Birds of a feather, invite investigation: Is gymnastics really stunting growth? – Part 1
Balance is one universal technique that should be applied to all aspects of one’s existence in order to attain the optimal quality of life. Of late, the international community has come to question the effects of physical training on the human body.
Previously, it was taken as given, that physical training leads to a well-rounded individual. This myopic view automatically glorified the athlete as a superior physical form of the homo-sapiens.
The only other dimension added to this analysis was that of academics, and even personal life and activities tended to get overshadowed. Many are still blind followers of the same rule.
What people are just beginning to realize, however, is the multi-layered mystery that ‘optimal existence’ holds within itself. Merely physical training does not deem a person’s health as proper. In fact, we are only beginning to find out that “too much”
of this good can actually backfire.
How much is too much? That is a question researchers and the sports-medicine community are still struggling to answer.
Research has already pointed out that specialized sports can trouble normal physical growth, and repetitively training in one sport is not favourable at early ages.
Over the years it has become glaringly obvious that athletes representing a particular sport tend to show certain similar physical characteristics.
It does not take bionic vision to notice that all basketball players, volleyball players and swimmers are taller than average. Similarly it is also true that gymnasts, figure skaters and ballet dancers are shorter and lighter than average.
One may argue that such characteristics vary from person to person, and it is these differences that play a definitive role in enabling or disabling one from being good at a certain sport.
The issue then becomes a classic case of putting the cart before the horse, or for people who are even more confused, the hen and egg cyclical mystery. So which one precedes the other, the physical characteristics or the sport?
Research conducted to untangle this issue has revealed mixed results across the two genders.
When it comes to female gymnasts, several facts were confirmed. Most female gymnasts’ skeletons matured normally during childhood but growth decelerated as they entered adolescence. Female gymnasts are shorter, menstruate later (than usual) and have non-robust
skeletons.
Deakin University (Australia) and Western Washington University (U.S.) analysed 35 clinical reports and made observations in support of the afore-mentioned claim.
Indeed, the adolescent female gymnasts suffered from a reduced rate of skeletal growth for the duration of their training.
Interestingly, the growth resumed normal pace once the gymnast retired. It definitely improved when training was reduced, so an inversely proportional relationship seems to exist between training and skeletal growth.
The study also revealed the spinal growth to be the most affected area.
The research carried out with male gymnasts as the subjects of investigation, revealed a different picture. The study was conducted by Australia’s RMIT University Department of Human Biology and Human Science.
The short height phenomenon holds true for male gymnasts too. Researchers decided to observe effects on the following parameters:
Measured height Sitting height Leg length Humerus length and breadth Radius length and breadth Femur length and breadth Tibia length and breadth Diet Serum insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) – responsible for supporting growth Testosterone Cortisol – responsible for restricting growth
Normally active non-gymnasts composed the control group of the observation.
At the start, it was noted that gymnasts’ shorter heights were attributable to their shorter leg lengths. Also shorter was the radius, femur, tibia and humerus. The IGF-1 and cortisol levels were the same across the groups.
The research participants were followed up regularly for 18 months and showed no diversion from the original observations i.e. there were no differences in the comparison report of the two groups.
So let us slide the peculiar height status back to “innocuous observation” on a spectrum of hazard, or should we?
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own and in no way represent Bettor.com's official editorial policy.
Tags: