Jason Zucker Injury

[That Aud Smell]

7 minutes ago, darksabre said:

I have a suspicion it's because players are training too much. 

There was a story going around a while back about how Olivia Reeves, Team USA weightlifter, trains like half as much as other weightlifters while out-performing them. 

We need data and science to get on this.

We're far along enough in the modern era of youth sports where pro players bodies may also be worse for wear from a childhood spent focused on one sport, year-round.

[Weave]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

We need data and science to get on this.

We're far along enough in the modern era of youth sports where pro players bodies may also be worse for wear from a childhood spent focused on one sport, year-round.

There are studies regarding this.  It is a topic that is discussed at the youth sports level.  I remember becoming aware of it when I was coaching youth baseball over 15yrs ago.

[matter2003]

2 hours ago, Drag0nDan said:

Well thats good, who'd have thought he'd need to be called up by the 8th game.  

If Zucker misses time thats like... 1/3 of the salary cap payroll tied up in injuries right now.  

Is Greenway ever coming back?

[That Aud Smell]

4 minutes ago, Weave said:

There are studies regarding this.  It is a topic that is discussed at the youth sports level.  I remember becoming aware of it when I was coaching youth baseball over 15yrs ago.

Right. Like, where are the Steve Nashes of the world nowadays?

More and more, I believe that youth sports in America have trended toward year-round specialization not for the benefit and advancement of the athletes, but rather for the benefit and support of the industrial complexes that youth sports have created (coaches, administrators, facilities, etc.). 

Is it more true or more false to say: If your kid is destined to be an elite [insert sport] player, then they would find their way to a top flight professional team without the assistance of the current youth sports industrial complex.

Yet again on the other hand, it's also true that the major soccer clubs of England Europe (Man U, Barcelona, Real Madrid, and literally hundreds of others) have "academies" where kids join (after having been invited) and train year-round with their academy team (peers). I think that's been going on for some time (Messi left Argentina for Barcelona at age 13) -- and that's without the influence of the pay-to-play dynamic we see in U.S. youth sports.

I've confused myself.

5 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

Is Greenway ever coming back?

Sounded imminent last time I read something on Twitter. Maybe even this weekend?

[matter2003]

27 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Right. Like, where are the Steve Nashes of the world nowadays?

More and more, I believe that youth sports in America have trended toward year-round specialization not for the benefit and advancement of the athletes, but rather for the benefit and support of the industrial complexes that youth sports have created (coaches, administrators, facilities, etc.). 

Is it more true or more false to say: If your kid is destined to be an elite [insert sport] player, then they would find their way to a top flight professional team without the assistance of the current youth sports industrial complex.

Yet again on the other hand, it's also true that the major soccer clubs of England Europe (Man U, Barcelona, Real Madrid, and literally hundreds of others) have "academies" where kids join (after having been invited) and train year-round with their academy team (peers). I think that's been going on for some time (Messi left Argentina for Barcelona at age 13) -- and that's without the influence of the pay-to-play dynamic we see in U.S. youth sports.

I've confused myself.

Sounded imminent last time I read something on Twitter. Maybe even this weekend?

just looked and Ruff said not this weekend, so possibly Tuesday?

 

Oh 100% on that system built to monetize youth sports. Gotta sell the dream to the rich parents that have a kid who has 0 chance to ever make it athletically that if he trains year round, he will somehow become more talented above what his ceiling is.

Edited 3 hours ago by matter2003

[darksabre]

51 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Right. Like, where are the Steve Nashes of the world nowadays?

More and more, I believe that youth sports in America have trended toward year-round specialization not for the benefit and advancement of the athletes, but rather for the benefit and support of the industrial complexes that youth sports have created (coaches, administrators, facilities, etc.). 

Is it more true or more false to say: If your kid is destined to be an elite [insert sport] player, then they would find their way to a top flight professional team without the assistance of the current youth sports industrial complex.

Yet again on the other hand, it's also true that the major soccer clubs of England Europe (Man U, Barcelona, Real Madrid, and literally hundreds of others) have "academies" where kids join (after having been invited) and train year-round with their academy team (peers). I think that's been going on for some time (Messi left Argentina for Barcelona at age 13) -- and that's without the influence of the pay-to-play dynamic we see in U.S. youth sports.

I've confused myself.

Sounded imminent last time I read something on Twitter. Maybe even this weekend?

Oh, this is 100% correct. 

[Goldseatsaud]

1 hour ago, matter2003 said:

Is Greenway ever coming back?

That guy is always hurt!

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, matter2003 said:

Is Greenway ever coming back?

Godot gets activated first.

[...]

22 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Oh, this is 100% correct. 

The people have always only been sheep to the hidden wolves.

[matter2003]

3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

We need data and science to get on this.

We're far along enough in the modern era of youth sports where pro players bodies may also be worse for wear from a childhood spent focused on one sport, year-round.

there actually are studies that show just that actually...

• A review found that youth who specialize most (i.e., focus on one sport, train > 8 months/year or quit other sports) were 81% more likely to experience an overuse injury than those who played many sports. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/healthandwellness/665293/sport-specialization-tied-to-increased-risk-of-injury-in-kids-and-teens/story/
• One large prospective study found that sport specialization was associated with increased risk of injury in girls (hazard ratio ≈ 1.31) and that total hours/week of vigorous activity was a strong predictor of injury in both sexes. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31555716/
• In a case-control study of ~1,190 athletes aged 7-18, specialized single-sport athletes in individual sports had higher rates of overuse injury (44.3% vs 32.2%) and “serious overuse injuries” (23.4% vs 11.6%) compared to non-specialized athletes. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28351225/
• In a review of youth sport specialization, risk factors such as playing >1 organized team, competing year-round, participating more hours/week than one’s age in years, and high degree of specialization were consistently found to increase risk of overuse injuries and lower-extremity pain. https://meridian.allenpress.com/jat/article/54/10/1040/420868/Health-Consequences-of-Youth-Sport-Specialization
• Some organizations note that kids who play the same sport year-round — especially without a break/alternate sport season — face more repetitive motions and stress on bones, tendons, growth plates, etc. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/sports-injuries/youth-sport-specialization

[That Aud Smell]

7 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

there actually are studies that show just that actually...

Thanks. I don't think those studies are directed to the question that I have, though.

My question has the modern trend of year-round, over-use, and specialization in youth sports had an effect on the health of pro athletes during their careers?

Are pro athletes healthier now than they were, say, 30 years ago?

It's tricky. Because there's a lot to control for. The year-round specialization is presumably bad, but there are lots of other things happening around that behaviour that is probably good for an athlete's health (overall fitness and strength training, nutrition, as examples).

It calls to mind a study that a friend of mine worked on: The consumption of fish that have high mercury levels in them. Mercury - very bad for your health! Fish - very good for your health! How's that shake out?

[matter2003]

38 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Thanks. I don't think those studies are directed to the question that I have, though.

My question has the modern trend of year-round, over-use, and specialization in youth sports had an effect on the health of pro athletes during their careers?

Are pro athletes healthier now than they were, say, 30 years ago?

It's tricky. Because there's a lot to control for. The year-round specialization is presumably bad, but there are lots of other things happening around that behaviour that is probably good for an athlete's health (overall fitness and strength training, nutrition, as examples).

It calls to mind a study that a friend of mine worked on: The consumption of fish that have high mercury levels in them. Mercury - very bad for your health! Fish - very good for your health! How's that shake out?

there is NO level of mercury that is safe for your body.  And trust me you don't want to have mercury overload...it's often called the "Great Imitator" because it can mimic many other issues like MS, various autoimmune diseases, etc.. 

I actually had that due to a mouthful of old metal fillings that have mercury in them that were cracked and "leaking" mercury every time I took a bite of food.  Got them all out via a holistic dentist, had to undergo a lengthy chelation process to get rid of the mercury stores in my body and am feeling pretty great now still about 15 years after all of that.

With fish, the main problems are the larger fish that eat smaller fish that eat smaller fish, etc...that causes a bio-accumulation of mercury in the large fish, like tuna who gets all the mercury from the other fish. Tuna is OK once a week or so, but other smaller fish like chub mackerel(not king which is among the highest for all fish), sardines or salmon are safer to eat.

 

Edited 58 minutes ago by matter2003

[That Aud Smell]

28 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

there is NO level of mercury that is safe for your body. 

thanks. the science of the study i was referring to was fascinatingly nuanced on this subject. and it wasn't just mercury they were testing for - there was some other bad stuff that i can't recall (study participants gave periodic blood samples). 

i just found the paradox compelling: the scientists went into the study fully expecting the data to overwhelmingly advise against people eating certain fish out of certain great lakes and related waterways ... but the science wound up being more mixed than they'd expected. and they followed that science.