Intelligence affect of playing football before age 12

Donate To GopherHole
D

Deleted_User

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,831
Reaction score
535
Points
113
The team found that the participants who started playing football before the age of 12 performed up to 20% worse on all tests, compared with those who began playing football after the age of 12. These results remained significant even after the researchers accounted for the total number of years the participants had played football.
Click to expand...

Robert Stern and team, Boston Medical University, Journal Neurology
 

I'll have to read the study- interesting teaser though . Have to believe there are inherent biases relating to various socioeconomic groups and predilection to playing football at an early age.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

funny thing about research studies is people are usually looking for anything to prove their time wasn't worthless...not to say it doesn't mean anything just that there are a lot more factors to be considered than just age difference...got a link for the research?
 

Or does this mean dumber people play football?
 

Man. I played with my buddies in the back yard all the time. We even tackled each other. I better just shoot myself now.

Correlation versus causation. Hmmmm
 


The brain is not fully develop until about the age of 12. When the head takes a beating at a young age when it isn't ready, it can't simply can't handle the pounding. I'm sure it is different for everyone as to a specific age.
 

#2Gopher said:
The brain is not fully develop until about the age of 12. When the head takes a beating at a young age when it isn't ready, it can't simply can't handle the pounding. I'm sure it is different for everyone as to a specific age.
Click to expand...

On a kid's 12th birthday, his brain automatically becomes fully developed.
 


Is there a Gopherhole rule that every post about intelligence must include a grammar gaffe?
 



Does anyone else notice the holes in their methodology?

From a report:

To reach their findings, the team analyzed 42 former National Football League (NFL) players aged between 40 and 69 who had been experiencing thinking and memory problems for at least 6 months.

Around half of the participants began playing football before the age of 12, while the remaining participants started playing after this age. Both groups had sustained a similar number of concussions throughout their career.
 

Is this organized 7th grade football? The whole elementary traveling teams slay me. I don't care if it basketball, hockey, baseball, football or any other sport. Elementary school teams should practice fundamentals, learn how to play the game. Kids should understand offense and defensive principles. Learn about team work. Cut the travel, scrimmage local. More practice time, less travel. This is not about being the Number One 7th grader in the state, or All State.

I ran into a neighbor's grandson, who stop by to see Grandma in her final days. He was down from Hibbing with a 7 grade girls basketball team playing in tournament in Cambridge. He went on to say, we are really good. I couched my that's nuts, with Its great you got down to see her.

Make no mistake this movement toward traveling T Ball teams is alive and well, its parents driving this and "voluntary coaches", see parent of one of the players. The biggest thing these youth leagues need is to find qualified coaches, someone with experience in sports.
 


Agreed husker. We didn't travel until 10th grade. It wasn't even an option AFAIK. But this was bum****, MN.

Obviously at some point in a player's development the competition level needs to rise but I'm not sure it's really necessary at that age.
 



husker70 said:
Is this organized 7th grade football? The whole elementary traveling teams slay me. I don't care if it basketball, hockey, baseball, football or any other sport. Elementary school teams should practice fundamentals, learn how to play the game. Kids should understand offense and defensive principles. Learn about team work. Cut the travel, scrimmage local. More practice time, less travel. This is not about being the Number One 7th grader in the state, or All State.

I ran into a neighbor's grandson, who stop by to see Grandma in her final days. He was down from Hibbing with a 7 grade girls basketball team playing in tournament in Cambridge. He went on to say, we are really good. I couched my that's nuts, with Its great you got down to see her.

Make no mistake this movement toward traveling T Ball teams is alive and well, its parents driving this and "voluntary coaches", see parent of one of the players. The biggest thing these youth leagues need is to find qualified coaches, someone with experience in sports.
Click to expand...

Amen to this.

But I should talk. One of my daughters was in club gymnastics from age 6 to 12 and that is equally as crazy. She quit when her body started breaking down and practice was 20 hours per week. She flipped over to high school gymnastics and had a nice little career and started running track as well. But the club gymnastics scene was just grueling.
 

Besides the many holes in the methods, the word "significant" means something far different in science and statistics than the common use of the word. The definition in science changes based on the type of analysis.

This is the type of study the science-dumb media will run with even if they don't understand the limitations of the analysis.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the relationship between exposure to repeated head impacts through tackle football prior to age 12, during a key period of brain development, and later-life executive function, memory, and estimated verbal IQ.

Methods: Forty-two former National Football League (NFL) players ages 40–69 from the Diagnosing and Evaluating Traumatic Encephalopathy using Clinical Tests (DETECT) study were matched by age and divided into 2 groups based on their age of first exposure (AFE) to tackle football: AFE <12 and AFE ≥12. Participants completed the Wisconsin Card Sort Test (WCST), Neuropsychological Assessment Battery List Learning test (NAB-LL), and Wide Range Achievement Test, 4th edition (WRAT-4) Reading subtest as part of a larger neuropsychological testing battery.

Results: Former NFL players in the AFE <12 group performed significantly worse than the AFE ≥12 group on all measures of the WCST, NAB-LL, and WRAT-4 Reading tests after controlling for total number of years of football played and age at the time of evaluation, indicating executive dysfunction, memory impairment, and lower estimated verbal IQ.

Conclusions: There is an association between participation in tackle football prior to age 12 and greater later-life cognitive impairment measured using objective neuropsychological tests. These findings suggest that incurring repeated head impacts during a critical neurodevelopmental period may increase the risk of later-life cognitive impairment. If replicated with larger samples and longitudinal designs, these findings may have implications for safety recommendations for youth sports.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Does anyone else notice the holes in their methodology?

From a report:

To reach their findings, the team analyzed 42 former National Football League (NFL) players aged between 40 and 69 who had been experiencing thinking and memory problems for at least 6 months.

Around half of the participants began playing football before the age of 12, while the remaining participants started playing after this age. Both groups had sustained a similar number of concussions throughout their career.
Click to expand...

You mean the small sample size? Or the fact that people who have spent a pro career taking a beating from NFL level athletes are hardly representative of the population?

Who knows? Maybe starting taking the hits early affects the amount of damage done by the big hits in the pro career. I'd be more curious to see if there was a noticeable difference between people who played before 12 and those who didn't, but went on to more "normal" careers (bankers, lawyers, waiters, mechanics, etc.)..
 

I was either fortunate, or unfortunate as the case may prove. It was 1980, and we were living in Minnetonka. New neighbors moved in and they had an 8 year old son, and were expecting. I saw the 8 year old put through every sport you can think of, his dad had him in tennis, golf, football, wrestling, hockey, basketball, swimming, baseball, and track. It became obvious his dad was trying to live his athletics through his son. By his junior year in high school the experiment came to an end. He and his father realized he was not an athlete. Meanwhile the younger brother always complained to me as we played catch that the big kids won't let me play. And as he effortlessly threw the ball, I said there will be a day when they won't be able to play with you. His mom was his mentor, and he played T-Ball and I helped his Little League team. He was a natural athlete. On a trip to Nebraska he road along and the conversation was about when recruiters come from Nebraska or Iowa and want you to play for them would you signed with them. He answer no, and I ask why? They don't have Valley Fair. We moved and I got a call from his mom he was playing hockey and would like to have me come to his game. I could not miss this. It was at the Minnetonka Arena. They were playing Elk River. I know nothing about hockey it was probably 8-10 year olds, but recognized his coach as Jim Korn, former NFL player and local hero. The score went the other way, and the parents were irate. Why doesn't he play the best players on the power play, when they are short handed, when the number 1 Elk River line was out there. And when one parent went so far as to say Korn doesn't know anything about hockey, I flipped. I turned to this parent and said, how many years of hockey did you play in the NHL? Maybe he knows it better for every player learn how to play short handed. After the game the kid came over and apologized for the loss. I remember saying he didn't need to apologize, there will be wins and there will be loses, but when it isn't fun any more you will know. Don't give up on playing.

Its now the mid nineties, and the call comes, he's having a graduation party and wants me there. He was at least 6'4 and had played football, hockey, and baseball for Hopkins. Two time athlete of the year, and all his friends were trying to recruit him to their summer league baseball teams. When I asked
if he had scholarship offers, he said yes he was going to play baseball for Iowa. My response Iowa? They don't have Valley Fair. He laughed and said I know, but I did think Minnesota was going to offer. He played 4 years, got married and sells insurance. Two sons, two totally different stories.
 


station19 said:
Or does this mean dumber people play football?
Click to expand...

I didn't read the article, but you should re-read the teaser. It compared football players versus football players, not FB players versus rest of the population.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Besides the many holes in the methods, the word "significant" means something far different in science and statistics than the common use of the word. The definition in science changes based on the type of analysis.

This is the type of study the science-dumb media will run with even if they don't understand the limitations of the analysis.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the relationship between exposure to repeated head impacts through tackle football prior to age 12, during a key period of brain development, and later-life executive function, memory, and estimated verbal IQ.

Methods: Forty-two former National Football League (NFL) players ages 40–69 from the Diagnosing and Evaluating Traumatic Encephalopathy using Clinical Tests (DETECT) study were matched by age and divided into 2 groups based on their age of first exposure (AFE) to tackle football: AFE <12 and AFE ≥12. Participants completed the Wisconsin Card Sort Test (WCST), Neuropsychological Assessment Battery List Learning test (NAB-LL), and Wide Range Achievement Test, 4th edition (WRAT-4) Reading subtest as part of a larger neuropsychological testing battery.

Results: Former NFL players in the AFE <12 group performed significantly worse than the AFE ≥12 group on all measures of the WCST, NAB-LL, and WRAT-4 Reading tests after controlling for total number of years of football played and age at the time of evaluation, indicating executive dysfunction, memory impairment, and lower estimated verbal IQ.

Conclusions: There is an association between participation in tackle football prior to age 12 and greater later-life cognitive impairment measured using objective neuropsychological tests. These findings suggest that incurring repeated head impacts during a critical neurodevelopmental period may increase the risk of later-life cognitive impairment. If replicated with larger samples and longitudinal designs, these findings may have implications for safety recommendations for youth sports.
Click to expand...

I think that it would be wise to read the entire study before forming opinions. The words "relationship" and "association" do not mean that it is causative. The researchers reported what they found, no they do that all the time, I do it in my work, no big deal. They also correctly report that larger sample sizes and longitudinal studies are needed, both correct. The findings, however may not apply to non-NFL players. NFL players would probably have very different brain trauma histories than the average kid who played youth football. This data is very preliminary.
 

This study has a very small sample size and a nearly infinite amount of uncontrolled variables. They even say right in the conclusion that they need a large sample size for future studies. Although the correlation they found is interesting, I don't believe they even intended for this study to be used as "proof" of anything. Unfortunately a large number of people will take these conclusions as facts, because they read it on the internet and didn't take the time to analyze the content of the study.
 

Well, my son started playing tackle football at 7 and went on to consistently have a 3.6 - 3.8 GPA with all upper level classes thru high school. He also graduated early and in the top 10 to 12 percent of his class (class size 1500 students) nominated for The Nat'l Honor Society, hand picked as one of 50 students from 8 area HS to be in the Upward Math and Science Academy and is now enrolled at the best University and playing football for the best Coach in the business. Now with all of the bragging and homerism out of the way (sorry) I know that the head injuries occur but there seems to be certain people in society going after football in particular. I think a lot of this is part of the sissification of America and some of those that were not good enough to play the sport are now in a position to of go after the most popular sport in America. I know where I live I see a lot of reports on the affect of soccer players using head shots and have even heard some sources say they are considering banning head shots. I think someone else earlier in the post said it correctly..."funny thing about research studies is people are usually looking for anything to prove their time wasn't worthless" JMHO
 

OPGD#71 said:
Well, my son started playing tackle football at 7 and went on to consistently have a 3.6 - 3.8 GPA with all upper level classes thru high school. He also graduated early and in the top 10 to 12 percent of his class (class size 1500 students) nominated for The Nat'l Honor Society, hand picked as one of 50 students from 8 area HS to be in the Upward Math and Science Academy and is now enrolled at the best University and playing football for the best Coach in the business. Now with all of the bragging and homerism out of the way (sorry) I know that the head injuries occur but there seems to be certain people in society going after football in particular. I think a lot of this is part of the sissification of America and some of those that were not good enough to play the sport are now in a position to of go after the most popular sport in America. I know where I live I see a lot of reports on the affect of soccer players using head shots and have even heard some sources say they are considering banning head shots. I think someone else earlier in the post said it correctly..."funny thing about research studies is people are usually looking for anything to prove their time wasn't worthless" JMHO
Click to expand...

One data point does not disprove the report as worthless, as you imply. Maybe your bright son can help you catch up to the class on the value of outliers.

This, like all studies, usually start small to see if a larger study is worth the effort. These things are not cheap and involve considerable time and money. I do agree, I am going after football at that age. The statistics are coming in by the bunch now, and the editor of the Journal of Neurology has commented that the overall body of research is starting to clearly show that football has a clear relationship to long term impairment, much of which does not show up until midlife (hate to burst that illusion of your son's lifelong prognosis!).

By the way, the editor of the Journal Neurology was one of the lead's on the research. To me, that gives the man a bit more credence than what others are saying on GH. The anti science bent always intrigues me. On the one hand society calls for new information. On the other hand they are very willing to be critical beyond reason to its results. You know who you are so I don't need to do a roll call of the anti-science league.

I could post list after list of the research articles that all suggest repetitive impacts cause damage that shows up later in life, but it would be just a series of redundancies that will be dismissed as crackpot science.

I posted this thread in response to all who denied it had an impact on very young football players. The mind was thought to be too resilient at that age. This is one of the first to look at this and the initial findings are not supportive of the theory of resilience. The point is it contradicts resilience.

It answered a small question and it suggests more research to confirm or deny that study. So far, normal scientific method with few procedural errors or mistakes, if any.
 

SJUgopher said:
I didn't read the article, but you should re-read the teaser. It compared football players versus football players, not FB players versus rest of the population.
Click to expand...

You're right, I misread it.
 

Dean S said:
One data point does not disprove the report as worthless, as you imply. Maybe your bright son can help you catch up to the class on the value of outliers.

This, like all studies, usually start small to see if a larger study is worth the effort. These things are not cheap and involve considerable time and money. I do agree, I am going after football at that age. The statistics are coming in by the bunch now, and the editor of the Journal of Neurology has commented that the overall body of research is starting to clearly show that football has a clear relationship to long term impairment, much of which does not show up until midlife (hate to burst that illusion of your son's lifelong prognosis!).

By the way, the editor of the Journal Neurology was one of the lead's on the research. To me, that gives the man a bit more credence than what others are saying on GH. The anti science bent always intrigues me. On the one hand society calls for new information. On the other hand they are very willing to be critical beyond reason to its results. You know who you are so I don't need to do a roll call of the anti-science league.

I could post list after list of the research articles that all suggest repetitive impacts cause damage that shows up later in life, but it would be just a series of redundancies that will be dismissed as crackpot science.

I posted this thread in response to all who denied it had an impact on very young football players. The mind was thought to be too resilient at that age. This is one of the first to look at this and the initial findings are not supportive of the theory of resilience. The point is it contradicts resilience.

It answered a small question and it suggests more research to confirm or deny that study. So far, normal scientific method with few procedural errors or mistakes, if any.
Click to expand...

Well sorry to see that you seemed to get offended over my opinion, actually no I'm not. I never denied that these injuries occur and feel bad for the ones that do. I was only giving my experience to this point that showed the other side as well. My son has been fortunate to not have received any of those injuries and hope he never has any of those issues. There are all kinds of those studies going on and my point was that some of those studies have an AGENDA. One could also say the same thing about getting killed in a car accident next time someone gets behind the wheel.
 

OPGD#71 said:
Well sorry to see that you seemed to get offended over my opinion, actually no I'm not. I never denied that these injuries occur and feel bad for the ones that do. I was only giving my experience to this point that showed the other side as well. My son has been fortunate to not have received any of those injuries and hope he never has any of those issues. There are all kinds of those studies going on and my point was that some of those studies have an AGENDA. One could also say the same thing about getting killed in a car accident next time someone gets behind the wheel.
Click to expand...

An agenda of what exactly?
 

Markous15 said:
This study has a very small sample size and a nearly infinite amount of uncontrolled variables. They even say right in the conclusion that they need a large sample size for future studies. Although the correlation they found is interesting, I don't believe they even intended for this study to be used as "proof" of anything. Unfortunately a large number of people will take these conclusions as facts, because they read it on the internet and didn't take the time to analyze the content of the study.
Click to expand...

It's always a red flag when there are no real statistics in the abstract. No p value, confidence intervals, relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction. "20%" is virtually meaningless without context and for all the other reasons you mentioned. This is weak sauce.

I suspect this was meant more for public perception than serious science. I don't want to say the author is releasing this tidbit of data for public relations reasons or because he's a media whore so I won't. I suspect he is published with less peer scrutiny die to his many affiliations. I will say no more.
 

Dean S said:
An agenda of what exactly?
Click to expand...

There is a certain amount of people against football and how violent they perceive it to be. I think that some of those people are involved in the research and may slant some info. to further their anti football agenda. Let's face it, there are some out there that would be happy to see the sport go away. I agree that there are some vicious hits and think that the targeting rule is a good step in preventing those injuries along with some upgrades to helmets.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It's always a red flag when there are no real statistics in the abstract. No p value, confidence intervals, relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction. "20%" is virtually meaningless without context and for all the other reasons you mentioned. This is weak sauce.

I suspect this was meant more for public perception than serious science. I don't want to say the author is releasing this tidbit of data for public relations reasons or because he's a media whore so I won't. I suspect he is published with less peer scrutiny die to his many affiliations. I will say no more.
Click to expand...

Thank Gawd.
 

Didn't read the story - what was the affect and who was effected?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom