Guardian Caps — Do They Work?

[Bobref]

Helmet add ons that purport to reduce concussions are all the rage now. The NFL even mandates them in certain situations. But what is the science behind them and, more importantly, do they work? I’d like to hear about your experiences, both pro & con. 

Edited July 25, 2023 by Bobref

[Impartial_Observer]

On the face of it, our brains are suspended in fluid. When our head is in motion and suddenly stops your brain is still in motion until it hits the side of your skull. You can put all the padding you want over your head, but the fact remains when your head stop’s suddenly, your brain is still going to slam up against your skull. 
I sent a text to the local trainer and asked if he could provide some data as to their effectiveness. He responded with “they don’t work, if they did we wouldn’t walk on the field without them.”

[Bobref]

3 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

On the face of it, our brains are suspended in fluid. When our head is in motion and suddenly stops your brain is still in motion until it hits the side of your skull. You can put all the padding you want over your head, but the fact remains when your head stop’s suddenly, your brain is still going to slam up against your skull. 

I believe what IO was saying 😉is that Guardian caps and other similar technologies have been found to reduce linear acceleration of the head in collisions by as much as 11%, but only reduce angular acceleration by about 2%. And, of course, angular acceleration is what produces concussions. At least, that’s what the American Academy of Neurology says.

Interesting that this study was published in 2015, and there are still no good studies demonstrating that these devices reduce the risk of concussion.

https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/1347

HELMET ADD-ONS MAY NOT LOWER CONCUSSION RISK IN ATHLETES

WASHINGTON, DC - 

Football helmet add-ons such as outer soft-shell layers, spray treatments, helmet pads and fiber sheets may not significantly help lower the risk of concussions in athletes, according to a study released today that will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 67th Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, April 18 to 25, 2015. “Our study suggests that despite many products targeted at reducing concussions in players, there is no magic concussion prevention product on the market at this time,” said study author John Lloyd, PhD, of BRAINS, Inc. in San Antonio, Fla., and a member of the American Academy of Neurology. Researchers modified the standard drop test system, approved by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, by using a crash test dummy head and neck to more realistically simulate head impact. Sensors were placed in the dummy’s head to measure linear and angular rotational responses to helmet impacts at 10, 12 and 14 miles per hour. Using this device, BRAINS researchers evaluated four football helmet add-ons: Guardian Cap, UnEqual Technologies’ Concussion Reduction Technology, Shockstrips and Helmet Glide. Riddell Revolution Speed and Xenith X1 football helmets were outfitted with each of these add-ons and impacted five times from drop heights of 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 meters. Linear acceleration, angular velocity and angular accelerations of the head were measured in response to impacts. The study found that compared to helmets without the add-ons, those fitted with the Guardian Cap, Concussion Reduction Technology and Shockstrips reduced linear accelerations by about 11 percent, but only reduced angular accelerations by 2 percent, while Helmet Glide was shown to have no effect. “These findings are important because angular accelerations are believed to be the major biomechanical forces involved in concussion,” said Lloyd. “Few add-on products have undergone even basic biomechanical evaluation. Hopefully, our research will lead to more rigorous testing of helmets and add-ons.” The study was supported by BRAINS, Inc. and Seeing Stars Foundation. To learn more about concussion, please visit www.aan.com/concussion.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Bobref

[Impartial_Observer]

32 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I believe what IO was saying 😉is that Guardian caps and other similar technologies have been found to reduce linear acceleration of the head in collisions by as much as 11%, but only reduce angular acceleration by about 2%. And, of course, angular acceleration is what produces concussions. At least, that’s what the American Academy of Neurology says.

Interesting that this study was published in 2015, and there are still no good studies demonstrating that these devices reduce the risk of concussion.

https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/1347

HELMET ADD-ONS MAY NOT LOWER CONCUSSION RISK IN ATHLETES

WASHINGTON, DC - 

Football helmet add-ons such as outer soft-shell layers, spray treatments, helmet pads and fiber sheets may not significantly help lower the risk of concussions in athletes, according to a study released today that will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 67th Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, April 18 to 25, 2015. “Our study suggests that despite many products targeted at reducing concussions in players, there is no magic concussion prevention product on the market at this time,” said study author John Lloyd, PhD, of BRAINS, Inc. in San Antonio, Fla., and a member of the American Academy of Neurology. Researchers modified the standard drop test system, approved by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, by using a crash test dummy head and neck to more realistically simulate head impact. Sensors were placed in the dummy’s head to measure linear and angular rotational responses to helmet impacts at 10, 12 and 14 miles per hour. Using this device, BRAINS researchers evaluated four football helmet add-ons: Guardian Cap, UnEqual Technologies’ Concussion Reduction Technology, Shockstrips and Helmet Glide. Riddell Revolution Speed and Xenith X1 football helmets were outfitted with each of these add-ons and impacted five times from drop heights of 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 meters. Linear acceleration, angular velocity and angular accelerations of the head were measured in response to impacts. The study found that compared to helmets without the add-ons, those fitted with the Guardian Cap, Concussion Reduction Technology and Shockstrips reduced linear accelerations by about 11 percent, but only reduced angular accelerations by 2 percent, while Helmet Glide was shown to have no effect. “These findings are important because angular accelerations are believed to be the major biomechanical forces involved in concussion,” said Lloyd. “Few add-on products have undergone even basic biomechanical evaluation. Hopefully, our research will lead to more rigorous testing of helmets and add-ons.” The study was supported by BRAINS, Inc. and Seeing Stars Foundation. To learn more about concussion, please visit www.aan.com/concussion.

What IO was saying was I see no real chance of significantly lowering head trauma in this game until we can change physics or somehow change the viscosity of a player’s Cerebrospinal Fluid. The rest of it is just what the local ATC said. 
 

I think the real issue with any of this type of tech is the companies themselves are not usually in a position to have the research done, Per Bob’s study posted. Riddel or Schutt may have the resources, but does it really make financial sense for them to fund a study that may not add to the bottom line. 

I think we have made huge strides in technique changes and at least recognizing there is a problem. I really believe in the near term that’s probably where we need to focus our energy. 

[Bobref]

48 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I think the real issue with any of this type of tech is the companies themselves are not usually in a position to have the research done, Per Bob’s study posted. Riddel or Schutt may have the resources, but does it really make financial sense for them to fund a study that may not add to the bottom line. 

And no one would find such a self-study credible.

[Muda69]

It's all about the Benjamins.  There has always been money in selling snake oil, and there always will be.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2023 by Muda69

[Impartial_Observer]

Just now, Muda69 said:

It's all about the Benjamins.  There has always been money in selling snake oil, and there always will be.

 

 

Remember the devices your wore around your neck to make your brain swell? 

[Muda69]

22 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Remember the devices your wore around your neck to make your brain swell? 

No, I don't.

 

[foxbat]

1 hour ago, Impartial_Observer said:

What IO was saying was I see no real chance of significantly lowering head trauma in this game until we can change physics or somehow change the viscosity of a player’s Cerebrospinal Fluid. The rest of it is just what the local ATC said. 
 

I think the real issue with any of this type of tech is the companies themselves are not usually in a position to have the research done, Per Bob’s study posted. Riddel or Schutt may have the resources, but does it really make financial sense for them to fund a study that may not add to the bottom line. 

I think we have made huge strides in technique changes and at least recognizing there is a problem. I really believe in the near term that’s probably where we need to focus our energy. 

Agree with this!  Teaching kids how to reduce or take the head out of tackling certainly helps.  It's not 100%, but it goes a long way from the head being the tip of the spear for tackling back in the day when I was coming up. 

[btownqbcoach1]

Guys, undoubtedly a soft surface hitting a soft surface will reduce that impact vs hard surface vs hard surface. 

Yes they work. No they aren't full proof.  

We've worn them for 6 years. Our kids wear them every single time their helmet is on, unless its a game. Even both our scrimmages we will be wearing the skull caps, even at camp this summer, our kids wore skull caps. 

I can't remember the last concussion we had in practice. I don't think we've had one since we've worn the skull caps. 

[Bobref]

On 7/25/2023 at 2:40 PM, Muda69 said:

No, I don't.

 

The device was called a Q-Collar. The theory was that the collar, by compressing the internal jugular veins in the neck, increased the volume of blood in the brain’s vessels, leaving less room for the brain to slosh around inside the skull. Theoretically, less sloshing = fewer and/or less severe concussions. I don’t recall any scientific data showing it actually worked.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Bobref

[Muda69]

2 minutes ago, Bobref said:

The theory was that if the brain is a little swollen, there’s less room for it to slosh around inside the skull during impacts so, fewer or less severe concussions. 

Interesting theory.  But something tells me purposefully causing your brain to swell is not a smart thing to do.

 

[Bobref]

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Interesting theory.  But something tells me purposefully causing your brain to swell is not a smart thing to do.

 

I edited my answer to provide some more specific details on how the device works.

[Bobref]

29 minutes ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

Guys, undoubtedly a soft surface hitting a soft surface will reduce that impact vs hard surface vs hard surface. 

Yes they work. No they aren't full proof.  

We've worn them for 6 years. Our kids wear them every single time their helmet is on, unless its a game. Even both our scrimmages we will be wearing the skull caps, even at camp this summer, our kids wore skull caps. 

I can't remember the last concussion we had in practice. I don't think we've had one since we've worn the skull caps. 

This is why anecdotal evidence is insufficient to allow valid conclusions to be drawn. “I can't remember the last concussion we had in practice. I don't think we've had one since we've worn the skull caps.” This is useful information, but not nearly enough to draw any conclusions about cause and effect. The scientific method works … when it is properly used.

[btownqbcoach1]

16 minutes ago, Bobref said:

This is why anecdotal evidence is insufficient to allow valid conclusions to be drawn. “I can't remember the last concussion we had in practice. I don't think we've had one since we've worn the skull caps.” This is useful information, but not nearly enough to draw any conclusions about cause and effect. The scientific method works … when it is properly used.

But, the only information/data we need, is our own.  They work, or how about this... they work for us.  And we've changed nothing else in 6 years, but the skull caps.. 🤷‍♂️

But again, soft surface/padded surface hitting padded surface is always better than hard surface hitting hard surface. 

Onne trainer offering an opinion doesn't do a whole lot for me. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by btownqbcoach1

[Bobref]

11 minutes ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

But, the only information/data we need, is our own.  They work, or how about this... they work for us.  And we've changed nothing else in 6 years, but the skull caps.. 🤷‍♂️

But again, soft surface/padded surface hitting padded surface is always better than hard surface hitting hard surface. 

Onne trainer offering an opinion doesn't do a whole lot for me. 

If it works for you, that’s really all that matters. You’re getting the desired result (eliminating concussions), whatever the cause, so keep on doing what you’re doing.

Having said that, I highly doubt that your practices control all the variables that could have an effect on the outcome and, therefore, you cannot draw scientifically valid cause and effect conclusions. And one trainer’s opinion is not the only one who doubts the effectiveness of Guardian caps in preventing concussions. Try the American Academy of Neurology. https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/1347, or, more recently, the Stanford School of Medicine https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2023/03/28/padded-helmet-cover-shows-little-protection-for-football-players/

[tango]

1 hour ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

Guys, undoubtedly a soft surface hitting a soft surface will reduce that impact vs hard surface vs hard surface. 

Yes they work. No they aren't full proof.  

We've worn them for 6 years. Our kids wear them every single time their helmet is on, unless its a game. Even both our scrimmages we will be wearing the skull caps, even at camp this summer, our kids wore skull caps. 

I can't remember the last concussion we had in practice. I don't think we've had one since we've worn the skull caps. 

I tend to agree, Coach. We use them in our program and while I can't point to any specific data, we seem to be experiencing less issues too. Anything that can be done to reduce impact is a good thing for the kids and the game overall. 

[btownqbcoach1]

4 minutes ago, Bobref said:

If it works for you, that’s really all that matters. You’re getting the desired result (eliminating concussions), whatever the cause, so keep on doing what you’re doing.

Having said that, I highly doubt that your practices control all the variables that could have an effect on the outcome and, therefore, you cannot draw scientifically valid cause and effect conclusions. And one trainer’s opinion is not the only one who doubts the effectiveness of Guardian caps in preventing concussions. Try the American Academy of Neurology. https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/1347, or, more recently, the Stanford School of Medicine https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2023/03/28/padded-helmet-cover-shows-little-protection-for-football-players/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nfl.com/_amp/guardian-cap-results-exceeded-our-expectations

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32140546/guardian-caps-soft-shelled-football-helmet-covers-effective-limiting-head-injuries%3fplatform=amp

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-cmo-dr-allen-sills-explains-importance-of-mandated-guardian-caps-during-trai

 

[Bobref]

2 minutes ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nfl.com/_amp/guardian-cap-results-exceeded-our-expectations

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32140546/guardian-caps-soft-shelled-football-helmet-covers-effective-limiting-head-injuries%3fplatform=amp

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-cmo-dr-allen-sills-explains-importance-of-mandated-guardian-caps-during-trai

 

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but all of those citations represent retrospective studies analyzing data generated under uncontrolled conditions, i.e., practices and games. And they all make the leap: “We use Guardian caps and we have fewer concussions. Therefore, Guardian caps are effective in reducing concussions.” This is called a post hoc, propter hac logical fallacy. It’s very common. Since the result is all you’re after, it’s not that important to you what the reason is that you’re experiencing fewer concussions. But if you were a science teacher, and one of your students offered such a conclusion, you’d have to flunk him or her.

Let me be clear. I’m not saying Guardian caps don’t work. All I’m saying is the only truly scientific evidence shows they are of little to no benefit. 

[btownqbcoach1]

3 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but all of those citations represent retrospective studies analyzing data generated under uncontrolled conditions, i.e., practices and games. And they all make the leap: “We use Guardian caps and we have fewer concussions. Therefore, Guardian caps are effective in reducing concussions.” This is called a post hoc, propter hac logical fallacy. It’s very common. Since the result is all you’re after, it’s not that important to you what the reason is that you’re experiencing fewer concussions. But if you were a science teacher, and one of your students offered such a conclusion, you’d have to flunk him or her.

Let me be clear. I’m not saying Guardian caps don’t work. All I’m saying is the only truly scientific evidence shows they are of little to no benefit. 

 

4 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but all of those citations represent retrospective studies analyzing data generated under uncontrolled conditions, i.e., practices and games. And they all make the leap: “We use Guardian caps and we have fewer concussions. Therefore, Guardian caps are effective in reducing concussions.” This is called a post hoc, propter hac logical fallacy. It’s very common. Since the result is all you’re after, it’s not that important to you what the reason is that you’re experiencing fewer concussions. But if you were a science teacher, and one of your students offered such a conclusion, you’d have to flunk him or her.

Let me be clear. I’m not saying Guardian caps don’t work. All I’m saying is the only truly scientific evidence shows they are of little to no benefit. 

Its not the concussive blows that are the only detriment, though. Repeated blows are part of the concussion spectrum, as well.  

Sure those MASSIVE collisons, maybe the guardian cap doesn't prevent those individuals from being concussed... But there is simply no way, over time, a padded surface isn't consistently better than one that isn't. 

I'm also very confused by the Stanford article you post that has quotes like this... FWIW-- they only tested collusions that are head to head.. 

"The researchers were hesitant to support the cap, which costs about $50, but they noted that it's possible the cap provides some protection."

 "but on average the caps provided 15% to 20% more protection than blows to the head with only a helmet." Granted, this was based on one particular type of blow.. but still 

In my eyes, when we are talking about REAL people and not numbers... idk how you can read those two quotes and not say "Guardian Caps work". Literally.. "some protection" should be enough. Working doesn't mean "full proof". 

[Bobref]

From the data I’ve seen, the real utility of Guardian caps may well lie, not in preventing concussions, but in the repeated microtraumas to the head which many believe can, later in life, lead to chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

[Impartial_Observer]

I’m not telling anyone not to use them, if you think they help you/your program by all means use them. 

[Whiting89]

I have no evidence or experience  but I believe  they can lead to bad habits.

so one might think I have protection and can tackle or run over anyone I want in practice with little to no impact.

if that behavior carry’s over to games or will lead to more concussions

 

[foxbat]

16 minutes ago, Whiting89 said:

I have no evidence or experience  but I believe  they can lead to bad habits.

so one might think I have protection and can tackle or run over anyone I want in practice with little to no impact.

if that behavior carry’s over to games or will lead to more concussions

 

In think that ties in to @Impartial_Observer's statement above about better technique.  I would hope that programs that use them just don't hand them out as "magic dust" and drive home the importance of technique as well as other safety tools.

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

In think that ties in to @Impartial_Observer's statement above about better technique.  I would hope that programs that use them just don't hand them out as "magic dust" and drive home the importance of technique as well as other safety tools.

And that’s why anecdotal evidence that Guardian caps reduce concussions can never be considered conclusive. There is no way to isolate them as a cause, separate from improved coaching technique, greater awareness in players, and other factors.