Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

110 N.F.L. Brains

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 206 posts

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#131

Post by aezell »

(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 blood) and suffered a 10 minute long seizure after passing out. So, I spent the next few days doing EEGs and MRIs on my noggin.

There was nothing definite but the neurologist noticed some lesions on my brain in various places. First thing he asks me, "Did you play football as a child?" I said yes, and he said, "You should have an MRI at least every 5 years to see if these things get any bigger."

Recently, my memory has gotten worse. I've found myself rocking or nodding my head for no discernible reason. Control over my lower legs is variable. As a runner, I'm fairly in tune with my body. I can tell that things are not going as they should.

Who knows if I'll get CTE (or some other neurological problem) and if I do, if it's related to the 10 years of football I played. What I do know is that this experience is not one I'd want my children to have when it's most decidedly not necessary.

All that to say that there might be a LOT of people like me in the US who never even got close to college football or the NFL that could potentially suffer this same fate.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#132

Post by nerfhammer »

tedunangst wrote: post #121
nerfhammer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 9% is assuming that 100% of unknown cases are in fact negative. This study showed that 110 of 111 players tested had CTE. But many of their families consented because they suspected CTE already, so it's not a random sample and therefore you can't generalize that to the rest of the population. 110 is 9% of the population of 1300 deceased players for the given time period. CTE is normally extremely rare.

Why is the total population deceased players and not all players?

The only test for it requires dissection of the brain

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#133

Post by dsfyu404ed »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #87

Historians will look back at American Football as our analog to the Roman's gladiatorial games. A lot of people don't realize that during the Imperial era of Rome fights to the death had become uncommon.[0] The games were watched in an arena and primarily sold hard-hitting violence between members of the lower castes of society and sometimes people got killed or horribly maimed....sound familiar? I stopped watching A…

There's a big difference between cheering on people killing each other and a popular sport remaining popular after the long term consequences became known.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#134

Post by urda »

endorphone wrote: post #120
urda wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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.

What an ignorant, obnoxious reply. HN isn't for you.

I'm not sure if you're new here, or just in a foul mood, but myself and others have been pretty calm commenting on your original post. Your comparison was weak, completely off topic, and you get upset when it's pointed out? Where do you think you are?

Take a moment and review the HN Guidelines please: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#135

Post by LeifCarrotson »

aezell wrote: 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.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#136

Post by aezell »

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 the NFL player. Yes, for a year, maybe more, they are highly paid but lifetime earnings might not be what you'd expect. How do the stresses of many men who leave the NFL with no skills and often an abandoned college degree affect them and their families?

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 outcomes of the games (or individual players). Much of the time, this fandom is done as a family leading to impacts on children in the home. There's a societal health impact here.

The list goes on if we follow this thinking. So, if we go back and remove our given, we end up with a spectacle that unduly endangers its participants, encourages unhealthy behavior in its fans, and indoctrinates our youth to be accepting of all the above. Meanwhile, a very few wealthy families get even wealthier on the backs of all that.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#137

Post by burger_moon »

tptacek wrote: post #109
wahern wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't put together a simple number based on the papers I'm finding, especially if we're limited to mesothelioma. Cancer risks are reported in units of f/mL.yr (fibers per milliliter of air per year) or f/g (embedded fibers per gram of dry lung tissue). And there's a huge range to occupational exposure, which I'm not capable of relating back to the risk numbers. (I don't have the numerical skills.) But suffice it to…

That's the modern risk, right? Taking into account all the things those professions do to mitigate the risk? If you've seen someone remove asbestos in the past 20 years, it's obviously not as if they're just wearing jeans and a t-shirt and hauling armloads of the stuff.

Now we have ceramic wool which doesn't have regulations like asbestos does but is still a known carcinogen and the handling of it is done without any PPE.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#138

Post by kafkaesq »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #63
saulrh wrote: 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?

Everything is unacceptable nowadays. The word has lost meaning. It's fine to inform someone of the risks. An informed society is better than a society that doesn't let you play football.

Everything is unacceptable nowadays.

Nothing is unacceptable. Except faulty generalizations like the above.

An informed society is better than a society that doesn't let you play football.

Is anyone here saying we shouldn't "let" people play football?

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#139

Post by 2bitencryption »

aezell wrote: 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 outcomes of the games (or individual players). Much of the time, this fandom is done as a family leading to impacts on children in the home. There's a societal health impact here.

Won't somebody please think of the children! They might grow up to watch FOOTBALL!!

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#140

Post by enraged_camel »

Goladus wrote: post #59
saulrh wrote: 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?

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"?
Post reply on HN