Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

The Food Forum's Evil Twin. Trying to lose weight or get in shape? Tips, encouragement, status reports, and so forth go here.
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, we are not health professionals. Take advice with salt.

Moderators: Mighty Jalapeno, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:47 pm UTC

yazdi wrote:First degree injuries normally have no lasting effects, third degree trauma has a huge percentage of permanent disability, especially with certain diagnoses (e.g. subdural bleeding), very high lethality (up to 90%) and in practically all cases leads to a lengthy and expensive stay in an ICU.

In very many cases that is the difference between wearing a helmet and not.
I can appreciate that, and, from what I understand, concussions fall under your "first degree" brain trauma, correct? Concussions specifically were brought up, and I'm not convinced that anyone has sufficiently explained how ski helmets prevent concussions.

I'm not disputing that ski helmets reduce the extent of more serious injuries, because that's precisely what they're designed to do.
I don't know what to do for you

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:55 pm UTC

Good snowsport helmets (I'm thinking of Sweet Protection here), often use EPP, not EPS which is better at absorbing multiple impacts, and is more compressable, thus taking the edge off of impacts and reducing the likelyhood of concussion.

I know many people who use carbon-kevlar shelled helmets with a thick layer of medium density Minicell foam, these are superb at multiple impacts and taking the edge off of impacts that would otherwise cause concussion.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

yazdi
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:44 pm UTC

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby yazdi » Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:22 pm UTC

uncivlengr wrote:
yazdi wrote:I can appreciate that, and, from what I understand, concussions fall under your "first degree" brain trauma, correct? Concussions specifically were brought up, and I'm not convinced that anyone has sufficiently explained how ski helmets prevent concussions.

It would make sense that they're prevented exatly the same way as any other brain damage. The helmet is danaged instead of the skull. That's also why one is supposed to replace helmets after bad falls.

Team503
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:30 pm UTC

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby Team503 » Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:56 pm UTC

yazdi wrote:
uncivlengr wrote:
yazdi wrote:I can appreciate that, and, from what I understand, concussions fall under your "first degree" brain trauma, correct? Concussions specifically were brought up, and I'm not convinced that anyone has sufficiently explained how ski helmets prevent concussions.

It would make sense that they're prevented exatly the same way as any other brain damage. The helmet is danaged instead of the skull. That's also why one is supposed to replace helmets after bad falls.


Basic logic applies. If a helmet prevents skull fractures by reducing the amount of force transmitted to the head, then in a less serious collision the same should apply. If the collision that would normally give you a mild concussion while not wearing a helmet is experienced while wearing a helmet, then the same principle applies - force is reduced, mitigating the damage (concussion) done to the brain to either a lesser concussion or not a concussion at all.

If it works by reducing force transmitted, then it works that way at all levels, though perhaps not as effectively. At least, that's the way I see it. And it behooves me to point out if the manufacturers are making helmets that DON'T perform this function, then perhaps someone should convince them to take a page out of a motorcycle helmet manufacturer's book.

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby uncivlengr » Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:24 am UTC

Team503 wrote:If it works by reducing force transmitted, then it works that way at all levels, though perhaps not as effectively.
Except, as I've explained a number of times, ski helmets are not designed to reduce the force transmitted to the skull - they reduce the stress applied to any local part of the skull.

Since there's very little padding in ski helmets, there's no cushioning effect to reduce the force, and therefore the force applied to the helmet is the force applied to the skull is the force applied to the brain. While the stress on any local point on the skull is reduced by the helmet, the area of your brain can't change, so the force that can cause a concussion doesn't change.

In the case of more severe crashes, the helmet does absorb the energy of the impact by either crushing or fracturing, but the force that can cause a concussion is much, much lower than the limits of the typical ski helmet.

Again, I'm not criticizing the design - I would imagine one would rather have a concussion than a skull fracture - but what I can't understand is why people are denying the simple fact that certain helmets are not designed to protect you from every possible risk. Knowledge of the limitations of your gear is much more important than religious adherence to its use and blind faith in its ability, and for all you people that think there's no good reason not to wear a helmet, I say that there's absolutely no good reason to baselessly deny the limitations of your safety gear.
I don't know what to do for you

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby 22/7 » Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:50 pm UTC

uncivlengr wrote:what I can't understand is why people are denying the simple fact that certain helmets are not designed to protect you from every possible risk. Knowledge of the limitations of your gear is much more important than religious adherence to its use and blind faith in its ability, and for all you people that think there's no good reason not to wear a helmet, I say that there's absolutely no good reason to baselessly deny the limitations of your safety gear.
Show me one poster here who has claimed that a ski helmet is designed to protect you from every possible risk or who has blindly/religiously/baselessly denied the limitations of X safety gear. Since you can't find that, will you please admit that you're trying to pick a fight with people over nothing?

Oh, and you're wrong about helmets not helping with concussions. All materials are flexible and deformable, and the materials they use as the "padding" in many ski helmets are no exception. Upon impact, the double-density polystyrene will indeed compress, even if slightly slow, as will the "fluffy padding", and the plastic shell will flex under the imposed force. All of this will take time (though not much) and will cause the brain to slow down more, well, slowly. This is important because concussions are caused by the impulse imparted on the brain, not the force or even the pressure. The equation offered by MotorToad, though an equation for acceleration rather than impulse, still has the right idea as the acceleration applied to a given, nonchanging mass like the brain will indicate a given change in momentum. The equation for impulse looks like this.

I = F * delta(t) = delta(p)

Dividing by delta(t) gives us delta(p)/delta(t) = F. Since delta(p) is essentially set (mass is constant and the starting and ending velocities are already set), we can reduce the force applied to the brain (and thus the acceleration, which MotorToad appeared to be getting at, and thus the damage) by increasing the amount of time over which the change in momentum happens.

In other words, anything that increases the amount of time it takes for the brain to slow down during a collision will reduce the damage done, including damage resulting in concussions. There really shouldn't be any expectation of convincing data that helmets reduce the number or severity of concussions since 1. it will actually increase the number of concussions by turning much more dangerous head traumas like skull fractures into much less serious traumas like concussions (number) and 2. the people reporting concussions aren't going to take the fall with the helmet and then return in a week or two to take the exact same fall without the helmet (severity). Additionally (3., if you will), people who may have suffered a minor concussion had they not been wearing a helmet but were wearing a helmet and so did not suffer any concussion aren't going to report to the ski patrol that they were in a collision that would have caused a concussion but for their helmet, nor would it be responsible for the ski patrol to report such an incident were someone to do such a thing, since it's completely unverifiable and at best simply conjecture on the part of the user. In short, claiming that there isn't any conclusive data on the topic and therefore helmet use is somehow suspect is specious and uneducated at best.

Oh, and in case you're thinking about pulling the "since you don't know what you're talking about card" with me, I've got a Masters in Mechanical Engineering, but anyone who has completed a class in high school physics could have told you the same thing I just did. I suspect MotorToad may be one of those people.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby uncivlengr » Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:43 am UTC

22/7 wrote:Oh, and you're wrong about helmets not helping with concussions. All materials are flexible and deformable, and the materials they use as the "padding" in many ski helmets are no exception. Upon impact, the double-density polystyrene will indeed compress
A tree stump or a rock will compress when you hit them, too, yet not in any significant manner, and not in a way that I would comfortably assume reduces the chance of getting a concussion. I'm not denying any basic properties of elastic materials here, I'm simply questioning the relevance in this particular issue.

You've failed to demonstrate that that change in impact time is actually significant in terms of reducing a concussion. If the relatively stiff high density foam that comprises the helmet interior don't significantly compress at impacts that can cause a concussion (and it doesn't), the chances of receiving a concussion doesn't significantly change.

22/7 wrote:In short, claiming that there isn't any conclusive data on the topic and therefore helmet use is somehow suspect is specious and uneducated at best.
I don't believe I made such a claim - I've merely stated that it hasn't been shown that concussions are prevented by ski helmets as was so vigorously claimed by others, and that's true so far. I'd be perfectly happy to learn that my helmet protects me from concussions if someone might actually take the time to make a meaningful argument to support this claim, but hand waving and general references to high school physics equations just isn't cutting it when it comes to my safety, I'm afraid.
I don't know what to do for you

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby 22/7 » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:37 am UTC

Instead of waving your hands at physics, explain why impulse isn't relevant.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:58 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:Instead of waving your hands at physics, explain why impulse isn't relevant.
If I made a helmet out of steel plate and strapped it to someone's head and hit it against a rock, I can claim that the steel has elastic properties that will cause it to necessarily compress on impact, reduce the peak force, and will therefore reduce their chances of getting a concussion. Similarly, the rock will also exhibit some degree of elastic deformation, further reducing the peak force and chance of concussion.

What that utterly fails to address is whether the elastic properties of steel and rock are such that the deformation will actually produce a change that is actually significant. The magnitude of the reduction in impact force is not in any way quantified in simply referencing the impulse equation (for the second time in this thread) without actually applying it, and whether that reduction is 1% or 75% has yet to be addressed.

Now, as has already been explained, the loads capable of causing a concussion are lower than the load required to dent the shell or fracture/crush the interior, and the high density foam with which this type of helmet is designed is not particularly compressive elastically. Therefore, no significant amount of energy can be absorbed by the helmet in these sub-failure impacts, and until someone can quantitatively defend these claims that ski helmets can actually prevent concussions, I'm going to assume they don't, and argue that nobody is safer by simply assuming they do.
I don't know what to do for you

yazdi
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:44 pm UTC

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby yazdi » Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:49 pm UTC

To be honest, I don't really see what you are arguing about.

You don't appear to be arguing that ski helmets don't reduce injuries worse than concussions and if I got away with a concussion after falling, I would be rather happy that nothing worse happened.

Sure, a concussion hurts and is inconvenient, but I prefer one to the alternative of more serious injuries.

Or is there something I'm misunderstanding?

Edit: Wording

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:20 pm UTC

yazdi wrote:To be honest, I don't really see what you are arguing about.
Read the thread - someone else claimed that they would wear a helmet specifically because the effect of multiple concussions adds up over time. I'm simply pointing out that if you are doing something that might cause you to get frequent or multiple concussions, wearing a ski helmet won't help, or at least I haven't seen any evidence thus far that it will. In other circumstances and other helmets, that might be a valid reason, but this thread is specifically addressing ski helmets.

Of course the helmets prevent more serious injuries, and that's what they're designed to do, but just assuming that they'll be effective in ways they aren't is significantly more harmful than beneficial. The best option, as I've explained, is to be well aware of these limitations and adjust behaviour accordingly.
I don't know what to do for you

yazdi
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:44 pm UTC

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby yazdi » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:35 pm UTC

uncivlengr wrote:Of course the helmets prevent more serious injuries, and that's what they're designed to do, but just assuming that they'll be effective in ways they aren't is significantly more harmful than beneficial. The best option, as I've explained, is to be well aware of these limitations and adjust behaviour accordingly.
That was what I didn't understand. I got the impression that you were arguing against helmets on the basis that they don't necessarily reduce concussions*.

*I'll have to agree to that. I had a (short) look through PubMed and couldn't find any abstracts suggesting that concussions were reduced, since all of them only referred to "injuries".

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:26 pm UTC

yazdi wrote:I got the impression that you were arguing against helmets on the basis that they don't necessarily reduce concussions*.
Not at all - I think this is the third or fourth time that I'll have explained that I have not argued against the use of helmets, and that my only concern is that people are not fully educated on the actual protection a helmet can or can't afford them, or other methods by which they can protect themselves. Knowledge (and by that I don't mean the ability to define the variables in basic physics equations) is much more effective than all the polystyrene you could strap to your body.
I don't know what to do for you

yazdi
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:44 pm UTC

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby yazdi » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:00 pm UTC

uncivlengr wrote:Not at all - I think this is the third or fourth time that I'll have explained that I have not argued against the use of helmets, and that my only concern is that people are not fully educated on the actual protection a helmet can or can't afford them, or other methods by which they can protect themselves. Knowledge (and by that I don't mean the ability to define the variables in basic physics equations) is much more effective than all the polystyrene you could strap to your body.
Ah, I'm sorry I misunderstood, then. Concerning this I definitely agree, even if I do think helmets should me mandatory for children.

Thanks for clearing that up

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:17 pm UTC

yazdi wrote:Ah, I'm sorry I misunderstood, then. Concerning this I definitely agree, even if I do think helmets should me mandatory for children.

Thanks for clearing that up
From what I've read, children's ski helmets are made from softer foam that does compress, and therefore would reduce concussions. In that case it seems to be well suited, as kids are more likely to be involved in slower, less forceful collisions that might cause a concussion but not a skull fracture. That's also the reason that kids' helmets are typically quite bulky, as the softer foam must be thicker, which probably wouldn't suit older skiers who are more concerned with fashion.
I don't know what to do for you

cycoden
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 9:21 am UTC
Location: Melbourne

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby cycoden » Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:30 pm UTC

Part of the problem is that (bicycle) helmets need to pass a penetration test, which means the liner needs to be quite hard. I was shocked when I came of my push bike and discovered that the liner had cracked, rather than compressed. Still, it did its job, although I did suffer a mild concussion, I would have been much worse off without it.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/ ... _liner.pdf discusses improvements in liner technology and provides references to studies that demonstrate the problem with helmets where the liner is stiffer than your skull.

Re: snowboarding, I wouldn't be too concerned about wearing a helmet/wrist guards on piste, but off piste or in the terrain park I think they're pretty essential.
VectorZero wrote:SEXUAL INTERCOURSE DISGUSTS ME!
Spoiler:
Bulvox wrote:This is probably one of the few times that I'll agree with Cycoden on anything. I just wish that my brain worked like that.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby 22/7 » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:54 pm UTC

unc, I read back through a number of your posts, and I keep finding inconsistencies and inaccuracies that indicate a lack of understanding of what's going on here. For example,
No, it's a property of the foam that they use to make ski helmets that makes them fracture with high impact forces. The point is, it doesn't compress or crush when you get into the range of impact forces that cause concussions, so the majority of the energy from the impact still reaches your head.
This simply isn't true. The foam compresses regardless of the magnitude of the impact. Do you understand this?
A helmet works by dissipating the force over a larger area of your head to prevent fractures - that's its purpose - but the area of your brain that comes in contact with your skull doesn't change.
For concussions, the fact that the area of your skull doesn't change doesn't matter. Concussions aren't caused by pressure, they're caused by acceleration.
I'm demonstrating that experts don't deny that concussions still occur when helmets are worn while skiing/snowboarding - so far you've offered nothing substantial to prove your claims that they're prevented.
Of course concussions are still going to occur when helmets are worn. This is for the same reason that clavicles will still break when seat belts are worn. What we're arguing is that everything gets moved down the scale. So if the scale goes 1 to 10 with 1 being a very mild concussion (you may not even realize you've got it) and 10 being your skull split in two, a 6 (moderate to severe concussion) may get bumped down to a 5.5 or a 5 with a helmet. For the aforementioned reasons, this effect isn't going to show up in studies because all head injuries will be moved down the scale. So all those 8s that have disappeared due to helmet use (they're now 7s) are replaced by the 9s, which have been bumped to 8s. One more thing.
the helmet interior (ie, the double-density polystyrene, not the plastic shell and not the "soft fluffy lining") doesn't compress significantly on impact unless you break it, so your argument isn't valid.
You've failed to demonstrate that that change in impact time is actually significant in terms of reducing a concussion. If the relatively stiff high density foam that comprises the helmet interior don't significantly compress at impacts that can cause a concussion (and it doesn't), the chances of receiving a concussion doesn't significantly change.
Ignoring the fact that your grasp of how materials compress and break is dodgy at best, explain to me why you're allowed to make judgments like "doesn't compress significantly" but then demand numbers when I or anyone else claims that any reduction in impulse is beneficial? If you're going to use that kind of language and expect it to carry any weight whatsoever, I want some proof that you're at least as qualified as I am to make such hand-wavy statements.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby uncivlengr » Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:37 am UTC

22/7 wrote:unc, I read back through a number of your posts, and I keep finding inconsistencies and inaccuracies that indicate a lack of understanding of what's going on here. For example,
Looking back on my posts now to pick out errors? Seems like you're a little more concerned with scoring points against me than actually making a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. You asked a very simple question in your last post and I responded - why not address that instead?

22/7 wrote:This simply isn't true. The foam compresses regardless of the magnitude of the impact. Do you understand this?
I already addressed this a number of times - again, the rock also compressed regardless of the magnitude of the impact, and hitting rocks doesn't prevent concussions - is the compression actually significant enough to notably reduce concussions? Is the reduction in peak force 1% or 75%? It's an important question and you've avoided answering it every time.

22/7 wrote:For concussions, the fact that the area of your skull doesn't change doesn't matter. Concussions aren't caused by pressure, they're caused by acceleration.
And that acceleration is caused by a force that's applied across the surface of the skull - ie, a pressure. The total force applied to any local region of the skull can be reduced by the helmet by distributing it across the surface of the skull, but the total force on the skull is equal to the total force on the brain - the force isn't distributed anywhere else.

Is nitpicking the semantics of my previous posts helping you on your way to actually demonstrating the argument you're trying to make?

22/7 wrote:Of course concussions are still going to occur when helmets are worn. This is for the same reason that clavicles will still break when seat belts are worn. What we're arguing is that everything gets moved down the scale.
and I've argued that because helmets are designed to reduce fractures, they're probably not effective at reducing concussions. You can't simply argue that since helmets reduce one form of head injury that they're effective in reducing all head injuries - that's why helmets are designed differently for different activities.

22/7 wrote:Ignoring the fact that your grasp of how materials compress and break is dodgy at best, explain to me why you're allowed to make judgments like "doesn't compress significantly" but then demand numbers when I or anyone else claims that any reduction in impulse is beneficial? If you're going to use that kind of language and expect it to carry any weight whatsoever[...]
It was stated that helmets can prevent concussions, and I don't accept that claim without some form of solid proof. The references I've made to the nature of the properties of the foam are simply to illustrate that the claim isn't substantiated merely by referencing the general fact that elastic materials compress under load. Why can't you be bothered to just simply apply the equations you so extensively explained to prove your point?

Show me the actual magnitude of the reduction in impact on the brain, and it'll be settled - until then, I'll be conservative in my estimation of the capabilities of safety gear. The onus is on you to quantify your claim, not on me.

22/7 wrote:I want some proof that you're at least as qualified as I am to make such hand-wavy statements.
:lol: I'm sure you're awfully proud of whatever "qualifications" you feel you may have to make posts on a comic strip forum, but this thread isn't about your qualifications, and I'd more interested in discussing the topic at hand.
I don't know what to do for you

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby 22/7 » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:24 pm UTC

The only truly important part of this is unspoilered.
Spoiler:
uncivlengr wrote:I already addressed this a number of times - again, the rock also compressed regardless of the magnitude of the impact, and hitting rocks doesn't prevent concussions - is the compression actually significant enough to notably reduce concussions? Is the reduction in peak force 1% or 75%? It's an important question and you've avoided answering it every time.
It's one that I've specifically said is unimportant when substantiating my claim, that they will reduce concussions. That is fact, whether you like it or not. I never said they'd reduce them by X% or anything like that specifically because I'm not interested in doing the math. If you want to figure out by how much, good on you, but I'm not interested.
And that acceleration is caused by a force that's applied across the surface of the skull - ie, a pressure. The total force applied to any local region of the skull can be reduced by the helmet by distributing it across the surface of the skull, but the total force on the skull is equal to the total force on the brain - the force isn't distributed anywhere else.
That's not completely accurate, but let's assume that everything is perfectly inelastic and assume it's true. Pressure is still completely unrelated to concussions since the variable you're trying to include (area) is fixed. Force is the only thing that matters.
Is nitpicking the semantics of my previous posts helping you on your way to actually demonstrating the argument you're trying to make?
Me correcting your misuse of terms when we're arguing physics and engineering isn't nitpicking, it's you not knowing what the hell you're talking about and getting called on it.
and I've argued that because helmets are designed to reduce fractures, they're probably not effective at reducing concussions.
How does that follow? Additionally, I've argued that you're wrong and yet you haven't gone "oh, you're right." So why should I?
You can't simply argue that since helmets reduce one form of head injury that they're effective in reducing all head injuries - that's why helmets are designed differently for different activities.
Which would be relevant if I EVER argued that they would reduce head injuries by X% or X points on a given severity scale or anything like that. I'm simply arguing that they'll reduce the concussion, not by how much.
It was stated that helmets can prevent concussions, and I don't accept that claim without some form of solid proof.
Either you accept that a helmet, regardless of what it's made of, will absorb some of the force of an impact (i.e. you come play in the real world where materials flex under applied stresses) or you admit that you're arguing against a strawman. Additionally, and as I pointed out but you refused to really address, you keep using words like "significant" and "effective" and you refuse to define these terms. If you're a materials expert, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt to use such terms all hand-wavy-like, but as you have yet to offer any credentials to suggest such, I have to assume that you're a layman in this realm. I've no interest in running the math myself, and I'm quite sure that a helmet won't make me or anyone else concussion proof, but I can also guarantee that the severity of a sustained concussion would be decreased by a helmet regardless of the material. I make no claims as to by how much quite intentionally, because I don't want to do the math. But you keep arguing as if I've said "50%!" or some such nonsense and then casually waving off the reasons I've given, which are an accurate if brief explanation of why any material between your head and the tree/rock/ground will reduce the force transferred to your brain (and thus, reduce the severity of the concussion).
I'm sure you're awfully proud of whatever "qualifications" you feel you may have to make posts on a comic strip forum, but this thread isn't about your qualifications, and I'd more interested in discussing the topic at hand.
Then try doing that?
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby uncivlengr » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:50 am UTC

22/7 wrote:I make no claims as to by how much quite intentionally, because I don't want to do the math.
and all I've been arguing is that without actually crunching some numbers in the equations of which you were so keen on defining the terms, your argument has absolutely no real value to the discussion. The argument as you've offered it can't even answer whether wearing a ski helmet is more or less effective than putting a plastic bucket over your head in reducing concussions - all you can say is that both will "reduce the concussion" to some unknown degree. Do you consider this "significant" to the discussion of the capabilities of safety gear? I sure don't.

Thank-you, at least, for finally came out and saying you're just not willing to actually do the math; now I know there's no need to bother continuing this discussion.
I don't know what to do for you

MrLighter
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:04 am UTC

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby MrLighter » Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:50 am UTC

Ok, I fail to see the issue here... Why not wear a helmet? It can save your LIFE. You only get one shot at living, so I'd protect it at all costs. But if you want to be an idiot, then by all means go out and ride with no helmet. If you die, better chances for me to succeed. Natural selection for the win.
WTF? Alien Nazis...

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:24 pm UTC

MrLighter wrote:Ok, I fail to see the issue here... Why not wear a helmet? It can save your LIFE. You only get one shot at living, so I'd protect it at all costs. But if you want to be an idiot, then by all means go out and ride with no helmet. If you die, better chances for me to succeed. Natural selection for the win.
Way to ignore all the previous posts that very topic, add nothing to the conversation, and fit the stereotype of the condescending helmet jerk while you're at it.
I don't know what to do for you

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:56 pm UTC

uncivlengr wrote:
MrLighter wrote:Ok, I fail to see the issue here... Why not wear a helmet? It can save your LIFE. You only get one shot at living, so I'd protect it at all costs. But if you want to be an idiot, then by all means go out and ride with no helmet. If you die, better chances for me to succeed. Natural selection for the win.
Way to ignore all the previous posts that very topic, add nothing to the conversation, and fit the stereotype of the condescending helmet jerk while you're at it.

To quote Wikipedia:The term alpine refers to the Alps, a European mountain range.

Uncivlengr, You're acting like a tosser! Now stop!
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:50 pm UTC

TheKrikkitWars wrote:
uncivlengr wrote:
MrLighter wrote:Ok, I fail to see the issue here... Why not wear a helmet? It can save your LIFE. You only get one shot at living, so I'd protect it at all costs. But if you want to be an idiot, then by all means go out and ride with no helmet. If you die, better chances for me to succeed. Natural selection for the win.
Way to ignore all the previous posts that very topic, add nothing to the conversation, and fit the stereotype of the condescending helmet jerk while you're at it.

To quote Wikipedia:The term alpine refers to the Alps, a European mountain range.

Uncivlengr, You're acting like a tosser! Now stop!

Is a tosser someone who doesn't appreciate unwarranted obtuse and insulting comments?

I'll assume so, because if you're in fact criticizing my reaction, you might have saved it for the one calling people idiots and expressing sarcastic appreciation for their deaths.
I don't know what to do for you

MrLighter
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:04 am UTC

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby MrLighter » Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:54 pm UTC

uncivlengr:

Ok, listen up. I did read the other posts, and here is what I was saying. WHY ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT THIS? I don't see why everybody is getting so defensive about the subject. It's just a helmet. It can save your life. I am/was not saying "If you don't wear a helmet you'll die." I was saying that it just seems a lot smarter to wear one, just incase you screw up and fall of a rail or something like. Yeah, sure, it might not do much. You can still knock out your teeth. But wearing one could be the difference between life and death. But even so, it is a personal decision, and a stranger on a message board will not change anything. So can't we just get along without name calling or other BS?

TheKrikkitWars: Thank you for acting like a human.
WTF? Alien Nazis...

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:45 am UTC

uncivlengr wrote:
TheKrikkitWars wrote:
uncivlengr wrote:
MrLighter wrote:Ok, I fail to see the issue here... Why not wear a helmet? It can save your LIFE. You only get one shot at living, so I'd protect it at all costs. But if you want to be an idiot, then by all means go out and ride with no helmet. If you die, better chances for me to succeed. Natural selection for the win.
Way to ignore all the previous posts that very topic, add nothing to the conversation, and fit the stereotype of the condescending helmet jerk while you're at it.

To quote Wikipedia:The term alpine refers to the Alps, a European mountain range.

Uncivlengr, You're acting like a tosser! Now stop!

Is a tosser someone who doesn't appreciate unwarranted obtuse and insulting comments?

I'll assume so, because if you're in fact criticizing my reaction, you might have saved it for the one calling people idiots and expressing sarcastic appreciation for their deaths.


All I know is you're continuing an argument, long after it should have ended on the note of "A Helmet might save your life, but you're all big boys and girls, so if you want to look cool in a beanie, go for it!" This continuation, in my eyes that makes you a mild troll and a huge tosspot!
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby uncivlengr » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:32 am UTC

MrLighter wrote:So can't we just get along without name calling or other BS?
You might have considered that before you started off by calling people idiots and making glib comments about their deaths - it's a little disingenuous to be getting all defensive about it now.

Since you obviously missed the point, it was that I'm perfectly aware of the advantages and disadvantages of wearing a helmet when partaking in various activities, and I'm capable of making that choice for myself based on how I personally weight those advantages and disadvantages. I can do so without calling someone who comes to a different conclusion an "idiot", or talking to them in a condescending way, too, which is more than you can say.
TheKrikkitWars wrote:All I know is you're continuing an argument, long after it should have ended on the note of "A Helmet might save your life, but you're all big boys and girls, so if you want to look cool in a beanie, go for it!"
Again, you might save your condemnation for the poster who actually brought the argument up again - I notice they're entirely absent from your critique.
TheKrikkitWars wrote:This continuation, in my eyes that makes you a mild troll and a huge tosspot!
Oh, dear, a tosser and a tosspot?

I'll post in my own thread when I please, thanks all the same, and I'm not sure who gave you the impression that that was conditional upon your approval, but you're mistaken.
I don't know what to do for you

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: Wearing a helmet during alpine activities.

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:49 am UTC

uncivlengr wrote:a load of quote sniping bs that missed the point


You know what, you're right, I should take off my helmet and batter my head in with the adze of my tech tools, it'll be a more positive experience than trying to get you admit that maybe your thread was at best moot to start with.

Satisfied?

Now, get back under that bridge you uncivily engineered to hide under, TROLL!
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.


Return to “Fit Club”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests