Developmental changes and predictability of static strength in individuals of different maturity: A 30-year longitudinal study

Abstract

This longitudinal study analyses the development and predictability of static strength and their interactions with maturation in youth. Of 515 children followed annually from age 6 to 18 years, 59 males and 60 females were measured again at age 35. Early, average, and late maturity groups were established. Body height and mass were assessed. Static strength was measured using handgrip dynamometry. Pearson correlations were used as tracking coefficients. From 6 to 12 years of age, no static strength differences were found to exist between the maturity groups of both sexes. Static strength is significantly higher in early than in average and late maturing boys (age 13-16). In girls, a dose-response effect exists (age 11-14). Adult static strength predictability is low in early maturing boys and late maturing girls. It is moderate to high (50-76%) in the other maturity groups up to age 14. Predictors for adult static strength are childhood and adolescent handgrip dynamometry (in females only), medicine ball throw, sit-up, hockey ball throw, and 25-m sprint. Handgrip is a fair predictor of adult static strength at most ages in early and average maturing females; in average maturing males, it is a predictor at age 11. Other indicators of strength (e.g. hockey ball throw) are predictors in males.

The International Olympic Committee Consensus Statement on age determination in high-level young athletes

“…Changes in physiological parameters including strength and aerobic and anaerobic power appear to mirror biological age more closely than chronological age, with peak increases occurring at or around the time of the adolescent growth spurt 11–15…”

Childhood single skinfold thickness is a better predictor for adult relative fat mass in females than the body mass index: Data from a 30‐year longitudinal growth study

“…At age 17 years, the characteristics of the female participants in the follow-up study were comparable with those of the participants that where not followed up, indicating that our female sample may be representative of the original total female sample (n 0255) (Taeymans, Duquet, Borms, & Hebbelinck, 2006;Taeymans, Hebbelinck, Borms, Abidi, & Duquet, 2007). Table I shows the means and standard deviations of the sample characteristics under investigation.…”

Comparison of lumbar force between pubertal and post-pubertal adolescents: interference of physical growth, body fat and lifestyle.

“…In girls, the possible interference variables analyzed in the present study did not influence strength levels of pubertal and post-pubertal girls. A possible justification for this fact would be related to decreased somatic growth and increased production of the estrogen hormone concomitant with the increased age of girls 27 , both of which increase body fat and decrease muscle strength levels 13,29 . In addition, sedentary behavior and physical inactivity are more prevalent in older girls than in boys, and such behaviors are directly associated with lower strength levels 11,12 .…”

“…After peak height growth, approximately at the age of 12 years, menarche occurs, which is characterized by increased production of female hormones (estradiol) and decreased production of testosterone and GH 9,27 . Deficiency in GH secretion inhibits the rhythm of pubertal development, causing an increase in the amount of body fat in girls 13,27 . Thus, excess adiposity associated with muscle mass reduction results in decreased strength levels as maturational development occurs 9,27,28 .…”

“…In addition to the relationship between strength levels and biological variables, it has been well established in literature that the practice of physical activity and sedentary behavior influences on muscle strength 11,12 . Physical inactivity leads to less demand for stimuli to the skeletal muscles, which implies less development of muscle mass and strength 2,13 . The increase in the time spent in sedentary behaviors is another aspect that can directly contribute to body fat accumulation due to the reduction of energy expenditure 2 , and loss of tone and muscular volume, resulting in the reduction of strength levels 2,14 .…”