Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
12 October 2020 | Story Dr Cindé Greyling | Photo Supplied
Myths of mental health
Exercise and nutrition can work wonders for your mental health – you don’t even have to ‘feel like’ or ‘enjoy’ moving around and eating well for it to work – it does its thing anyway.

Nowadays, people talk about mental health like it is the common cold – which is good! But do you know what it really means? Being mentally healthy does not only refer to the absence of a mental illness but includes your emotional and social well-being. One would almost want to add physical well-being too, since a healthy body does indeed support a healthy mind. However, since so many people consider themselves ‘mental health experts’, some myths have been sold as truths.

Myth #1 – You are doomed.
Nope. Never. You are never doomed. There is always help. Mental-health therapies range from self-help, talk therapy, medication, to hospitalisation in some cases. Somewhere on this spectrum of treatments, there will be something that works for you. But you must be willing to get the help and do the work. For starters, exercise and nutrition can work wonders – you do not even have to ‘feel like’ or ‘enjoy’ moving around and eating well for it to work – it does its thing anyway.

Myth #2 – It won’t affect you.
It may. Research suggests that one in five people may suffer from a mental illness at some point in their lives. Being well now does not mean that it will stay that way. Biological and environmental factors both impact your mental health. Hopefully not, but at some point, you may experience an event that affects your mental health.

To remain integrated in a community is always beneficial
for anyone suffering from a mental or physical condition.

Myth #3 – Someone struggling with mental health must be left alone.
Hardly! To remain integrated in a community is always beneficial for anyone suffering from a mental or physical condition. You do not need to fix them, but to remain a friend. Continue to invite them, even if they decline. Do not judge, and do not try to understand. Just stay around.

Go and be kind to yourself, and to those around you.

News Archive

UFS study shows playing time in Super Rugby matches decreasing
2016-12-19

Description: Super Rugby playing time Tags: Super Rugby playing time 

The study by Riaan Schoeman, (left), Prof Robert Schall,
and Prof Derik Coetzee from the University of the Free State
on variables in Super Rugby can provide coaches with
insight on how to approach the game.
Photo: Anja Aucamp

It is better for Super Rugby teams not to have the ball, which also leads to reduced overall playing time in matches.

This observation is from a study by the University of the Free State on the difference between winning and losing teams. Statistics between 2011 and 2015 show that Super Rugby winning teams kick more and their defence is better.

These statistics were applied by Riaan Schoeman, lecturer in Exercise and Sport Sciences, Prof Derik Coetzee, Head of Department: Exercise and Sport Sciences, and Prof Robert Schall, Department of Mathematics and Actuarial Sciences. The purpose of the study, Changes in match variables for winning and losing teams in Super Rugby from 2011 to 2015, was to observe changes. Data on 30 games (four from each team) per season, supplied by the Cheetahs via Verusco TryMaker Pro, were used.

About two minutes less action
“We found that the playing time has decreased. This is the time the ball is in play during 80 minutes,” says Schoeman. In 2011, the average playing time was 34.12 minutes and in 2015 it was 31.95.

“The winning team has less possession of the ball and doesn’t want it. They play more conservatively. They dominate with kicks and then they play,” says Prof Coetzee, who was the conditioning coach for the Springboks in 2007 when they won the World Cup.

Lineouts also more about kicking
As a result, the number of line-outs also increased (from 0.31 per minute in 2011 to 0.34 in 2015) and the winning teams are better in this regard.

“The winning team has less possession of the ball
and doesn’t want it. They play a more conservative
game. They dominate with kicks and then they play.”

Schoeman believes that rule changes could also have contributed to reduced playing time, since something like scrum work nowadays causes more problems. “When a scrum falls, the time thereafter is not playing time.”

According to Prof Coetzee, rucks and mauls have also increased, (rucks from 2.08 per minute in 2011 to 2.16 in 2015 and mauls from 0.07 per minute in 2011 to 0.10 in 2015). “The teams that win, dominate these areas,” he says.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept