Woodpeckers do get concussed, and what this means for concussion prevention

The Q-Collar is a device that is promoted to prevent concussion and protect brain health after repeated head impacts. But does the quality of the scientific evidence stand up to scrutiny? is there a sound biological rationale for the claims? Shoudl parents, athletes and coaches explore devices such as this to prevent brain injury? In this episode, Ross explores the answers to the above questions with Dr James Smoliga. Dr Smoliga puts the scientific microscope on the claims, and concludes that there is no quality evidence in support of concussion and brain health claims, and the foundational premise on which the product rests is flawed. We also learn that woodpeckers do show signs of brain injury, that studies linking altitude to protection against concussion are grossly exaggerated and misinterpreted, and, humorously, that NFL teams with animal mascots are less likely to see concussion that teams without animal mascots.
Show notes:Dr James Smoliga's university profile pageThe science and research page of the Q-Collar website, describing many of the studies James talks about in the podcastJames' paper on the mechanisms used by woodpeckers to (partly) protect their brains from injuryStudy showing signs of brain injury in woodpeckers, despite the above mentioned adaptationsThe original study showing a purported protective effect of "altitude" (above 600ft!) on concussionThe rebuttal letter from James' colleague that absolutely eviscerates the above mentioned altitude studyJames' meta-analysis that looks at over 5 million data points to show that altitude does not have a protective effect against concussionThe paper discussed on the pod that uses the DTI method to show brain changes with and without the Q-CollarThe 2021 study that failed to find a reduction in concussion incidence with the Q-Collar Get bonus content on Patreon<br /> Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.