Strength and Conditioning for

Young Athletes

Strength and Conditioning for Young Athletes: Science and Application offers an
evidence-based introduction to the theory and practice of strength and condi-
tioning for young athletes. Fully revised and updated, this second edition draws
on leading research to offer a holistic approach to training centred on the concept
of long-term athletic development and the welfare of the young athlete.
With 20 new authors and 8 new chapters, the book explores every key topic in
strength and conditioning applied to young athletes, including:

•• Growth and maturation

•• Talent identification and talent development
•• Monitoring and assessment
•• Coaching young athletes
•• Motor skill development
•• Strength development and plyometrics
•• Speed and agility development
•• Metabolic conditioning
•• Mobility and flexibility
•• Periodisation and nutritional strategies
•• Injury prevention and wellbeing
•• Developing a holistic programme for young athletes.

Written by a team of leading international strength and conditioning experts

and paediatric sport scientists, the book includes expanded practical guidelines in
every chapter to show how the latest scientific research can be applied by coaches
to optimise young athletic potential. Including sample training programmes and
exercises throughout, this is an essential resource for all students of strength
and conditioning or paediatric exercise science, as well as any coach and athletic
trainer working with children and young people.

Rhodri S. Lloyd is a Reader in Paediatric Strength and Conditioning and

Chair and co-founder of the Youth Physical Development Centre at Cardiff
Metropolitan University, UK. His research interests surround the impact of
growth and maturation on long-term athletic development and the neuromus-
cular mechanisms underpinning training adaptations in youth. He is a senior
associate editor for the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and an
associate editor for the Strength and Conditioning Journal. In 2016, he received
the Strength and Conditioning Coach of the Year award for Research and
Education from the UK Strength and Conditioning Association and in 2017
was awarded the Terry J. Housh Outstanding Young Investigator of the Year
award from the National Strength and Conditioning Association.

Jon L. Oliver is a Professor of Applied Paediatric Exercise Science at Cardiff

Metropolitan University, UK, and co-founder of the Youth Physical Development
Centre. He is also an Adjunct Professor at the Sports Performance Research
Institute New Zealand, and Strength and Conditioning Research Lead for the
Welsh Institute of Performance Science. He has been at the forefront of chal-
lenging old and developing new models of youth athlete development, as well
as contributing to contemporary national and international position and expert
statements on training youth. This has been supported by experimental research
examining how growth and maturation interact with the development of physical
fitness, responsiveness to training, injury risk, overtraining, and the health and
wellbeing of young athletes.
Strength and Conditioning
for Young Athletes
Science and Application
Second edition

Edited by Rhodri S. Lloyd and

Jon L. Oliver
Second edition published 2020
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
 2020 selection and editorial matter, Rhodri S. Lloyd and Jon L. Oliver;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Rhodri S. Lloyd and Jon L. Oliver to be identified as the
authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual
chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Routledge 2014
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Lloyd, Rhodri S., editor. | Oliver, Jon L., editor.
Title: Strength and conditioning for young athletes : science and
application / edited by Rhodri S. Lloyd and Jon L. Oliver.
Description: Second Edition. | New York : Routledge, 2019. | Previous
edition: 2014. | Includes index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019015267| ISBN 9780815361824 (hardback) |
ISBN 9780815361831 (paperback) | ISBN 9781351115346 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Physical fitness for children. | Physical fitness for youth. |
Exercise for children. | Exercise for youth.
Classification: LCC GV443 .S775 2019 | DDC 613.7/042—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019015267

ISBN: 978-0-8153-6182-4 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-8153-6183-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-351-11534-6 (ebk)

Typeset in Galliard
by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK
For my beautiful wife, Rhia, and our two amazing
children, Oliver and Ava
Rhodri S. Lloyd
Editor

For Melissa, Isla and Ivy

Jon L. Oliver
Editor
Contents

List of figures ix
List of tables xii
List of contributors xv
Preface xxiv
Acknowledgements xxvi

PART I
Fundamental concepts of youth development 1

1 The impact of growth and maturation on physical performance 3

GARETH STRATTON AND JON L. OLIVER

2 Talent identification 21
KEVIN TILL, STACEY EMMONDS AND BEN JONES

3 Talent development 45
CRAIG A. WILLIAMS, JON L. OLIVER, RHODRI S. LLOYD AND

URS GRANACHER

4 Monitoring and assessment of young athletes 62

CRAIG B. HARRISON AND MIKE MCGUIGAN

5 Coaching young athletes 77

RHODRI S. LLOYD, SYLVIA MOESKOPS, BRENDAN CROPLEY AND
AVERY D. FAIGENBAUM

PART II
Development of physical fitness in young athletes 101

6 Motor skill training for young athletes 103

RHODRI S. LLOYD, SYLVIA MOESKOPS AND URS GRANACHER
viii Contents
7 Strength and power training for young athletes 131
AVERY D. FAIGENBAUM, DUNCAN N. FRENCH, RHODRI S. LLOYD

AND WILLIAM J. KRAEMER

8 Weightlifting for young athletes 155

G. GREGORY HAFF AND ERIN E. HAFF

9 Plyometric training for young athletes 188

JOHN B. CRONIN AND JOHN M. RADNOR

10 Speed training for young athletes 207

JON L. OLIVER, MICHEÁL CAHILL AND AARON UTHOFF

11 Agility training for young athletes 228

IAN JEFFREYS

12 Aerobic and anaerobic training for young athletes 248

JON L. OLIVER AND CRAIG B. HARRISON

13 Mobility and flexibility training for young athletes 265

WILLIAM SANDS AND JENI MCNEAL

PART III
Contemporary issues for young athletes 279

14 Periodisation strategies for young athletes 281

G. GREGORY HAFF

15 Nutritional strategies to support young athletes 300

MARCUS P. HANNON, VISWANATH UNNITHAN, JAMES P. MORTON

AND GRAEME L. CLOSE

16 Reducing injury risk in young athletes 336

PAUL J. READ, JON L. OLIVER, GREG D. MYER AND RHODRI S. LLOYD

17 Creating a holistic environment for young athletes 362

CRAIG B. HARRISON, JOE EISENMANN AND CAMILLA J. KNIGHT

Index 379
Figures

1.1 Rate of growth of stature in boys and girls throughout

childhood and adolescence, with important events relative
to rate of growth identified 6
1.2 Development of vertical jump performance in boys in relation
to maturation. Source: (a) adapted from Beunen et al. (3),
(b) adapted from Malina et al. (22) 10
1.3 Biobanding youth athletes using either (a) years from peak
height velocity or (b) percentage of predicted adult height to
group athletes as before, during or after the growth spurt 16
2.1 Isometric mid-thigh pull assessment on a force platform.
Source: with permission from Moeskops et al. (55) 27
2.2 Performance vs potential within young athletes. Source: adapted
from Baker et al. (3) 33
2.3 Comparison of fitness testing data according to chronological
age and maturity status. Source: adapted from Till et al. (78) 36
3.1 The Youth Physical Development (YPD) model for males.
Source: Lloyd and Oliver (32) 50
3.2 The Youth Physical Development (YPD) model for females.
Source: Lloyd and Oliver (32) 51
3.3 Relative strength from an isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP)
plotted against competency from the Resistance Training Skills
Battery (RTSB) total score for a group of adolescent athletes 54
3.4 The conceptual model of resistance training for long-term
athletic development. Source: Granacher et al. (19) 56
4.1 Performance report for AD Athlete Ilia (the report would be
accompanied by a short written summary from the coach) 70
4.2 An example of daily wellness measures collected via the AD
Assessment App 73
5.1 Coordination challenge as an engagement task 85
5.2 Basic reflective questions for coaches 94
x List of figures
6.1 Conceptual model to show the benefits of young athletes
engaging in motor skill training from an early age to become
more physically literate. Source: adapted from Myer et al. (57) 106
6.2 (a) Obstacle course, (b) team/partner challenge, (c) gymnastics
activities and (d) sports acro/partner balances 112
6.3 The athletic motor skill competencies (AMSC) 114
6.4 ‘Spiderman’ crawling exercise 115
6.5 Squat–jump–throw–catch exercise 116
6.6 Conceptual model to show the decision-making process of
progressing motor skill training 117
7.1 Potential performance-related benefits of youth
resistance training 135
7.2 General youth resistance training guidelines based on resistance
training skill competency (RTSC). Source: adapted from
Faigenbaum et al. (31) 141
8.1 Progression of back- and front-squat 5 RM strength in a
cohort of young male athletes. Source: Keiner et al. (66) 163
8.2 Weightlifting: long-term development progression 165
9.1 Phases of a stretch-shortening cycle. Source: Komi (10) 188
9.2 Plyometric progression model, which can be used to create an
intensity index for quantifying plyometric exercises 195
10.1 A high-school female 100-m sprint athlete performing resisted
sled pulls (top images) and sled pushes (bottom images) against a
moderate load of 66% body mass (left images) and a heavy load
of 99% body mass (right images) 215
10.2 Two young athletes pushing a resistive load of 100% body mass,
but adopting different body positions 216
10.3 An example of progressively overloading total sprint volume
across a 10-week block of unresisted sprinting during a general
preparation phase, and a 10-week block of heavy sled pushing
during a strength–speed phase of training 217
10.4 Individual load-speed relationships during sled pushing for
two young athletes. Source: adapted from Cahill et al. (5) 218
10.5 Example annual plan for speed training in young athletes 219
11.1 The OODA loop in action 230
11.2 Agility constraints. Source: adapted from Jeffreys (13) 231
11.3 The agility development pyramid. Source: adapted from
Jeffreys (15) 232
11.4 The target functions 239
12.1 The effect of maturation on the primary physiological
determinants of endurance performance 251
 List of figures xi
13.1 Athlete performing passive stretching in an “over split” 269
13.2 Active range of motion of the shoulders in hyperflexion 269
13.3 Young boy static stretching his left leg hip flexors and
knee extensors 271
13.4 Athlete using the task of squeezing under a low hurdle to
stretch dynamically 272
13.5 Using a vibration device while stretching the right quadriceps
and hip flexors 273
13.6 Measuring active range of motion in single leg hip flexion of
the right leg 274
14.1 A hypothetical model for integrating periodisation modelling
and long-term athletic development. Source: adapted from
Balyi and Hamilton (2) and Ford et al. (10) 282
14.2 Theoretical long-term development pyramid with a continuum of
training focus. Source: adapted from Balyi and Hamilton (2),
Ford et al. (10) and Jeffreys (26) 283
14.3 Relationship of periodisation periods to seasons 288
14.4 Example of annual training plan structures for young athletes.
Source: adapted from Bondarchuk (6), Counsilman and
Counsilman (7) and Haff and Haff (16) 290
14.5 Example of mesocycle loading structures 293
15.1 Interlinked factors that will influence the nutritional
requirements of young athletes 302
15.2 The process of formulating a nutrition plan 321
16.1 The traffic light system for injury risk factors 339
16.2 Knee valgus scoring based on frontal plane projection angle
classifications. Source: adapted from Read et al. (19) 343
16.3 Hierarchical model of neuromuscular risk factors for anterior
cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Source: adapted from
Read et al. (93) 353
17.1 The basic needs identified in self-determination theory 365
17.2 A visual representation of the 3Cs + 1 model 369
17.3 Example of Spartan Performance’s visual communication 374
17.4 Spartan Performance recovery and wellness survey 375
Tables

1.1 Percentile scores for 9- to 15-year-old boys and girls

across a range of performance tests. Source: adapted from
Catley and Tomkinson (7) 9
1.2 Examples of the relative age effect across sports and gender,
showing the percentage distribution of birth dates across
different quartiles of the competitive season 13
2.1 Overview of physical fitness tests for a talent identification tool 25
2.2 Overview of motor skill development assessments in
young athletes 26
2.3 Overview of problems and potential solutions within talent
identification of young athletes 32
3.1 The 10 pillars of the NSCA LTAD position statement
cross-referenced to the chapters in this book
that address each pillar. Source: Lloyd et al. (30) 53
4.1 Summary of key physical monitoring tools for young athletes 64
4.2 Summary of key psychosocial monitoring tools for
young athletes 65
4.3 Lauren’s training load over a 2-week period 71
4.4 Ilia’s training load over a 2-week period 71
4.5 Wellness data for Lauren over a 2-week training period 74
4.6 Wellness data for Ilia over a 2-week training period 74
5.1 The COMPASS model and its application in maintaining
effective coach–athlete relationships within a youth-based
strength and conditioning environment. Source: Reid et al. (65) 83
6.1 Session example for a young athlete in the early stages
of training 120
6.2 Session example for a more technically advanced young athlete 123
7.1 Example of a training session for a beginner with low
technical competency 142
7.2 Example of a training session for an advanced young athlete
with higher technical competency 145
 List of tables xiii
8.1 Basic prerequisite exercises for weightlifting. Source: adapted
from Jones et al. (64) 167
8.2 Top-down teaching progression for the snatch and clean 168
8.3 Top-down teaching progression for the jerk 169
8.4 Suggested programming guidelines for weightlifting.
Source: adapted from Lloyd et al. (75) 170
8.5 Example training session for a developmental weightlifter
learning basic technique 177
8.6 Example training session for a young weightlifter with
sound technical skills 179
9.1 Example training programme for an inexperienced athlete
with low technical competency 200
9.2 Example training programme for an experienced athlete
with high technical competency 202
10.1 A selection of studies showing the effects of non-specific
training on speed in male youth athletes 211
10.2 A selection of studies showing the effects of sprint-specific
training on speed in male youth athletes 213
10.3 Example training sessions during the general preparation phase
and the specific preparation phase for a young athlete of lower
maturity, competency or training age 221
10.4 Example training sessions during the general preparation
phase and the specific preparation phase for a young athlete of
higher maturity, competency or training age 222
11.1 Target movements and target mechanics. Source: adapted from
Jeffreys (12) 240
11.2 Sample RAMP (raise, activate and mobilise, potentiate)
warm-up session to develop direction change capacity 242
12.1 Example training sessions for young athletes with a low and
high training age 259
14.1 Components of a periodised training plan. Source: based on
Bompa and Haff (5), Haff and Haff (16) and Issurin (25) 286
14.2 Jeffreys’ proposed quadrennial plan for high school football
(soccer) athletes. Source: adapted from Jeffreys (26) 287
15.1 A list of youth athletes from various Olympic and professional
sports who have competed against adults at the highest echelon
of their sport 301
15.2 The main physiological and metabolic differences between
young and adult athletes and the consequences of these factors
on nutritional recommendations for young athletes 302
15.3 Energy intakes and expenditures of young athletes in
different sports 305
xiv List of tables
15.4A Major fat- and water-soluble vitamins, their physiological role,
typical food sources, and RNI for children and adolescents 314
15.4B Common minerals in which young athletes may be deficient,
their physiological role and typical food sources 316
15.5 An example of a day’s nutrition for a 50-kg football player
attending school and 90 min of training aiming to
achieve >3000 kcal 322
15.6 Serge’s characteristics from initial assessments 324
15.7 Serge’s meal and snack timings over the 4-day snap and send
(X indicates no meal or snack was consumed) 325
15.8 Comparison of Serge’s nutritional intake pre- and
post-intervention 326
15.9 Comparison of Serge’s anthropometrics pre- and
post-intervention 327
15.10 Helen’s characteristics from initial assessments 327
15.11 Comparison of Helen’s nutritional intake pre- and
post-intervention 329
16.1 Injury rates in youth sports. Source: adapted from Caine et al. (14) 337
16.2 Contents of commonly used injury prevention warm-up
programmes 350
16.3 Targeted programme for two athletes based on identified
neuromuscular deficits (perform mobility and pulse raising
before commencement) 354
17.1 Example of self-determination theory in strength and
conditioning 364
17.2 Achievement goal theory in strength and conditioning 367
Contributors

Editors
Rhodri S. Lloyd, PhD is a Reader in Paediatric Strength and Conditioning at
Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK, and Chair of the Youth Physical Develop­
ment Centre, which offers after-school strength and conditioning provision
to young athletes. He also holds a research associate position with Auckland
University of Technology, New Zealand and is a research fellow for Waikato
Institute of Technology, New Zealand. His research interests surround the
impact of growth and maturation on long-term athletic development, and the
neuromuscular mechanisms underpinning training adaptations in youth. He is
a senior associate editor for the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
and an associate editor for the Strength and Conditioning Journal. In 2016, he
received the Strength and Conditioning Coach of the Year award for Research and
Education from the UK Strength and Conditioning Association (UKSCA) and
in 2017 was awarded the Terry J. Housh Outstanding Young Investigator of the
Year award from the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA).

Jon L. Oliver, PhD is a Professor of Applied Paediatric Exercise Science at

Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK, and co-founder of the Youth Physical
Development Centre. He is also an Adjunct Professor at the Sports Performance
Research Institute New Zealand and Strength and Conditioning Research Lead
for the Welsh Institute of Performance Science. He has been at the forefront of
challenging old and developing new models of youth athlete development, as
well as contributing to contemporary national and international position and
expert statements on training youth. This has been supported by experimental
research examining how growth and maturation interact with the develop-
ment of physical fitness, responsiveness to training, injury risk, overtraining,
and the health and wellbeing of young athletes. Jon has collaborated with
many schools and professional organisations nationally and internationally in a
variety of youth sports, working with populations from the grass roots to the
elite level.
xvi List of contributors

Contributors
Micheál Cahill, MSc is Vice President of Performance and Sports Science at
Athlete Training and Health (ATH) in the USA. He oversees the programme and
coaching philosophy within ATH for all training strands, the development of all
coaches within ATH and the daily integration of training services across hospital,
academic and professional sports team partners. Previously, Micheál served as the
director of sports science at Jesuit College in Dallas, USA. Micheál has worked
with a vast array of athletes across multiple disciplines, spanning national level
marathon runners to NFL players for the National Football League. Currently
he is finishing his PhD at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand,
focusing on acceleration and resisted sprinting in male youth. Current research
interests include the influence of strength, speed and power on young athletes
across a spectrum of maturity stages.

Graeme L. Close, PhD is a Professor of Human Physiology at Liverpool John

Moores University, UK, where he leads the Sport Nutrition MSc. His research
is focused on basic and applied sport nutrition. He has published approximately
120 papers and review articles. Graeme’s current research areas are the effects of
vitamin D on skeletal muscle function, the effects of weight-making on health and
performance, and the metabolic and nutritional demands of elite rugby. Graeme
is accredited with UKSCA, the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences
(BASES) and the Sport and Exercise Nutrition Register (SENr). He is the dep-
uty chair of the SENr and a fellow of BASES and the European College of Sport
Science, France. Graeme is the expert nutrition consultant to England Rugby,
Everton Football Club and LTA, and the lead nutritionist for European Tour Golf.

John B. Cronin, PhD is a Professor in Strength and Conditioning at Auckland

University of Technology, New Zealand, where most of his time is spent super-
vising PhD students. His research interests are in applied sports performance,
particularly around strength and conditioning, youth athletic development and
sport technology. John has over 300 peer-reviewed publications to his name,
most devoted to improving strength, power, speed and change of direction. He
has trained world champion teams and athletes, and speaks and consults inter-
nationally. John is also head of research for Lila Movement Technology, this
role focusing on understanding the effects of wearable resistance on sporting
performance.

Brendan Cropley, PhD is a Professor in Sport Coaching at the University of

South Wales, UK. He was awarded his PhD in 2010 in the area of professional
development and reflective practice in sport psychology, and his professorship in
2017. Brendan is the head of the Centre for Football Research in Wales and has
made a significant contribution to the sport and exercise sciences, particularly
in the areas of sport psychology and sport coaching. As a British Association of
Sport and Exercise Sciences (BASES) Accredited Sport and Exercise Scientist
 List of contributors xvii
(Psychology), he has provided a range of consultancy services to athletes, coaches
and national governing bodies from elite to grass-roots levels. Brendan’s contri-
bution was recognised by BASES, which awarded him Fellowship status in 2014.
Brendan is also a level 4 football coach, coach educator and mentor.

Joe Eisenmann, PhD is a diverse scholar–practitioner with 25 years of experience

in youth fitness and athletic development. He has published 180 peer-reviewed
scientific papers, lectured nationally and internationally, served on several
national-level committees and projects, and has coached and developed thou-
sands of young athletes and coaches. He has served as the director of Spartan
Performance at Michigan State University, USA, and also as the director of high
performance and education at USA Football. Currently, he is consulting in the
areas of long-term athlete development and sports science, and is a visiting pro-
fessor at Leeds Beckett University, UK.

Stacey Emmonds, PhD is a Senior Lecturer in Sports Coaching at Leeds

Beckett University, UK. Her main areas of teaching and research are in the
areas of youth athletic development and sports performance. Stacey’s research
focuses on talent development, and match and training characteristics of youth
athletes. Stacey also has extensive experience of working within both male and
female youth soccer as well as female rugby league. She was previously head of
athletic development for Leeds United boy’s academy and she is currently the
strength and conditioning coach for England Women’s rugby league squad.

Avery D. Faigenbaum, EdD is a full Professor in the Department of Health

and Exercise Science at the College of New Jersey, USA. His research inter-
ests focus on paediatric exercise science, integrative neuromuscular training and
preventive medicine. He has co-authored over 200 peer-reviewed publications,
40 book chapters and 10 books, and serves as associate editor of Pediatric
Exercise Science and the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. He
is a Fellow of both the NSCA and the American College of Sports Medicine.
In 2017, Avery was awarded the Boyd Epley Lifetime achievement award for
his historical impact, achievements and contribution to the field of paediatric
strength and conditioning.

Duncan N. French, PhD is Vice President of Performance at the UFC

Performance Institute in Las Vegas, USA, where he is responsible for directing
the performance services in the state-of-the-art facility to a global roster of 580
UFC fighters. He has over 20 years of experience working with elite professional
and Olympic athletes. Previously, Duncan was the director of performance sci-
ences at the University of Notre Dame, USA, a technical lead for strength and
conditioning at the English Institute of Sport, and the head of strength and
conditioning to Newcastle United football club. Duncan has authored and co-
authored over 65 peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts and 9 book chapters.
xviii List of contributors
Urs Granacher, PhD is a full Professor and Head of the Division of Training
and Movement Sciences, University of Potsdam, Germany. He is Chairman of
the German PotAS-Commission to reform the German Elite Sport System. Urs
graduated in Sports Science and received his PhD and then his post-doctoral
Habilitation in Training and Movement Sciences at the University of Freiburg,
Germany. His research priorities fall in the fields of strength and conditioning,
with a specific focus on strength training in young athletes. Additional key com-
ponents of his research constitute the development of targeted interventions to
enhance balance and muscular fitness, and to increase resistance to injuries.

Erin E. Haff, MA has 28 years of experience as a strength and conditioning

coach and weightlifting coach for youth to professional athletes. She has served as
the head strength and conditioning coach for the West Coast Fever Professional
Netball Team in Perth in Western Australia. In addition, she has provided
strength-training support for several youth resistance-training studies designed
to examine the impact of resistance training on netball performance. Erin has also
been appointed an Australian National Team head coach for numerous youth
and junior international weightlifting competitions, as well as presenting for both
Australia’s Weightlifting Federation and Strength and Conditioning Association
education programme.

G. Gregory Haff, PhD is a Professor of Strength and Conditioning at the

School of Medical and Health Sciences at Edith Cowan University, Western
Australia. Gregory served as the President of the NSCA from 2015 to 2018.
He is a founding Fellow of the NSCA. In 2014, he was named the strength
and conditioning coach of the year for education and research for the UKSCA.
In addition, in 2011 he was awarded the NSCA’s William J. Kraemer Sport
Scientist of the Year Award for his applied sport science research.

Marcus P. Hannon, MSc obtained his undergraduate degree in nutrition and

sport and exercise science from Oxford Brookes University, UK, and his Masters
in sports nutrition from Liverpool John Moores University, UK. He is currently
undertaking his PhD at Liverpool John Moores University, UK, alongside his
role as academy performance nutritionist at Everton Football Club, investigat-
ing the energy requirements of elite youth footballers. Marcus has worked in a
number of professional sports and is a graduate member of the Sport and Exercise
Nutrition register.

Craig B. Harrison, PhD helps youth athletes develop the foundations of phys-
ical and mental performance. Focusing his time in two key areas, Craig is the
director of athlete development at AUT Millennium in Auckland, New Zealand,
an evidence-informed, non-sport-specific development programme for youth ath-
letes aged 8–18. Craig is also a research fellow at the Sports Performance Research
Institute New Zealand (SPRINZ) at Auckland University of Technology (AUT),
 List of contributors xix
New Zealand, where he leads the youth athlete development postgraduate rese­
arch group. Craig has worked with parents, coaches, teachers and administrators
to help youth athletes reach their sporting best for over 15 years. He’s a coach,
author of a popular blog – https://news.autmillennium.org.nz/athlete-devel-
opment – and host of ‘The athlete development show’, a podcast that shares
ideas and stories from the brightest minds across many fields to support parents,
coaches and teachers of young athletes.

Ian Jeffreys, PhD is currently Professor of Strength and Conditioning at the

University of South Wales, UK, where he coordinates all of the university’s
strength and conditioning activities. Ian is a fellow of the NSCA, was awarded
the NSCA’s High School Professional of the Year in 2006, and is currently its
Vice President. Ian was a founder member of the UKSCA, and a member of the
Board of Directors from the organisation’s inception in 2004 to 2013. He is an
honorary fellow of the UKSCA. Ian has authored 8 books and 15 book chapters.
He is the editor of Professional Strength and Conditioning Journal and is on the
editorial board for the NSCA’s Strength and Conditioning Journal and Journal
of Australian Strength and Conditioning. Ian has given keynote presentations,
hosted high-performance workshops, and worked with athletes and sports organ-
isations around the world.

Ben Jones, PhD is a Professor of Sports Physiology and Performance at Leeds

Beckett University, UK. He was awarded his PhD in 2013 and his professorship in
2017. Ben has published over 120 scientific peer-reviewed publications in sports
performance and athlete development. He is an accredited strength and condi-
tioning coach with the UKSCA and won the UK Strength and Conditioning
Association Coach of the Year for Research and Education in 2017. He holds con-
sultancy roles with the Rugby Football League as England head of performance,
Yorkshire Carnegie Rugby Union as head of academy science and research, and
Leeds Rhinos Rugby League as head of science.

Camilla J. Knight, PhD is an Associate Professor in Sport Science at Swansea

University, UK. She is also the youth sport lead for the Welsh Institute of
Performance Science and a member of the Welsh Safeguarding in Sport Strategy
group. Camilla’s research interests are concerned with understanding and enhanc-
ing the psychosocial experiences of children in sport, with a particular focus on
the influence of parents. Camilla is co-author of Parenting in Youth Sport: From
Research to Practice and co-editor of Sport Psychology for Young Athletes, both
published with Routledge, and has published and consulted widely on topics
such as parental involvement in sport and youth sport participation.

William J. Kraemer, PhD is a full Professor at the Ohio State University,

USA, heading up the Neuroscience/Neuromuscular Laboratory for the study
of human performance since September 2014. He is the senior scientific advisor
xx List of contributors
in the Stanley D. and Joan H. Ross Center for Brain Health and Performance at
the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. In 2016 he received an hon-
orary doctorate from the University of Jyvaskyla in Finland. William is a fellow
of several organizations including the NSCA, the American College of Sports
Medicine, the American College of Nutrition and the International Society of
Sports Nutrition, and is a member of the Endocrine Society and the American
Physiological Society. He has published over 475 peer-reviewed manuscripts in
scientific journals.

Mike McGuigan, PhD is a Professor of Strength and Conditioning at

Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand, and an Adjunct Professor
at Edith Cowan University, Australia. He is currently a senior associate editor
for Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and an associate editor for
Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning. Mike worked for several years
as a sports scientist with different sports, and he regularly consults for elite sports
in the areas of strength and power assessment and athlete monitoring. He is also
an NSCA-certified strength and conditioning specialist.

Jeni McNeal, PhD is a Professor and Program Director for exercise science at
Eastern Washington University, USA. She was a previous member of the USA
Diving Performance Enhancement Team, as director of physical preparation.
She has worked with USA Diving for 17 years and across 4 Olympiads. Jeni
also served as the vice-chair of research for the US Elite Coaches Association for
Women’s Gymnastics for 10 years. Her primary research focus is on performance
aspects of acrobatic sports, including stretching, strength and power, growth and
development, and biomechanics.

Sylvia Moeskops, MSc is a technician–demonstrator in strength and condi-

tioning and a PhD student at Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK. Her PhD is
investigating the effects of growth, maturation and training on strength and power
development in young female artistic gymnasts. Sylvia is a certified strength and con-
ditioning specialist with the NSCA and works as a strength and conditioning coach
in the Youth Physical Development Centre at Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK,
where she leads programming and delivery for young female gymnasts.

James P. Morton, PhD is a Professor of Exercise Metabolism at Liverpool John

Moores University, UK, and the current head of nutrition at Team Ineos, previ-
ously known as Team Sky (2015–2019). He has formerly worked with Liverpool
Football Club (2010–2015) and numerous combat athletes (2016–2018). To
date, he has authored over 130 publications in sports physiology and nutrition,
with a specific emphasis on the role of nutrition in promoting training adaptations
and exercise performance.

Gregory D. Myer, PhD is the Director of Research, SPORT Center and

the Human Performance Laboratory for the Division of Sports Medicine at
 List of contributors xxi
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He maintains primary faculty
appointments in the departments of Pediatrics and Orthopaedic Surgery in the
College of Medicine at the University of Cincinnati, USA. Gregory has published
over 350 medical articles related to his research on injury biomechanics, human
performance, paediatric exercise science, preventive medicine and sensorimotor
neuroscience. He is certified with distinction by the NSCA and is a Fellow of the
American College of Sports Medicine.

John M. Radnor, PhD is a Lecturer in Strength and Conditioning at Cardiff

Metropolitan University, UK. He completed his PhD in paediatric exercise science,
investigating the influence of maturation on muscle architecture and physical per-
formance. John is an accredited strength and conditioning coach with the UKSCA
and leads the strength and conditioning programme for Welsh rowing, working
predominantly with their GB Start athletes. John also coaches in the Youth Physical
Development Centre based at Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK.

Paul J. Read, PhD is a strength and conditioning coach and clinical researcher
at Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, Qatar. His research
to date has focused largely on assessment strategies of lower limb neuromuscular
control and injury risk factors in elite male youth soccer players. Paul is a fully accred-
ited strength and conditioning coach with both the UKSCA and the NSCA, and
has consulted with professional and international athletes in a range of disciplines.
In addition to his professional experience, Paul has also authored over 60 research
publications for world-leading journals in the fields of sports medicine, sports sci-
ence, and strength and conditioning.

William Sands, PhD is a sports scientist with the US Ski and Snowboard
Association in Park City, UT. He served as professor in the Department of Exercise
and Sport Science at East Tennessee State University, USA. He has over 50 years
of experience in Olympic sports and served on the US Olympic Committee from
2003 to 2009 in a number of roles, including recovery centre leader, head of
sport biomechanics, and engineering and senior physiologist. At Colorado Mesa
University, USA, he was the director of the Monfort Family Human Performance
Laboratory. William has served as an associate professor at the University of
Utah, USA, and co-director of the Motor Behavior Research Laboratory, with
adjunct appointments in bioengineering and physical therapy, director of research
and development for USA Gymnastics, and the Scientific Commission of the
International Gymnastics Federation. He has served as an expert witness in more
than 50 catastrophic injury cases, primarily involving acrobatic activities. He is
author of more than 100 peer-reviewed articles, more than 200 sports articles, 30
book chapters, over 500 national and international presentations, and 12 books.

Gareth Stratton, PhD is Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor, Head of School and

Director of the Applied Sports Exercise Technology and Medicine (A-STEM)
Research Centre at Swansea University, UK, and adjunct professor at the University
xxii List of contributors
of Western Australia. Gareth has two main areas of academic interest: children’s
maturation and physical activity and physical activity fitness and health. He
has been involved in physical activity and fitness measurement studies for over
30 years and he continues his interest in the development of novel sensor tech-
nologies to detect and stimulate changes in physical activity and sedentary
behaviour. Gareth was the European representative on the Canadian 24-hour
movement guidelines for the children’s expert group; he has written over 200
peer-reviewed papers and book chapters and is currently expert advisor on the
Chief Medical Officer’s Physical Activity Guidance group convened in 2018.

Kevin Till, PhD is a Professor in Athletic Development within the sports coach-
ing group in the Carnegie School of Sport at Leeds Beckett University, UK.
Kevin has published over 120 international, scientific, peer-reviewed publications
over the last decade related to youth athletes, strength and conditioning, sport
science and coaching. Kevin is also an UKSCA-accredited strength and condi-
tioning coach and has worked across multiple sports, mainly rugby, for the last
12 years. He currently works as a strength and conditioning coach at Yorkshire
Carnegie Rugby Union Football Club and Leeds Rhinos Rugby League Football
Club within their academy programmes.

Viswanath Unnithan, PhD is a Professor of Paediatric Exercise Physiology at

the University of the West of Scotland, UK. He has published over 100 papers,
primarily in the field of paediatric exercise physiology. His research interests have
ranged from exploring the underlying mechanisms of the high-energy cost of
movement seen in children with cerebral palsy to cardiorespiratory and cardiovas-
cular issues relating to the elite child athlete. His current areas of research lie in:
talent identification, performance analysis, and cardiac morphology and function
in elite youth footballers. He is working on a number of collaborative projects
with English Premier League clubs and FC Barcelona in Spain. He is also a for-
mer president of the North American Society for Pediatric Exercise Medicine and
a current Fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine.

Aaron Uthoff, PhD is the head of strength and conditioning and sports science
at Tauranga Boys College in New Zealand. He is also a strength and condition-
ing consultant who specialises in training sprint athletes. Aaron has an MSc(d)
from the University of Edinburgh, UK, is a certified strength and conditioning
coach with the NSCA, and was recently a PhD candidate at Auckland University
of Technology, New Zealand, focusing on linear sprint development in youth.
During his career, Aaron has helped develop national representative athletes,
Commonwealth medallists and Olympians in a range of sports. His applied
interests include the practical application of biomechanics and strength and condi-
tioning research on youth athlete development, speed, strength and agility.

Craig A. Williams, PhD is a Professor of Paediatric Physiology and Health and

is Director of the Children’s Health and Exercise Research Centre (CHERC) at
 List of contributors xxiii
the University of Exeter, UK. Craig is internationally recognised for his research
in paediatric exercise physiology. Craig is a fellow of the British Association of
Sport and Exercise Sciences and the American College of Sports Medicine. He
is an associate editor for European Journal of Sports Science and is an editorial
board member of Pediatric Exercise Science and Journal of Congenital Cardiology.
He has acted as a consultant paediatric physiologist for national organisations,
including British gymnastics, the Lawn Tennis Association and British cycling,
and works with professional premiership teams in football and rugby.
Preface

We were delighted with the success of the first edition of Strength and Condi­
tioning for Young Athletes: Science and Application, which from its release in
2014 has undoubtedly surpassed our expectations with respect to its reach and
impact. We intentionally delayed the production and publication of the second
edition to ensure that we could provide what we felt would be a genuine update.
Many of the grounding principles of paediatric exercise science made prominent
by eminent scholars such as Professor Neil Armstrong, Professor Oded Bar-Or,
Professor Tom Rowland and Professor Bob Malina remain fundamental compo-
nents of our practice. However, the burgeoning interest in the field of paediatric
strength and conditioning continues to expand at a rapid rate. Since the release
of our first edition 5 years ago, there has been a sharp rise in the number of
research outputs examining key topics, including growth and development,
training responsiveness and injury risk reduction in young athletes. We have
also witnessed an increase in the number of conferences, symposia and practi-
cal workshops aimed at improving knowledge and sharing good practice among
those working with young athletes. Therefore, we felt 2019 would offer a timely
opportunity to release our second edition.
In addition to updating the content of existing chapters, we have also invited
new authors, introduced new chapters, provided more example training sessions,
included accompanying images of exercises and presented ‘box outs’ for each
chapter, which aim to highlight key messages for the reader as they make their
way through the text. We have intentionally aimed to retain the scientific rigour
of the content of the book, while increasing the practical applications through-
out. In doing so, we hope the second edition serves to provide the appropriate
blend of science and practice that strength and conditioning coaches, technical
coaches, parents, students and the young athletes themselves seek.
Much like the first edition, this book is divided into three parts. Part I pro-
vides chapters devoted to key underpinning concepts surrounding youth athlete
development, examining: the influence of growth and maturation on physical
performance, talent identification, talent development, monitoring and assess-
ment, and the art of coaching young athletes. Concepts from these chapters
underpin those that follow in the remainder of the book, and provide a vital
grounding in key concepts associated with strength and conditioning provision
for paediatric populations.
 Preface xxv
Part II is once again dedicated to examining the effects of natural develop-
ment and training on the development of key fitness qualities, including: motor
skills, strength and power, weightlifting, plyometrics, agility, speed, mobility
and metabolic conditioning. In all chapters, contributing authors have provided
an overview of the scientific literature, examining the effects of natural growth,
maturation and training on the development of specific fitness components, and
proposed practical guidelines for coaches to consider when prescribing training.
Finally, Part III offers an insight into key contemporary issues, which
undoubtedly influence the success of any youth-based strength and conditioning
programme. The section provides expert insights into periodisation, nutritional
strategies, reducing injury risk, and developing a holistic programme that ensures
an athlete-centred approach remains the focus at all times.
We really hope you enjoy reading this book as much as we enjoyed bringing it
together.
Rhodri S. Lloyd
Jon L. Oliver
Acknowledgements

We would like to thank William Bailey, Rebecca Connor, Megan Smith and all
other personnel at Routledge who have helped us bring the second edition of this
book to print. Their assistance at every step of the journey has been outstanding.
The success of the first edition of Strength and Conditioning for Young Athletes:
Science and Application was largely due to the stellar cast of contributing authors,
for which we will be forever grateful. Once again, we have been extremely fortu-
nate to secure the services of a world-class line-up of contributors for the second
edition, many of whom are true pioneers in their respective fields. Their ability to
merge science and practice has made for an outstanding collection of work. We
cannot thank you all enough.
In addition to those directly involved in the completion of the book, we
would like to take this opportunity to thank all of our colleagues and the young
athletes who are part of the Youth Physical Development Centre, who continue
to help mould our views and interests within the field of paediatric strength
and conditioning.
Rhodri S. Lloyd
Jon L. Oliver
Part I

Fundamental concepts of
youth development
1 The impact of growth and
maturation on physical
performance
Gareth Stratton and Jon L. Oliver

Introduction
‘Give me the boy until he is seven and I will give you the man.’ This Jesuit
maxim highlights the importance of growth and development during the early
years where the interaction of the environment and genotype on the pheno-
type is expressed through an evolving body composition, shape and size. An
understanding of growth and development in relation to human performance is
essential for those working with young athletes. There is significant individual
variability in factors that affect the pathway of growth, development and matu-
ration from infancy through childhood to adolescence, and on to adulthood;
in turn these have an impact on physical performance and health-related issues.
The strength and conditioning coach needs an awareness of how factors that
affect current and future growth, development and maturation interact with
different training stimuli. This will allow developmentally appropriate training
programmes to be constructed which help to meet training objectives throughout
childhood and adolescence.

Basic theoretical concepts

Defining growth development and maturation

The terms ‘growth’, ‘development’ and ‘maturation’ are used interchangeably
when describing the pathway from birth to adulthood. There is much debate
over the definition of these terms, but each refers to specific biological activities.
Generating operational definitions for these terms will help clarify the subsequent
discussion and debate.
Growth can be defined as an increase in the size of the body or the size attained
by specific parts of the body (22), and it is the most significant biological activity
during the first 20 years or so of life, starting from conception to full maturity.
Tissue growth occurs as a result of a combination of hyperplasia, hypertrophy
and accretion, leading to an increase in cell number, size and cellular material,
respectively. These processes are not linear, for example the number of cells
4 G. Stratton and J.L. Oliver
(hyperplasia) is largely determined during the prenatal period, whereas hypertro-
phy follows a non-linear pathway through childhood to adulthood.
Maturation is the process of becoming mature. The timing and tempo of mat-
uration vary between biological systems. For example, sexual maturity is defined
as a fully functional reproductive system, compared with skeletal maturity which
refers to a fully ossified skeleton. The timing and tempo of sexual and skeletal
maturation can differ significantly. Timing defines ‘when’ a particular maturation
process occurs, whereas tempo is the ‘rate’ at which maturation progresses. In
essence, growth is a quantitative increase in stature or size at any given time com-
pared with maturity, which is the rate of progress to full adult stature or mature
state. Clearly growth and maturity are inextricably linked and are processes that
are measurable and directional.
Development is a broader concept than growth and maturation. It is gener-
ally viewed as qualitative, involves differentiation of tissues, and is both biological
and behavioural. Biological development is considered in qualitative terms of cell
differentiation and refinement; differentiation occurs in the prenatal period with
functional refinement continuing through childhood and adolescence. Behavioural
development reflects a period of change in the psychomotor (fitness, skills) cogni-
tive (knowledge, understanding) and affective (social, relationships) domains. As
children interact with society their ability to express themselves in these domains
becomes refined and their intellectual, physical, social and moral competencies
mature. The strength and conditioning coach should consider not only the physical
consequences of the interaction of training with growth, maturation and develop-
ment, but also the important impact of behavioural development, and whether
training provides a positive experience for youths.

Defining chronological age

Chronological age is measured at a single time point away from the date of birth.
The first year of life is referred to as ‘infancy’ with childhood starting at the
end of infancy and ending at the start of adolescence. Childhood is generally
split into three stages: early childhood involves the pre-school years age 1.0–4.99
years, mid-childhood 5.0–7.99 years and late childhood age 8 years to the start
of adolescence, which is identified with the onset of sexual maturation (start of
puberty). Given the variation in the individual timing and tempo of maturity,
adolescence can range anywhere between 8–19 and 10–22 years of age in girls
and boys, respectively.

Defining biological age

Whereas chronological age is predictable and easily assessed, biological age is sig-
nificantly more problematic, less predictable and more difficult to assess. There is
large interindividual variation in the timing and tempo of the adolescent growth
spurt. Moreover, there are a number of methods of assessing maturity status,
 The impact of growth and maturation 5
none of which is the absolute gold standard. The types of measures of maturity
generally match the biological system under consideration. Common measures
of biological maturation are skeletal, sexual and somatic and these measures are
reasonably well related (39). A biological system is considered fully mature when
it achieves the adult state, which can be represented by a fully ossified skeletal
system, a fully functioning reproductive system or the attainment of adult height.
Adolescence is the transitional period from childhood to adulthood, and reflects
the period from the onset of puberty and development from a sexually immature
to a sexually mature state, which will also be reflected in changes in skeletal and
somatic maturity.

Skeletal age
Perhaps the best measure of maturity status is a radiograph of the skeleton. The
progress of the skeleton from cartilage to bone occurs in all healthy individuals. A
hand–wrist radiograph, and subsequent assessment of bones against standardised
images, allow an assessment of the degree of ossification of the anatomical area.
There are three main approaches to quantifying skeletal age (SA) by assessing
the hand–wrist radiograph. The Greulich–Pyle (15), Tanner–Whitehouse (40)
and Fels (33) methods vary in the approach used to assess the radiograph, but all
produce a composite score of SA. The future for more widespread assessment of
SA probably depends on lower dose radiation scans (such as dual energy X-ray
absorptiometry) and automated computer analysis of the image.

Sexual age
The transition from childhood to adulthood is characterised by the development
of secondary sexual characteristics, maturation of the reproductive system and
rapid increases in growth. In addition, this phase is accompanied by complex
psychosocial and behavioural changes that affect physical activity, health and
sports performance. The assessment of secondary sexual characteristics involves
an assessment of breast development, age at menarche and pubic hair develop-
ment for girls; and penis, testes and pubic hair development in boys (39). The
assessment of sexual maturity should be carried out by a trained health profes-
sional or paediatrician using standardised photographs. As a result of the invasive
nature of the measure, self-assessment procedures have been validated in athletic
and overweight populations; whereas youths are generally good at estimating
their sexual maturity, boys generally overestimate and girls typically underesti-
mate their status (20, 45).

Somatic age
As the processes of growth are difficult to study, indirect measures have been used
to assess their overall outcome. These are commonly indirect measures of body
 6 G. Stratton and J.L. Oliver
size and proportion. Anthropometry defines the methods used to take measures
of the human body and these are extremely robust if undertaken by skilled asses-
sors. There are numerous measures of body size that are commonly grouped in
breadths (widths), lengths and circumferences. Overall body size is most often
assessed using measures of body mass or stature. Measures of ratios and propor-
tions have been more commonly used in sport and exercise. The ratio of sitting
height to leg length has been used to predict maturity (28, 37), and the second
to fourth digit ratio to predict athletic talent (26). Anthropometric measures are
probably the most widely available method for the assessment of maturity status.
Perhaps the most expedient approach involves regular measures of stature and
body mass. Three-monthly intervals may be a suitable time period over which
to monitor growth of mass and stature, provided that there is a balance between
regular monitoring and allowing enough time to detect changes in body size with
reasonable confidence. Data for height or weight can be plotted against age to
produce growth curves; however, in terms of identifying maturity it is more use-
ful to convert measurements to growth rates as shown in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 shows average growth rates in stature for males and females. Serial
measurements of height are converted to a growth rate in centimetres per year
and plotted against age. The growth curve can then be used to identify events that
help to identify adolescence, from the start of the growth spurt, the occurrence of
peak growth rate, through to the cessation of growth reflecting the attainment of
adult height (no further growth). The age at the maximum rate of growth is the
most commonly used marker of somatic maturity; it is reported in centimetres
per year and termed ‘peak height velocity’ (PHV). Peak height velocity typically

14
Males
Peak height
12 Females velocity (PHV)

10
Growth rate (cm/yr)

6 End of
adolescence
and start of
4 adulthood
End of childhood and
2 start of adolescence

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Age (years)

Figure 1.1 R
 ate of growth of stature in boys and girls throughout childhood and
adolescence, with important events relative to rate of growth identified
 The impact of growth and maturation 7
occurs around the age of 12 in girls and 14 in boys, but the timing will be highly
individualised and also influenced by ethnicity, and environmental and lifestyle
factors (22). From Figure 1.1 it can be observed that the growth spurt starts
later in boys and is both longer and more intense than in girls, with adult height
reached earlier in girls; this explains why girls are on average 13 cm shorter than
boys at full maturity. Rates of growth in body mass (kg/year) can also be plotted
against age and used to identify peak weight velocity, which occurs approximately
a few months to 1 year after PHV (22). This can reflect the observation that a
young athlete may grow tall and ‘lanky’ in the earlier part of adolescence, before
then ‘filling out’ and adding considerably more muscle mass. Peak weight velocity
(PWV) is used less often because it is more susceptible to environmental influ-
ences, whereas PHV is largely genetically predetermined.

On average PHV will occur at age approximately 12 years in girls and 14

years in boys, with girls increasing stature at a rate of 8 cm/year and boys
at 10 cm/year. However, there is considerable variability in the timing and
tempo of PHV. The age at which PHV occurs can vary from 10 years to 15
years in girls and from 11 years to 16 years in boys, with peak growth rates
of 5–11 cm/year and 6–13 cm/year, respectively.

Body composition, maturation and effects on performance

In boys, body composition changes significantly throughout childhood and ado-
lescence with increases in fat-free mass (FFM) and decreases in fat mass (FM).
Patterns of change in body composition are similar in girls and boys pre-puberty,
after which post-pubertal proportional differences between males and females
emerge. Body fat patterning also changes around the PHV, with trunk skinfold
thickness increasing at a greater rate in males than in females. Increases in boys’
arm girth exceed those of girls whereas changes in calf girth are similar for the
two sexes (22). Increases in bone mineral content also peak in conjunction with
the PHV (31). Further biacromial (shoulder) increases in breadth are greater
in boys than in girls, whereas bicristal (hip) breadths are similar. Girls’ hips are
about 70% of shoulder breadth compared with boys whose hip breadth decreases
from 70% to 65% of shoulder breadth between childhood and adulthood. These
differences are driven by a significant increase in circulating androgens in boys
compared with girls, resulting in rapid increases in FFM, small increases in FM
and overall decreases in fat percentage. At the end of the adolescent growth
spurt, boys’ FFM is 25–30% greater than girls’ FFM, and their percentage body
fat is about half that of girls. This explains much of the difference between the
athletic performance of males and females during adolescence and into adult-
hood, with males advantaged by relatively greater gains in muscle mass and
lower gains in FM.
8 G. Stratton and J.L. Oliver
Motor performance
For boys, a curvilinear increase in maximal strength occurs between childhood
and maturity. Girls experience similar increases to boys before puberty but, unlike
boys, their strength then plateaus during mid to late adolescence. Sex differ-
ences in grip strength increase from around 10% to 30-40% before and after
puberty, respectively, with boys’ scores always higher than girls’; similarly girls’
jump distances are about 5–10% less than boys’ before puberty (e.g. age 9 years)
increasing to >15% after puberty (e.g. age 14–15 years) (7, 38). These patterns
in the development of strength can be seen in Table 1.1, together with other
components of fitness.
Table 1.1 provides normative data on a number of fitness variables in boys
and girls, which are based on analysis of a large volume of data collected across
15 studies examining the health and fitness of Australian children between
1985 and 2009 (7). Boys outperform girls in measures of strength (handgrip),
strength endurance (push-ups), explosive upper (basketball throw) and lower
body (standing broad jump) exercise, sprint performance (50 m) and endurance
(1.6-km run). Sex differences widen with increasing age, reflecting a maturational
effect. The data presented in Table 1.1 also demonstrate the use of percentiles
to represent performance that may be considered low (10th percentile), average
(50th percentile) and high (90th percentile) relative to age. Such information
can be used for benchmarking and may help the strength and conditioning coach
identify young athletes who are at the top and bottom ends of the performance
continuum.
A problem with the data in Table 1.1 is that they are presented according
to chronological age and subsequently mask the variation in maturation within
each age group. Much of the variation in scores may be attributed to differ-
ences in maturity within the same chronological age. As an example, Figure 1.2
demonstrates the influence of maturation on vertical jump performance in boys.
Longitudinal data presented in Figure 1.2a shows the velocity of gains in vertical
jump performance relative to the timing of the adolescent growth spurt, with the
rate of improvement aligned around PHV. There is a clear pattern of acceleration
and deceleration in jump performance around PHV. The exact pattern of the rate
of improvement experienced is dependent on the motor task; in boys measures
of strength and power (arm pull, vertical jump) occur 6–12 months after PHV,
whereas increases in flexibility (sit and reach) occur 6 months before PHV, and
limb speed (shuttle run) 18–24 months before PHV (3). Consequently, consider-
ing test scores in relation to chronological age alone is problematic. Figure 1.2b
shows the impact of early, average and late maturation on performance of the
vertical jump in relation to chronological age; clearly performance of 14-year-old
boys will be markedly different if comparing early and late maturing individuals.
From a follow-up of their original study tracking fitness development in adoles-
cent boys, Beunen et al. (4) found that not only did late maturing boys eventually
catch up the performance of their early maturing peers, but they also went on
to significantly outperform the early maturing boys in functional and explosive
strength in adulthood. This suggests some possible long-term performance benefits
of later maturation in boys.
Table 1.1 Percentile scores for 9- to 15-year-old boys and girls across a range of performance tests
Handgrip strength (kg)a Basketball throw (m)b Push-ups (no.)c 50-m sprint (s) Standing broad jump (cm) 1.6-km run (s)
Percentile 10th 50th 90th 10th 50th 90th 10th 50th 90th 10th 50th 90th 10th 50th 90th 10th 50th 90th
Boys
(years)
9 12.5 16.4 20.8 2.5 3.3 4.1 6 12 20 10.2 9.1 8.3 113 138 161 684 522 423
10 14.3 19.0 23.9 2.8 3.6 4.5 6 13 21 10.1 9.0 8.2 117 143 168 666 511 420
11 15.9 21.2 26.8 3.1 4.0 5.0 6 13 20 10.0 8.9 8.1 121 149 174 646 500 416
12 17.0 22.7 28.7 3.4 4.5 5.6 6 13 20 9.8 8.7 7.9 126 156 182 621 485 408
13 19.3 25.8 32.8 3.8 5.0 6.2 7 14 22 9.4 8.4 7.7 136 166 194 587 465 395
14 22.9 30.7 39.1 4.2 5.5 6.9 8 16 23 9.0 8.1 7.4 146 178 206 556 446 382
15 27.1 36.5 46.5 4.6 6.0 7.4 10 18 25 8.6 7.7 7.1 157 189 219 531 432 373

Girls
(years)
9 10.8 14.4 18.4 2.3 3.0 3.7 3 9 16 11.3 10.0 9.0 102 126 150 769 609 499
10 12.6 17.1 21.8 2.6 3.3 4.1 3 9 16 10.7 9.5 8.6 108 133 158 759 600 494
11 13.9 18.8 23.9 2.8 3.6 4.5 3 8 16 10.3 9.2 8.3 114 140 166 741 586 483
12 16.0 21.4 26.9 3.1 4.0 4.9 2 7 15 10.0 8.9 8.1 118 145 171 726 575 474
13 18.0 23.6 29.5 3.3 4.3 5.3 2 7 15 9.8 8.8 8.0 123 150 176 716 569 469
14 19.7 25.4 31.3 3.4 4.4 5.4 2 6 15 9.7 8.7 7.9 127 154 180 711 567 468
15 21.3 26.9 32.7 3.6 4.5 5.5 2 6 14 9.6 8.6 7.9 129 156 181 710 570 469
a
Handgrip strength is the mean score across both hands.
b
Basketball throw was performed as per the Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation guidelines: Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and
Recreation (ACHPER) (2004). Australian Fitness Education Award: Teacher’s handbook and curriculum ideas, 2nd edn. Flinders Park, South Australia: ACHPER.
c
Push-ups are the number of push-ups completed in 30s
Source: adapted from Catley and Tomkinson (7)
 10 G. Stratton and J.L. Oliver

Early
6 Average
Rate of improvement (cm/yr)

50 Late
5

Jump height (cm)

4 45

3
40
2
35
1

0 30
–3 –1 1 3 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
A Years from PHV B Age (years)

Figure 1.2 D
 evelopment of vertical jump performance in boys in relation to maturation.
(a) The rate of development of vertical jump performance, with gains peaking
shortly after peak height velocity (PHV) (probably coinciding with peak
weight velocity). (b) The performance of early, average and late maturing
boys, with the arrow demonstrating potential differences in maturation and
subsequent performance of boys with a chronological age of 14 years

Source: (a) adapted from Beunen et al. (3), (b) adapted from Malina et al. (22)

Longitudinal monitoring around adolescence has also been used to present

growth-related changes in the motor performance of Canadian girls (21), illus-
trating an inconsistent advantage in motor performance according to maturation
group. There were small advantages in arm and back strength during PHV for
early maturing girls; however, in contrast to boys, early maturing girls performed
more poorly in vertical jump, shuttle run, flexed arm hang and 20-m dash at age 14.
Research on early, average and late maturing boys and girls clearly highlights
differences in performance related to maturation and how these affect the motor
performance of children independent of chronological age. Thus, it is essen-
tial that all professionals involved in the development of motor performance in
young athletes account for such differences in the application of their practice.

Anaerobic function and metabolism

Children produce significantly less absolute power on all exercise durations
compared with adults. This is a result of a combination of biochemical and bio-
mechanical factors, discussed in detail elsewhere (42). Power output per unit of
thigh muscle cross-sectional area increases significantly in girls and boys aged
between 8 and 20 years (36). This indicates a significant increase in economy
 The impact of growth and maturation 11
of muscle fibre recruitment as well as more efficient biochemical energy produc-
tion, although much is still unknown about the mechanisms of anaerobic power
output by developmental age. The development of anaerobic power is central
to programmes aimed at improving this aspect of fitness in young people. In
this sense it is important that children and adolescents are not seen as minia-
ture adults, but rather as qualitatively different individuals who require bespoke
anaerobic programmes that reflect the development of these components, as
well as differences between adults and children.

Cardiopulmonary system
Growth in the cardiopulmonary system is driven by a 20-fold increase in heart
size (40 cm3 to 600–800 cm3) from birth to adulthood, whereas body surface
area correlates closely with left ventricular mass (LVM) during the growing
years (35). Resting heart rates also decrease for boys and girls throughout child-
hood and adolescence. Stroke volume increases nearly 10-fold (4–40 ml) from
birth to late childhood and 15-fold from birth to adulthood (4–60 ml). Blood
composition also changes during puberty, with haematocrit increasing from
about 30% in the infant to 40–45% in adult males and 38–42% in adult females.
Haematocrit also increases up to about 40% of the red blood cell volume in
both girls and boys, and haemoglobin follows a similar path, increasing from
around 10 g/dl during childhood, to 14 and 16 g/dl in adult females and
males, respectively.
As with cardiac tissue, the lungs also grow rapidly from 65 g at birth to 1.3 kg
at full maturity. Furthermore, the number of alveoli increases from 20 million to
300 million and respiratory rate decreases from 22 breaths/min to 16 breaths/
min between infancy and maturity. These changes also result in an increase in
maximal ventilatory volume from 50 l to >100 l between age 5 and full maturity.
In addition, ventilatory equivalent (minute ventilation/oxygen uptake) decreases
almost linearly with age. These differences have a significant effect on aerobic
exercise performance, with changes particularly noticeable during the adolescent
growth spurt. A combination of changes in anatomical, metabolic and haema-
tological factors, as well as developmental improvements in running economy
(through reduced co-contraction of exercising muscle and lower oxygen cost per
stride) and thermoregulation, result in the cardiopulmonary system being able
to cope with progressively increasing exercise workloads. These changes mani-
fest themselves in laboratory and field measures of endurance performance and
aerobic fitness.
Between the ages of 8 and 12 aerobic power increases by almost 50% (1.4–2.1
l/min). Boys then experience further large increases with peak oxygen consump-
tion, V̇ O2, reaching 3.5 l/min at full maturity. V̇ O2peak in girls slightly trails that
of boys before puberty, but then decreases slowly to early adulthood. There
is, however, significant debate around the analysis of data related to body size.
Armstrong and Welsman (1) have strongly advocated the use of allometric
12 G. Stratton and J.L. Oliver
scaling because a number of studies by their group suggest that larger children’s
V̇ O2peak scores are deflated and smaller children’s scores inflated when ratio scal-
ing (per kilogram of body mass) is used. However, there has been a significant
lack of consistency in the literature, resulting in most scientists continuing to
report their data using simple ratio scaling (35). More recent work also suggests
that there may be less of an effect of maturity in girls’ growth-related V̇ O2 than
in boys’ (27). The Saskatchewan longitudinal growth study tracked V̇ O2peak in
83 boys between ages 8 and 16 years (2). These growth velocity curves report
absolute V̇ O2 and illustrate little change in aerobic fitness during childhood. Just
before puberty there was a small decrement in V̇ O2 followed by an exponential
increase, which mirrored increases in lean body mass.

The changes in physical fitness that are observed through childhood and
adolescence are largely the result of changes in body size and composi-
tion, particularly changes in lean muscle and fat mass, that accompany
maturation. Appropriately scaling fitness test scores for the effect of body
size and composition will help to control for the effects of maturation
on performance.

Relative age effect

As opposed to maturation, the relative age effect (RAE) refers to a biased distribu-
tion of birth dates within an age-grouped cohort. For example, identical twins born
on 31 December at 23.50 and 1 January at 00.15 would be eligible for participation
in either of two adjacent calendar years. Being born early or late in their calendar
year may have a positive and negative effect on the future success of either twin.
Furthermore, there is strong evidence that being born early or late in a selection
year can influence performance in sports, academic achievement and employment.
The literature suggests that RAE varies according to sports, age group, sex and level
of performance (11, 12, 44). RAE has been studied in elite sport for some time,
yet many studies still demonstrate that the RAE is widely prevalent across sports,
games and athletes participating in major games. There is significant evidence from
early studies in baseball and ice hockey that an RAE exists (5, 41); however, most
of the evidence exists for boys where the RAE is prevalent across most sports, but
with less evidence in girls.
In relation to motor performance tests a significant RAE has been found in a
20-metre shuttle run test performance in 15,000 9- to 12-year-old children even
after controlling for somatic maturity (32). Examples of sport-specific RAE data
(5, 6, 10, 13, 16, 17, 41, 43) have been collated and presented in Table 1.2. The
data presented in Table 1.2 are consistent with the wider literature, showing a
consistent RAE in both senior and junior male athletes, but a less inconsistent
age advantage in female sports (although conclusions on female sports are lim-
ited by the lack of studies on RAE in this population). Data from Hancock et al.
 The impact of growth and maturation 13
Table 1.2 Examples of the relative age effect across sports and gender, showing
the percentage distribution of birth dates across different quartiles of the
competitive season

Sport Sex n Age Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Reference

(%) (%) (%) (%)

Baseball M 837 Senior 29 25 23 23a Thompson

et al. (41)
Baseball M 682 Senior 29 27 23 21a Thompson
et al. (41)
Ice hockey M 884 Senior 34 31 20 15a Boucher and
Mutimer (5)
Ice hockey M 951 Junior 37 28 23 12a Boucher and
Mutimer (5)
Soccer M 735 Junior 39 26 20 15a Helsen et al. (17)
Soccer M 2768 Junior 43 27 18 11a Del Campo
et al. (10)
Soccer M 2051 Junior 43 27 19 11a Brustio et al. (6)
Soccer F 804 Junior 26 26 25 23 Vincent and
Glamser (43)
Tennis F 239 Junior 31 25 28 17a Edgar and
Donoghue (13)
Gymnastics F 736 <15 26 29 24 21a Hancock
et al. (16)
Gymnastics F 185 >15 18 23 25 34a Hancock
et al. (16)

Significant relative age effect (P <0.05). F, female; M, male; Q, birth quartile.

a

(16) show an interesting trend in female gymnasts; girls in <15 age categories are
overrepresented by those born earlier in the year, but this trend is reversed for
girls aged >15 years, with relatively younger girls overrepresented. Those findings
highlight the complex nature of the RAE, which is likely to be the result of the
interaction of many factors that will influence the talent selection and develop-
ment process. A 10-cm difference in stature of 9- to 12-year-old girls born early
or late in their respective year or a 4-kg, year-on-year difference in body mass of
8- to 11-year-old boys provides clear evidence of distinct size advantage in stature
and mass of children born early in the selection year. It should be noted that, for
some sports, such as gymnastics, a shorter stature is advantageous, as opposed to
a sport such as tennis where greater stature is an advantage.

Practical applications
For the practitioner anthropometric measures are probably the most widely
available for the assessment of maturity status. Consequently, this section
focuses on anthropometric techniques that provide accessible means with which
14 G. Stratton and J.L. Oliver
to assess growth and maturation. Importantly ongoing monitoring (e.g. every
3 months) of stature and body mass allows growth rates to be calculated and
events associated with maturation (such as the onset of the growth spurt and
PHV) to be identified (see Figure 1.1). However, longitudinal monitoring is
limited in that it is practicably burdensome and identifies peak growth rates
after only they have occurred. Where access to young athletes is limited to a
one-off occasion, or there is a desire to try to predict future growth and matura-
tion, prediction equations are available.

Predicting PHV and the maturity offset

The long bones of the limbs experience an earlier spurt in growth compared with
the short bones of the spine, and this can be observed by the timing of peak
growth rates in leg length and trunk height. Increases in body mass also lag behind
increases in stature during maturation. Based on the differential timing of peak
growth rates, Mirwald et al. (28) developed a method for estimating maturity
based on age, stature, sitting height (which can be subtracted from stature to
calculate leg length) and body mass. The predicted maturity offset describes how
close, in years, a child is to achieving their PHV; a negative value indicates a child
who is pre-PHV, zero would indicate a child who is exactly at the time of PHV and
a positive value would indicate a child who is post-PHV. The equations for esti-
mating the maturity offset in boys and girls are shown below, with both reported
to have a standard error of approximately 7 months (0.56–0.59 years) (28).

Boys’ maturity offset = −9.236 + (0.002708 × leg length × sitting height) −

(0.001663 × age × leg length) + (0.007216 × age × sitting height) + (0.02292 ×
[body mass/height])

Girls’ maturity offset = −9.376 + (0.0001882 × leg length × sitting height) +

(0.0022 × age × leg length) + (0.005841 × age × sitting height) − (0.002658 ×
age × body mass) + (0.07693 × [body mass/height]).

The maturity offset may be useful for practitioners involved in talent identifica-
tion and development processes, for example, consider two boys aged 14 years
competing in the same age group in a given sport. If the first boy has a maturity
offset of +2.0 years and the second boy has a maturity offset of −1.0 year then,
despite being the same chronological age, the first boy is biologically 3 years
ahead of the second boy in terms of somatic maturity. This would give the first
boy a distinct physical advantage over the second boy. The maturity offset can
also be subtracted from chronological age to give the age at PHV, and this can
be used to classify youth as early, on time or late maturing. In the above example,
the two boys would have an age at PHV of 12 years and 15 years, respectively.
Youth who are within ±1 standard deviation (SD) of the population mean for the
age at PHV are considered as maturing on time, whereas those >1 SD away from
the mean are classified as either early or late maturing. In the above example,
 The impact of growth and maturation 15
assume that the two boys were drawn from a population with an average age at
PHV of 14.0 ± 0.9 years. That would mean any boy in that population with an
age at PHV between 13.1 and 14.9 years would be considered as maturing on
time; either side of those boundaries they would be considered as early and late
maturing. This means that our first boy is classified as early maturing and the
second boy as late maturing. Practitioners should consider the maturity status
of young athletes, particularly those competing in the same age groups, because
maturation will influence both the current physical fitness and the future gains in
fitness that can be expected.
Although the maturity offset continues to be a very popular tool, practitioners
should be aware of potential limitations of this method. Recently, researchers have
criticised the method because data show that it is biased to chronological age at
the time of prediction and may not show good agreement with directly measured
age at PHV, particularly in youth who are further away from PHV and in early
and late maturing boys and girls (24, 25). Although newer adapted versions of the
maturity-offset prediction have been proposed (14, 29), these newer equations
still appear to suffer from the same limitations as the original method (19, 30).

Percentage of predicted adult height

Being able to predict adult stature and the percentage of adult stature achieved
at any time point is important in elite junior sport, especially where stature is a
significant predictor for successful performance. Sports such as gymnastics, tram-
polining, basketball and volleyball rely on a narrow range of either short or tall
participants. Predicted adult height can also be useful for estimating somatic matu-
rity, whereby the current height of the child is expressed as a percentage of their
predicted adult height (9).
There are different methods available to predict the adult stature of a child
but, given the genetic heritability of stature, estimations based on parental height
are most commonly used. A popular method of estimating adult height has been
provided by Khamis and Roche (18). This method uses the child’s current mass
and height together with mid-parental height to predict adult height, with dif-
ferent prediction equations given for each sex in half-yearly increments for youth
age 4–17.5 years. There are many online calculators available that will automati-
cally run the calculation once the required information has been entered. The
error of prediction in the equation has been reported to be 2 cm, on average (18).
Consider two female tennis players both aged 13 years and both 150 cm tall.
If player A has a predicted adult height of 155 cm she has already achieved 97% of
her predicted adult height. If player B has a predicted adult height of 170 cm she
is only at 88% of her predicted adult height. Despite being the same age, player
A is substantially more mature than player B, which may give player A some
physical advantages over player B at this point in time. However, the potential
for further growth in height and the advantage this brings in tennis may mean
player B has more potential to achieve long-term success. By comparing percent-
age of predicted adult height of young athletes of the same chronological age,