How much muscle mass is ideal?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

Oscar

Level 6 Valued Member
indeed there very large athletes, hence my musings. It's interesting that Rugby players who are also playing a full contact sport (correct?) are lighter. my guess would be that rugby has longer plays, were as football is a more start and stop. my thought is for these athletes the extra muscle size helps with the burst of intense plays. were rugby player need to be faster for longer (I don't know rugby that well, so sorry if I sound ignorant)
Yeah I agree that's probably the cause. In rugby you have many very heavy guys who manage to run for 80 minutes. In the recent years props are usually replaced near minute 60 though. Props are the very heavy and sturdy guys at the front who have to push a lot.
 

North Coast Miller

Level 7 Valued Member
I crunched my #s and I'm right in the range Id'd by @Kettlebelephant, but I don't understand why I don't look like the guys in the pics...
This is real interesting concept. would you say Foot ball (American) would be an outlier?
For example Gronkowski is 198 cm and 120kg JJ Watt is 195cm and 131kg. (roughly a 70 difference) they may need the extra mass for the nature of there sport. does that make them a more specialized athlete? rather then a more traditional athlete like soccer/Tennis/Basketball? thoughts?

Without a doubt. Huge difference between tight end and defensive end.
 

Sean M

Level 6 Valued Member
indeed there very large athletes, hence my musings. It's interesting that Rugby players who are also playing a full contact sport (correct?) are lighter. my guess would be that rugby has longer plays, were as football is a more start and stop. my thought is for these athletes the extra muscle size helps with the burst of intense plays. were rugby player need to be faster for longer (I don't know rugby that well, so sorry if I sound ignorant)
The difference may be helmets and pads. You can take a hit from a bigger guy if both of you have pads and a helmet - you are both more naturally cautious with just shorts and a rugby shirt.
 

LukeV

Level 5 Valued Member
The difference may be helmets and pads. You can take a hit from a bigger guy if both of you have pads and a helmet - you are both more naturally cautious with just shorts and a rugby shirt.
I've played rugby but not American football but from watching American football on television the helmets and pads have become weaponised and are used to increase the kinetic impact as the tackling player needs to worry less about injuring himself. Tackling in rugby is ferocious and can be relentless given the multiple phases of play but some of those big hits in American football just make my eyes water and I doubt they'd be possible without the equipment.

I haven't seen a statistic but common sense tells me rugby players run much further than American football players over the course of a game and spend more time in play. And that alone would explain why rugby players max out around 125kg - every kg needs to be dragged up and down that field.

Also I'm not sure of the American football equivalent but rugby has two forty minute halves separated by only a 10 minute break. And only eight substitutions are permitted with substituted players not permitted to return to the field (except where blood or suspected concussion are the issues).
 

Sean M

Level 6 Valued Member
I've played rugby but not American football but from watching American football on television the helmets and pads have become weaponised and are used to increase the kinetic impact as the tackling player needs to worry less about injuring himself. Tackling in rugby is ferocious and can be relentless given the multiple phases of play but some of those big hits in American football just make my eyes water and I doubt they'd be possible without the equipment.

I haven't seen a statistic but common sense tells me rugby players run much further than American football players over the course of a game and spend more time in play. And that alone would explain why rugby players max out around 125kg - every kg needs to be dragged up and down that field.

Also I'm not sure of the American football equivalent but rugby has two forty minute halves separated by only a 10 minute break. And only eight substitutions are permitted with substituted players not permitted to return to the field (except where blood or suspected concussion are the issues).
Yeah I’m no expert even on American football (*hands over man-card*), but I believe you are right in that rugby requires more running for longer. In football there are guys (linemen) that seem to just serve as a wall of flesh that pushes against another wall of huge guys. And the weaponization of helmets is a big issue here. Lots of former players have CTE and it’s even resulting in less kids getting into the sport (parents worried about too many concussions). The way US demographics are trending, soccer may supplant football and baseball as the most popular sports by mid-century.
 

wespom9

Level 6 Valued Member
Certified Instructor
indeed there very large athletes, hence my musings. It's interesting that Rugby players who are also playing a full contact sport (correct?) are lighter. my guess would be that rugby has longer plays, were as football is a more start and stop. my thought is for these athletes the extra muscle size helps with the burst of intense plays. were rugby player need to be faster for longer (I don't know rugby that well, so sorry if I sound ignorant)
Forgive my general rugby ignorance as well, but in terms of energy systems work Rugby seems to have more in common with soccer than American football. The heaviest guys in rugby do way more running that the linemen in football. The football lineman actually do very little running and spend most of their time wrestling.
 

DavThew

Level 6 Valued Member
Forgive my general rugby ignorance as well, but in terms of energy systems work Rugby seems to have more in common with soccer than American football. The heaviest guys in rugby do way more running that the linemen in football. The football lineman actually do very little running and spend most of their time wrestling.
It might be interesting to compare the guys who play rugby sevens - a specialised form of the game with potentially higher energy demands. At least that's what it felt like when I last played.
 

Stuart Elliott

Level 6 Valued Member
I started playing rugby before players became huge and I definitely see a trend of less pumped players now. The emphasis in rugby now is power endurance (however you frame that) and skill to find the gaps, not huge lumps crashing in to each other as became the trend 10 years ago. This has meant players now look like old style strong men (in general) instead of the pumped body builders (of course there are genetic freaks). I've never played American football, but the builds are very specific to the role on the pitch even more so than rugby, for example a wide receiver would bare no resemblance to lineman, where as in rugby you can have wingers and forwards of similar stature, their position comes down to a skill set. As @LukeV mentioned this is probably due to the time spent on the pitch.
But there is also the ball playing factor in rugby, all players will have some involvement on the ball in rugby, where as in American football I see only a few position actually touching the ball, this allows guys to become really big as they will need little skill in ball handling. Rugby has started to really value ball players in all positions and its hard to be consistently quick on to the ball and skill full in distribution over the course of a game if you are carrying more weight/muscle than your skeleton can naturally handle. Tackling also appears to be more regulated in rugby i.e. you have to wrap your arms in the tackle where as in American football you can fly in shoulder/helmet first, so the bigger the better. As American football is so specialized, dependent on position does it become and outlier in this discussion?
 

LukeV

Level 5 Valued Member

Here the Highlanders and Chiefs (provincial teams, the level between club and international, from New Zealand) produce one of the finest displays of modern rugby. Note that possession of the ball is contested after every completed tackle (rather than the restart of American football) hence why rugby is described as "a sprinting race to a wrestling match". And also that as phases continue and the game flows up and down the ground the big guys in the forwards have to run themselves forward or back to maintain the offensive/defensive line and this can be quite a long way after a line break or kick. Big guys struggle to carry themselves at the necessary speed over those distances
 

Kettlebelephant

Level 6 Valued Member
I watch soccer basically since I opened my eyes for the first time :p
and I regularly watch the NFL for 4 years now and recently also watched the rugby world cup.
I can definitely confirm that rugby is much closer to soccer than football when it comes to the energy demands.
Also to my knowledge (like in soccer) in rugby every player has to have at least some ball skills and can't just be there for his size.
In football there are probably lineman who went a whole career without ever touching the ball.
Like @wespom9 said they are just there for their size and "wrestling" skills.

In football there are guys (linemen) that seem to just serve as a wall of flesh that pushes against another wall of huge guys.
IMO that's why all the others are so heavy aswell.
You just have to be, because if you are a defensive player who wants to get to the QB who is protected by 300-350lbs guys you just can't be only 180-200lbs yourself. No way you would make it past that big guy.
The speed positions (receivers, d-backs) in football are much closer to the other sports. For them its in the range of height minus 90.

During the last track and field world championships the experts also talked alot how young sprinters nowadays start to carry less and less muscle.
Wayde van Niekerk and Kirani James are prime examples of this.
 

Oscar

Level 6 Valued Member
Forgive my general rugby ignorance as well, but in terms of energy systems work Rugby seems to have more in common with soccer than American football. The heaviest guys in rugby do way more running that the linemen in football. The football lineman actually do very little running and spend most of their time wrestling.
I just googled it and GPS results gave about 4.5 km for the front row (the heavy sturdy players). Average for back players was 6-7 km.

American football linemen might run 7 km in their whole carreer

I can definitely confirm that rugby is much closer to soccer than football when it comes to the energy demands.
Also to my knowledge (like in soccer) in rugby every player has to have at least some ball skills and can't just be there for his size.
Yep, I've played both sports and you run more or less the same. Props run a bit less, but they push so much that the energy demands are similar.

@LukeV those were 3 good minutes of rugby. It looked like a rugby 7 match played by 15
 

BCman

Level 6 Valued Member
I think that YOUR form should follow YOUR function. Which is: what's your goals?

When I was younger, All I wanted was to be strong, to better improve my karate.
The stronger I got, the more muscular I got. But I was doing lots of 8 to 10 rep sets!
Now did that improve my karate? On an esthetically appealing level: No! On a real life self defence level: absolutely Yes!
My 90 Kg self could punch and kick way harder then my 70 kg self.

Al
 

offwidth

Level 9 Valued Member
And then there is a whole range of sports where you blend with gravity... Climbing, alpine cycling, and others.
Here you really do need to carry your own engine, and strength to weight ratios are crucial.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Top Bottom