|
jt512
Jul 24, 2009, 3:01 AM
Post #2 of 29
(8931 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
"Patients were most often hurt because they fell."
|
|
|
|
|
macblaze
Jul 24, 2009, 3:10 AM
Post #3 of 29
(8924 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Posts: 807
|
jt512 wrote: "Patients were most often hurt because they fell."
In reply to: This trend, combined with the fact that rock climbers have a higher hospitalization rate than other sports and recreational injuries, demonstrates the need to increase injury prevention efforts for climbers."
Injury prevention = "Don't FALL!"
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Jul 24, 2009, 12:27 PM
Post #4 of 29
(8885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
In reply to: ock climbers have a higher hospitalization rate than other sports and recreational injuries
Doesn't this require knowing the number of participants in this sport vs. others? Since she was making a statement about rates, not absolute numbers.
In reply to: Study findings revealed a 63 percent increase in the number of patients that were treated in U.S. emergency departments for rock climbing-related injuries between 1990 and 2007
It would be interesting to know the increase in climbers during those 17 years also. Is it higher than 63%? Then our accident rate has decreased. Without that, it doesn't seem to me that much useful information about general risk of the sport.
|
|
|
|
|
benmoreite
Jul 24, 2009, 12:38 PM
Post #5 of 29
(8875 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2006
Posts: 64
|
Can anyone find the actual article? I went to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine web page, and to my University's periodical database, and I can't find it...
[edit for journal name]
(This post was edited by benmoreite on Jul 24, 2009, 12:39 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Jul 24, 2009, 12:44 PM
Post #6 of 29
(8869 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
jt512 wrote: "Patients were most often hurt because they fell."
If I'm reading it right, they based this study on e-room visits only. So of course falls are the biggest cause of sudden, serious injury. But I'd be willing to bet that most rock climbing injuries are chronic, and aren't treated in an e-room.
|
|
|
|
|
joshy8200
Jul 24, 2009, 12:47 PM
Post #7 of 29
(8868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 646
|
This is by no means the first study to examine rock climbing-related injuries. There are probably hundreds or even thousands of studies that can be found in reputable journals of sports medicine and wilderness medicine.
We should also note that most climbing related injuries are overuse injuries and not at all related to falls. The article really needs to stress that these are Emergency Room patients.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 24, 2009, 1:04 PM
Post #8 of 29
(8859 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
joshy8200 wrote: This is by no means the first study to examine rock climbing-related injuries. There are probably hundreds or even thousands of studies that can be found in reputable journals of sports medicine and wilderness medicine. We should also note that most climbing related injuries are overuse injuries and not at all related to falls. The article really needs to stress that these are Emergency Room patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
thousands of studies on rock climbing injuries? You're high.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Jul 24, 2009, 1:12 PM
Post #9 of 29
(8849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
In reply to: Study finds 63 percent increase in the number of rock climbing-related injuries treated in emergency departments each year
I think the above line is pretty misleading. It makes it sound like 63% is the annual growth rate, but closer reading of the press release reveals the 63% increase occurred over 17 years. Hell, 3% per year compounded over 17 years gives you a 65% increase. I'm not sure how fast rock climbing is growing, but I'm pretty sure it's faster than 3% per year.
|
|
|
|
|
fresh
Jul 24, 2009, 1:24 PM
Post #10 of 29
(8844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2007
Posts: 1199
|
In reply to: "This trend, combined with the fact that rock climbers have a higher hospitalization rate than other sports and recreational injuries, demonstrates the need to increase injury prevention efforts for climbers."
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 24, 2009, 1:30 PM
Post #11 of 29
(8840 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"Don't fall."
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 24, 2009, 2:26 PM
Post #12 of 29
(8819 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
dingus wrote: joshy8200 wrote: This is by no means the first study to examine rock climbing-related injuries. There are probably hundreds or even thousands of studies that can be found in reputable journals of sports medicine and wilderness medicine. We should also note that most climbing related injuries are overuse injuries and not at all related to falls. The article really needs to stress that these are Emergency Room patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...anel.Pubmed_RVDocSumthousands of studies on rock climbing injuries? You're high.
High by two orders of magnitude. There have been 61 studies of rock climbing injuries, according to Pubmed.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Jul 24, 2009, 2:45 PM
Post #13 of 29
(8809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
The story's headline: "First national study to examine rock climbing-related injuries"
in the second graph: "The study also found that women accounted for more than 28 percent of the injuries, a higher proportion than found in previous rock climbing studies."
Huh?
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 24, 2009, 2:47 PM
Post #14 of 29
(8808 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
fitzontherocks wrote: The story's headline: "First national study to examine rock climbing-related injuries" in the second graph: "The study also found that women accounted for more than 28 percent of the injuries, a higher proportion than found in previous rock climbing studies." Huh?
I guess that if the other studies weren't "national" then those statements would be consistent.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Jul 24, 2009, 2:55 PM
Post #15 of 29
(8799 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
I also wondered if they draw a distinction between "rock climbing studies" and the "study to examine rock climbing-related injuries." I think most climbers look at this and react viscerally-- in a bad way. There are obviously more climbers now than in 1990, so it's reasonable to assume that there are more injuries. WE want the world to think rock climbing is not irresponsibly dangerous, so that we won't get over-regulated or legislated or discriminated against or whatever. At an average of 2352 ER visits per year over the study period, climbing doesn't come close to say, MVAs or motorcycle accidents or gunshot wounds. One of our best friends is an ER doc and is constantly telling me and my wife "don't ride a motorcycle. You'll die." She knows I climb and never says anything about that.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 24, 2009, 3:11 PM
Post #16 of 29
(8787 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
fitzontherocks wrote: I also wondered if they draw a distinction between "rock climbing studies" and the "study to examine rock climbing-related injuries." I think most climbers look at this and react viscerally-- in a bad way.
In a bad way? Most climbers? What do you mean?
I look at that and think.... 'So? Duh! People get hurt rock climbing, imaging THAT! Oh my, this is a dangerous sport. I best head back to the tiddley wink intermurals."
But that's probably just me...
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 24, 2009, 3:12 PM
Post #17 of 29
(8782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
fitzontherocks wrote: WE want the world to think rock climbing is not irresponsibly dangerous, so that we won't get over-regulated or legislated or discriminated against or whatever.
I don't buy into this thinking at all.
Cheers though!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Jul 24, 2009, 3:34 PM
Post #18 of 29
(8762 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
I am, of course, speaking for all of climberdom. No, what I mean is that I think -- I THINK-- climbers don't want A) added, possibly critical, attention for the sport and B) stats that show it's "dangerous." All it takes is for one rabid politician or activist to get hold of an out-of-context statistic and all of a sudden access is affected, lawsuits increase, climbers have to be licensed or certified, blah blah blah.
I think the general public already thinks climbing is "dangerous." This could just reinforce or ramp up that feeling. Me, I gave up mountain biking because IT was too dangerous. Every time I got off the bike, I had a new gash. Ten years of climbing and no major injuries, and NO ER visits because of it. Knock wood.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Jul 24, 2009, 3:36 PM
Post #19 of 29
(8759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
dingus wrote: fitzontherocks wrote: WE want the world to think rock climbing is not irresponsibly dangerous, so that we won't get over-regulated or legislated or discriminated against or whatever. I don't buy into this thinking at all. Cheers though! DMT
'Splain.
|
|
|
|
|
freedan
Jul 24, 2009, 3:47 PM
Post #20 of 29
(8755 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2006
Posts: 39
|
If climbing was to be made safer, it would be restricted gyms with autobelayers. Is it a surprise that a higher rate of injuries can result in an uncontrolled setting where people have to take responsibility for their own safety using knowledge to mitigate a lot of variables?
The way these studies could be used by insurance companies, municipalities and land managers scare me as justification for banning or restricting access to climbing can be the results. I always wonder if it is the insurance companies behind these type of studies.
|
|
|
|
|
rockreaver
Jul 24, 2009, 4:31 PM
Post #21 of 29
(8726 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2009
Posts: 187
|
I look at it and think 90% of the injuries were probably caused by:
1. Lack of experience leading to poor decisions.
2. Over estimating ones abilities leading to poor decisions.
3. Not being properly prepared for the climb leading to poor decisions.
4. Legit injury margin similar to other sports where the participants are skilled, informed, and prepared but some days just aren't your day. (10% Rule)
So I bet if we knew more about the injury breakdown somewhere around 90% of them were bad decisions. The other 10% were just going to happen regardless.
After seeing some of the stupidity I've seen climbing I'm amazed more people don't die. Seriously!
|
|
|
|
|
the1esteban
Jul 24, 2009, 4:41 PM
Post #22 of 29
(8713 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2006
Posts: 49
|
rockreaver wrote: I look at it and think 90% of the injuries were probably caused by: 1. Lack of experience leading to poor decisions. 2. Over estimating ones abilities leading to poor decisions. 3. Not being properly prepared for the climb leading to poor decisions. 4. Legit injury margin similar to other sports where the participants are skilled, informed, and prepared but some days just aren't your day. (10% Rule) So I bet if we knew more about the injury breakdown somewhere around 90% of them were bad decisions. The other 10% were just going to happen regardless. After seeing some of the stupidity I've seen climbing I'm amazed more people don't die. Seriously!
90% of statistics are made up on the spot...only 45% of those have a 30% probability of actually being true. In conclusion, we should believe 12.25% of all statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
rockreaver
Jul 24, 2009, 4:52 PM
Post #23 of 29
(8701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2009
Posts: 187
|
I make up statistics all the time. 99% of the climbs I do are done perfectly (the stairs, the ladder into the pool, the step up into the pantry, etc...) around my house the climbing difficulty is all rated by how many toys the children have left lying around. Something as simple as going up stairs can become 5.14z very quickly depending on the trail of Legos and their "percentage" of carpet covered. If the Legos are on hardwood that's like free-solo and you'll probably die.
Seriously, I'd love to know who paid for the survey and all the background information. That tells me more about the survey than the actual "results".
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 24, 2009, 5:14 PM
Post #24 of 29
(8688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
fitzontherocks wrote: dingus wrote: fitzontherocks wrote: WE want the world to think rock climbing is not irresponsibly dangerous, so that we won't get over-regulated or legislated or discriminated against or whatever. I don't buy into this thinking at all. Cheers though! DMT 'Splain.
I think to a large degree climbing IS irresponsibly dangerous and many folk who think they should do it... shouldn't.
But more to the point and spirit of the above comment - I don't buy into the Group Marketing Message thing at all. I am not interested in the 'WE' when it comes to setting an impression with the general public or to a large extent even land managers, both public and private.
My first thought, when it comes to climbing, is NEVER 'what will the group think?' or 'what are the consequences to ALL OF CLIMBING' if I happen to get hurt in the back country.
Really, to me and those birds of similar feather, we will continue to climb even if 99.99999% of other climbers quit and ALL climbing lands are locked behind no tresspass signs.
Climbing can be a group activity, sure. Climbing can and is also a solitary pursuit. It does encompass both. I tend toward the solitary/small team/ back country side of things and while I continue to dabble in sport I usually take off when the afternoon group grope shows up. See, I don't want to be part of their 'we.'
So when some noob hiker falls down a mud embankment and the paper reports 'climber accident.'
I don't give a shit about the perceived black eye 'WE' get. I acknowledge climbing is both dangerous AND irresponsible. I still do it. Why? I'm reckless and enjoy the thrills frankly. There is no real justification other than I want to.
So I don't want to sign up for the Safety First WE group that seems more concerned over what THEY will think (whoever they are).
I don't care what they think.
I know this will provoke the inevitable 'just wait till THEY close YOUR area, you'll sing a different tune.'
No, I won't. Promise.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Jul 24, 2009, 7:16 PM
Post #25 of 29
(8646 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
Dingus, I sarcastically said I speak for all climbers. Obviously, I don't. So I mis-spoke. And I will grant you that "to a large degree climbing IS irresponsibly dangerous and many folk who think they should do it... shouldn't." But maybe those who shouldn't be doing it are the irresponsible ones. I've got five mouths to feed. I don't do it irresponsibly. And like you, I don't care what the group thinks, but I know full well that there are groups out there who would love to rain on somebody's parade in the form of restrictions, legislation, higher insurance rates, etc. And I don't mean to say just in climbing. Take motorcycling. Or guns. Or linoleum flooring, for god's sake.
I'm curious, if all lands are locked down to climbing, where will you climb? Anywhere you want? Been nice knowing you. And if you don't give a shit about the sport getting a blackeye, then you are not my friend. Nor a friend to the sport. THAT is irresponsible. Justification? I do it 'cause I like to, and for the same reasons you do. But when I say I do it responsibly, I'm not just talking about backing up my rappel. I don't rub the tort lawyers' and killjoys' noses in it, either. What good does that do? And just to keep the ball in play, "just wait till THEY close YOUR area, you'll sing a different tune."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
