dannyboy wrote:
The point is Jimmae you have this habit of stating things as if they are utterly factual when truthfully they aren't, they are your opinion...this was one of those times when you simply made a statement as if it was a fact and I happened to be genuinely curious if this was indeed the case but could not find any reports (I did look and only found the things you later threw at me) - it seems (as far as you can prove) that no one really knows if your statement is true or not. It may be true (it may even have been proved) but you do not know that, your just stating you're opinion as a well known fact - its just your style I know...but @#$%&! it shits me sometimes.
It's not really a case of proving anything in that regard Danny: greater mechanical effort creates greater mechanical wear. The AFL has publicly expressed a concern with the speed of the game going up too quickly and what that means for players and fans. With the media trough the way it is, finding such comments are admittedly a chore.
The body's ability to recover from that is where the research questions are from a medical point of view, and frankly they're lagging behind other fields of research (which is fair enough when you consider sporting/mechanical injuries and their impact on lifespan in relation to much more common and/or severe health concerns).
BTW the tracking systems are much improved upon what that study suggests, thanks to rich sporting teams around the world tipping cash in for customised solutions. Smart clothing and RFID chips help provide more accurate data now. Some companies make gear that can take readings up to 120 times per second, which covers most use cases in elite sport.