Wake
Active member
The injury rate per 1000 hours of exposure is exceptionally high. I'll find the study.
It's a contact sport with no real padding, plus they are known to exaggerate their injuries. I don't think that makes them unfit.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The injury rate per 1000 hours of exposure is exceptionally high. I'll find the study.
Soccer players are not fit. Not even close. Their injury rates are so damn high. They're frail.
This study looking at roughly a five year period (1988-89 to 2003-2004) of college athletes has football at #1 injury prone. Men and women's soccer are both in the top 5 (for both practice and game related injuries). Refer to Figure 5.The injury rate per 1000 hours of exposure is exceptionally high. I'll find the study.
I'm not sure if I should dip in, but here goes.
My personal definition of fitness is a balance of strength and endurance. To use some of the frequently used examples in here, Olympic lifters are likely skewed towards strength, marathoners skewed towards endurance. I would view the sport with the "most fit athletes" as the sport than balances both the best. Therefore, I'd hypothesize:
-Boxers/MMA Fighters/Martial Artists
-Swimmers
-Mountain Bikers
-Skiers
Just my thoughts.
There's another recent study. But I do find it a bit funny how they seperated "fall football" and "spring football" and how much higher the injury rates were out of season.This study looking at roughly a five year period (1988-89 to 2003-2004) of college athletes has football at #1 injury prone. Men and women's soccer are both in the top 5 (for both practice and game related injuries). Refer to Figure 5.
There's another recent study. But I do find it a bit funny how they seperated "fall football" and "spring football" and how much higher the injury rates were out of season.
They separated it only when recording practice injuries. It makes sense that injury rates are higher out of season, probably because of conditioning issues.There's another recent study. But I do find it a bit funny how they seperated "fall football" and "spring football" and how much higher the injury rates were out of season.
This study looking at roughly a five year period (1988-89 to 2003-2004) of college athletes has football at #1 injury prone. Men and women's soccer are both in the top 5 (for both practice and game related injuries). Refer to Figure 5.
Fitness is dependent on the type of sport and what it requires physically. For the most part, trying to compare the fitness of athletes across them is kinda pointless.
"What is physical fitness or what does it mean to be physically fit? To put it in technical defined terms, fitness is a set of characteristics that people need to be able to complete physical activities. Being fit is defined by what type of activity you do, how long you do it, and at what level of intensity you are working."
Oh most definitely. Powerlifters are circus animals. Most are not fit athletes. There are exceptions, but generally, they are not fit.Can we at least agree that Power Lifters are not fit
But MMA fighters don't miss time because of injuries. I would argue that they are actually pretty durable.Using injuries to define fitness is not a good way to compare.
Example MMA guys are very fit and they get hurt a lot because of the nature of their sport.
Well, spring football is when the S&Cs send kids to the hospital with rhabdo. Like what happened in Oregon recently.They separated it only when recording practice injuries. It makes sense that injury rates are higher out of season, probably because of conditioning issues.
But MMA fighters don't miss time because of injuries. I would argue that they are actually pretty durable.
My point with the injury talk, endurance doesn't mean anything if durability is also compromised. I'm not saying soccer players are not fit. Just not the most fit, because of durability.
I am also getting more and more set on there being no right answer.
In my opinion, there is a certain definition of physical fitness that refers more to a general level of fitness and balance of aerobic and anaerobic ability across all major muscle groups. The sports I offered up are examples of those that I believe fit that general level of fitness best.
Think of it this way. Athletes in sports who are "generally fit" by my definition would theoretically be able to jump into another sport much easier than those in a more specialized level of fitness. For example: a swimmer would likely be able to perform moderately well at weightlifting or endurance running without much additional training. By contrast, a marathon runner likely would not be able to jump into weightlifting nearly as easily.
But MMA fighters don't miss time because of injuries. I would argue that they are actually pretty durable.
My point with the injury talk, endurance doesn't mean anything if durability is also compromised. I'm not saying soccer players are not fit. Just not the most fit, because of durability.
I am also getting more and more set on there being no right answer.
Well of course, less injuries per 1000 hours. By this logic of calculation he is also more fit than Tiger Woods and Lebrom James.
This still makes a lot of sense to me.
You're right. I edited my post aknowledging my mistake.But you did say they were not fit.
And MMA fighters ABSOLUTELY miss time because of injury.
EDIT: Saw your edit.
You're right. I edited my post aknowledging my mistake.
I stand firmly, just because an athlete can run for a long time does not make them "fit". Weighing 155lb and being able to run a marathon is not fit, to me.
You're right. I edited my post aknowledging my mistake.
I stand firmly, just because an athlete can run for a long time does not make them "fit". Weighing 155lb and being able to run a marathon is not fit, to me.
But being able to run a marathon is not an indication of a healthy heart. Heart failure is not uncommon among runners. Just like it's not uncommon among lifters.Thats why there is not correct answer, that is fit to me, cardio and heart health are what makes one fit, not mascle mass
Yeah. I'm sorry but there isn't a marathon runner I would consider more fit than Mat Fraser (CrossFitter not actor)or even Jesse Norris.Being able to run 26 miles, consecutively, is not a form of being fit?
Why can fitness not encompass more than one form?