Maximal Strength Testing in Healthy Children
Title: Maximal Strength Testing in Healthy Children– 2003
FAIGENBAUM, AVERY D.; MILLIKEN, LAURIE A.; WESTCOTT, WAYNE L. Maximal Strength Testing in Healthy Children. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research: February 2003 – Volume 17 – Issue 1 – p 162-166
Authors: Avery D Faigenbaum, Laurie A. Milliken – Dept of Exercise Science and Phys Ed, University of Massachusetts, Boston
Wayne L Westcott – South Shore YMCA, Quincy MA
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness in maximally strength testing children in regards to safety and efficacy.
Study Population: 32 Adolescent Females and 64 Adolescent Males- between 6.2 and 12.3 years old (Mean 9.3 + 1.6 years), with all undergoing prior medical screening to determine if any medical conditions that could worsen with 1 repetition max (1RM) testing where present. Exclusion criteria included chronic pediatric disease, orthopedic limitations, and age older than 13 years old.
Method: Each child completed a 1RM Upper Body (Standing or seated chest press) and 1RM Lower Body (Leg press or Leg Extension) performed through full range of motion. Each child was supervised by an NSCA certified Strength and Conditioning Exercise Professional, following a specific safety protocol. All testing subjects completed a orientation session which included proper form and technique education. Finally, each test was completed on child-sized equipment, following appropriate warm up and finished with a cool down period. Each subject complete a 6 rep warm up, followed by an increased weight for 3 reps and then finally a 1 rep max test, with subjective increases in weight determined by professionals based on subject presentation and effort. Each session completed over a 60 minutes period, with a follow up questionnaire 2-4 days post testing to determine response to testing.
Outcome Measures: Outcome measure completed in this study was 1RM testing
Results: Study results outlined safety in 1RM testing in adolescents under the age of 13, but recommended performing addition sets of lifts to increase the muscle activation and increase the likelihood of the child performing a true 1RM. This study outlines increased necessity for gradual increase in weight, as well as increased sets to further complete accurate testing.
Major Strengths: The major strength of this study is outlining a guideline to complete safe 1RM testing in health adolescents under the age of 13 years old, through proper education and application of gradual increases in weight and supervision from professionals.
Limitation:
– Small study pool
– Testing procedure- Personal opinion: Through completing multiple sets of increasing weight, the validity of a true 1RM is muddied by expecting increased muscle expenditure though the testing procedure.
– Lack of using objective data collection to assess Perceived Exertion with weight increases, and relied on “anecdotal observation… of child’s perception (ie. Light, medium or heavy)” ( Faigenbaum et al)
Conclusion: There is value in completing a 1RM test in health adolescents under 13 years old, if the greatest concern in not completing this type of test is participant safety. While this study does include guidelines to increase safety, the overall strength assessment can be muddied through increased expected energy expenditure while testing. If a true, valid measurement is the overall goal, completing a true 6 or even 3 rep max strength testing and formulating an expected 1RM maybe a safer alternative to following the guidelines set in this article. This study does show the validity in increased safety in strength testing adolescents with proper education and supervision by Exercise professionals.
3 responses to “Maximal Strength Testing in Healthy Children”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m glad there is research being conducted on the safety of 1RM in children. Sports are becoming more and more competitive among younger age groups, and I’m sure resistance training is becoming more prominent in younger age groups. However, I do agree with the recommendation of completing a 3 or 6 repetition max as a safer alternative. Strength training programs can still be prescribed based on a 3 or 6 rep max, without a true 1RM being conducted. I can imagine earlier resistance training with proper technique greatly impacting athletic performance and probably prevention of future injury if started at a younger age. Nice job on your article summary!
Nice summary! This was a useful read after today’s ex. phys lecture about exercise for kids. In class, it was mentioned that children don’t usually need formal strengthening or weight lifting programs because they can increase strength with other informal activities. Did the article mention any benefits or use cases for a 1RM test for children (outside of sports)? What are your thoughts about getting a true 1RM vs using the child’s perception of light/med/heavy?
The article did not mention children outside sports, but I believe that there is a need to understand how the child is developing even if they are building strength in more informal activities. By having a baseline, it gives Exercise specialists a better way to see progress as well as regression following injury or immobility. I think of it similar to concussion baseline testing, I would rather have the baseline prior to injury then being unsure of progress/ regression. As goes true 1RM vs child’s perception, I think that which data is more relevant depends on who is collecting the data and why. As a SPT, I believe in collecting as objective of data as possible so closer to the 1RM, or as I stated in my conclusion, a 3RM or 6RM, over more subjective data.