Updated: Just heard the neck brace study segment on Pulp

dimetime
Posts
639
Joined
5/27/2017
Location
Huntington Beach, CA US
3/28/2019 11:01am
Two minutes in l knew this guy was just feeding us bullshit.

Wear one if you want but don't insult my intelligence with a bunch of made up and manipulated statistics.
3
steveada
Posts
396
Joined
5/6/2011
Location
Evans, GA US
3/28/2019 11:10am Edited Date/Time 3/28/2019 11:17am
Coming from someone with a B minus in one university stats class, I agree that you can't draw any firm conclusions about neck braces from this...
Coming from someone with a B minus in one university stats class, I agree that you can't draw any firm conclusions about neck braces from this study. You need to know the rate of injury for brace vs non brace wearers among all riders whether injured or not.

If you used their same data set and compared the number of spine injuries of male vs female riders, what would that say? I assume that males would be much higher (my assumption is that more males ride) would that mean that females have a stronger/safer spine?

Look at the original thread and see how Leatt reacted to it vs Atlas. I'm betting that Leatt has a bigger/better legal team than Atlas. Leatt is very careful with their wording and avoid making specific claims.

That said most of us will die of natural causes before there is any definitive data. Look at knee braces and football. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/08/sports/ncaafootball/college-football… The jury is still out on that.
Your first paragraph makes no sense. What value is there in looking at the rate of injury in people who don't have a crash? That is like saying a study about the effectiveness of a cancer treatment medication is not valid because it doesn't include data on how well it works in people who don't have cancer.

Your second paragraph makes no sense because while they did present their raw numbers, their conclusions are not drawn from the total number of injuries, but from the rate of injury in the two different populations.

dimetime
Posts
639
Joined
5/27/2017
Location
Huntington Beach, CA US
3/28/2019 11:10am Edited Date/Time 3/28/2019 11:12am
And supposition is no way to create a study either. It is pure assumption as to the severity and frequency of injuries as to whether they wore a brace or not. How can anyone say with accuracy that they "know" it would have been worse? The same supposition could say maybe the brace made it worse. Both are nothing more than guesses

It is simply a guess. You can never definitively say an injury would have been better or worse in any given situation with or without said protective product.

In order for this to be legit they would have to create a consistent situation to test against. You know, the time honored double blind study where positive or negative outcomes are controlled for so you can actually believe the numbers.

Compiling a bunch of statistic that already float in confirmation bias is literally a joke.
dimetime
Posts
639
Joined
5/27/2017
Location
Huntington Beach, CA US
3/28/2019 11:19am
jenssog wrote:
Neckbraces has to be one of the most diving topics in our sport... Reads a decent report about neckbraces that use factual data => Goes out...
Neckbraces has to be one of the most diving topics in our sport...

Reads a decent report about neckbraces that use factual data => Goes out of their way to dispute the findings and validity.

Watches one janky Youtube video about flat earth => 100% believes the earth is flat.

You know when you're too stupid to realize you're stupid?

Of course you don't.
2

The Shop

Middleside
Posts
58
Joined
3/5/2019
Location
Farmersville, CA US
3/28/2019 11:20am
GrapeApe wrote:
Middleside wrote: They still use donuts . . .

Middleside wrote: Nobody said they use them now . . .
Take it out of context much? What I said was....they still use donuts or nothing. And I never referenced who.
Some local high schoolers are still using them. I dont know about pro. I dont pay that close attention.

Hence why I wrote they use donuts or nothing.
Try again.
1
1
Drtbykr
Posts
2059
Joined
10/29/2006
Location
Fredericton CA
3/28/2019 11:27am
This is great, it isn’t often you have to think to keep up on here.

I don’t even get on my bike without a chest protector, and then watch the pro’s wearing just a jersey. Depends on your objective as well. If they bother you and you want to win, you are not wearing one.

Next generation will grow up using them, they will probably keep using them. Not based on anything but what you are used to.

Falcon
Posts
12297
Joined
11/16/2011
Location
Menifee, CA US
3/28/2019 11:51am
Here's a simple way to look at this data:

The results are for X number of riders who crashed and had spinal injuries severe enough to be treated.
Some number of those riders (XsubA) were wearing a brace that failed to protect them.
Although a larger number of riders, who were not wearing a brace (XsubCool had injuries, there is no way to know if a brace would have helped those riders or not. It could be that, had they been wearing neck braces, all of those riders would also have needed treatment.

1
steveada
Posts
396
Joined
5/6/2011
Location
Evans, GA US
3/28/2019 12:00pm
Falcon wrote:
Here's a simple way to look at this data: The results are for X number of riders who crashed and had spinal injuries severe enough to...
Here's a simple way to look at this data:

The results are for X number of riders who crashed and had spinal injuries severe enough to be treated.
Some number of those riders (XsubA) were wearing a brace that failed to protect them.
Although a larger number of riders, who were not wearing a brace (XsubCool had injuries, there is no way to know if a brace would have helped those riders or not. It could be that, had they been wearing neck braces, all of those riders would also have needed treatment.

That is possible, but what is the probability that consistently over a 10 year period with somewhere around 9000 crashes, the riders not wearing neck braces would consistently have more severe crashes?
1
RichieW13
Posts
2430
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA US
3/28/2019 12:14pm
steveada wrote:
I don't think you are looking at the data correctly. First of all, both riders with a neck brace, and without a neck brace who crashed...
I don't think you are looking at the data correctly.

First of all, both riders with a neck brace, and without a neck brace who crashed and walked away were not included in the study. This is impossible data to collect, and would be impossible to evaluate. What they looked at were crashes where there were forces involved significant enough to require EMS intervention. Data from tipovers and minor crashes with no injury are meaningless.

Secondly, while the data you chose to show could have been explained simply by the numbers of people wearing braces vs. the number not wearing braces, that is not the case. 46% of the people in the study were wearing braces and 54% were not wearing braces. If that disparity alone was responsible for the difference in c-spine injuries, you would expect riders not wearing braces to have sustained 54% of c-spine injuries and those wearing braces to have sustained 46% of c-spine injuries. That is not even close so there has to be something else causing the disparity. 20% of the people in the study not wearing a neck brace sustained a c-spine injury, while only 3.5% of the people in the study wearing a neck brace sustained a c-spine injury. For those in both groups that had a c-spine injury, the people not wearing a brace had a more severe injury. Unless you believe that somehow over a 10 year period people wearing neck braces somehow crashed differently or always had less severe crashes, it is impossible to draw any other conclusion than the neck braces work.
"Data from tipovers and minor crashes with no injury are meaningless."

That is not true. Injuries do happen in minor crashes (though rare). And we have no way of comparing what the rate of injury in minor crashes is between neck brace and no neck brace. I am sure that some of the treated injuries were from minor crashes.
bultokid
Posts
2133
Joined
8/13/2007
Location
Houston, TX US
3/28/2019 12:16pm
Ray_MXS wrote:
Anti-brace folks are starting to remind me of flat-earthers
Don't forget the anti-vaxers
1
RichieW13
Posts
2430
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA US
3/28/2019 12:32pm Edited Date/Time 3/28/2019 12:35pm
msp332 wrote:
Please read the study before commenting: https://www.actionsportsems.com/case-study-neck-brace
The data, methodology, results, and conclusions are all there.
Yes, but their methodology is flawed.

Starting with their first conclusion: "A critical cervical spine injury is 89% more likely without a neck brace."

They are calculating that based on the 265 critical cervical spine injuries they recorded. 26 had a neck brace and 239 did not. I think the math they used is: 239-26=213, then 213/239 = 89%. And that is just not the correct way to calculate the percentage increase of a likelihood.



Having said that, the data is strong enough for me that I am considering getting a neck brace. I am fairly confident that the data shows a positive correlation between protection and wearing a brace. But I am not confident that the magnitude of that correlation is as strong as they conclude.
3
Sierra Ranger
Posts
841
Joined
12/30/2018
Location
Sacramento, CA US
3/28/2019 12:33pm
Ray_MXS wrote:
Anti-brace folks are starting to remind me of flat-earthers
bultokid wrote:
Don't forget the anti-vaxers
Right, questioning the results of a simplistic and highly flawed study is the same as saying the Earth is flat. Some of you guys are a trip- wow. That's just being idiotic and not contributing anything other than ignorance.
4
2
.kyle
Posts
469
Joined
6/5/2011
Location
GB
3/28/2019 12:37pm
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't see why the foam donuts that existed aren't still being used. To my unprofessional, non scientific eye, they seem like the perfect thing for allowing movement and flex while still being able to absorb impact energy safely.
1
EngIceDave
Posts
2432
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Merritt Island, FL US
3/28/2019 12:40pm
Here's my question(s), and as a business owner, I don't like speaking ill of another's product, but it's been a legitimate question.

KEEP IN MIND - I am not against wearing any neck device, I do not say they're bad and some protection is likely better than none.

That said, regarding this research, how many "crashers" who didn't get a ride to the big white clean place are in the study?
Seems to me, these studies are only looking at worst case scenarios, not the guys who walked away, every day.

If you pay attention to some of these claims, I should be dead or in a chair. These "saved my life" claims are unsubstantiated speculation, without evidence.

Not saying they're bad and no one should wear one, I just think too many put too much faith in them
IMO, if you sat at a track and documented EVERY crash, more walk away without than a study shows, because they're only showing the worst case medical service need crashes
3
Helda
Posts
688
Joined
9/17/2018
Location
AU
3/28/2019 12:43pm
Helda wrote:
Absoulty incorrect, what the OP has said is 100% correct. The only real study done on neck braces that i have ever found shows them to...
Absoulty incorrect, what the OP has said is 100% correct.

The only real study done on neck braces that i have ever found shows them to be at best ineffective.
GoldenKTM wrote:
Do you have a link to that study? I’d like to read it.
2
3/28/2019 12:51pm
The guy that did the testing thought it was ridiculous that people were asking about dirt type and a few other questions and then said that stuff didn't matter. I beg to differ... I see a few factors that could make a difference.

What happens on hard packed dirt? The dirt is hard with very little give, but depending on the crash, you could slide quite a bit.

What happens in soft dirt? Sometimes it gives and you roll, other times in deep stuff you just stop because the dirt is so thick. To me, that makes a difference.

The softer dirt will soften the impact(not a ton, but a little) but the brace or helmet might get caught in the dirt while the rest of your body is still staying in motion. Same issue on hard packed... Your body will take more of the impact, but your helmet or neck brace is less likely to get stuck in a section of deep soft dirt...

Am I wrong with this thinking?
1
RichieW13
Posts
2430
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA US
3/28/2019 12:54pm
Coming from someone with a B minus in one university stats class, I agree that you can't draw any firm conclusions about neck braces from this...
Coming from someone with a B minus in one university stats class, I agree that you can't draw any firm conclusions about neck braces from this study. You need to know the rate of injury for brace vs non brace wearers among all riders whether injured or not.

If you used their same data set and compared the number of spine injuries of male vs female riders, what would that say? I assume that males would be much higher (my assumption is that more males ride) would that mean that females have a stronger/safer spine?

Look at the original thread and see how Leatt reacted to it vs Atlas. I'm betting that Leatt has a bigger/better legal team than Atlas. Leatt is very careful with their wording and avoid making specific claims.

That said most of us will die of natural causes before there is any definitive data. Look at knee braces and football. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/08/sports/ncaafootball/college-football… The jury is still out on that.
steveada wrote:
Your first paragraph makes no sense. What value is there in looking at the rate of injury in people who don't have a crash? That is...
Your first paragraph makes no sense. What value is there in looking at the rate of injury in people who don't have a crash? That is like saying a study about the effectiveness of a cancer treatment medication is not valid because it doesn't include data on how well it works in people who don't have cancer.

Your second paragraph makes no sense because while they did present their raw numbers, their conclusions are not drawn from the total number of injuries, but from the rate of injury in the two different populations.

He wasn't asking about the injury rate for people who don't have a crash. He was asking about the injury rate amongst all riders whether injured or not.

Because the study is only based on treated patients. We have no way of knowing two things:

1) Do neck braces change the rate of crashing (either positive or negative)?

2) Does wearing a neck brace change the rate of needing treatment (positive or negative)?

The study does not have those answers.
RichieW13
Posts
2430
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA US
3/28/2019 12:58pm
Another very important thing this study doesn't help with is "type of neck brace".

The technology of neck braces has changed over the years, and different braces use different technologies. Are they all equal in terms of preventing injury? If not, am I risking more injury by picking the wrong one?
1
3/28/2019 12:58pm
This topic comes back more than herpes.
Johnny Ringo
Posts
8185
Joined
1/11/2016
Location
Tombstone, AZ US
3/28/2019 12:59pm
Stats are a fickle thing, and incorrect conclusions can easily be drawn.

What type of brace was the rider wearing? Did it fit? Was it strapped down or floating? What type of helmet? Age of the rider? Body Type? Weight? Speed?


We will never gather enough details to accurately say "Neck Braces make you safer". We can generally assume they are. This is as real of a study as we have so far, but it does have its flaws.

I wear one because I believe they work to a certain extent. I trust the brace more than I trust Ryno's 'woke' opinions.
3/28/2019 1:00pm
RichieW13 wrote:
Another very important thing this study doesn't help with is "type of neck brace". The technology of neck braces has changed over the years, and different...
Another very important thing this study doesn't help with is "type of neck brace".

The technology of neck braces has changed over the years, and different braces use different technologies. Are they all equal in terms of preventing injury? If not, am I risking more injury by picking the wrong one?
Stop asking questions that are hard to answer. Just go with the “somethings better than nothin” argument and rejoice with majority of fellow vitards.
gym_jackets
Posts
571
Joined
10/13/2017
Location
Chicago, IL US
3/28/2019 1:10pm
RichieW13 wrote:
Another very important thing this study doesn't help with is "type of neck brace". The technology of neck braces has changed over the years, and different...
Another very important thing this study doesn't help with is "type of neck brace".

The technology of neck braces has changed over the years, and different braces use different technologies. Are they all equal in terms of preventing injury? If not, am I risking more injury by picking the wrong one?
Stop asking questions that are hard to answer. Just go with the “somethings better than nothin” argument and rejoice with majority of fellow vitards.
Asking questions that are hard to answer is why we are even able to communicate with each other via an online forum. Difficult questions and the answers we get from them are very important, even if you don't see the value in it.
1
3/28/2019 1:15pm Edited Date/Time 3/28/2019 1:17pm
I agree with you 100%. But difficult and very important get thrown away here most time.

Sorry forgot to end my last post post with /sarcasm.
1
gym_jackets
Posts
571
Joined
10/13/2017
Location
Chicago, IL US
3/28/2019 1:17pm
I agree with you 100%. But difficult and very important get thrown away here most time.

Sorry forgot to end my last post post with /sarcasm.
That is my bad then Grinning
mx317
Posts
5303
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
TN US
3/28/2019 1:20pm
EngIceDave wrote:
Here's my question(s), and as a business owner, I don't like speaking ill of another's product, but it's been a legitimate question. KEEP IN MIND -...
Here's my question(s), and as a business owner, I don't like speaking ill of another's product, but it's been a legitimate question.

KEEP IN MIND - I am not against wearing any neck device, I do not say they're bad and some protection is likely better than none.

That said, regarding this research, how many "crashers" who didn't get a ride to the big white clean place are in the study?
Seems to me, these studies are only looking at worst case scenarios, not the guys who walked away, every day.

If you pay attention to some of these claims, I should be dead or in a chair. These "saved my life" claims are unsubstantiated speculation, without evidence.

Not saying they're bad and no one should wear one, I just think too many put too much faith in them
IMO, if you sat at a track and documented EVERY crash, more walk away without than a study shows, because they're only showing the worst case medical service need crashes
Dave totally off topic here, but do you know Andy Wilhoit? I'm not sure if I spelled that correctly, but my wife works with his wife. My wife brought in a bunch of Engine Ice stickers the other day and asked if I knew about your product.
Tom711
Posts
202
Joined
2/20/2015
Location
GB
3/28/2019 1:30pm
So...which 2 stroke oil should I be using Dry
2
EngIceDave
Posts
2432
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Merritt Island, FL US
3/28/2019 1:43pm
EngIceDave wrote:
Here's my question(s), and as a business owner, I don't like speaking ill of another's product, but it's been a legitimate question. KEEP IN MIND -...
Here's my question(s), and as a business owner, I don't like speaking ill of another's product, but it's been a legitimate question.

KEEP IN MIND - I am not against wearing any neck device, I do not say they're bad and some protection is likely better than none.

That said, regarding this research, how many "crashers" who didn't get a ride to the big white clean place are in the study?
Seems to me, these studies are only looking at worst case scenarios, not the guys who walked away, every day.

If you pay attention to some of these claims, I should be dead or in a chair. These "saved my life" claims are unsubstantiated speculation, without evidence.

Not saying they're bad and no one should wear one, I just think too many put too much faith in them
IMO, if you sat at a track and documented EVERY crash, more walk away without than a study shows, because they're only showing the worst case medical service need crashes
mx317 wrote:
Dave totally off topic here, but do you know Andy Wilhoit? I'm not sure if I spelled that correctly, but my wife works with his wife...
Dave totally off topic here, but do you know Andy Wilhoit? I'm not sure if I spelled that correctly, but my wife works with his wife. My wife brought in a bunch of Engine Ice stickers the other day and asked if I knew about your product.
Yeah, Andy's my brother (sorta)

Rather than a long story, have your wife ask how Andy became my brother?

It's Wilhoite

I'm super proud of him
3
3/28/2019 1:48pm
Coming from someone with a B minus in one university stats class, I agree that you can't draw any firm conclusions about neck braces from this...
Coming from someone with a B minus in one university stats class, I agree that you can't draw any firm conclusions about neck braces from this study. You need to know the rate of injury for brace vs non brace wearers among all riders whether injured or not.

If you used their same data set and compared the number of spine injuries of male vs female riders, what would that say? I assume that males would be much higher (my assumption is that more males ride) would that mean that females have a stronger/safer spine?

Look at the original thread and see how Leatt reacted to it vs Atlas. I'm betting that Leatt has a bigger/better legal team than Atlas. Leatt is very careful with their wording and avoid making specific claims.

That said most of us will die of natural causes before there is any definitive data. Look at knee braces and football. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/08/sports/ncaafootball/college-football… The jury is still out on that.
steveada wrote:
Your first paragraph makes no sense. What value is there in looking at the rate of injury in people who don't have a crash? That is...
Your first paragraph makes no sense. What value is there in looking at the rate of injury in people who don't have a crash? That is like saying a study about the effectiveness of a cancer treatment medication is not valid because it doesn't include data on how well it works in people who don't have cancer.

Your second paragraph makes no sense because while they did present their raw numbers, their conclusions are not drawn from the total number of injuries, but from the rate of injury in the two different populations.

See Richie's point on paragraph one. Also we need to know the numbers of all riders who crashed and didn't need treatment.

As for paragraph two, they are making bold statements off of those raw numbers not just rate of injury.

"A critical cervical spine injury is 89% more likely without a neck brace." They lead with this and it is complete nonsense.

I am not against neck braces. But I am against people selling stuff on the basis of questionable science.
2
msp332
Posts
386
Joined
10/29/2014
Location
San Mateo, CA US
3/28/2019 1:58pm
msp332 wrote:
Please read the study before commenting: https://www.actionsportsems.com/case-study-neck-brace
The data, methodology, results, and conclusions are all there.
RichieW13 wrote:
Yes, but their methodology is flawed. Starting with their first conclusion: "A critical cervical spine injury is 89% more likely without a neck brace." They are...
Yes, but their methodology is flawed.

Starting with their first conclusion: "A critical cervical spine injury is 89% more likely without a neck brace."

They are calculating that based on the 265 critical cervical spine injuries they recorded. 26 had a neck brace and 239 did not. I think the math they used is: 239-26=213, then 213/239 = 89%. And that is just not the correct way to calculate the percentage increase of a likelihood.



Having said that, the data is strong enough for me that I am considering getting a neck brace. I am fairly confident that the data shows a positive correlation between protection and wearing a brace. But I am not confident that the magnitude of that correlation is as strong as they conclude.
If their methodology is flawed, what would make it correct? The data is transparent to use any method or draw any conclusions. With or without more complete data (number of riders/crashes who didn't need ambulance service), the conclusion remains clear.

That quote is not from the conclusion. See my first post.
1
2

Post a reply to: Updated: Just heard the neck brace study segment on Pulp

The Latest