New Study: Knee injuries 40% more likely on artificial surface

[EPluribusUNM]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...ame=healthNews



(Reuters Health) - College football players suffer knee injuries about 40 percent more often when playing on an artificial surface compared to when they're playing on grass, according to a new study.

[Lobodawg92]

Kinda matches the old studies I had read too! LOL

[ABQrobin]

A new study says that Saliva causes cancer, but only when swallowed in small quantities over long periods of time. ~George Carlin

[GiJoeRay]

78% of facts are made up on the spot. 87.4% of facts are more believable if there is a decimal included.

[Roob]

Studies show that caffeine will decrease your life expectancy. Studies show that caffeine will increase your life expectancy.

Are you going to quit drinking coffee? Or start drinking coffee?

[EPluribusUNM]

• Aliens did land in Roswell in spite of anything you may read in "Skeptic Magazine."
• Young earth creationists set the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years,
• Studies clearly linking smoking and cancer done in 1947 were ignored for some 4 decades and the tobacco companies to this day still spend millions to offset suits as they contend there is no connection.
• Galileo was convicted by the Inquisition for claiming the earth goes around the sun rather than vice versa.
• Some of us are more into fairy tales than others.
• Critical thinkers often read the research and challenge the method/conclusions rather than coming up with kakamami comparisons.

[Husker316]

I hate it, coach a full day on that crap and your lower back, knees feel it. Add in the increase in heat on a sunny day and it makes for a crappy day on the field. I wish they would just leave it natural grass. Long Live Natural Grass!!!!!!!

[pyro1]

Studies show that caffeine will decrease your life expectancy. Studies show that caffeine will increase your life expectancy.

Are you going to quit drinking coffee? Or start drinking coffee?

It depends on whether the cup is half full or half empty

[lobohowl]

"The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their validity."
-Abraham Lincoln

[TheLoboMan]

I hate it, coach a full day on that crap and your lower back, knees feel it. Add in the increase in heat on a sunny day and it makes for a crappy day on the field. I wish they would just leave it natural grass. Long Live Natural Grass!!!!!!!

That's the old stuff. The new stuff is cooler and has give so it doesn't hurt your back. In fact many coaches are in favor of this stuff than any other. Go read some high school boards.

I don't believe this study.

[EPluribusUNM]

That's the old stuff. The new stuff is cooler and has give so it doesn't hurt your back. In fact many coaches are in favor of this stuff than any other. Go read some high school boards.

I don't believe this study.

Your prerogative. Why?

[judas_priest]

The study is probably correct, but is it meaningful? As TheLoboMan pointed out, many improvements have been made in artificial turf in recent years. Unless the study takes that into consideration it has little value for decision makers.

[pitboss]

If you have ever consumed coffee in your life you will die.

Pitboss

[GiJoeRay]

If you're a Capricorn you're gonna die, Leo you're gonna die, Gemini you're gonna die, Pisces you're gonna die twice!

[hefman]

It looks like the study looked at the newer infill types of turf. Similar studies have been done on NFL fields and came to the same conclusion. The data here is actually quite extensive and shows some interesting findings. And it's not just knee injuries: "Athletes were also 1.39 times as likely to be injured when playing on modern artificial turf as they were when playing on grass." Ouch.

I once had a spirited discussion on this topic with some TTU fans after a couple of UNM players suffered knee injuries on their turf. It's been pretty much a known fact that injuries are more likely on artificial surfaces than real grass. Yes, they have improved artificial surfaces over the years, but there is one thing that has not changed much: they all provide more friction between the shoe and the turf than real grass does -- even with turf shoes. It's why the game is basically "faster" on artificial surfaces.

It's basic physics. If the shoe is less likely to slip under certain types of forces (twisting or lateral), then those forces now have to be absorbed by the body -- more specifically, knee and ankle joints. It's not rocket science to conclude that more joint injuries would come from this scenario and the data proves it. The same could be said for other parts of the body that result from hitting the ground while in motion. I would say the study is not only correct (because it matches many other studies done), but it is certainly more than meaningful... that is, unless your position is that injuries are not a problem.

Studies like this are good, because they bring a problem into the public's eye. This will help force the shoe manufacturers to look at ways to make turf play more like real grass. Of course, this will come with the tradeoff of losing some of the advantages, so this brings up all sorts of ethical dilemmas. Do you outlaw certain types of shoes on artificial surfaces? How do you ensure both teams are being equally "safe"? Anyway, interesting topic to discuss.

[EPluribusUNM]

The study is probably correct, but is it meaningful? As TheLoboMan pointed out, many improvements have been made in artificial turf in recent years. Unless the study takes that into consideration it has little value for decision makers.

Though a sports website, it is associated with a Research Institution. If there is anything we should get out of a college education, it is critical thinking skill. I have no idea what most of you do for a living, but I'd bet some if not all the practices you undertake are based upon research -- good, bad, indifferent, applicable or whatever.

First off, you have to read the research. Second, look into to what might be prejudicing your view (some of these responses may well be based on the fact that UNM has just decided to go this route so "it must be wrong.") Then, using critical thinking, judge the study on its merits (method, conclusion, applicability)

Dear Yehuda, your profession relies so often on such studies to settle suits that your evaluation was anticipated. Does it apply? After analyzing the research, I bet you could argue either way depending on the needs of your client.

Finals week upcoming and both you and Hefman get "A+" Some of the others might consider studying witchcraft, black magic, or alchemy.

[BYF]

[datildame]

If you're a Capricorn you're gonna die, Leo you're gonna die, Gemini you're gonna die, Pisces you're gonna die twice!

WHAT????! I'm a Pisces!!!

[lobohowl]

If you're a Capricorn you're gonna die, Leo you're gonna die, Gemini you're gonna die, Pisces you're gonna die twice!

Haha Chris Rock!!

[judas_priest]

I followed the link to the article. (Actually, it was a summary of the article - there is limited access to the full article.) It gives no details on the age, type, etc. of the fields. This is perhaps because they are working with a database that somebody else collected, and it appears that some of the variables that I would want to know about were not collected - or at least not dealt with in the summary, so it's really hard to say. The conclusion about "modern artificial turf" does not discuss who that term was defined operationally.

In other words, you'd have to read the full article to find out the details that differentiate between those articles that actually contribute something to human knowledge and those which exist primarily to be totally up on a curriculum vita.

[hefman]

I followed the link to the article. (Actually, it was a summary of the article - there is limited access to the full article.) It gives no details on the age, type, etc. of the fields. This is perhaps because they are working with a database that somebody else collected, and it appears that some of the variables that I would want to know about were not collected - or at least not dealt with in the summary, so it's really hard to say. The conclusion about "modern artificial turf" does not discuss who that term was defined operationally.

In other words, you'd have to read the full article to find out the details that differentiate between those articles that actually contribute something to human knowledge and those which exist primarily to be totally up on a curriculum vita.

I do see your point. Without knowing the exact population used in the study, there could be older types of turf skewing the data.

That said, the citation did note that the study took place between 2004 and 2009 and was said to have looked only at the "newer" types of playing fields and did define them as the "infill" types of turf. It did not point out any major advancements in those types of turf which might make some much newer turfs safer. If that was the case, I would have thought the survey might focus on that aspect. However, I will yield that, if there have been any major advances in the last few years, that would be key information that was left out of the citation, as was the average age and "generation" of turf used in the sample.

In general, I'm with you that studies like this can be twisted to draw many different conclusions. However, the data is not really disputable and it covers fields that are probably almost all still in use today. Until someone shows me that there is a type of artificial turf out there (or shoe-turf combination) that has the same friction that grass has, I will need to be shown data that proves it is just as safe before I believe it.

[judas_priest]

I do see your point. Without knowing the exact population used in the study, there could be older types of turf skewing the data.

That said, the citation did note that the study took place between 2004 and 2009 and was said to have looked only at the "newer" types of playing fields and did define them as the "infill" types of turf. It did not point out any major advancements in those types of turf which might make some much newer turfs safer. If that was the case, I would have thought the survey might focus on that aspect. However, I will yield that, if there have been any major advances in the last few years, that would be key information that was left out of the citation, as was the average age and "generation" of turf used in the sample.

In general, I'm with you that studies like this can be twisted to draw many different conclusions. However, the data is not really disputable and it covers fields that are probably almost all still in use today. Until someone shows me that there is a type of artificial turf out there (or shoe-turf combination) that has the same friction that grass has, I will need to be shown data that proves it is just as safe before I believe it.

Actually, I agree with your conclusion that the artificial turfs available today are probably better in terms of injury reduction compared to prior sets of turf, but not as safe as grass. The problem is, there are so few details given about the variables potentially affecting the quality turf we cannot justify saying that conclusion is anything but impressionistic.

"was said to have looked only at the 'newer' types of turf." In other words, we have no solid information.

It would be interesting to learn, about each field:
a) Date of the inception of the process that was used to create the turf (For example, the basic construction process dates from, say, 2003, although the particular installation might have been in 2005.)
b) For each family of turgs, the date of significant upgrades to the process,
c) Date of installation
d) amount of use - if a team has a good practice facility they may use the turf less, and perhaps the field was used for other activities.