What Do Hockey Visors and Birth Control Hormone Shots Have in Common?

The New York Times recently reported that using Depo-Provera, one of the most popular contraceptives in eastern and southern Africa, may increase a person’s risk of transmitting HIV. I fear this is a case for The Guardian‘s Ben Goldacre… where a study gets a bit (understatement) too much spin in the media. I first became aware of this while in Uganda and saw the following headline in the local paper: “The injectable contraceptive that could double the risk of women contracting HIV.” That sure sounds like the shot itself does something. Or could this instead be a by-product of behavior change? Huge difference if you are deciding what birth control to use!

The Times article cited a study recently published in The Lancet, which showed that women using hormonal contraception—primarily the injection more commonly known in the U.S. by its brand name, Depo-Provera—were twice as likely to acquire HIV from their infected partners, and twice as likely to transmit the virus to their HIV-negative partners.

Whether this is because of biophysical changes or behavior changes is not obvious. And the paper acknowledges this. Several studies have questioned whether hormonal contraceptives have physiological effects beyond pregnancy prevention, perhaps by altering hormone levels in genital tissue or vaginal lining. To support that possibility, this study tests for the concentration of the HIV virus in women’s vaginal fluid, and finds that women using hormonal contraceptives have higher concentrations of the virus than women who are not using the same birth control method, even though the level of HIV in their blood is no different.

But this test still does not disprove that women may be acting differently from the ones using other forms of birth control. Rather than the hormone itself exacerbating the HIV epidemic, this might just be another example of the Peltzman effect: drivers wearing seatbelts feel more secure, and therefore drive less carefully; the number of traffic accidents goes up, and the benefit of wearing a seatbelt is offset. Women using hormonal contraception may feel more protected against pregnancy, and so take fewer precautions against other risky sexual behaviors, leading to increased transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Or, women lose the socially-acceptable reason for wearing a condom (“I don’t want to get pregnant”) and are stuck having to resort to a trickier message to an impending sexual partner (“I don’t trust you to not have HIV.”) So they end up having more unprotected sex.

In The Lancet study, all contraceptive use was self-reported, including hormonal contraceptives and condoms. This is obviously not easy data to collect, in a truthful way (see earlier post on List Randomization for one technique). Still, there is some evidence that people using hormonal contraceptives engaged in riskier sexual behavior. For women with HIV, the ones using hormonal contraception were slightly—and statistically significantly—more likely to have sex without a condom with their HIV-negative partners (12.9 percent) compared to those not using hormonal contraception (10.1 percent).

The World Health Organization is now reconsidering its recommendations on contraceptives, while international health organizations like FHI 360 were quick to respond that more rigorous evaluation is needed. Clearly a case of unintended consequences… personally my hope (hopefully not falsely optimistic) is that the lesson is to integrate lessons about risks of HIV transmission; or perhaps the answer is more private administration of Depo-Provera? Certainly at a minimum this is a call for a better understanding of the behavior change.

And what’s all this have to do with hockey? This recent paper by Alberto Chong and Pascual Restrepo finds that hockey players got more penalty time after switching to helmets with visors, ie, ones that protect them a bit more.

While we’re on the topic of hockey, can someone more informed than I explain why they don’t make Sumo wrestlers goalies? Or a Sumo goalie and one Sumo defender? Is it because it would shift the equilibrium too fast and everyone would do it, and then just cause rule changes to prohibit it? Or do existing rules prohibit it in some way? Or, is it just too hard to find one who can ice skate?


Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Mike says:

    Maybe it’s because hockey coaches read Freakonomics and don’t trust sumo wrestlers.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 1
  2. derric says:

    I have wondered the exact same thing about hockey for years. Why not find a player large enough to basically cover (read: engulf) the entire goal?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
    • Joshua Northey says:

      I just played a hockey game a couple hours ago.

      A) The goal is 4ft high by 6 ft wide, you wont actually find people big enough to cover the 24ft^2. Particularly since people are generally taller than they are wide.

      More importantly:

      C) Even at my level (30 and 40 year old men’s league players who were not quite good enough to play Division 1 in college) we are good enough to put the puck in very small spaces. Just today I got two goals in slots that were probably 6″X6″. Even with a very big person in there are going to be a lot of those slots in a 4’X6′ goal and they won’t have the mobility to close them that more limber goalies do.

      To be fair a lot of the best goalies are very tall, because being larger does help, but at the higher levels they are also generally extremely thin because quickness is exceedingly important.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
  3. Hoxsey71 says:

    Goalie’s themselves are often the smallest (body mass-wise, not height-wise) people on a hockey team. They excel because of flexibility and quickness, not because they naturally take up space. A more pertinent question might be, “why don’t they make ninjas into hockey goalies?”

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
  4. Chap says:

    Re: Sumo hockey goalies, I imagine part of it is that you couldn’t get them on ice skates. Another reason is that some teams value a puck moving goalie ( like Brodeur, Thomas, etc) to help negate the opposing team’s offensive set up. I can’t imagine a Sumo goalie would be to mobile or nimble with the puck.

    It would make the elusive “goalie fight” that much more interesting though…..

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
  5. Jeremey says:

    They ran some tests on sports science pertaining to your sumo question. video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP8ZVWiZUMA

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
  6. Mukta says:

    Well the puck is so small they could probably get it through the sumo wrestlers legs and he wouldn’t be able to defend the goal due to his inability to bend that way…

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
  7. Tomers says:

    Your last sentence is the reason: can’t find a sumo wrestler who can skate. Also, the sumo wrestler would need to be 6′ wide.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
  8. Alex says:

    The biggest problem with a sumo goalie is the rules governing equipment. There is a maximum size for goalie pads, and any person large enough to cover the net would be far too large to be protected. A sumo goalie could theoretically play, but they’d be taking slap shots (sometimes at more than 100 mph) to almost completely unprotected parts of the body. There’s a few other issues (the goalie is also required to skate to the net under their own power, and his team would have to score against a defense that’s sure to take cheapshots on such an unsportsmanlike opponent), but the pads are the primary issue.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5