his long-time friends, etc), and I want to make sure that in the short window that's left where he's able to be at-least present in the moment that myself and my young son spend ample time with him.

It's difficult to watch the decline, but I can't imagine how difficult it must be for him to be living it.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#32

Post by chasing » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:17 PM UTC

Touche wrote: post #26

chasing wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every single person with CTE dies horribly. As I understand it, some simply live decades happily forgetting their children's names and what day of the week it is.

Is that really best-case scenario? So you're saying that among the retired football players who do TV today, Terry Bradshaw, Howie Long, Michael Strahan, Cris Collinsworth, etc. 90% of these players have CTE and will have decades-long dementia? So for the older players we should start seeing that very soon, no?

I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek, of course.

The article implies a selection bias -- that the actual number of football players with CTE could be as low as 9%. It also notes cases where CTE effects really become "horrible" much later in life, for men who are older than the guys you list.

Guys who self-select to be television personalities also might have a lower incidence of CTE. There's also a chance that some odd behavior on TV will be interpreted as "quirky" or "goofy" and not "experiencing brain damage."

At any rate... Of course the answer is: No, not everyone with CTE dies "horribly." But it's seeming increasingly likely that CTE can have major unexpected consequences on the later lives of football players. And the worst case scenario of CTE (Junior Seau, Jovan Belcher) is exceptionally horrible and exceptionally tragic.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#33

Post by jonbarker » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:22 PM UTC

I'm more interested in what happens to the brain with youth soccer. Bigger problem than a couple hundred pro athletes.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#34

Post by scott_s » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:24 PM UTC

pavement wrote: post #4

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in American football has been getting lots of media attention over the past few years, and the counterpoints to whether or not this is a serious issue will rely mostly on emphasizing the survivorship bias of those who enjoyed a high quality of life despite possibly (or assuredly) suffering such injuries, but in many ways almost all athletic sports represent feats of corporeal risk to…

Today's youth and amateur level competitors are tomorrow's professionals. I think there's a decent chance that in 50 years, American football will no longer be America's dominant sport simply because the player base may dry up. And I'm okay with that. I think it's telling when former NFL players discourage their own kids from playing football.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#35

Post by kentt » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:25 PM UTC

artursapek wrote: post #9

I think people take for granted now how good the Times is at these interactive, zine-like layouts for their feature articles. I just want to say another job well done on this one. Each one of these I see is a work of art that clearly took a lot of time across the team.

I guess to each their own. I found it unnecessarily difficult to read the grey text on black background. It always seems strange to only use a 30% of a monitor for the main content and fill the rest with pictures.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#36

Post by FanaHOVA » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:25 PM UTC

hervature wrote: post #18

FanaHOVA wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NFL isn't a 10 years old league, there's plenty of players who passed away. If anything there would be more examples since equipment was worse before and there were less rules that protected players, especially top/crown helmet leading tackles which started getting penalized with 15yd only in 2013.

I think the prevalence of concussions in football compared to rugby is proof that "better equipment" doesn't prevent concussions. It has the paradoxical effect of causing them. Better shoulder pads allow for people to launch their bodies without fear of separating their shoulders. Conversely, helmets are not designed to protect the brain, only to prevent skull fractures. Thus, I don't think your argument holds water.

You are right about the equipment (even though obviously only concussion vs concussion + skull fracture is a step forward!), but the difference between football and rugby goes way beyond the equipment. In the former there's no lateral passing, which means that the ball carrier will always be a target for the whole defense. In rugby you can pass the ball, which makes the defense spread wider and doesn't allow them to overcommit to a single player/tackle.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#37

Post by ggreer » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:28 PM UTC

Playing football is almost certainly bad for your brain, but this article does a terrible job of making that case. The doctor in charge of the study says as much:

> The set of players posthumously tested by Dr. McKee is far from a random sample of N.F.L. retirees. “There’s a tremendous selection bias,” she has cautioned, noting that many families have donated brains specifically because the former player showed symptoms of C.T.E.

This is equivalent to finding NFL players who showed signs of cancer, and then testing them for cancer. Of course you're going to get a rate close to 100%. The article takes 10 paragraphs before pointing out that the rate of CTE among former NFL players is much lower.

This sort of sloppy journalism is counterproductive. It makes it much easier for football fans to discredit and ignore the problem. At best, it causes people to endorse good policies for bad reasons.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#38

Post by epicide » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:30 PM UTC

chasing wrote: post #32

Touche wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really best-case scenario? So you're saying that among the retired football players who do TV today, Terry Bradshaw, Howie Long, Michael Strahan, Cris Collinsworth, etc. 90% of these players have CTE and will have decades-long dementia? So for the older players we should start seeing that very soon, no?

I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek, of course. The article implies a selection bias -- that the actual number of football players with CTE could be as low as 9%. It also notes cases where CTE effects really become "horrible" much later in life, for men who are older than the guys you list. Guys who self-select to be television personalities also might have a lower incidence of CTE. There's also a chance that some odd…

> as low as 9%

Which is still disgustingly high.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#39

Post by jjtheblunt » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:35 PM UTC

mikeh1010 wrote: post #12

I want to push back on the "every sport is dangerous" argument I'm seeing in here. There's a difference between "you might die right in the middle of this very fun activity" and "you might die slowly and horribly years from now when you're retired and in the midst of raising a family." I ski pretty aggressively, and of course I might die doing that. But every day I go home and know, "well it wasn't today! Today was j…

very well said

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#40

Post by saulrh » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 5:37 PM UTC

ggreer wrote: post #37

Playing football is almost certainly bad for your brain, but this article does a terrible job of making that case. The doctor in charge of the study says as much: > The set of players posthumously tested by Dr. McKee is far from a random sample of N.F.L. retirees. “There’s a tremendous selection bias,” she has cautioned, noting that many families have donated brains specifically because the former player showed sympt…

9% chance, the best possible case given the current data, of a horrible, slow, lingering death 20 years later is still unacceptable. What's the rate for getting mesothelioma after working with asbestos?