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

201–206 of 206 posts

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#201

Post by jonbarker »

bhouston wrote: post #45
jonbarker wrote: post #33

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

I agree. Heading soccer balls is proven to at least temporarily reduce IQ. I've never let my kids play that sport. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/1... http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/health/soccer-headers-concussi...

Daniel Amen recommends against soccer for kids for the reason of heading the ball. The brain in its live state is something more like very soft jello than the rubbery thing we see in science class. Do we really want to be shaking a jellylike thing around at all? Probably not.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#202

Post by warcher »

kilotaras wrote: post #199
BayesStreet wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I picked a sample of 5 cherries and I made sure they were all rotten, it sort of reduces the amount of statistical inference you can do about the true distribution of the cherries to zero. Your use of "even with selection bias" doesn't really make sense here.

If you picked 9% of all cherries in whatever way you like, and found 98% of them rotten it still means that at least 8.8% of cherries are rotten. While not even close to 98% it's still a huge number in regard to CTE.

To say nothing of the many potential causes for potential cognitive decline in later life. I would expect the vast majority of cases of dementia in life to not include CTE.

Except for NFL players.

I'm honestly puzzled at the people coming out of the woodwork to troll this post. What is driving these people and their abandonment of reason?

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#203

Post by jessriedel »

jessriedel wrote: post #62

So the punter had CTE too? And all the quarterbacks? Obviously these players can get concussions, but don't we expect them to have a much lower rate of repeated, sub-concussive impacts that are supposed to result in CTE? (They don't say so, but 110 of 111 were diagnosed, and if the only brain tested without it was the punter I can't imagine them not emphasizing that. I don't think this conflicts with the family's req…

Ahh, found the actual paper:

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2645104

Incredibly, they list the number of each position type who have mild and severe CTE (their only degree of gradation) but apparently don't list the total number of players at each position, and hence I can't tell how many brains didn't have CTE by position. Nonetheless, we can confirm that both the punter and placekicker were diagnosed with mild CTE (a placekicker!) and the severe:mild ratio was higher among quarterbacks than lineman (11:2 for QBs vs. 29:8 and 27:8 for offensive and defensive linemen respectively).

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#204

Post by Goladus »

thephyber wrote: post #145
Goladus wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hair braiding? Could you elaborate?

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#205

Post by Goladus »

enraged_camel wrote: post #169
Goladus wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't want football to be illegal. But I also want the NFL to own up to and be fully transparent and forthcoming about the risks of the sport. For example, it would be great if there was a short message before each game is aired that said "the sport you are about to watch is know to cause X in players. X is an extremely painful and debilitating condition." Then play a short clip of patients suffering from X. Simila…

I think that's still a bit heavy-handed, but it's much better than what the parent to my original comment had implied.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#206

Post by Goladus »

Frondo wrote: post #157
Goladus wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This response, "is the US a free country?" is a thought-terminating cliche. It doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, it just derails it. "free country" is too vague to be meaningful; we have our freedoms curtailed in big and small ways all day every day. Wanna test this? Go ignore traffic lights. Go walk into someone else's house. Traffic laws and property rights are acceptable constraints on freedom, but th…

It doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, it just derails it.

You did not quote my post in its entirety. Before the saying anything about the US being a free country, I asked a pointed, important question that the parent had left undefined. The OP glibly asserted that this was "unacceptable." I asked: "unacceptable to whom?" The glib question about US being a free country was rhetorical and intended to provide some context for interpreting the first, more important question.

In retrospect, I probably should have left it off, given that only one of six responses even attempted to address the more important question. It's no surprise that soundwave106's comment is far and away the most thoughtful and interesting response. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851330.) I intended the 1st question to be literal and the 2nd question to be rhetorical. Instead everyone appears to have read the 2nd question to be literal and the 1st one to be rhetorical.

For a more detailed version of my own thoughts on the matter, feel free to review this follow-up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851549

Post reply on HN