"Helmets don't eliminate concussions" American Football

[mattheus]

I couldn’t find any information on the actual weight of the helmets which were promoted for every day motoring, but I suspect that they are appreciably lighter than those used in motor racing where speeds might be higher and the risks taken rather greater.

Yeah, that was my point - helmets dont *have* to weigh 1.5kg. As cyclists we are told that something wearing a tenth of that WILL save our lives!

[ChristopherN]

Players' arms and legs would be more protected without helmets. The collisions would be delivered with less force, which would protect unprotected areas of a footballer's anatomy much better. The final advantage of removing helmets is related to the aesthetic of the game rather than its safety. But for heads safety, which is very important during the match, wearing a helmet is essential, even though you're right and it doesn't protect you from injuries. For example, at the last Football College match, I have watched a player get a concussion, even though he was wearing a helmet.

[Benz3ne]

Players' arms and legs would be more protected without helmets. The collisions would be delivered with less force, which would protect unprotected areas of a footballer's anatomy much better. The final advantage of removing helmets is related to the aesthetic of the game rather than its safety. But for heads safety, which is very important during the match, wearing a helmet is essential, even though you're right and it doesn't protect you from injuries. For example, at the last Football College match, I have watched a player get a concussion, even though he was wearing a helmet.

I'm sure there's a similar analogy about boxing, insofar as the rate of death/debilitating injury from boxing rose after the introduction of gloves. People could hit harder without pain than in bare-knuckle situations.

I was thinking about the discussion as a whole. I get the angle that "helmets don't eliminate concussions" because it'd be a huge statement to say that they do - the lawsuits as a result would be monumental for the few that did sustain concussions whilst wearing helmets. Ergo, the helmets were not designed to eliminate concussions.
It could, however, be said (I guess) that there is a byproduct of helmet wearing that is reduction in the number of instances of concussion. Reading one of the above analogies that more concussions were sustained in their rugby career than during several high-velocity crashes, I wondered why this might be the case (having sustained concussions in rugby myself).
My assumption is that it is not necessarily the magnitude of the force at which someone is hit that causes concussion (brain hitting skull inner walls) but the velocity of their head, post-collision. If we think about a force striking an unprotected head, versus a force striking a 'helmeted' head, the design of said helmet is to absorb/redistribute said force reaching the users skull.
From a physics perspective, we consider force = mass x acceleration. If the effective force reaching the skull is reduced, the acceleration is reduced (as mass would be constant). If acceleration is reduced, the resulting velocity would therefore be reduced.
If that velocity is reduced, looking back at my above mention of brains hitting walls of our skulls equaling concussion, then isn't the likelihood of concussion reduced?

Edit: apologies if I've repeated anyone's points, I'm skim-reading mostly.

[Jdsk]

I'm sure there's a similar analogy about boxing, insofar as the rate of death/debilitating injury from boxing rose after the introduction of gloves.

What's the evidence to support that, please?

Were any high quality data collected in that era?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Benz3ne]

I'm sure there's a similar analogy about boxing, insofar as the rate of death/debilitating injury from boxing rose after the introduction of gloves.

What's the evidence to support that, please?

Were any high quality data collected in that era?

Thanks

Jonathan

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

Research ran by the British Medical Association. Conclusions usually stipulate that the subject pool is small so difficult to extrapolate, and that little continual research has been carried out after boxers' careers.
I went for 'analogy' because it's usually bandied about, has had some research has some scientific soundness in its rationale.

[Jdsk]

I'm sure there's a similar analogy about boxing, insofar as the rate of death/debilitating injury from boxing rose after the introduction of gloves.

What's the evidence to support that, please?

Were any high quality data collected in that era?

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

Research ran by the British Medical Association. Conclusions usually stipulate that the subject pool is small so difficult to extrapolate, and that little continual research has been carried out after boxers' careers.

In case there's any ambiguity: my question was about death or debilitating injury after the introduction of gloves, rather than whether it's a useful analogy.

I couldn't seen any data relevant to that assertion in the BMA paper. Which page or section is it in, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Benz3ne]

What's the evidence to support that, please?

Were any high quality data collected in that era?

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

Research ran by the British Medical Association. Conclusions usually stipulate that the subject pool is small so difficult to extrapolate, and that little continual research has been carried out after boxers' careers.

In case there's any ambiguity: my question was about death or debilitating injury after the introduction of gloves, rather than whether it's a useful analogy.

I couldn't seen any data relevant to that assertion in the BMA paper. Which page or section is it in, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

No ambiguity, I only mentioned the analogy because it’s widely reported.
Page 23 alludes to gloves protecting fists and not skulls. Earlier statements mention the current trends in boxers being taught to punch harder, which conjunctively ties to the statement around gloves protecting fists.

[mattheus]

I was thinking about the discussion as a whole. I get the angle that "helmets don't eliminate concussions" because it'd be a huge statement to say that they do - the lawsuits as a result would be monumental for the few that did sustain concussions whilst wearing helmets. Ergo, the helmets were not designed to eliminate concussions.
It could, however, be said (I guess) that there is a byproduct of helmet wearing that is reduction in the number of instances of concussion. Reading one of the above analogies that more concussions were sustained in their rugby career than during several high-velocity crashes, I wondered why this might be the case (having sustained concussions in rugby myself).
My assumption is that it is not necessarily the magnitude of the force at which someone is hit that causes concussion (brain hitting skull inner walls) but the velocity of their head, post-collision. If we think about a force striking an unprotected head, versus a force striking a 'helmeted' head, the design of said helmet is to absorb/redistribute said force reaching the users skull.
From a physics perspective, we consider force = mass x acceleration. If the effective force reaching the skull is reduced, the acceleration is reduced (as mass would be constant). If acceleration is reduced, the resulting velocity would therefore be reduced.
If that velocity is reduced, looking back at my above mention of brains hitting walls of our skulls equaling concussion, then isn't the likelihood of concussion reduced?

This is so frustrating to read: with respect, you've clearly done no research on what injuries helmets prevent, or how they do so,
or how our skulls protect our brains since before helmets were invented,
and your knowledge of physics looks very flakey at best.

Sorry if that sounds abrupt, but this whack-a-mole game of reading the same fallacies trotted out on a weekly basis year after year is somewhat ...wearing.

[mattheus]

p.s. wouldn't it be more useful to look at the data for head injuries and helmet use during boxing? Not sure we care a lot about hand injuries, not on this forum at least..

[Jdsk]

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

Research ran by the British Medical Association. Conclusions usually stipulate that the subject pool is small so difficult to extrapolate, and that little continual research has been carried out after boxers' careers.

In case there's any ambiguity: my question was about death or debilitating injury after the introduction of gloves, rather than whether it's a useful analogy.

I couldn't seen any data relevant to that assertion in the BMA paper. Which page or section is it in, please?

No ambiguity, I only mentioned the analogy because it’s widely reported.
Page 23 alludes to gloves protecting fists and not skulls. Earlier statements mention the current trends in boxers being taught to punch harder, which conjunctively ties to the statement around gloves protecting fists.

I couldn't find anything there on "death or debilitating injury after the introduction of gloves". I think that there probably aren't any high quality data.

Helmet discussion in this forum is obviously difficult. Asking well-formulated specific questions and seeing what's known and what isn't known about them makes it easier and more constructive.

Jonathan

[Benz3ne]

p.s. wouldn't it be more useful to look at the data for head injuries and helmet use during boxing? Not sure we care a lot about hand injuries, not on this forum at least..

I agree. The point I was really making is that it's generally acknowledged that something that allows an increase in force to the head can result in more injury. Such as not wearing helmets, giving no reduction in force to the head.

[Benz3ne]

In case there's any ambiguity: my question was about death or debilitating injury after the introduction of gloves, rather than whether it's a useful analogy.

I couldn't seen any data relevant to that assertion in the BMA paper. Which page or section is it in, please?

No ambiguity, I only mentioned the analogy because it’s widely reported.
Page 23 alludes to gloves protecting fists and not skulls. Earlier statements mention the current trends in boxers being taught to punch harder, which conjunctively ties to the statement around gloves protecting fists.

I couldn't find anything there on "death or debilitating injury after the introduction of gloves". I think that there probably aren't any high quality data.

Helmet discussion in this forum is obviously difficult. Asking well-formulated specific questions and seeing what's known and what isn't known about them makes it easier and more constructive.

Jonathan

I think I'm looking at the publication as a whole, and mentions of the introduction of Queensbury rules and the discussion of chronic neurological injuries post-introduction of gloves. It is difficult, I agree, when there's no specific mention, or probably even any valuable dataset in the pre-Queensbury rules causing chronic neurological injuries. There is some correlation between force of impact and head injuries, chronic head injuries and debilitating neurological disease/death from haematoma or similar, and the force incurred with gloves versus no gloves. The page 23 alludes to the lack of gloves equaling a lower impact force.
However, the increase in performance supplements or technological advances with respect to training boxers might also influence the number of debilitating head injuries or deaths.

The questions you have asked are indeed worthwhile, so I appreciate them. I can see I've initiated a bit of a tangent here, but I think the point I'm making, i.e. force to head and mitigating measures, is within the remit of the topic.

[Jdsk]

The questions you have asked are indeed worthwhile, so I appreciate them. I can see I've initiated a bit of a tangent here, but I think the point I'm making, i.e. force to head and mitigating measures, is within the remit of the topic.

Thanks.

It certainly is.

Jonathan

[Benz3ne]

I was thinking about the discussion as a whole. I get the angle that "helmets don't eliminate concussions" because it'd be a huge statement to say that they do - the lawsuits as a result would be monumental for the few that did sustain concussions whilst wearing helmets. Ergo, the helmets were not designed to eliminate concussions.
It could, however, be said (I guess) that there is a byproduct of helmet wearing that is reduction in the number of instances of concussion. Reading one of the above analogies that more concussions were sustained in their rugby career than during several high-velocity crashes, I wondered why this might be the case (having sustained concussions in rugby myself).
My assumption is that it is not necessarily the magnitude of the force at which someone is hit that causes concussion (brain hitting skull inner walls) but the velocity of their head, post-collision. If we think about a force striking an unprotected head, versus a force striking a 'helmeted' head, the design of said helmet is to absorb/redistribute said force reaching the users skull.
From a physics perspective, we consider force = mass x acceleration. If the effective force reaching the skull is reduced, the acceleration is reduced (as mass would be constant). If acceleration is reduced, the resulting velocity would therefore be reduced.
If that velocity is reduced, looking back at my above mention of brains hitting walls of our skulls equaling concussion, then isn't the likelihood of concussion reduced?

This is so frustrating to read: with respect, you've clearly done no research on what injuries helmets prevent, or how they do so,
or how our skulls protect our brains since before helmets were invented,
and your knowledge of physics looks very flakey at best.

Sorry if that sounds abrupt, but this whack-a-mole game of reading the same fallacies trotted out on a weekly basis year after year is somewhat ...wearing.

It does sound abrupt. I understand how brain movement within the skull causes concussion and I don't believe the formula I've presented is incorrect (f = m.a and a = dv/t, GCSE physics below the A level physics I obtained prior to my Masters in Chemistry degree).
I've given my viewpoint on it and tried to present it in a way that is derived directly from the physics of a concussion-type injury. It makes sense to me that reduction in force, given a object of constant mass colliding with the head, would therefore reduce the acceleration.
Acceleration is directly proportional to velocity, given a set time for the movement of the head, so velocity would be increased if force is increased. That velocity coming to an abrupt halt when the neck can no longer flex gives the velocity of the brain inside the skull. That increase in momentum would therefore give a higher incidence of concussion-type injuries (if repeated, of course).
If the helmet is designed to reduce force of impact, then it can result in a reduction in number of concussions (although it might not have been designed to do so - given your comments on research into injuries helmets are designed to prevent).

I get that it can be tiring. As I said, I'm just joining the conversation and I can see that this point could've been made multiple times.
The other argument is "does a helmet increase the effective diameter of the head enough to cause an injury during a crash?". If the contact would be with the helmet and not the head given a specific circumstance, there might be enough force to garner a concussion whereas without the helmet it wouldn't be the case.

[Jdsk]

I've given my viewpoint on it and tried to present it in a way that is derived directly from the physics of a concussion-type injury. It makes sense to me that reduction in force, given a object of constant mass colliding with the head, would therefore reduce the acceleration.
Acceleration is directly proportional to velocity, given a set time for the movement of the head, so velocity would be increased if force is increased. That velocity coming to an abrupt halt when the neck can no longer flex gives the velocity of the brain inside the skull. That increase in momentum would therefore give a higher incidence of concussion-type injuries (if repeated, of course).
If the helmet is designed to reduce force of impact, then it can result in a reduction in number of concussions (although it might not have been designed to do so - given your comments on research into injuries helmets are designed to prevent).

The cases that you're comparing in that thought experiment aren't clear. Are you describing the effect of changing the relative velocity at impact, or the mass of the head + attachments, or both?

The velocity (of anything) doesn't come to "an abrupt halt when the neck can no longer flex". There's a complicated assembly of hard and soft bits, and a similarly complicated pattern of velocity and acceleration. And a wide range of the effects of those in different part of the body.

And why do you switch to momentum in the third sentence of the second paragraph?

Jonathan