Helimeds.

[pjclinch]

I doubt very much that a talented footballer who NEVER headed a ball actually exists to prove the point.

Goalies might make for an interesting control group?

[Mike Sales]

Here are some more "lone voices" who do not accept helmet orthodoxy.

“THE Transport and Health Study Group completed an extensive review of cycling for its book Health on the Move 2. We concluded against the promotion of cycle helmets and strongly against their compulsion.
“One of the main reasons is that the risks of cycling are in the same range as for walking or driving. Young males face higher risks as drivers. A mile of cycling is typically safer than a mile of walking.

“In addition, the health benefits of cycling are large with the daily cycling benefits to health as much as giving up cigarette smoking.

“Helmet laws have not noticeably reduced serious head injuries, except by reducing cycling.
“An excessive focus on helmets adds ‘fear’ to the obstacles hindering a cycling revival.”
Malcolm Wardlaw,
executive member,
Transport & Health Study Group

[url]https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/transport/should-safety-helmets-be-made-compulsory-no-1-2335355 [/url]

[Cunobelin]

Just read that about footballers, thanks.

Question though.
If footballers are more likely to suffer from early onset dementia, is that because of football and heading, or are the talented footballers going to suffer because that's the way their brains are wired in the first place.
I doubt very much that a talented footballer who NEVER headed a ball actually exists to prove the point.

The way I understand it, dementia isn't a "caught" disease, but one that is already there and pre-destined ........... and that nobody really knows where it comes from.

There are links between brain injury and Alzheimer's which is where the footballers come in. This article from the Alzheimer's Association discusses this, and in particular something called "Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy" This is a deeper article about CTE

[Mick F]

There are many thousands of dementia sufferers today who have never had any head trauma at all.
There could very well be a link, but it must be a very tenuous link.

If you're going to get it, you'll get it.
Mrs Mick F's mother and grandmother, and my father too. We could see it coming many years before they were showing medical signs and we even predicted it with Mrs Mick F's mother, but no one in the family would believe us.

[The utility cyclist]

Just read that about footballers, thanks.

Question though.
If footballers are more likely to suffer from early onset dementia, is that because of football and heading, or are the talented footballers going to suffer because that's the way their brains are wired in the first place.
I doubt very much that a talented footballer who NEVER headed a ball actually exists to prove the point.

The way I understand it, dementia isn't a "caught" disease, but one that is already there and pre-destined ........... and that nobody really knows where it comes from.

There are links between brain injury and Alzheimer's which is where the footballers come in. This article from the Alzheimer's Association discusses this, and in particular something called "Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy" This is a deeper article about CTE

CTE is a massive problem for american football ... due to wearing helmets and the excessive/reckless actions because participants feel invulnerable., this changed hugely after the hardshell helmet was introduced. It's the classic risk compensation that resulted in massively more instances of concussions/CTE than in rugby.
Concussions have reduced hugely in the last season or so due to changing the rules so that vulnerable players (like cyclists) are not allowed to be targeted as before, however micro traumas to the brain are not considered (as concussions) so CTE is not going to go away anytime soon, even just this weekend in the last round of the season you can see players headbutting each other in celebration, this, though seeming innocuous all contributes to CTE.

And again, if there are links to Alzheimer's, Motor neuron's etc from head injuries (and this is not proven as yet), then, if helmets are such a wonderful preventer of brain injuries (they aren't), it would be prudent of the NHS to recommend making it mandatory to make helmets compulsory for motor vehicle occupants, pedestrians, ladder climbers, children in playgrounds, children in the home, people going out at night for drinks, full face motorcycle helmets on building sites and work environ and anywhere else in society long before before those on bikes given the risk values from absolute numbers of serious head injuries from the general population compared to those on bikes.

[Cunobelin]

There are many thousands of dementia sufferers today who have never had any head trauma at all.
There could very well be a link, but it must be a very tenuous link.

If you're going to get it, you'll get it.
Mrs Mick F's mother and grandmother, and my father too. We could see it coming many years before they were showing medical signs and we even predicted it with Mrs Mick F's mother, but no one in the family would believe us.

There is a wide range of dementias, and there is insufficient knowledge to tell. We can diagnose some better than others, but even when diagnosed treatment is uncertain and often ineffective.

We regularly scan patients to determine Alzheimer's, or Lewy Body Dementia



CTE is a specific type of dementia with a linked cause.

[Vorpal]

Just read that about footballers, thanks.

Question though.
If footballers are more likely to suffer from early onset dementia, is that because of football and heading, or are the talented footballers going to suffer because that's the way their brains are wired in the first place.
I doubt very much that a talented footballer who NEVER headed a ball actually exists to prove the point.

The way I understand it, dementia isn't a "caught" disease, but one that is already there and pre-destined ........... and that nobody really knows where it comes from.

There are links between brain injury and Alzheimer's which is where the footballers come in. This article from the Alzheimer's Association discusses this, and in particular something called "Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy" This is a deeper article about CTE

There is (limited) evidence connecting CTE to heading the ball in football. https://www.wired.com/story/brain-traum ... to-soccer/

[Wanlock Dod]

No self respecting church goer would abandon their faith simply because someone had found a few “scientific” studies claiming that there was no evidence to support their beliefs. It matters not which church they worship at. Ramen.

It is interesting to observe in these discussions that there is only ever one side which actually puts forward said “scientific” evidence, and only one side which resorts to “playing the man not the ball”.

The ‘science’ is in my favour...

I am also looking forward to this “science” being identified.

[Mick F]

I followed the herd and bought a helmet back in 2005, or could have been late 2004. Peer pressure and Mrs Mick F's pressure too.
I joined the CTC in 2004 and found this forum.
The helmet debate was there from way back then. I've seen and read all the evidence and reasons on both sides. Mrs Mick F has listened to all the arguments too.

It wasn't until I started loosing my hair (alopecia universalis) 2015/6 that the penny actually dropped. The helmet became uncomfortable, and it was the excuse I needed to rid myself of the thing. I always detested it, and the non-helmet argument had convinced me that they were pointless but I carried on with it, until it became totally uncomfortable, and now I feel emancipated and free, and in the knowledge that the pro-helmet people are wrong. Perhaps me and Mrs Mick F always knew they were wrong.

Read and listen to both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. Don't follow the herd and don't bow to peer pressure, and don't be lectured at.

Be your own person and stand proud.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Here are some more "lone voices" who do not accept helmet orthodoxy.

“THE Transport and Health Study Group completed an extensive review of cycling for its book Health on the Move 2. We concluded against the promotion of cycle helmets and strongly against their compulsion.
“One of the main reasons is that the risks of cycling are in the same range as for walking or driving. Young males face higher risks as drivers. A mile of cycling is typically safer than a mile of walking.

“In addition, the health benefits of cycling are large with the daily cycling benefits to health as much as giving up cigarette smoking.

“Helmet laws have not noticeably reduced serious head injuries, except by reducing cycling.
“An excessive focus on helmets adds ‘fear’ to the obstacles hindering a cycling revival.”
Malcolm Wardlaw,
executive member,
Transport & Health Study Group

[url]https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/transport/should-safety-helmets-be-made-compulsory-no-1-2335355 [/url]

People who are pro helmet wearing, tend not to shout so much about it, as the truths are so self evident ( to any sane thinking individual) there really is no need to try and find incidents / stats to back up a flimsy ( at best ) argument ( for avoidance of doubt that’s the vehemently anti lid brigade’s argument(s)). Anti helmet people shout it from the metaphorical rooftops, pro helmet wearers just wait for the latest ‘cyclist who wasn’t wearing a lid death story’ to be attributed largely to head injuries, and let people make their own minds up, as to whether or not a lid may have possibly helped, or not.

[Mike Sales]

It is heartening, Mick F, to hear of somebody who has looked at the evidence and taken it in.
I have heard of others, usually with scientific training in looking at evidence, who have been convinced of the case against helmets.
Sometimes I am inclined to be cynical about peoples' capacity to change their mind, once made up, but I try to keep a belief in reason, and this is what keeps me rattling on in this part of the forum.
What really irks is the people who see helmet discussion as futile and boring. I tend to believe that this is because they have closed their mind to any possibility of thought.
As I have reiterated, possibly to the point of boredom, is I see helmets as a crux, as a choice between a cycling culture which is about lycra, racing and elitism, and one which can contribute to a better society for everybody in so many ways.

[Syd]

Hi Mike(s)

I have read both sides of the argument and take on board points from both sides.

I too was close to giving up on helmet wearing, especially on my commute as I generally cycle alone, until an incident made me rethink things.

I have discussed the incident elsewhere before but, in summary, I was struck side on by a car exiting a side road. This caused the bike to pivot and I was ejected backwards onto the road. The resulting impact caused compression on the rear of the helmet to the point hairline fractures were starting. I got up and walked away and was able to fly off to China on holiday two days later.

A passing nurse insisted I go to hospital for a checkup and called an ambulance. I was confirmed to be ok and the doctor happy I fly as above. I am not claiming for one moment that the ‘helmet saved my life’ but I am sure it saved me from an injury that would have resulted in the doctor being much less inclined to let me fly.

I have also been told many times that my impact was outside of the testing parameters of the helmet. Yes, I am sure it was but it still offered me protection in that incident.

I also appreciate that those circumstances are rare and I’ve got even begun to look at the infinitesimal odds of it happening to me again but it did demonstrate to me that, in those circumstances, the helmet was useful.

[tim-b]

Hi

What really irks is the people who see helmet discussion as futile and boring

It's not that (and it's often lively ), but I do find the constant pejorative references to "foam hats", "plastic hats", etc puerile and boring. Those terms wouldn't be acceptable in a genuinely scientific paper and are a turn-off for many
BTW I finished watching an episode (the episode?) of Helimeds this morning and the young lad's interview at the end was pretty powerful stuff. I realise that we don't see the evidence, but most people won't be looking for that. The argument game will have to be raised, but I don't see it as an issue as we came through an election without the increasingly desperate politicians so much as breathing the H-word
Regards
tim-b

[Cugel]

No self respecting church goer would abandon their faith simply because someone had found a few “scientific” studies claiming that there was no evidence to support their beliefs. It matters not which church they worship at. Ramen.

It is interesting to observe in these discussions that there is only ever one side which actually puts forward said “scientific” evidence, and only one side which resorts to “playing the man not the ball”.

The ‘science’ is in my favour...

I am also looking forward to this “science” being identified.

It's not uncommon, though, for those with a religious-style faith* to attempt reference to the reasoning mode of the non-faithers. Creationists, for example, try to portray their "intelligent design" stuff as some sort of alternative scientific theory when its no such thing.

I notice that ole Marcus has resorted to the, "It's self evident" argument for cycling helmets. One wonders what other "self-evident" faiths he subscribes to? Perhaps he has faith also in an "intelligent designer" who is no doubt arranging for the purveyors of cycling helmets to not only exist but make loadsamoney by flogging the things. Their financial success will be "evidence" of an intelligent designer, who is rewarding them as one "the elect" who are following the true path of righteousness and are destined for heaven.

Cugel

* Faith - the assumption of a faux-trust in something with no evidence to establish real trust. Religious faith never expects to move to a state of trust as there will never be any evidence of the Big Man With A Beard behind the curtain, so religious faith must be portrayed as some sort of virtue rather than as a temporary mechanism for allowing trust to be established (or not) via evidence obtained from that entity initially assumed to be trustworthy via a leap of faith.

[Mike Sales]

Hi

What really irks is the people who see helmet discussion as futile and boring

It's not that (and it's often lively ), but I do find the constant pejorative references to "foam hats", "plastic hats", etc puerile and boring. Those terms wouldn't be acceptable in a genuinely scientific paper and are a turn-off for many
BTW I finished watching an episode (the episode?) of Helimeds this morning and the young lad's interview at the end was pretty powerful stuff. I realise that we don't see the evidence, but most people won't be looking for that. The argument game will have to be raised, but I don't see it as an issue as we came through an election without the increasingly desperate politicians so much as breathing the H-word
Regards
tim-b

Posts on this forum are not pretending to be genuine scientific papers, though some refer quite clearly, and with links, to such papers. This seems to me to be quite acceptable polemic.
The really unpleasant perjorative references are used by helmet believers about helmet sceptics, as you must have noticed.
If they raised their game it would be welcome, though some of the language above must weaken the believers' case considerably.