Investigating the Modulatory Role of Chronological and Biological Age on Performance Predictors in Youth Swimmers

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to determine the modulatory roles of biological maturity and age on the predictors of performance in youth swimmers and their stability over a six-month training cycle. Methods In total, 28 swimmers (10 pre-pubertal [6 boys], 11.1 ± 1.8 years; 18 pubertal [8 boys], 15.2 ± 2.0 years old) and 26 untrained controls (15 pre-pubertal [10 boys], 9.7 ± 1.5 years; 11 pubertal [6 boys], 14.4 ± 0.5 years old) were recruited. At baseline, 3- and 6-months, participants completed an incremental ramp cycle test, isometric handgrip strength test and countermovement jumps, with speed assessed as a measure of performance in swimmers. Principle component analysis (PCA) identified factors that described youth swimmers’ physical profile, with linear mixed models subsequently used to determine their interaction with age and maturity on performance. Results Aerobic fitness and upper body strength were significantly higher in the trained participants, irrespective of maturity status or time-point. Four key factors were identified through PCA (anthropometrics; strength; aerobic capacity; aerobic rate), accounting for 90% of the between parameter variance. Age exerted a widespread influence on swimming performance predictors, influencing all four factors, whilst maturity only influenced the aerobic factors. The key age of divergence was 13 years. Conclusion Overall, the present study found no evidence of a maturational threshold in the aerobic or strength-related response to training in youth. The influence of age on performance predictors suggests that utilising a single or select group of parameters to inform selection and/or talent identification throughout the dynamic processes of growth and maturation should be avoided.

Does predicted age at peak height velocity explain physical performance in U13–15 basketball female players?

“…Interactions between body size and composition in predicting basketball performance have also been considered [ 23 ]. These studies are often conducted independently of the maturation rate assessment and the interpretation of the performance of young athletes during adolescence is very important for coaching practice because results can be misinterpreted due to discrepancies between chronological age, biological age, and athletic age resulting from training experience [ 24 ].…”

Does Predicted Age At Peak Height Velocity Explain Physical Performance In U13-15 Basketball Female Players?

“…Interactions between body size and composition in predicting basketball performance have also been considered [23]. These studies are often conducted independently of the maturation rate assessment and the interpretation of the performance of young athletes during adolescence is very important for coaching practice because results can be misinterpreted due to discrepancies between chronological age, biological age, and athletic age resulting from training experience [24].…”

Editorial

“…Uthoff and Cronin explore the load-velocity relationships during backward and forward sled pulling in school-aged boys [11], while Gillen et al identify the relationships between leg extension strength, explosive strength, muscle activation and growth and their ability to predict vertical jump performance [5]. McNarry et al investigate the modulatory role of both age and maturity status on predictors of performance in young swimmers [8]. Notwithstanding the obvious focus directly on the young athletes themselves, it is also important to consider the role and potential influence of significant others to the development process for young athletes.…”