A Comparison of an Alternative Weight-Grading Model Against Chronological Age Group Model for the Grouping of Schoolboy Male Rugby Players

Abstract

ObjectivesConcerns regarding marked differences in the weights and body composition of young rugby players competing within the same age groups have led to the suggestion of alternative models for grouping young players. The aims of this study were (1) to compare variance in the body size and body composition of schoolboy rugby players (9 to 14 years), across weight- and age-grading models, and (2) to identify morphotypes for the weight model using Hattori’s body composition chart.Materials and MethodsSkinfold thickness measurements were used to assess body fat mass (BF), fat-free mass (FFM), body fat mass index (BFMI), and fat-free mass index (FFMI). Standardized measure of height and weight were taken for all participants. Data were grouped according to the age categories of the French Rugby Federation (U11: Under 11 years, U13: Under 13 years, and U15: Under 15 years), and to the weight categories (W30–44.9; W45–59.9; and W60–79.9) carried out from 25th and 75th weight percentile in each age category. Body mass index status (NW normal-weight versus OW/OB overweight/obese) was considered. Extreme morphotypes are characterized from BFMI and FFMI in the weight-grading model on Hattori’s body composition chart.ResultsThe dispersion of anthropometric characteristics decreased significantly for the weight model, except for height in all groups and BFMI for U13. Among NW, 3, 1.8, and 0% upgraded; 18.2, 68.7, and 45.5% downgraded; among OW, 50, 21.5, and 12.5%; and among OB, 91.3, 83.3, and 74.6% upgraded, respectively, in U11, U13, U15. FFMI/BFMI were correlated in U11 (r = 0.80, p < 0.001), U13 (r = 0.66, p < 0.001), and U15 (r = 0.77, p < 0.001). There was no significant correlation in W45–59.9 and low correlations in W30–44.9 (r = 0.25, p < 0.001) and W60–79.9 (r = 0.29, p < 0.001). Significant grading difference between the centroids (p < 0.05) and the distribution deviates from centroids of BFMI and FFMI (p < 0.0001) were noted between the two models. Thirteen players were located in adipo-slender, twenty-three in adipo-solid, twenty-two in lean-slender, and two located in the lean-solid morphotype in weight model.ConclusionA weight-grading model should be considered to limit mismatches in anthropometric variables. However, variations of body composition also persisted for this model. Hattori’s body composition chart allowed more detailed examination of morphological atypicalities among schoolboy rugby players.

Negative relationship between brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and attention: A possible elevation in BDNF level among high-altitude migrants

“…Overall, 0%−30% of the participants were in the low BDNF group, 30%−70% were in the medium BDNF group, and 70%−100% were in the high BDNF group ( 46 , 47 ). Table 1 shows the basic information of participants in the three BDNF groups and only low and high groups ( N = 58) were used in the following ANOVA and Pearson's chi-square test analysis ( 48 , 49 ).…”

Davids and Goliaths: Kinanthropometry and Grouping Strategies in Youth Rugby

“…Based on the above research and knowledge, classifying youth rugby players by age has become a matter of debate. Whilst age grouping is the most common grouping strategy, several federations have adopted the intuitive method of grouping youth players according to body mass ( see Lentin et al, 2021;Patton et al, 2016). Players with advanced anthropometric characteristics may be ' accelerated' ( i.e., play up) to participate against older players.…”

“…Conversely, the term ' dispensation' is used for smaller players who are eligible to compete in younger age categories ( i.e., play down) and is considered a strategy that may increase participation ( Cassidy, 2018). Lentin et al ( 2021) showed a weight grading model helped to reduce the variability in body size of young players whilst maintaining the identity of age category in French rugby. However, such a grouping strategy resulted in mainly obese players being ' accelerated' which subsequently resulted in large variability and body composition mismatches.…”

Is Subjective Age Associated with Physical Fitness in Community-Dwelling Older Adults?

“…Chronological age and subjective age are considered to be two important concepts and are frequently used as proxies for aging. In the scientific community, chronological age has been generally utilized when dividing individuals into different age groups [ 1 , 2 ]. However, in the gerontology field, chronological age seems to be less important than it is projected to be, especially for the oldest adults.…”