Live data from Hacker News

110 N.F.L. Brains

nytimes.com

61–70 of 206 posts

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#61
post #53
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?

Football pays better than mesothelioma settlements.

Does it pay better than a career as a dockworker or insulation installer over the course of each career?

Did it when the people being impacted by CTE today played?

I think most people overestimate the career earnings of the average football player and especially don't discount for the dramatic increase in pay that happened in the last 20 years?

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#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 request to not identify the player.)

Presumably there is some sort of way to quantify the extent of disease besides yes/no. I'd really like to see the the extent vs. player position. Is there a write up for this, or was it a direct to NY Times deal?

Look, football is a violent sport, and it's certainly plausible that this induces a chronic, difficult-to-detect but serious disease over years of playing, and that the organization making billions from it would fight against that conclusion. But it's hard to square the smugness and outrage in this thread with the observation that NFL players have a lower rate of all-cause mortality than the general population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/sports/football/nfl-player...

Obviously that's consistent with the NFL having a significant net-negative impact on the health of athletes, who are a special sub-population that is likely to be of above-average health. (Although note that the average body weight of their pool is also very high, which would almost assuredly still be true even if they hadn't played, and that increases baseline death rates from things like heart disease.) And that impact could be so negative as to outweigh the benefits of playing, possibly necessitating rule changes, compensation, etc. But there is no ghastly epidemic of NFL players dying by the droves.

I don't think there's been a neurological performance test of retired players, but one will probably be done and I'm willing to bet that NFL players again do better than the general population (which, again, does not mean that playing in the NFL doesn't make you dumber). Anyone want to bet against me?

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#63
post #40
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?

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.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#64
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Similar to how boxing gloves don't protect the punched as much as it allows the puncher to go full throttle without fear of breaking their hands: https://www.economist.com/news/international/21639765-bare-k...

Same with headgear- it's there to prevent cuts, not to cushion blows, but some people feel safer wearing headgear to spar in boxing.

In my experience it makes my head a larger target than I'm used to, plus it affects my peripheral vision, making me take more shots to the head than I would have otherwise.

Plus, put on some headgear, let me punch you, and tell me how cushioned you felt.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#65
post #32
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…

Thanks for the reply. This is what I'm trying to understand myself. I didn't see the 9% number in the article. I did see the mention about selection bias. So I wonder what the true numbers are here. If it's 9% then that explains well enough why so many ex-players don't show strong signs of CTE (by strong I mean long-term memory loss or worse).

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#66
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It will? As long as there are poor people with some athletic ability and fans willing to watch them, there will be grid iron football players.

Sure but boxing gives us a historical precedent. Boxing used to be the professional sport. It was also a sport that many youth across all spectrums of society participated in.

Today it is confined to a niche professionally and is almost totally absent from most youth sport systems.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#67

Do we have any idea what the baseline incidence of CTE, using the same criteria used in this study, might be in the general population?

Apparently not. The criteria for what counts as evidence of CTE is still being fleshed out, at least as of 3 years ago.

> The neuropathology of CTE is increasingly well defined. In 2013, McKee and colleagues published the largest case report to date of individuals with neuropathologically confirmed CTE, presenting proposed criteria for four stages of CTE pathology based on the severity of the findings [9••]. Formal validation of the reliability of these criteria and the staging system are currently being performed by a team of nine neuropathologists, funded by a National Institutes of Health (NIH)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255271/

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#68

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…

But you have absolutely no idea if aggressive skiing is giving you CTE because no one has ever looked to investigate it.

In football, as in boxing, the original investigation began because head trauma is obvious, but as the study broadened some of the worst cases of CTE were actually offensive linesmen. These are generally not the players who dish or receive hard hits, and many had never had a suspected concussion in their career. That led to the dominant theory that it isn't concussions -- the big hits -- that are the main cause of CTE, but instead many small traumas (in that case the o-line engaging with the d-line) that add up to CTE.

There is every reason to suspect that many other sports yield these sorts of recurring sub trauma, and aggressive skiing seems a probable candidate [edit - note that it does not require that you hit your head, have an accident, etc. If enough of a high-G event is transmitted to the brain, that can be a subconcussion]. It just isn't terribly common to do an intensive brain study of people after death to find these correlations.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#69
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.

That's like saying an informed society is better than a society that doesn't have OSHA regulations... You can't dangle millions of dollars in front of (often poor, often minority) college students and say "well you were informed of the risks" and then wash your hands of all responsibility.

I could inform you that you'll die 1/6 times you play russian roulette, but that doesn't mean that it should be ethically sound (or legal) to pay you to take that chance.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#70
I don't really know what a normal brain looks like. A sidebar (middlebar?) about halfway through the article describes what we're looking at:

The trauma of repetitive blows to the head triggers degeneration in brain tissue, including the buildup of an abnormal protein called tau. Thin slices of tissue are dyed and the tau shows up as these darker areas.

Post reply on HN