EzLounging

pow_hnd wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:38 am I'm all for helmets.

With that being said, I don't use one.

Snow helmets in reality are over priced toys. They don't really offer any real protection against TBI's.

Helmet use has not correlated into a reduction of brain injuries.

They also feel messed up fitting, make my goggles fit weird, and make me run hot.

AGAIN, I'M ALL FOR THEM, AND WOULD NEVER SAY TO NOT WEAR ONE OR IT'S A BAD IDEA.

Increased helmet use in alpine sports fails to reduce risk of traumatic brain injury

Ski Helmet Use Isn’t Reducing Brain Injuries

Dartmouth-Hitchcock study finds ski helmets don’t guarantee protection

Study warns helmets don’t offer full protection on slopes -
Skiers wearing helmets were less likely to have skull fractures but twice as likely to suffer severe injuries

STUDY: Ski Helmets Are Not Reducing Head Injures As Much As They Used To - "In 2011, the difference in head injury risk between helmeted and unhelmeted skiers and riders was no longer significant."

Giro and Bern were onto something with the squishy impact reactive foam vs standard EPS. Standard EPS foam takes a lot of force to break and disperse impact, so all those smaller impacts like smacking branches, catching an edge and hitting the snow, running into another person, etc are unprotected with a regular old helmet.

pow_hnd wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:09 am

C.Fuzzy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:03 am IMO Skill is the best way to mitigate risk.

100%

I know the risk of a motorcycle requires me to use a full face helmet.

I absolutely always wear on on my motorcycle.

For my kids, their little brains are still developing and I need that to continue uninterrupted, so for their skill set, they're required to ride with a helmet.

Again, 100% agree with this situation for sure.

Time, place, and situations are unique. There is no 100% standard on who, what, when and where.

Not agree,even with all the skills and knowledge, the definition of a accident is an unforeseen and sudden event that cause damage

yeah, I wear a helmet for the times I’m riding within my skillset but am aware of the risk of fluke accidents. catching an edge, getting caught in a track, or not dodging enough for a low branch.

I know a helmet isn’t going to prevent 100% of damage, but it will help to mitigate injuries.

from @pow_hnd ’s Denver Post article

“Helmets do not protect against all head injuries nor were they intended to do so,” Westafer wrote. “The association between helmet use and intracranial injury and severe injury should not be construed to mean that helmets cause these injuries or should be discouraged; rather factors such as risk-taking behavior, skill level and skiing conditions likely drive this association.”

and this closing thought

Helmets “are most effective when worn by someone who skis or rides in control,” Adrienne Saia Isaac, director of marketing and communications at the National Ski Areas Association, said in an email. “It’s incredibly important for skiers to have a holistic view of mountain safety, including skiing within your ability level, being aware of the people around you and changing snow conditions.”

there’s just so many other factors that these studies often don’t take into account (or maybe they do but they don’t make the article) like the number of helmeted head injuries that are even reported vs unhelmeted ones. I’m confident that a helmet won’t cause me to get hurt more than not wearing one, so I’ll keep wearing mine.

(I’ll also add that many of these studies came out before the widespread implementation of MIPS and other newer technologies more focused on concussion mitigation in helmets, would be interested in newer reports incorporating that data. the newest article posted was from 2018, when many MIPS equipped helmets were +$50 from their standard counterparts. my current Macon 2.0 with MIPS retails for $80)

C.Fuzzy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:03 am edit: That said, obviously a lot of folks are unable to honestly and appropriately gauge their skill set, or their risk, and thus, the old better to have one and not need it than need it and not have it, may be the best approach for the general pop.

Lol this made me think of this idiot who popped up on Reddit recently. Glance through his comments in the replies lol.

coleslawed wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:31 am (I’ll also add that many of these studies came out before the widespread implementation of MIPS and other newer technologies more focused on concussion mitigation in helmets, would be interested in newer reports incorporating that data. the newest article posted was from 2018, when many MIPS equipped helmets were +$50 from their standard counterparts. my current Macon 2.0 with MIPS retails for $80)

Most recent relevant study from 2021 I found here suggests bicycle helmets with various new fangled technologies (WaveCel, MIPs, etc.) reduce force applied on the head, which theoretically reduces brain trauma according to computational models.

That study is unexpectedly promising, I know brands are wont to just chuck in marketing nonsense and not do any meaningful testing beyond bare minimum certification test. It's encouraging that a third party without any industry financial interests (...at least none disclosed) suggests those marketing gimmicks actually do something-- albeit with a high degree of variability across the market.

coleslawed wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:19 am there’s just so many other factors that these studies often don’t take into account (or maybe they do but they don’t make the article) like the number of helmeted head injuries that are even reported vs unhelmeted ones. I’m confident that a helmet won’t cause me to get hurt more than not wearing one, so I’ll keep wearing mine.

This is the classic "anecdotal" or "feelings" argument.

It doesn't matter how many factors can contribute to having injuries, or unreported VS reported.

There could be only 1 factor or 100.

If X ( TBIs ) has not fallen even though there has been an increase ( Y ) in helmet use, factors don't matter or need to be taken into account. No matter the factor, if the helmet did what it was supposed to do ( in theory ) there would be a noticeable drop in ( Y ), which there is not.

And to be honest, there have been very strong arguments and studies to show that people actually take more risks when they have things like helmets, transceivers, airbags, etc, etc...

So, while you are, anecdotally, confident that helmet use won't cause you to get more hurt, it can actually be shown statistically that helmet wearers take more risks. So does the helmet cause injury? No. But behavior associated with helmet use can increase risk of injury/accident.

And, again, I'm all for people wearing helmets, I don't think it's a bad thing at all.

I just choose to acknowledge the statistical realities of helmet adoption in snow sports use, it's known and verified outcome, and accept them.

I don't let my feelings or anecdotal stories/experiences become fact for myself or people I know and have any influence on making fact based decisions and/or observations.

Like I fully acknowledge wearing a helmet is a good idea and will never sway from that fact.

The actual outcome of wearing a helmet is...

J0_Zehp wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:59 am

pow_hnd wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:09 am

C.Fuzzy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:03 am IMO Skill is the best way to mitigate risk.

100%

I know the risk of a motorcycle requires me to use a full face helmet.

I absolutely always wear on on my motorcycle.

For my kids, their little brains are still developing and I need that to continue uninterrupted, so for their skill set, they're required to ride with a helmet.

Again, 100% agree with this situation for sure.

Time, place, and situations are unique. There is no 100% standard on who, what, when and where.

Not agree,even with all the skills and knowledge, the definition of a accident is an unforeseen and sudden event that cause damage

I respect everyone's opinion. but here's mine more fleshed out.

I once inquired with an insurance actuary, and they said the risk profile of an injury skiing and snowboarding without a helmet is equal to driving 200 miles in a car. Something most people do without much consideration outside of the cost of gas. Why isn't there greater fear about driving this distance? Well, likely because millions of people do this everyday and are fine. The risk is so small it's perceived to be inconsequential. Even considering that while driving there's always a chance that someone else is going to do something in a way that you can't prevent, and your life is over, immediately.

In these sports, imo there's very little chance that some unforeseen and completely unpreventable thing is going to happen, where the participant just had zero ability to have seen and evaluated the risk, to have done something different. Lets just say very few rogue Moose attacks from the blind side. Never a zero chance, but still smaller than another driver running a red light.

Jests aside, in my mind there are three factors to put together in the total equation (A x B x C = risk):

A. First is the odds that something happens on the ski hill where there's an injury. Again, the risk profile is to say it's equally as dangerous as driving 200 miles. Very small odds. So small that in other similar risk situations it's not even a consideration. (let me clarify and say it's not a consideration to drive 200 miles. Of course the risk profile of driving is dangerous. Most accidents happen within 1 mile of home. This isn't a debate about seatbelts and airbags. Only driving 200 miles as opposed to not driving 200miles)

B. That this is an accident which a helmet would have been a significant preventative prophylactic. Now add in what @pow_hnd is pointing out, which is that the help of a helmet is often overstated. Call this, marketing. Or call it, perhaps a false bias, where benefits are attributed to a helmet's protective measures that, in truth, it didn't really do much to help but since it was being worn were assumed to have provided over and above a worse outcome. So now, mutiply small percentage 1 by small percentage 2 to get a smaller percentage.

C. That this risk (A x B) is unable to be mitigated (something sudden and completely unforeseen as you say) is a factor of skill. For me this is both the biggest and smallest odds risk. When skill is low the risk taken should remain low, and as skill level and risk taken goes up.... but only to a point. Then often, the skill overtakes the risk, even in risky environments. This is, to make an analogy, a divers ability to read the road, the cars around them, see risks ahead, and make appropriate adjustments (like slowing down when the car in front of them slows down). As we become better skilled our risk decreases. Of course the number is non-zero. There is always the chance that the most skilled person was, though reading the situation and having mastery, unable to mitigate the risk. But... Like, is anyone truly worried for Iguchi when he's on the bunny hill without a helmet? And if so, why not? Because skill mitigates risk. Could he though, hit his head and die on the bunny hill? Yes. Always a non-zero chance.

It's just, low skill = a higher chance of injury. Lots of skill = a smaller chance. This is why skill is the biggest variable to account for. Because both A & B are rather tiny probability. However, C could be the biggest OR the smallest. I know people that are just not skilled and lack aptitude for driving...and sports. Those people are generally going to be the ones that make up the statistics. Meanwhile, others are like mountain goats, which can do things that other animals shouldn't try.

TLDR: IMO (Risk A x risk B X risk C) is closer to the true picture of risk, with C (skill level) being the main variable to account for, as the other 2 are small.

Just to be clear, you're always better off with a helmet in a rogue moose attack... or on the bunny hill... please don't take my above statements to be it my opinion that helmets aren't worth wearing. Or that anyone is better off without one in the event of something. Only that, well, it often seems to me to be a rather big deal being made over it, and sometimes it seems rather a contentious debate for what is a normal risk in other areas of life.

Everyone should wear one. For sure. But, also everyone should probably just also always wear one, because, you never know. <strike>Never</strik> Always non-zero.

Edit: And In the event I've baited fate, it's been nice knowing ya'll. Much love.

after a couple of concussions while snowboarding I choose to wear a helmet whenever I ride. Smith Code with smith IO mag xl worn under the helmet, I don’t understand how but it keeps me warm when it’s cold and cool enough when it’s warm. The fit is a bit weird but not uncomfortable.