Live data from Hacker News

110 N.F.L. Brains

nytimes.com

141–150 of 206 posts

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#141
post #113
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unacceptable to whom? Is the US a free country or not?

Well, we already ban: * Selling cigarettes to children * Building buildings that burn to the ground with everyone trapped inside * Murder So... I guess that America isn't a free country? If everyone was a perfectly informed perfectly rational expectation maximizer we wouldn't have any of these problems. But since none of those things are true, there're all sorts of predatory and greedy-counterproductive practices tha…

We don't ban selling cigarettes to adults, and tobacco use has plummeted since 1965. Building codes affect the general public. There is a clear and direct link between owner negligence and public harm. Building codes also help to reduce fraud and sheer incompetence among builders. It is easy to describe situations where fraud and criminal negligence leads to death and property damage to other people (not just yourself).

Meanwhile there are plenty of dangerous occupations, truck drivers, for example, that are not deemed unacceptable and banned by authoritarian morality police.

> If everyone was a perfectly informed perfectly rational expectation maximizer we wouldn't have any of these problems

This standard is hardly necessary. All that is necessary is to have sufficient information to take responsibility for decisions you make and their consequences. That is known as agency. Of course it's different if your decisions affect others. I could certainly see holding certain people or organizations (like the NFL) responsible if there has been some kind of cover-up about the long-term effects of concussions. But that's far different from a crude authoritarian ban.

> I submit that american football, in its current form, is likely one of them. Too much glamour, too much money, too much tradition, too good at messing with people's heads, both in the way it sucks everyone into it (high school football!) and with the brain damage thing.

In other words, you don't like football and you don't like the tradition, so you see no problem banning it. For you there's no downside, only upside.

No, banning is not necessary, at least not some kind of national ban issued from on high. It starts with education. Parents stop letting their children play Pop Warner. High schoolers in most of the country decide not to take the risks of playing football. HS football programs decline. College recruiting pools dry up, leading to a decline in the quality and popularity of College football. From there, it's anyone's guess how the NFL will survive.

Sure, it won't happen overnight. But I can assure you that the consequences of trying to issue an overnight ban of the most popular sport in the US would not be pretty.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#142
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the aggressive compressions of slalom cause the brain to bounce around a bit? In any case, I'm sure it's much less than the sudden stops caused by running into a 300 pound lineman.

The Earth weighs a good deal more than a 300lb lineman, and it's the Earth that skiiers are repeatedly running into while carrying an enormous amount of inertia.

Have you ever been skiing? It's your feet that are running into the earth, and hardly even that - they're skating smoothly over it unless you really mess up. On good mogul run,your head hardly moves off a straight line while your legs and hips adjust to keep your skis moving smoothly. In a similar comparison, walking does not produce head trauma.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#143
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unacceptable to whom? Is the US a free country or not?

What pure drivel. What does it mean to be a "free country"? Many things in the US are illegal. Does that mean we aren't "free"?

The pure drivel is this response. I strongly object to bland appeals to authority to shut down things you don't like. There are strong arguments associated with the banning of most illegal behavior. Usually these arguments are also very specific, lead to very specific restrictions, and are implemented at the most relevant jurisdiction.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#144
post #136

If we really want to determine how dangerous or unhealthy football is, we should consider the full picture. As part of this thought exercise, let's take as a given that CTE doesn't exist and brain injuries are unimportant. After that, let's look at the prevalence of diabetes, heart disease, and other long-term degenerative diseases in the NFL player population. Then, let's look at the shortened earning potential of t…

I agree with your early points, but I don't think we need to take the typical Hacker News stance of "everything is killing everybody and people need to start behaving more like me and less like themselves." > Next, let's consider the lifestyle the NFL envisions for its fans. Spending at least a full day each week sitting and eating unhealthy food while consuming alcohol. Spend the rest of the week gambling on the out…

That wasn't my stance. My stance was one of examining the full societal cost of any activity. Football is certainly not alone in the impacts it has on families. It's just the one we are talking about in this forum.

But, if one is seriously trying to determine sociological trends, these are the kinds of questions one must examine. It might be a similar line of thought, with different details, for the increased use of digital devices in our society.

Lastly, you're being facetious but their watching football might well be part of the problem. Without participants or an audience, the NFL ceases to exist thereby removing the negatives AND positives that its existence might create.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#145
post #59
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Unacceptable to whom? Is the US a free country or not?

It depends in the metric. In terms of {alcohol, marijuana, prostitution, hair braiding, etc}, there are at least parts of the US that are far from "free".

That concept is just marketing or propaganda, depending on who is pushing it.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#146
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…

They didn't say that. Here's the quote I believe you skimmed and misinterpreted.

"About 1,300 former players have died since the B.U. group began examining brains. So even if every one of the other 1,200 players had tested negative — which even the heartiest skeptics would agree could not possibly be the case — the minimum C.T.E. prevalence would be close to 9 percent, vastly higher than in the general population."

They're being honest about the selection bias, but they're saying the absolute minimum threshold is 9%. That's high number one, and it's almost certainly much higher than nine percent because they only tested a few of the brains. 1300 is every former pro player that died. Not every one they tested.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#147
post #131

(N of 1 anecdote warning) I started playing football at 6 years old. Tackle football came about two years later. In my junior year of high school, my back problems and knee problems were so bad, I had to quit. It was the best day of my life. In recent years, I've become an ultrarunner and am generally very healthy. I'm 41 now and about 5 years ago, I passed out after cutting my hand (vagal response to the sight of my…

Has helmet technology improved in the last 25 years? It will be a few years before my son could play tackle football (and I would probably try to gently steer him towards real football), but the helmets I see at sporting goods stores today look pretty much indiscernible from that which I wore for one fall season in the early 2000s.

"better helmets" only mean you take bigger internal hits.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#148
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an edit to the original comment -- an edit that shouldn't even be necessary -- I made it painfully clear quite some time ago that it has positively nothing to do with "blows to the head". Yet still people keeps rushing to post these noise replies.

... except "Blows to the head" has everything to do with this from the article to OP's point. When you have a number of HN commenters correcting you, it's not them it's you.

Multiple people in one place can still be completely wrong. Concussive events are what matter when it comes to CTE; many of them occur without physical contact to the head just as impacts to the skull may not have concussive effects on the brain. What matters is sudden acceleration, not contact to the head.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995699/

[2] http://www.uwhealth.org/sports-medicine/clinic/concussion/11...

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#149
post #131

(N of 1 anecdote warning) I started playing football at 6 years old. Tackle football came about two years later. In my junior year of high school, my back problems and knee problems were so bad, I had to quit. It was the best day of my life. In recent years, I've become an ultrarunner and am generally very healthy. I'm 41 now and about 5 years ago, I passed out after cutting my hand (vagal response to the sight of my…

Has helmet technology improved in the last 25 years? It will be a few years before my son could play tackle football (and I would probably try to gently steer him towards real football), but the helmets I see at sporting goods stores today look pretty much indiscernible from that which I wore for one fall season in the early 2000s.

Helmet technology has improved but not at the rate that humans have improved weightlifting/training. You've got bigger people running faster into collisions (and as we all know, momentum = mass * velocity).

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#150
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…

> Playing football is almost certainly bad for your brain It's bad for you in general. I used to go a gym with some ex-NFL guys, and they literally could barely move most days. All of them told me they would never let their kids play football. Every single one had life long lasting ailments, and none of them were the guys who made millions.

Minimum salary is $450,000$ / year and average career is 2.66 years. So most people are making at least 1 million today. https://www.si.com/nfl/2016/03/01/nfl-careers-shortened-two-...

The problem is not so much the NFL IMO, it's the 4 years of collage + 1-4 years of high school before that. Means most people get hurt without any real benefit.

Post reply on HN