 Poster: A snowHead
|
http://www.planetski.eu/news/8189
Research conducted in Norway suggests that helmets are worth wearing but not as good as you may expect (paraphrasing)
Cannot for the life of me find the "eating popcorn"smiley....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Read that yesterday and consider a post but thought I'd get bricks thrown at me.
I'll get my helmet, for what good it will do. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@ansta1, you are right. Wearing the helmet, you'll get hit more often than if you didn't wear it, but less chance of getting an injury.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
"Wearing a protective helmet reduces the risk of head injuries in alpine skiing and snowboarding. It should be noted, though, that a helmet do not prevent head injuries, only reduces the injury severity," said Dr Steinar Sulheim.
Does this make sense? Surely there are loads of times when a knock on the head might be quite unpleasant without a helmet (bruising, bleeding, mild concussion etc.), but with a helmet there is no injury at all. i.e. the helmet has prevented the injury?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@foxtrotzulu, one could interpret it that the helmet won't stop you hitting your head at all, maybe just make the impact inconsequential.
As usual, one would like to go to the source paper, but like most publicly funded science, it's behind a private paywall. Grrr. Even Sci Hub isn't helping.
The conclusion was that over 10 years the impact (snigger) of helmet wearing has diminished, but doesn't (at least in the abstract) offer any concrete conclusions (more concrete?)
Some combination of changed terrain (park? - although I can't say that I've noticed that, not that I'd necessarily notice), over confidence, increased speed with decreased skill and reduced risk perception because of wearing protection all come in to place.
As they say, so often, "moar research required"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Brother in law had an off whilst on a bike ride on sunday, if he wasn't wearing his lid his face would have been a bit worse for wear.
He might not have died but it was worth wearing IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As he said, a report of a report... written (I say) by likely unscientific journalists is hard to fathom. The original is there:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2016/08/16/bjsports-2015-095798.short?rss=1
but as stated you can't see more than the abstract. The data is there, and won't come as a surprise to those who've noticed the lack of correlation between death rates and helmet use. The explanation is where it gets interesting.... it's a one-liner in the abstract so you can't really say.
Wild speculation: how about... ten years go if you wore helmet you were the only one doing it, and perhaps that meant that you were indeed a safer skier than average. Now, the average skier wears a helmet, so that effect no longer helps. To the mean you have regressed.
Certainly modern skis allow numpties to ride powder easier: they can get places once they could not. But if that's an effect, you'd expect to see a rise in all injuries in powder, not just (relatively rare) head injuries. Did that rise happen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
OK, so I haven't studied the full paper in depth, but the table below shows the breakdown of skiers and snowboarders who suffered head injuries, by helmet use, age, gender, nationality, ability, location and equipment. The thing that sticks out to me is that there was a notable increase in park-related injuries from 2002-2010 (8% vs 21%). Incidentally, the ratio of injured skiers/snowboarders shifted towards skiers over the same period (49/43% vs 63/27%).
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Tue 6-09-16 23:28; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@HandyHand, thanks for putting the table up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
What's not clear from these data is if the rise in park related injuries is related to increased use of parks, or other issues such as size of jumps etc. The switch from pipe to park probably would bring increased risk, I'd say, because to be able to hurt yourself at pipe required more skill than you need in a park. A shift of risky people (young people, from these data) from piste to park would have them take their risks with them...
The snowboard-> ski shift may be a shift of young people to skis, and the 13-20 age band is consistently risky.
Another thought: these are from Norway. Scandinavian resorts, in my experience (Norway and Finland) are a bit different from elsewhere. I'm not objecting to their data, but it's something to bear in mind. In Finland in particular there may well be higher park use than other places, because many resorts are small so parks are proportionally more important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
@philwig, lots of park use in Norway and Sweden too - they're really into their parks, big and small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
