Anda di halaman 1dari 11

Strength training for children

Strength naturally increases with age because of body growth and development of the neuromuscular system, but can strength in children be increased through training?
As children grow in size and develop muscle mass, they also develop increased strength. These strength improvements are independent of training. In other words, children grow bigger and stronger until full maturity. For example, the average six-year-old boy can do five press-ups, a 12-year-old boy can do 15 press-ups and 18-year-olds can do 25 press-ups. In contrast, the average six-year-old girl can do five press-ups, a 12-year-old girl can do 12 press-ups and an 18-year-old girl can still only do 12 press-ups. This is the usual pattern of development for boys and girls; they are both similar as young children, but post-puberty the boys' strength development accelerates while the girls reach a plateau. This diversity between sexes is mostly due to the hormonal changes which occur at puberty. Testosterone, which increases rapidly in boys, programmes extra upper-body bone growth and muscular hypertrophy. In contrast, oestrogen, which increases in girls, programmes extra pelvicbone development and increased body-fat storage. These changes mean that boys' strength will increase naturally until 18-20 years, whereas girls' strength, especially in the upper limbs, is unlikely to improve naturally beyond 14 years.

Fibre 'insulation'
Not all the natural development of strength is due to gains in muscle bulk. Strength also improves because of maturation of the neural systems. One of the major changes that occurs throughout childhood is the myelination of the nerve fibres. Myelination, in lay terms, is the 'insulation' of the fibres to allow faster conductivity of the electrical impulse. Full myelination is completed in adolescence, and so until then coordination and reactions will be limited. There is some evidence to suggest that muscular recruitment also improves with age; adults are able to recruit more motor units when performing maximum efforts, compared to children. In addition, the coordination of synergistic and antagonistic muscles develops with age. For example, a child performing a press-up often has difficulty maintaining a straight back, stable pelvis and stable shoulder position during the up-and-down movement. This is the reason why children often perform press-ups with their bums sticking up, shoulders rounded and hands in front of their heads. It is not until all the stabilising muscle groups are developed and become correctly coordinated with the prime movers that good form can be achieved on bodyweight and freeweight exercises such as the press-up.

Strength training can work


Strength naturally increases with age because of body growth and development of the neuromuscular system, but can strength in children be increased through training? The majority

of the existing research provides convincing evidence that it can. One of the most important studies investigating the strength-training potential of young children was completed by Ramsay et al in 1990. They studied the effects of a 20-week strength-training programme on 9-11-yearold boys - specifically, elbow-flexion and knee-extension strength. The training programme comprised sessions of three times a week, 3-5 sets per exercise, performed at 8-12 Repetition Maximum intensity. This refers to weights that can only be performed 8-12 times with good form. Therefore, the training programme these boys undertook involved sufficient duration, intensity, volume and frequency to ensure that it would be an effective training dose. Ramsay et al found that elbow-flexion force increased by 37 per cent and knee-extension force increased by 21 per cent in comparison with a non-training control group who showed no improvement. These are very similar to the scale of improvements that an adult would see after a similar training programme. This result confirms what other, earlier studies had also shown namely, that if intensity, volume, frequency and duration are sufficient, young children can significantly improve their strength by the same relative amount as adults.

But no hypertrophy
Further findings from the Ramsay study are also very interesting. While the boys in the study significantly increased their force production, computerised tomography showed no increase in muscle size in the arms and thighs over the 20-week training period. Thus, by inference, the increases in strength must have been due to improvements in the neuromuscular system. Ramsay et al provided evidence for this by showing that motor-unit activation improved 9-12 per cent after 10 weeks and a further 2-3 per cent by the end of 20 weeks of training. This means that the boys were able to recruit more muscle fibres after training and thus produce more force. It is accepted that in adults strength increases as a result of both hypertrophy and neuromuscular improvements. However, it appears, and other studies support this, that children increase strength in training solely from neuromuscular improvements.

Designing programmes
The research describing how a child develops strength, both through natural growth and through training, helps us to design appropriate strength programmes for young athletes. Pre-puberty, both boys and girls have similar strength, and at this age children have developing neuromuscular systems. Strength training for pre-pubertal athletes should focus on skills and techniques; since all the improvements from strength training come from neuromuscular development, this is the ideal time to teach coordination and stability. Children should be taught all the big muscle-group, free-weight and bodyweight movements with light loads. For example, power clean, bench press, press-ups and squats. Any child taught these has an advantage because good technique is learned at a young age, which allows for high-intensity training to be performed safely and effectively as the child gets older. During the pre-puberty years, particular attention should be paid to posture and stability, since children need good strength in the trunk muscles to support the body correctly.

After puberty

At puberty boys benefit from a massive acceleration in strength because of the large increase in testosterone, which leads to muscle hypertrophy. Girls do not enjoy the same gains in strength, with little muscle-mass development post-puberty, especially in the upper body. At 18, girls have 50 per cent of the upper-limb muscle of boys and 70 per cent of the lower limb muscle. Almost all the differences in strength between the sexes is due to differences in muscle mass, and if strength is calculated relative to limb volume, i.e., the force per size of muscle, then both sexes have equal strength. Girls need to compensate for this natural disadvantage by prioritising strength training from puberty onwards, otherwise strength will plateau. Particular attention to strength must be made by girls involved in sports with upper-body components. Strength programmes for girls from puberty onwards must be effective, with sufficient frequency, volume and intensity. This is why it makes sense to establish good technique pre-puberty, since from puberty onwards when young athletes need to push weights of 8-12 RM intensity they will already have good technique and enough strength in the stabilising muscles to perform the exercises safely and effectively. Remember, intensity below 12 RM will target muscular strength endurance and not maximum strength development. So if you want children to get stronger, they have to push enough weight just as adults would. I recommend that most female athletes visit the weights room 2-3 times a week from puberty onwards, because it is their lesser maximal strength that is the major factor limiting speed and power in females.

Is it bad for children?


Boys enjoy more natural development during puberty and for a longer time afterwards. In fact, their peak gains in strength last for 18 months after their peak gains in size. However, strength training from puberty onwards would still be highly beneficial for boys. Puberty provides a great window of opportunity for them to develop strength through training because of the high testosterone levels. If regular training is maintained, the large possible gains at this time can last into adulthood. (Without regular training, i.e. at least once a week, children show the same detraining effects as adults.) For this reason I would also recommend starting 'adult-like' strength training for boys from puberty, depending on the pre-puberty training status. I reiterate that the aim should be to use 8-12 RM loads safely and effectively with pubertal boys by establishing good technique before the time when high-intensity training needs to begin. Many coaches and parents believe that strength training is bad for children and even potentially dangerous. For instance, a myth exists that heavy weight-lifting too young will stunt growth. There is little research to suggest that weight training for young children is unsafe - in fact, most of it confirms that weight training is one of the safest exercises they can do. A child is much more likely to be injured on the football pitch, tennis court or running track than in the gym. Weltman et al (1986) specifically studied the effects of heavy strength training on young boys. During the training period, one of the 16 boys suffered a mild muscle strain and none of the boys showed any damage to the growth plates. In fact, strength training in young children will thicken the bones by promoting increased bone mineral density, and do nothing to hinder growth in length. I repeat once more, weight training with heavy loads is very safe if technique is correct and posture and stability are maintained. Poorly performed weight exercises are just as dangerous for adults as for children.

One final point

When deciding when to start and progress weight training, it is best to use biological and not chronological age as your guideline; otherwise, certain individuals may be starting too late or too early for optimum development.

Document 2 There has been considerable debate among the public, educators, coaches, physicians, and scientists as to when it is appropriate to begin weight training in children and adolescents. A variety of apparently sound reasons have been provided as grounds for not training youth or training them only with the use of machines with pre-determined movement pathways. Presented here are some common criticisms leveled at the training of youths by the biased, misinformed, and inexperienced. Each of these common claims is followed by an objective examination of the scientific and medical literature. Although this book is most relevant to students just beginning high school, the wide array of maturation rates in children makes these issues relevant to the coach. Every coach should be versed in the literature and theory surrounding his profession and be able to defend his methods of training. Lack of knowledge can be mistaken for lack of competency.

Criticisms of Youth Weight Training


(1) Weight training has been portrayed as ineffectual in improving strength in younger children, as hormonal response is largely absent in preadolescents. Although most students benefiting from this text will be pubescent, a significant number will not. As such this information can be quite valuable for the coach. Studies that demonstrated a lack of strength increase were inadequate in magnitude of training load, training volume, duration, or did not use the simple principle of progression (Ainsworth, 1970; Docherty, 1987; Hettinger, 1958; Kirsten, 1963; Siegel, 1989; Vrijens, 1978). Research points to the loads, volumes, and durations similar to those commonly used in the training of competitive weightlifters to be effective in increasing strength in children. A programs ability to increase strength appears to be more closely related to the intensity of training than on volume (duration) of training. High intensity programs have been shown to increase strength in preadolescents in 6 weeks or less (Mersch, 1989; Nielsen, 1980; Ozmun, 1991, Wescott, 1979). If the conventional wisdom that weight training is ineffective in children, simply because they do not produce significant amounts of testosterone, were correct, females of all ages would be unable to get strong as they produce only a tenth of the amount secreted by an adult male.

Figure 1. Curt White, 12 years old in this national championship photo, began training with weights several years earlier and developed into one of the strongest men in US history, the holder of the American record Clean & Jerk of 440 pounds in the 181 lb class. Kids can get very strong using sound exercise principles that progressively challenge them physically. Within the clinical community there is a general recommendation that all physical activity be prescribed at moderate levels. With respect to weight training, this recommendation excludes powerlifting, weightlifting, bodybuilding, and general training with maximal weights until the completion of puberty. The utility of this recommendation points to inexperience, and a lack of understanding of the activity by the clinical community. By specifically naming these types of training on their contraindicated list, they propose to eliminate high volume low intensity weight training (body building), low volume high intensity weight training (powerlifting), and moderate volume moderate to high intensity training (weightlifting) from youth training. Any coach that attempts to use these overly restrictive guidelines will be ineffective in making a stronger, healthier young athlete. An analogy demonstrating the lack of reason within the clinical communitys recommendation would be to argue against sprinting (high speed low volume training), against distance running (low speed high volume training), and against middle distance running (moderate to high speed moderate volume training) in the young trainee. To produce a track athlete within these guidelines would be virtually impossible. It is revealing that they fail to see this inconsistency. Another problem with these guidelines is the clinical community's position on the use of progression (recommended use of progressive resistance training). The premise of progression is to make the body work harder than it has worked previously, then repeatedly apply that load over the following days and weeks until the body adapts to it by becoming stronger. Inherent in this concept is that the athlete must be pushed beyond his current work capacity in order to make gains. Another term for pushing beyond their current work capacity is 'maximal' or 'near maximal' work, something the clinical community recommends against (i.e., the stated inconsistency). An efficient and effective method of progressive resistance training that can be safely employed is detailed in the programming chapter of this book. (2) Injury rates with weight training are a continual source of concern and have been proposed as one of the major rationale for precluding childrens training with weights. One of the strongest supporting documentations of this claim is a report from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (1987) in which it is stated that weightlifting can cause injury to children. The report claims that 8543 weightlifting-related injuries occurred in children younger

than 14 years of age. Strains and sprains were the least severe injuries (and most commonly reported) and fractures were the most severe (and least commonly reported) injuries noted in the study. This study did not examine any conditions that may have predisposed the subjects to injury, nor did it examine the training history and program of the subjects. It was noted, however, that a large percentage of the injuries occurred in unsupervised training in the home. In adults, weight training is often recommended as a means to reduce the frequency of injury and is also used to re-establish normal function after joint and soft tissue injury. Data from adolescent male football players point to this as a potential use in young athletes as well. Cahill (1978) noted that the number and severity of knee injuries was reduced in athletes who trained with weights. Further evidence of the safety of weight training relative to other sports and exercise activities can be seen in the injury rates of other youth sports (Hamill, 1994). Weight trainings injury rate of 0.0012 injuries per 100 participant hours pales to the 6.2 injuries per 100 participant hours in youth soccer and 1.02 injuries per 100 participant hours in basketball. Time in the weight room carries even less risk of injury than a traditional physical education class where there is an injury rate of 0.18 injuries per 100 participant hours. In fact, weight training, unlike many other sporting activities is an accepted and recommended therapeutic modality following injury. If weight training can damage injured tissues, why would any responsible clinical professional recommend them for rehabilitation or prevention? The idea that healthy juvenile muscle, bone, and tendon is more fragile than injured adult tissue is baseless. Epiphyseal plate (growth plate) fractures may be the key concern in this controversy. Damage to these plates induced by weight training is frequently cited as a reason for avoiding weight training in children. The existing medical and scientific data do not support this as a valid contraindication. One instance of epiphyseal fracture attributed to weightlifting has been reported in preadolescents (Gumbs, 1982). In pubescent athletes, five publications have reported instances of fractures related to weight training (Benton, 1983; Brady, 1982; Gumbs, 1982; Rowe, 1979; Ryan, 1976). The overwhelming majority of these injuries were attributed to improper technique in the execution of the exercises and excessive loading. Each report failed to consider that the injury may actually have occurred as a result of contact with the floor or other object subsequent to loss of balance and falling, and not be attributable to the actual weight training movement. Further, proper diagnosis and treatment of this rare injury resulted in no detrimental effect on growth (Caine, 1990). It has also been noted that weight training does not interfere with growth by other means (Ramsey, 1990; Sailors, 1987; Seigel, 1989; Weltman, 1986). Research reviewed by Theintz (1994) seems to suggest that sport training for less than 15 hours per week was not disruptive to hormonal status, growth or puberty. Training programs in which training loads are prescribed and monitored and in which training activities are supervised have proven to be remarkably safe in terms of the frequency of injury occurrence. Several studies have followed the rate of injury during training programs of several weeks to a year in duration (Pierce, 2000; Ramsay, 1990; Rians, 1987; Servidio, 1985; Sewall, 1986). Rians 14-week long study (1987) reported only one minor shoulder strain which resolved itself by the end of the study. One study of importance to the competitive weightlifting community, or any other group using higher percentages of maximum, is the one-year study of

a USA Weightlifting Regional Development Center program that included more than 70 pediatric athletes in which no reports of injury were noted (Pierce, 1999). The bottom line is that it seems to be the level of supervision, not the practice of weight training that is problematic. Qualified coaches need to be in the weight room any time a youth is training.

Weight Training Benefits for Youth


The benefits of strength training are unquestionable. It is considered an essential element in preparing for competition in virtually every sport. The American College of Sports Medicine recommends that nearly everyone train with weights for the health benefits associated with resistance training. It is consistently one of the top three recreational exercise activities in the US, according to the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association. An understanding of these benefits by parents, school personnel, and medical staff is important for acceptance of the use of weight training in school-age populations. (1) Strength and power increases with proper training in children. An indication of this relationship can be seen simply by comparing strength norms for the US youth population and performances of weightlifters competing at USA Weightlifting events, high school powerlifting events, and from scientific data demonstrating increases in vertical jump (a measure of power output) following weight training in children (Nielsen, 1980; Weltman, 1986). (2) Neuromuscular coordination improvement in children has been linked to repetitive practice of the specific skill (regardless of the skill investigated). The ages that appear to be optimal for learning movement patterns are between 9 and 12 years of age (Singer, 1970). The average age of incoming freshman will be 14 years, not too far from the optimal motor development ages. The preponderance of data suggests that there are no valid reasons to assume that these children cannot effectively learn and correctly execute weightlifting skills repeatedly if taught and supervised properly. Free weight exercises develop balance and coordination that cannot be developed using machine weights. Figure 2. While weight training for kids can develop sport related fitness, good coaches consider how accessory training combined with on-the-field practice affects the child.

(3) Weight training is inclusive. Many sports select directly or indirectly for very specific physical attributes (Duquet, 1978; Keogh, 1999) or involve competition against other youth regardless of body mass. Powerlifting and weightlifting, with their multitude of weight classes and age groups, allow for athletes who traditionally have few competitive outlets the opportunity for competition in a controlled, equitable environment. Even in a non-competitive weight room, any student or athlete can experience success since any participant can improve his performance. As such the activity may be more suitable for child participation than sports where success is measured simply by victory or defeat. Figure 3. Every kid can smile in the weight room. No other training activity lets everyone experience the joy of success regardless of physical capacity.

Recommendations Based on the available medical and scientific data we strongly recommend: 1. Weight training programs for youth should be conducted by well-trained adults. Ideally, the supervising staff should be certified to coach and certified in first-aid. The American Academy of Pediatricians proposes that it is essential that all staff working with children should be trained in supervising strength training through completion of programs from universities or professional organizations. Few universities possess faculty that are both experientially and academically prepared to teach coaches proper coaching methods pertaining to weight training. USA Weightlifting, in particular, and the National Strength and Conditioning Association both have strong coaching education programs for developing and certifying coaches that are easily accessible. Ensure that the certifying authority you choose is backed by an organization with professional membership and that the certification examination is rigorous. Obtaining a certification from an organization in business only to sell them is rarely of value. Professional workshops, when conducted by trained professionals, are also appropriate methods for gaining expertise. 2. Weight training should take place in facilities equipped to support safe training practices. Use of quality free weights in supervised weight training sessions, as presented in this book, can be

done inexpensively. 3. Skill-based weightlifting programs that include a wide variety of general athletic preparation are appropriate for children and can commence between the ages of 9 and 12 years of age. 4. Total exercise training time should not exceed 15 hours per week. Coaches must consider the cumulative effect of all the trainees physical activities. We recommend a holistic approach to training, an approach that requires the coach to be cognizant of the trainees exercise/activity behaviors on and off campus. 5. Utilization of maximal weights, although no data currently establishes a clear-cut relationship, has been opposed as a practice that places the child athlete at risk of injury. We do not discourage use of maximal and near-maximal loads (see Chapter 7 for clarification). These loads should be used cautiously and applied only as part of a regimented training program for technically proficient trainees. Each attempt and set must be supervised and safety measures must be in place. Excellence in technique should be emphasized rather than the amount of weight lifted. Figure 4. Weight training is for everyone regardless of age, gender, and sport.

Literature Cited
1. Ainsworth, J.L. (1970). The effect of isometric resistive exercises with the Exer-Genie on strength and speed in swimming. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas. 2. Benton, J.W. (1983). Epiphyseal plate fractures in sports. Physician Sports Med. 10:63-71.

Starting Strength 222 3. Brady, et. al. (1982). Weight training-related injuries in the high school athlete. Am. J. Sports Med. 10: 1- 5. 4. Cahill, B.R. and E.H. Griffith (1978). Effect of pre-season conditioning on the incidence and severity of high school football knee injuries. Am. J. Sports Med. 6: 180-184. 5. Caine, D.J. (1990). Growth plate injury and bone growth: an update. Ped. Exerc. Sci. 2: 209229. 6. Docherty, D. et.al. (1987). The effects of variable speed resistance training on strength development in prepubertal boys. J. Humn. Mvmt. Studies 13:377-382. 7. Duquet, W. et. al. (1978). Biometrical study of body type characteristics of Belgian long distance runners. Sport (Extra Nummer: Sportwetenschappelijke bijdragen Brussel: BLOSO), pp. 41-48. 8. Gumbs, V.L. et. al. (1982). Bilateral distal radius and ulnar fractures in weightlifters. Am. J. Sports Med. 10: 375-379. 9. Hamill, B. (1994). Relative Safety of Weightlifting and Weight Training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 8(1):53- 57. 10. Hettinger, T.H. (1958). The trainability of human muscles depending on age and sex. Int. Z. Angew. Physiol. Einschl. Arbeitsphysiol. 17: 371-377, 11. Keogh, J. (1999). The use of physical fitness scores and anthropometric data to predict selection in an elite under 18 Australian rules football team. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2(2):125-33. 12. Kirsten, G. (1963). The influence of isometric muscle training on the development of muscle strength in youth. Int. Z. Angew. Physiol. Einschl. Arbeitsphysiol. 19: 387-402. 13. Mersch, F. and H. Stoboy (1989). Strength training and muscle hypertrophy in children. In: S. Oseid and K-H Carlsen (Eds.).Children and Exercise XIII. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL. 14. Nielsen, B. et al. (1980). Training of functional muscular strength in girls 7-19 years old. In: K. Berg and B.D. Ericksson (Eds.). Children and Exercise IX. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL. 15. Ozmun, J.C. et. al. (1991). Neuromuscular adaptations during prepubescent strength training. Med. Sci. Sprts Exerc. 23: S32 (abstract) 16. Pierce, K. et. al. (1999). Youth Weightlifting Is it safe? Weightlifting USA 17(4): 5. 17. Ramsey, J.A. et. Al. (1990). Strength training effects in prepubescent boys. Med. Sci. Sports

Exerc. 22:605-614. 18. Rians, C.B. et. al. (1987). Strength training for prepubescent males: Is it safe? Am. J. Sports Med. 15: 483- 489. 19. Rowe, R.A. (1979). Cartilage fracture due to weightlifting. Br. J. Sports Med. 13: 130-131. 20. Ryan, J.R. and G.C. Salciccioli (1976). Fracture of the distal radial epiphysis in adolescent weightlifters. Am. J. Sports Med. 4: 26-27. 21. Sailors, M. and K. Berg (1987). Comparison of responses to weight training in pubescent boys and men. J. Sports Med. 27: 30-36 22. Servidio, F.J. et. al (1985). The effects of weight training using Olympic style lifts on various physiological variables in prepubescent boys. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 17:288 (abstract). 23. Sewall, L. and L.J. Micheli (1986). Strength training for children. J. Ped. Orthop. 6: 143-146. 24. Siegel, J.A. et al. (1989). The effects of upper body resistance training on prepubescent children. Ped. Exerc. Sci. 1: 145-154. 25. Singer, R.N. (1970). Motor learning and Human Performance: An Application to Physical Education Skills. Macmillan Company, London. 26. Theintz, G. et. al. (1994). The child, growth and high-level sports. Schweiz. Z. Med. Traumatol. 4(3): 7- 15. 27. US Consumer Product Safety Commission (1987). National electronic injury surveillance system. Directorate for Epidemiology, National Injury Information Clearinghouse, Washington. 28. Vrijens, J. (1978). Muscle strength development in the pre- and post-pubescent age. Med. Sport. 11: 152- 158 29. Weltman, A. et. al. (1986). The effects of hydraulic resistance strength training in pre-pubertal males. Med. Sci. Sports. Exerc. 18: 629-638. 30. Wescott, W.L. (1979). Female response to weight training. J. Phys. Educ. 77: 31-33.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai