American Football Pitchers

Hey everyone, once again I'm going to go off topic and choose something interesting I saw relating to science this week, I use the term science very loosely. I'm going to push the boundaries on what comes under science, I'm going to discuss the implications of pitching in baseball can have on quarterbacks throwing techniques. It must slip under the science genre, it has physics and stuff in it!

The show 'Sports Science', you know that awesome segment on ESPN that shows how amazing certain sports player are, discussed how being a baseball pitcher in the past has affected two current quarterbacks. They claim two elite quarterbacks, Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick, the elite term being very debatable and an argument for another time (all Kaepernick can do is run and kiss his biceps if he gets a touch down (both not in a normal quarterbacks job description).

What Kaepernick does have is a pretty fast arm, in high school he clocked a 92 mph pitch and in the NFL combine he threw the second fastest throw recorded in the past seven combines at 59 mph. This extra speed can be linked to the increased rotation of the shoulder of baseball pitchers, 50% more compared to quarterbacks. Personally Kaepernick should stick to baseball and no that is not a personal opinion caused by what Kaepernick and his running game did to the Packers in the finals in 2012.

Russell Wilson, a far better quarterback than Kaepernick, brings a lot more from his relief pitcher days. Pitchers hold their elbows twice as far back as quarterbacks and cock their elbows 13 degrees less. Wilson holds his elbow quite a lot further back than normal quarterbacks and cocks his elbow  five degrees less which  creates a longer lever and more torque. Baseball pitchers, and Russell Wilson, hold their shoulders 10 degrees further back than the normal quarterback which creates more distance and therefore a higher traveling velocity on release. Wilson is definitely the better quarterback, all Kaepernick can do is pass faster which is great if the pass actually goes to the right person.

See lots of sciencey words were used like torque so this is obviously a blog about science! Quarterbacks in the pro footballs hall of fame, from both high school and college, are made up of 60% of ex or current baseball pitchers showing pitching can definitely create excellent quarterbacks. Hope you learned a lot today, the main fact being that Kaepernick is overated.

                                                            Russell WIlson in mid throw

                                         Pretty much a baseball pitcher right there, ok I lied I
                                         personally see no difference compared to other
                                         quarterbacks but the science is there!


Thanks for reading everyone :)

First world problems: Athletes wasting money on stem cells?

Hello everyone, now that first assignment is done we don't have to do anything until the day the second assignment is due (that was a joke so don't worry guys!). This week I'm going to go off track and choose my own topic, this will probably happen every week I get the option.

The use of stem cells to heal injuries in the NFL has resurfaced this week so I thought I'd chuck my two cents in on the topic. Basically hundreds of injured NFL players are spending thousands of dollars, both in the US and overseas, on getting stem cells taken from their own bodies and getting it injected into injured knees, hips etc. The problem is this use of stem cell in injury recovery has never been properly studied so therefore unproven and may not even work. NFL teams refuse to pay the bill and hundreds of NFL players are having to pay for something that may not work.

Many are coming out and arguing that the NFL should fund a study on the affects this procedure has on athletes much like they did on the use of steroids and the long term affects of concussions and head trauma. This is much different to the other examples though, no one is suggesting harm can come through stem cell injection. The only issue is on the NFL players wallets which doesn't seem like much of a problem. These players get millions of dollars a year to train and play a handful of games so it's easy to dismiss the issue but still I wouldn't like to go to the doctor, and spend the same percentage of my wage, and be given orange peels to heal my broken leg (I'm assuming this doesn't work but maybe I've just come across a new cure for broken legs!).

With such a competitive sport any period on the sideline can lead to losing your starting job or even losing your spot in the team because some other player has shined in your role which is why this new procedure has got so many trying it. There are even rumors that Peyton Manning, yes the Peyton Manning arguably the best quarterback playing at the moment (a stupid argument because Aaron Rodgers is clearly number 1), had stem cells injected into his neck which had kept him out of the 2011 season. It seems anyone will give this new procedure a go in the right circumstances but I don't know if a loss in money for athletes is enough of a reason for the NFL to pay for an extensive study into the issue.

                                 Above is of course the infamous Johnny Football doing his
                                 money symbol, thought it was relevant here

That's my rant over
 Bye bye for now everyone

Lets get ready to RUMBLE

Hello and welcome to a much awaited blog post, a blog post pitting a water fluoridation enthusiast against a water fluoridation opposition. We’ll call this blog post ‘Rumble in the Water System’ (I feel like only boxing enthusiasts will get that one).  Both have heavy weight arguments in this controversial topic. In the anti-corner we have Barry Groves wearing the scholarly work ‘Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death?: The Scientific Argument Against Water Fluoridation’ and in the black corner we have Bernard Turnock wearing the scholarly work ‘Public Health: What It Is and How It Works’.

Groves, from the anti-corner, comes out strong with an immediate heavy right hook arguing that the problem with fluoridated water does not come from the consuming of drinking water containing fluoride but instead the extra absorption from bathing and consumption of beverages and food created using fluoridated water (Groves, 2001). He follows this up with a speedy one-two combo referring to Dr Julian Andelman, a professor of water chemistry, who found that more fluoride is absorbed through showering and the washing of clothes than through drinking it (Groves, 2001). He backs this one-two combo up with a body shot stating that the US EPA have found similar results but have not commissioned a published study (Groves, 2001). The bell rings and the first round is over, a solid first round performance from the anti-corner (Groves, 2001). Barry Groves is obviously fighting for the anti-corner with a belief that the extra absorption of fluoride through other means rather than just drinking the water is a problem greatly overlooked and damaging to health.

Turnock, from the pro-corner, comes out to begin the second quarter with a strong bolo punch arguing that fluoridated water positively affects those of lower socioeconomic statuses (Turnock, 2009). He follows this up with a check hook stating that people with a low socioeconomic statuses benefit from having to pay less dental care services with fluoridated water. He counters the argument that some communities get enough fluoride through consuming beverages and foods created in pro fluoride communities with a quick jab arguing that people of the poorer classes do not consume as much of those products as people from the middle class due to having less money. He was stunned by a counter argument but came back strong in the second half of the round. He obviously views fluoridation of water as a pro due to the positive affects on those who are less well off economically.

This one is to tough to call we'll have to go to the judges on this one (the judges are you guys, there weren't actually people judging these arguments).

Groves, B. (2001). Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death?: The Scientific Argument Against Water Fluoridation . Dublin: Gill & Macmillan Ltd.

Turnock, B. (2009). Public Health: What It Is and How It Works. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Thanks for coming to this heavy weight blog, hope you enjoyed yourself

Bye bye now :)