• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Rugby TV ratings 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
MHCS said:
Well, the diet of an Olympic swimmer is about 12,000 calories per day. Compared with the diet of a soccer player (About 3,000 calories per day). The diet of an Olympic swimmer is 4 times more expensive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...elps-12-000-calories-day-dont-doing-harm.html

To this you must add supplements like creatine, protein shakes and all kinds of supplements that a soccer player or a golfer doesn't need.

To this you must add the risk of injury. In a more violent sport like rugby injuries are more frequent, more severe and therefore more expensive. And that equation results in developing a rugby player is more expensive than develop a soccer player.

This NFL player eats 10,000 calories per day:

http://firstwefeast.com/eat/vegan-nfl-player-diet/

Not all sports have the same cost. There are more expensive and more difficult sports.



I know that about Crossfit. It's just a way of naming an internationally recognized brand for training different capacities, not just brute strength or speed.

I did crossfit about 8 months and I left because I hate crossfit culture
Click to expand...


Nope. You have no "need" to add supplements in any diet. They are to supplement a deficiency in your diet, or in cases because they are easier to consume. As much as I'd love to eat a tin of tuna at the end of my gym sessions, I normally opt for a protein shake.

With regards to the calories, generally these are only elite olympic athletes are athletes in a weight gain phase consuming those quantities.

According to the below article cyclists eat 8,000 calories per day.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...958cBLA7SbkoYay9g&sig2=UJW9O3JtJA2b2IhRdL3axw

In regards to injury, according to the below article, both rugby codes accounted for 1,650 hospital visits in Australia during 2011-12. Soccer was 2,962. The only sport that was higher was AFL.

http://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/stories/2014/11/04/4121352.htm
 
Marcelo

Marcelo

Ken Catchpole (46)
Braveheart81 said:
You're seriously talking about the cost of developing a professional athelete in terms of the calories they need to eat?

I thought this conversation jumped the shark a while ago but this is just getting ridiculous.

Do you even lift 4,000 calories a day, bro?
Click to expand...

Ok, that is your way of thinking. I disagree. Not all sports have the same cost, the same degree of difficulty or the same hazard

Back to talking about the Rugby TV ratings
 
Marcelo

Marcelo

Ken Catchpole (46)
Train Without a Station said:
Nope. You have no "need" to add supplements in any diet. They are to supplement a deficiency in your diet, or in cases because they are easier to consume. As much as I'd love to eat a tin of tuna at the end of my gym sessions, I normally opt for a protein shake.

With regards to the calories, generally these are only elite olympic athletes are athletes in a weight gain phase consuming those quantities.

According to the below article cyclists eat 8,000 calories per day.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...958cBLA7SbkoYay9g&sig2=UJW9O3JtJA2b2IhRdL3axw

In regards to injury, according to the below article, both rugby codes accounted for 1,650 hospital visits in Australia during 2011-12. Soccer was 2,962. The only sport that was higher was AFL.

http://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/stories/2014/11/04/4121352.htm
Click to expand...

Are u kidding me??? Have u ever played soccer? 90% of the injuries are muscle spasms and tears. They don't know injuries as broken collarbone or broken rib that are common in rugby.

Most of these entries in hospitals are small lesions that a rugby player doesn't need to consult.

Seriously, are you saying that soccer is more dangerous than rugby? lol

About cycling. Of course, cycling is a much tougher sport than soccer. They make thousands of kilometers, doping is common in this sport because is so difficult
 
T

TOCC

Guest
MHCS, I am a in a past life a rugby union forward, I don't cross fit but I do circuit training and power lifting, which to the casual observer might be misinterpreted as cross-fit.

I won't exactly detail my background but I have been fortunate to train under one of Australia's best S&C coaches, I have also had a bit of experience with training camps for the South Sydney Rabbitohs.

What I will say, the fittest person I have ever met and ever trained with, isn't a rugby league or rugby union player, he is a S&C coach who would weigh no more then 85kg. He could do more heaves, more push-ups and run faster and longer then any of the rugby league athletes he was training. One of the most powerful athletes I have met would have to be the Burgess twins, natural athletes, but in one session when they were doing continuous push-ups, the Burgess twins scored the lowest number, embarrassingly low actually..

The point is, an endurance and strength based sportsmen is no less of an athlete then a power based sportsmen, they train differently , but that doesn't mean one is cheaper to develop then the other. Football players still do weights, but it's tailored to their requirements, they need to maintain an exceptional level of fitness and endurance, weights help with explosiveness and physicality but they can't go too big because it impacts their agility.

You are seriously underestimating the training load required for strength and endurance athletes, they can train longer and are just as prone to injuries. They mightn't need as much protein but their daily calorie intake and expenditure is sill incredibly high..

Just look at AFL players, they are closer to soccer players then try are to rugby union forwards, you wouldn't suggest there development comes easy.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
half

half

Dick Tooth (41)
MHCS

I think its time you outed yourself. You sit on the ARU board don't you.

Can't think of any other group who think the biggest thread from Soccer is in how much they eat.
 
Marcelo

Marcelo

Ken Catchpole (46)
Braveheart81 said:
Yes, we get it. You think soccer is a game for pansies and no injuries are incurred that are more serious than can be fixed with a band-aid.
Click to expand...

I've played both codes, rugby and soccer and I can assure you that rugby is more dangerous and their training is harder.

Most of my soccer teammates are still playing, only a soccer friend who has stopped by a cruciate ligament injury, the most dangerous soccer injury.

Now most of my rugby teammates have stopped playing rugby many years ago. One was compulsorily retired at 22 because he had many shoulder injuries. He was operated 4 times and could never play again. Most of my rugby teammates were destroyed by rugby. If you play rugby for 10 years, it's hard not to have had serious injuries
 
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
The history of soccer is replete with stories of 14 year old kids being discovered in the slums of Brazil, and playing for their countries 3 or 4 years later.


It is possible for kids to play soccer almost anywhere, on just about any surface, in just about any climate.



I do not know much about what happens in the UK these days, but it used to be commonplace for kids to be signed up at the age of 14 as apprentices to the pro clubs - very different development pathway to the average elite rugby player.
 
half

half

Dick Tooth (41)
I have played League, Union, Soccer, Touch and five a side Soccer.

Gotta say the hardest I found in energy required was Touch Union needed the least energy. Maybe as a half always yelling at the forwards and others in the ruck I don't have mud on the boots or blood in the eyes. But I found standing behind the scrum, ruck and lineout in many ways a time to rest. As for those lazy wingers who never make a tackle or get involved they may side with me.
 
Marcelo

Marcelo

Ken Catchpole (46)
TOCC said:
MHCS, I am a in a past life a rugby union forward, I don't cross fit but I do circuit training and power lifting, which to the casual observer might be misinterpreted as cross-fit.

I won't exactly detail my background but I have been fortunate to train under one of Australia's best S&C coaches, I have also had a bit of experience with training camps for the South Sydney Rabbitohs.

What I will say, the fittest person I have ever met and ever trained with, isn't a rugby league or rugby union player, he is a S&C coach who would weigh no more then 85kg. He could do more heaves, more push-ups and run faster and longer then any of the rugby league athletes he was training. One of the most powerful athletes I have met would have to be the Burgess twins, natural athletes, but in one session when they were doing continuous push-ups, the Burgess twins scored the lowest number, embarrassingly low actually..

The point is, an endurance and strength based sportsmen is no less of an athlete then a power based sportsmen, they train differently , but that doesn't mean one is cheaper to develop then the other. Football players still do weights, but it's tailored to their requirements, they need to maintain an exceptional level of fitness and endurance, weights help with explosiveness and physicality but they can't go too big because it impacts their agility.

You are seriously underestimating the training load required for strength and endurance athletes, they can train longer and are just as prone to injuries. They mightn't need as much protein but their daily calorie intake and expenditure is sill incredibly high..

Just look at AFL players, they are closer to soccer players then try are to rugby union forwards, you wouldn't suggest there development comes easy.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say, they are different discussions. But have u ever played soccer?
 
Marcelo

Marcelo

Ken Catchpole (46)
half said:
I have played League, Union, Soccer, Touch and five a side Soccer.

Gotta say the hardest I found in energy required was Touch Union needed the least energy. Maybe as a half always yelling at the forwards and others in the ruck I don't have mud on the boots or blood in the eyes. But I found standing behind the scrum, ruck and lineout in many ways a time to rest. As for those lazy wingers who never make a tackle or get involved they may side with me.
Click to expand...

Well, you answered yourself. You was a halfback. Play at flanker or lock and then tell me
 
half

half

Dick Tooth (41)
MHCS said:
Well, you answered yourself. You was a halfback. Play at flanker or lock and then tell me
Click to expand...


True as a half we had to do all the thinking for the pie eaters they did the grunt and push work.

Sometimes they are so slow getting to the ball and chasing your kicks down field. Often simple minded and accepted the yelling at them being lazy and to work harder but the beer and pies often took there toll.

More to the point maybe its rose coloured glasses you look through or maybe the beer and pies has got to you as well those pigs in the pack were not the fitness folk I have ever seen often with a belly to match any pregnant woman.
 
Marcelo

Marcelo

Ken Catchpole (46)
half said:
True as a half we had to do all the thinking for the pie eaters they did the grunt and push work.

Sometimes they are so slow getting to the ball and chasing your kicks down field. Often simple minded and accepted the yelling at them being lazy and to work harder but the beer and pies often took there toll.

More to the point maybe its rose coloured glasses you look through or maybe the beer and pies has got to you as well those pigs in the pack were not the fitness folk I have ever seen often with a belly to match any pregnant woman.
Click to expand...

You are right. At one time I played at 9
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top