Hockey squared

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

When two NHL hockey players collide, their pads and body tissues can absorb enough energy to power a 100-watt light bulb for a minute and a half. During the 60 minutes of a hockey game, players can burn 6,000 calories and lose up to 15 pounds.

- www.adn.com/life/story/4668251p-4622431c.html

[seventeen]

Is it ok to be skeptical? 6,000 calories? Playing soccer is more physically demanding than a hockey game (notice how svelte soccer players are?) and I don't think I ever burned off 6000 calories. I'd look 16, I mean 17 again if I could do that. Of course, I'm not admitting just how much running I did.

[Rimmer]

here's some food for thought for you, seventeen, since you seem to be a soccer fan.

in the first phase of the European Championship league, played this fall, Jerko Leko, a croatian midfielder currently playing for Dynamo Kyiv, ran an average distance of 11,980 m/game, most of all players. the most he ran in one game was 12,323 m in 90 minutes. for comparison, the average distance ran by a midfielder in the Champions league is 10,415 m/game.

The same player is also the best among the midfielders in average speed. his average speed was 9.2 m/s (33 km/h) while the average speed for all midfielders is 8,92 m/s (32 km/h).

how does all this compare to hockey? I have no idea, but I remember when Saku was recuperating from his battle with cancer, he had spent some time training with a soccer team (can't remember which one). afterwards I remember him saying that hockey was not as exhausting as soccer.

R.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

seventeen said:

Is it ok to be skeptical? 6,000 calories? Playing soccer is more physically demanding than a hockey game (notice how svelte soccer players are?) and I don't think I ever burned off 6000 calories. I'd look 16, I mean 17 again if I could do that. Of course, I'm not admitting just how much running I did.

Hey, its not my study. But consider this: hockey players lug equipment around with them, give and receive body checks, and fight for pucks along the boards and in the corners.

[blny]

I'm gonna have to go along with seventeen on this one. Hockey is an anaerobic sport. Lots of starts and stops, short shifts and the like. If pros burned 6000 calories during a game they wouldn't be riding the bike afterwards (like so many are now).

[seventeen]

Rim, I play midfield and I know exactly what you mean. Most other positions can take a break now and then, but good midfielders (I am one in spirit if not in body) have to run constantly, with sprints, turns, stops and goes. There's no way you can really keep it up the whole game, so occasionally you trot, or walk after a hard sprint. At the level you're talking about, those guys can keep it much longer. I get tired just watching them play...at that tempo for that long. Huff, Puff.

[Rimmer]

seventeen said:

Rim, I play midfield and I know exactly what you mean.

ah, a midfielder. so you were more of a 'fantasista' than a runner ;D? I was mostly a sweeper or a centre back although I played all positions during my time. I was even a goalkeeper once, when our goalkeeper was shown a red card and our reserve was injured. the game ended 0-0.

R.

[blaise]

mr said:

When two NHL hockey players collide, their pads and body tissues can absorb enough energy to power a 100-watt light bulb for a minute and a half. During the 60 minutes of a hockey game, players can burn 6,000 calories and lose up to 15 pounds.

- www.adn.com/life/story/4668251p-4622431c.html

So it beats the Atkins diet.

[blaise]

seventeen said:

Is it ok to be skeptical? 6,000 calories? Playing soccer is more physically demanding than a hockey game (notice how svelte soccer players are?) and I don't think I ever burned off 6000 calories. I'd look 16, I mean 17 again if I could do that. Of course, I'm not admitting just how much running I did.

As in any contact sport, it's not a good idea to be svelte.

I once read that although the reduced friction of skating permits speeds greater than that of running, the effort required to skate at top speed is extremely great and explains why penalty killers can barely move if they are unable to get off the ice for the entire 2 minutes.

[blaise]

Rimmer said:

here's some food for thought for you, seventeen, since you seem to be a soccer fan.

in the first phase of the European Championship league, played this fall, Jerko Leko, a croatian midfielder currently playing for Dynamo Kyiv, ran an average distance of 11,980 m/game, most of all players. the most he ran in one game was 12,323 m in 90 minutes. for comparison, the average distance ran by a midfielder in the Champions league is 10,415 m/game.

The same player is also the best among the midfielders in average speed. his average speed was 9.2 m/s (33 km/h) while the average speed for all midfielders is 8,92 m/s (32 km/h).

how does all this compare to hockey? I have no idea, but I remember when Saku was recuperating from his battle with cancer, he had spent some time training with a soccer team (can't remember which one). afterwards I remember him saying that hockey was not as exhausting as soccer.
R.

I am extremely dubious about these statistics.
Do you realize that 32 km/h is the equivalent of 20 mph? That would mean a soccer player could run a mile in 3 minutes, which is very, very much faster than the world's record for the mile. The record for the 100 m dash is roughly 9.8 sec (let's round it off to 10 sec for the sake of calculation). If a sprinter could maintain that pace for 1 h (impossible), he would have covered 600 m/min, to give us 36,000 m or 36 km/h. You cite a report stating that soccer players, who don't wear track shoes and don't play on a fast track and don't move in a straight line in a designated lane, could do 32-33 km/h. This is well within 10% of the best time of a world class sprinter extrapolated to a much longer distance over an entire hour. These soccer players would have to be super Olympians who approach large four-legged animals in speed. I ain't buyin' it.

P.S. I'll bend my own rule about not divulging biographical details. I was a sprinter in my youth. Not a very good one, but a sprinter nevertheless. I could maintain my top speed for about 150 m. If I tried to keep it up beyond that it was like running into the wind. And trying to do it for 400 m produced a burning sensation as lactic acid accumulated in my leg muscles. It became imperative to coast somewhat.

[Rimmer]

Blaise said:

I am extremely dubious about these statistics.
Do you realize that 32 km/h is the equivalent of 20 mph? That would mean a soccer player could run a mile in 3 minutes, which is very, very much faster than the world's record for the mile. The record for the 100 m dash is roughly 9.8 sec (let's round it off to 10 sec for the sake of calculation). If the record holder could maintain that pace for 1 h (impossible), he would have covered 600 m/min, to give us 36,000 m or 36 km/h. You cite a report stating that soccer players, who don't wear track shoes are don't play on a fast track, could do 32-33 km/h. This is well within 10% of the best time of a world class sprinter extrapolated to a much longer distance over an entire hour. These soccer players would have to be super Olympians who approach large four-legged animals in speed. I ain't buyin' it.

I could provide you a link but it's in Croatian and I don't know if you would understand anything. I was sceptical about the reported speed, not because it's pretty high but because it is said to be 'average'. you would be surprised how fast some of the soccer players today are but I agree that there's no way that can be the average speed over the course of 90 minutes. so by average they could mean the average top speed or at least that's how I understood. that would make sense because for a player running at 8.92 m/s it would take 11.2 sec. to run 100 m.

now that I had re-read my post, I see that it can be interpreted the other way but I was translating it the way it had been originally written. as far as the reaserch itself is concerned, I cannot provide more information but I think I read somewhere else that it was done by some english university.

R.

p.s.
here's the link so you can at least check the numbers I posted

[blaise]

Rimmer said:

I could provide you a link but it's in Croatian and I don't know if you would understand anything. I was sceptical about the reported speed, not because it's pretty high but because it is said to be 'average'. you would be surprised how fast some of the soccer players today are but I agree that there's no way that can be the average speed over the course of 90 minutes. so by average they could mean the average top speed or at least that's how I understood. that would make sense because for a player running at 8.92 m/s it would take 11.2 sec. to run 100 m.

now that I had re-read my post, I see that it can be interpreted the other way but I was translating it the way it had been originally written. as far as the reaserch itself is concerned, I cannot provide more information but I think I read somewhere else that it was done by some english university.

R.

p.s.
here's the link so you can at least check the numbers I posted

Thanks, I won't look it up, but I'll take your word for it.

[franko]

Personally, I like to burn my calories in this fashion: members.aol.com/evilsuzie/ia/sexcalories.htm

Fastest way to burn the calories (for those who don't care to look up the so-called stats:

DRESSING UP AFTERWARDS:

Calmly................................. 32 Calories

In a hurry............................. 98 Calories

With her father knocking at the door... 1218 Calories

With your wife knocking at the door.... 3521 Calories

[seventeen]

I learn so much at this site!

[blaise]

seventeen said:

I learn so much at this site!

This is The Learning Channel. Didn't you know?

[patate]

franko said:

Personally, I like to burn my calories in this fashion: members.aol.com/evilsuzie/ia/sexcalories.htm

Fastest way to burn the calories (for those who don't care to look up the so-called stats:

DRESSING UP AFTERWARDS:

Calmly................................. 32 Calories

In a hurry............................. 98 Calories

With her father knocking at the door... 1218 Calories

With your wife knocking at the door.... 3521 Calories

If it's both the wife and the father at the door do you add or multiply?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

You go into cardiac arrest.