We need to keep in mind two issues. The 'symptom free' condition is subjective. If they did a neuro-psych assessment before and after, the symptoms free comment would mean more. The ImPACT Test is woefully inadequate to be considered a valid diagnosis of 'symptom free.'

I can understand how many of the physical symptoms would return to a more normal like condition. This is the result of physical conditioning, i.e. developing physical tolerance for the higher heart rates and higher blood pressures.

The psyche (cognitive) symptoms are my biggest concern. They are much more difficult to measure.

There has not yet been any study or test that has been able to ascertain the risk of future injury from a later brain impact. In fact, the anecdotal evidence suggests that there is always a risk of worsening symptoms from subsequent impact. The brain does not have an ability to increase its structural integrity.

Bones and tendons can become stronger after being put under repeated stresses. This is due to micro-damage that heals with scar tissue to become stronger. There is no such thing as scar tissue in neural cells. The only scar-like tissue in nerve fibers act as end caps preventing the ends of torn nerve fibers from reconnecting.

The UB study looks like a promising way to restore physical activity levels. Let's not try to imply too much into the study.