This is Alpha, the first-born, when he was 2YO.
This is Beta, the second-born, when he was about 2YO.
This is Gamma, the third-born, when he was about 18MO.
The Most Dangerous Game
Feb
9
2009
I enjoy reading whatever’s on the cereal box during breakfast. One side panel, on a chocolatey crispy rice cereal, was encouraging children to be active – probably because it is a sugary cereal and they need this public service announcement to make up for the unhealthiness of the cereal.
Part of the panel showed various sports and how many calories the average child would burn during 30 minutes of each sport. It listed
- baseball: 60 calories
- soccer: 90 calories
- basketball: 90 calories
- football: 120 calories
So not only is baseball the most boring sport to watch, it is the most boring to play – it burns the fewest calories.
But don’t take the word a a cereal box for it – go look up calorie burn rates by sport. Beware though – baseball isn’t even on that list. It must not have qualified. Here are some excerpts, using the general non-game category for 130-lb person:
- basketball: 354 calories per hour
- soccer: 413
- football: 472
- swimming laps: also 472
And soccer? Don’t let your kids play soccer. Not only is it average at best for exercise, it is dangerous for high school kids to play (especially for girls) (and more dangerous than football). The combination of moderate exercise and high risk means that soccer should not be an option.
But football? The combination of good exercise and average risk factor means that football is a good option for your child. I suppose swimming might be even better, with the combination of good exercise and low risk factor.
Football players are more likely to be injured, but fractures and sprains usually heal with no lasting problems. Concussions are where you want to be concerned about your child. Football helmets are being improved to reduce concussions. What is being done in soccer to reduce concussions? And yes, even though soccer is supposed to be non-contact, soccer players are more prone to concussions than are football players.
Football is a contact sport, but the uniform and gear are setup to protect the players from damage. In soccer, only your shins are safe (even though shins heal fairly easily compared to concussions or ACL tears). You could try this article, which states “The injury rates, calculated per 100 athlete exposures during total events (games plus practices), were: baseball, 1.7; softball, 1.0; soccer, 2.1; and football, 1.5.”
“Those who seek my life lay snares {for me;} And those who seek to injure me have threatened destruction, And they devise treachery all day long.”
– Psalm 38:12
This little article thingy was written by Some Guy sometime around 6:04 pm and has been carefully placed in the Sports category.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Terpstra rulz.
February 10th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
This is why I’ve laughed when I’ve heard of parents encouraging their kids away from football and towards soccer because they didn’t want their kids to be hurt. The numbers plainly show soccer involves greater chance for injury, but football’s constant contact gives it that (unfair) reputation. I like soccer — not as much as football, but I do like it — but it’s not at all safe.
Besides, soccer is non-contact like basketball is non-contact.
On another note: I’ve been told tennis provides an oustanding workout. Did that sport show up in any of the lists you found?
February 10th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Racquetball is one of the more entertaining and safest legitimate aerobic activities, much better than tennis if you’re looking for energy expended. I did give someone a black eye once, but those heal quickly.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Yeah, but you’ve injured a few people in the context of sports.
Wait … how’d you give someone a black eye? I thought you were supposed to wear eye protection while playing racquetball.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
The racquet may have hit the other guy under the glasses on the follow-through of a swing in which the swinger did not know the other guy was crouching down to try to get out of the way of the swing.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Is the football burn rate an average of all positions? I would think the energy expended is much higher for some positions (D-line, wide receiver/d-back) than others (QB).
February 12th, 2009 at 9:20 am
What about hockey? I know it burns calories. Even though they’re playing on ice, when my guys take their helmets off their hair is soaking wet with sweat.
February 13th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Here’s a more flexible calorie burn listing that allows you to input your own weight:
http://www.healthline.com/sw/clc-calorie-burn-rate-calculator
February 14th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Hockey is the same as swimming and football as far as calories go.
Burrill needs the input-your-own-weight calculator because most of the weight charts don’t go low enough for him.
February 15th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Buckley, I think it’s an average. How much of a workout the QB gets depends on the team. On some teams, the O-line isn’t up to task, and the QB has to run a lot. On other teams, maybe the QB decides he wants some exercise, so he runs back past the end of the end zone.