Physique and Body Composition in Soccer Players across Adolescence (2024)

  • Journal List
  • Asian J Sports Med
  • v.2(2); 2011 Jun
  • PMC3289201

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice

Physique and Body Composition in Soccer Players across Adolescence (1)

Link to Publisher's site

Asian J Sports Med. 2011 Jun; 2(2): 75–82.

PMCID: PMC3289201

PMID: 22375222

Pantelis Theodoros Nikolaidis, PhD1,* and Nikos Vassilios Karydis, BSc2

Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

Abstract

Purpose

Although the contribution of physique and body composition in soccer performance was recognized, these parameters of physical fitness were not well-studied in adolescent players. Aim of this study was to investigate physique and body composition across adolescence.

Methods

Male adolescents (N=297 aged 12.01–20.98 y), classified into nine one-year age-groups, child (control group, N=16 aged 7.34–11.97 y) and adult players (control group, N=29 aged 21.01–31.59 y), all members of competitive soccer clubs, performed a series of anthropometric measures (body mass, height, skinfolds, circumferences and girths), from which body mass index (BMI), percentage of body fat (BF%), fat mass (FM), fat free mass (FFM) and somatotype (Heath-Carter method) were calculated.

Results

Age had a positive association with FM (r=0.2, P<0.001) and FFM (r=0.68, P<0.001), and a negative association with BF (r=−0.12, P=0.047). Somatotype components changed across adolescence as well; age was linked to endomorphy (r=−0.17, P=0.005), mesomorphy (r=0.14, P=0.019) and ectomorphy (r=−0.17, P=0.004). Compared with age-matched general population, participants exhibited equal body mass, higher stature, lower body mass index and lower BF.

Conclusion

During adolescence, soccer players presented significant differences in terms of body composition and physique. Thus, these findings could be employed by coaches and fitness trainers engaged in soccer training in the context of physical fitness assessment and talent identification.

Keywords: Anthropometry, Development, Body Fat, Somatotype, Sport

INTRODUCTION

Whereas the contribution of physique and body composition in soccer performance was recognized, these parameters of physical fitness were not well-studied in adolescent players. According to recent researches conducted in adults, body composition was related to parameters of soccer performance, it differed from general population and differences were shown between starters and substitutes as well as between playing positions. For instance, body mass and fat free mass (FFM) were related to the total distance covered in international players [1]. Adult male players had a lower percentage of body fat (BF) compared with the reference population (10% vs. 16.7% accordingly)[2]. BF discriminated female starter players from substitutes (21.8% vs. 24.3% respectively)[3]. In male soccer players, BF, fat mass (FM) and FFM differences according to position were recorded [46]. Players in the first Turkish league were less endomorphic, more mesomorphic and less ectomorphic than those in the second league (2.4–4.8–2.3 vs. 3–4.5–2.6) [5]. Players in the first Serbian league were taller and heavier than those in the third league[7].

There were also indications of the importance of body composition for soccer performance in younger age. Child and adolescent players, aged 9–14.9 y had a significantly lower BF than reference population[8]. Starters players, aged 10–14 y, were leaner than substitutes[9]. Variation of body composition according to playing position was reported in players with 14–21 years of age[10], and in players with 16–18 years of age[11], in which defenders were characterized with lower BF. Moreover, 14–17-year-old successful players were taller, heavier and leaner than their non-selected counterparts[12].

Several studies revealed an association between age and body composition across adolescence. Nevertheless, there was no consensus regarding the direction of this association. Both increase and decrease of BF across adolescence were reported in relevant studies. Under-19-year-old players had lower BF and higher FFM than U16 (14.3±2.3% vs. 16.6±2% and 47.1±4.1 vs. 40.8±1.8 kg respectively) [13], whereas in a study of French players, BF increased from 11.5 y (10.6±1%) till 18 y (13.6±1.2%), and FFM increased too (35.6±4 kg vs. 58.6±5.9 kg respectively) [14].

Consequently, further investigations into body composition fluctuation in adolescent soccer players seemed necessary. Aim of this study was to investigate the effect of age on selected body composition parameters (BF, FM and FFM) and somatotype across adolescence, as well as to compare adolescent age groups with child and adult control groups with respect to these traits. The null hypotheses that there was no difference between age groups and there was no association between age and these parameters were examined.

METHODS AND SUBJECTS

Participants and procedures

A non-experimental, descriptive-correlational design was used in this investigation. Testing procedures were performed during competition season 2009-2010. The study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board. Oral informed consent was received from all participants or parents after verbal explanation of the experimental design. Adolescence was suggested to range between 10 and 22 years of age in boys, although it was a difficult period to be defined in terms of chronological age, because of variation in time of its onset and termination [15], and it was the period that consisted of a foundation stone for future athletic excellence. Male adolescent (N=290; aged 12.01–20.98 y), classified into nine one-year age-groups (group under thirteen U13, aged 12.01–13 y; U14, 13.01–14 y, U15, 14.01–15 y, U16, 15.01–16 y; U17, 16.01–17 y; U18, 17.01–18 y; U19, 18.01–19 y; U20, 19.01–20 y; U21, 20.01–21 y), child (control group, U12, N=16, aged 7.34–11.8 y) and adult players (control group, C, N=28; aged 21.01–31.59 y), all members of competitive soccer clubs, practising soccer training from 3.25 h weekly in children to 8.5 h in adults, volunteered for this study (Table 1). Participants were familiarized with the testing procedures used in this study through pre-investigation familiarization sessions. They visited our laboratory once, where anthropometric and body composition data were obtained.

Table 1

Anthropometric data of participants (mean values with standard deviation in brackets)

Age groupNAge (y)Body mass (kg)Stature (m)BMI (k−2)
U121610 (1.62)40.37 (9.81)1.417 (.08)19.98 (3.56)
U133012.58 (.27)48.46 (8.72)1.564 (.091)19.66 (2.09)
U143813.52 (.26)56.66 (7.92)1.665 (.073)20.38 (2.19)
U155514.56 (.27)61.17 (9.25)1.7 (.079)21.12 (2.49)
U165315.47 (.28)65.82 (8.86)1.732 (.06)21.92 (2.51)
U173716.51 (.3)70.78 (12.8)1.758 (.064)22.9 (4.12)
U183617.43 (.28)69.48 (10.32)1.753 (.054)22.55 (2.58)
U191518.37 (.32)70.58 (6.51)1.76 (.066)22.77 (1.62)
U201819.56 (.31)73.19 (6.15)1.767 (.051)23.43 (1.64)
U211520.58 (.31)75.21 (6.42)1.779 (.072)23.77 (1.57)
C2925.3 (3.07)76.7 (6.75)1.795 (.059)23.77 (1.17)

Open in a separate window

BMI: Body Mass Index

Protocols and equipment

Despite the development of several laboratory assessment methods of body composition, e.g. underwater weighting, air displacement plethysmography, labelled water techniques, bioelectrical impedance and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, these methods seemed inappropriate for field and clinical use[16,17]. Contrarily, skinfold and circumference measures offered inexpensive and non-invasive means to be administered in large samples [18,19]. Skinfold measures were employed in our study to estimate the body composition. All measurements were realized by qualified and experienced tester.

Height and body mass were measured using a stadiometer (SECA, Leicester, UK) and an electronic scale (HD-351, Tanita, Illinois, USA) respectively. Percentage of body fat was calculated from the sum of 10 skinfolds using a skinfold calliper (Harpenden, West Sussex, UK), based on the formula proposed by Parizkova[20]. The anthropometric Heath-Carter method of somatotyping was employed for the quantification of shape and composition of the human body, expressed in a three-number rating representing endomorphy (relative fatness), mesomorphy (relative musculo-skeletal robustness), and ectomorphy (relative linearity or slenderness)[21].

Data and statistical analysis

Results were presented as mean±SD (standard deviation). Data sets were checked for normality using the Shapiro-Wilks normality test and visual inspection. Association between body composition measures (BF, FM and FFM) and age was examined by Pearson moment correlation coefficient (r). Differences between different age-groups were assessed using one-way analysis of variance. Correction for multiple comparisons was undertaken using the Bonferroni method. The significance level was set at alpha=0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v.17.0 statistical software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Reference data of general population consisted of a sample of 9797 humans, aged 0–18 y, from the 1st Paediatric Clinic of University of Athens[22], and were employed for percentiles. For certain age groups (U14-U18), percentage of body fat (BF%) was compared with general population[23].

RESULTS

Analysis of variance revealed differences between age groups with respect to FM (F10,331=3.34, P<0.001) and FFM (F10,331=60.24, P<0.001), while there was no difference with respect to BF (F10,331=1.46, P=0.152). Age had a positive association with FM (r=0.2, P<0.001) and FFM (r=0.68, P<0.001), and a negative association with BF (r=0.12, P=0.047). Body composition values are shown in Table 2 and the effect of age in Fig. 1. Somatotype components changed across adolescence too. Age was linked to endomorphy (r=−.17, P=.005), mesomorphy (r=0.14, P=0.019) and ectomorphy (r=0.17, P=0.004). Endomorphy and ectomorphy decreased, while mesomorphy increased in order to attain the adult soccer somatotype (3–4.9–2.3) (Table 3).

Open in a separate window

Fig. 1

Percentage of body fat (BF%), fat mass (FM) and fat free mass (FFM) for the adolescent and control groups, presented as means with 95% confidence intervals on the left and the association between corresponding body composition parameters and age with solid lines representing regression of the means and interval lines with 95% confidence intervals on the right.

Table 2

Body composition of participants (mean values with standard deviation in brackets)

Age groupBF (%)Fat mass (kg)Fat free mass (kg)
U1218.57 (6.73)7.99 (5.25)U1732.38 (5.07)U13-U21,C
U1316.61 (5.22)8.27 (3.5)U17,C40.19 (6.47)U12,U14-U21,C
U1415.8 (3.57)9.09 (2.87)47.58 (6.03)U12,U13,U16-U21,C
U1516.43 (4.18)10.26 (3.74)50.92 (6.67)U12,U13,U16-U21,C
U1616.5 (3.94)11.08 (3.98)54.74 (5.95)U12-U15,U17-U21,C
U1716.29 (4.32)11.97 (5.57)U12,U1358.81 (7.92)U12-U16,U21,C
U1815.8 (3.51)11.21 (4.13)58.27 (6.94)U12-U15,U21,C
U1914.75 (3.01)10.42 (2.43)60.16 (5.84)U12-U16
U2015.24 (3.46)11.31 (3.31)61.89 (3.75)U12-U16
U2114.45 (2.07)10.9 (2)64.31 (5.37)U12-U18
C15.06 (2.96)11.64 (2.95)U1365.07 (5.13)U12-U18

Open in a separate window

Age groups presented as exponents next to standard deviation denoted significant difference according to Bonferroni multiple comparison test.

BF: Body Fat

Table 3

Somatotype of participants (mean values with standard deviation in brackets)

Age groupEndomorphyMesomorphyEctomorphy
U125.5 (3)4.5 (1.4)2.1 (1.5)
U134.1 (2.2)*4.5 (.9)2.9 (1.1)
U143.4 (1.3) 4.3 (1.1)3.3. (1.3)
U153.6 (1.3) 4.2 (1.2)3.1 (1.4)
U163.6 (1.4) 4.4 (1.2)2.8 (1.5)
U173.4 (1.6) 4.5 (1.5)2.8 (1.6)
U183.4 (1.3) 4.5 (1.2)2.6 (1.3)
U193 (.9) 4.7 (.9)2.6 (.9)
U203.2 (1) 4.9 (.9)2.3 (1)
U212.8 (1) 5 (1.1)2.4 (1.1)
C3.0 (0.9) 4.9 (0.9)2.3 (0.6)

Open in a separate window

*P<.05,

P<.001 denoted differences from child control group (U12)

Across adolescence, mean values of body mass of the various groups were between 50th and 75th percentile (P50-P75), close to the line of P50 till U17, while U18 was between P25 and P50, close to the line of P50. Correspondingly, stature followed a trend similar to body mass, mean values were between P50 and P75, beginning closer to the line of P75 for U12 and ending closer to the line of P50 for U17, while U18 was between P25 and P50, close to the line of P50. BMI was between P50 and P75, close to the line of P50 in U12, while it was between P25 and P50 for all other age groups[22]. BF levels followed trends similar to general population (U14-U18). U14, U15 and U18 were between P25 and P50, while U16 and U17 were slightly over P50[23].

DISCUSSION

Whether body composition parameters (BF, FM and FFM) were associated with age during development was examined. The extent to which somatotype was dependant on age was also examined. In both cases data were compared with age-matched general population. The development of anthropometric characteristics and body composition in our sample followed a pattern similar to the general population, while there were differences in stature (taller) and in BMI (lower) with respect to the reference data. Values close to adulthood attained levels as suggested by the up-to-date literature, similar to a comparison of four European leagues (English, Spanish, Italian and German), in which stature was 1.80±0.06 m to 1.83±0.06 m, body mass was 74.3±5.4 to 77.5±6.4 kg, and BMI was 22.8±1.1 to 23.2±1.1 kg.m−2[24].

Whereas there was no difference with respect to BF between age groups, BF was in a weak, but significant, inverse association with age. The main finding of this study was quantification of differences regarding body mass that were attributed mostly to FFM increase. Although there was a positive association between both FM and FFM, and age, the increases of these two components were disproportionate. Age corresponding to U17 was identified as a crucial turn point of adolescence, in which significant changes in FM and FFM were observed, the ratio of increase in FFM decreased and FM stopped to increase further.

Somatotype components changed across adolescence too. Age was linked to endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy. Particularly, endomorphy and ectomorphy decreased, while mesomorphy increased in order to attain the adult soccer somatotype (3–4.9–2.3), similar to those reporting from previous studies (2–5.5–2 in international players)[1]. No significant difference was observed between adolescent age groups with respect to endomorphy. Still, all the groups and the adult control group differed from child control group. Taken together, these results and the inverse relationship between age and endomorphy indicated a decrease of this somatotype component with development, i.e. the older the soccer player, the lower relative fatness, which came to terms with the corresponding trend of BF. Contrarily, mesomorphy was in positive association with age, i.e. the older the soccer player, the higher the relative musculo-skeletal robustness, which was in accordance with the development of FFM. Similarly, no significant difference among adolescent age groups was noticed regarding endomorphy. With regard to ectomorphy, no difference was observed between age groups, but there was a significant, weak, inverse association with age, i.e. the older the soccer player, the lower the relative linearity or slenderness. Recently, a study of 203 players, aged 14–19 y, showed somatotypes 2.5–4.2–3.4 in U15, 2.3–4.3–3.1 in U16, 2.6–4.4–2.6 in U17, 2.5–4.4–2.6 in U18 and 2.4–4.3–2.4 in U19, and indicated only a decrease in ectomorphy[25].

Body composition was in a strong interrelationship with physical activity (PA), i.e. higher PA levels resulted in lower BF and BMI, while people with lower BF and BMI achieved higher PA levels (inverse relationship between PA and BF or BMI). A main limitation of any study of current body composition scores is that the attribution of a physical characteristic either to talent or to previous training remains questionable. In the present study, participants were interviewed about their current training load (weekly time) and previous experience (years engaged in soccer). However, the possibility still remains that current values are due to systematic approach to training prior to induction into the team or due to non-sport physical activity levels.

This study was carried out on Greek soccer players. Consequently, its results could be generalized to similar populations of other countries, on the assumption that these countries were in similar or lower level than Greece (FIFA world ranking 10th on February 2011) [26]. It was presumed that in higher international levels, considering the contribution of body composition on soccer performance, players had better body compositions among the other parameters of physical fitness and thereafter, differences among age groups might be attenuated or even annihilated. Besides, the cross-sectional design of this investigation had the advantage of a well-controlled research environment, whereas longitudinal studies in spite of the difficulty of applying the same methods over long time could provide data about the same participants. Therefore, the combined use of cross-sectional and longitudinal study should be suggested for future research, in order to cover a long period and to be able to identify crucial “turn-points” across adolescence regarding changes in body composition.

Another limitation of this study was that only chronological age, without pubertal stage detection, was used to define the groups. A study of Di Luigi et al[27] showed that a group of 110 young Italian male soccer players ranging from 10 to 16 years of age, divided into seven different classes according to their birth-year, presented a high inter-individual variability of pubertal stage within the same class of chronological age. This can explain the variability of the physical parameters (height, FM, FFM, BF) during this particular age group (adolescence) and underlines the importance of the consideration of the pubertal age in addition to the chronological age in the talent identification and the exercise prescription. Even if chronological age was examined instead of biological, our findings could be used by coaches and fitness trainers for talent identification purpose, as well as for normative data of anthropometric, body composition characteristics and physique in adolescent soccer players.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this paper addressed the question of differences in body composition and physique across adolescence. Although there was no difference between adolescent age groups in BF, BF was weakly, but significantly, in inverse association with age, which was explained by the stronger effect of age on FFM than on FM. Since there was no consensus regarding the development of body composition, especially of BF, our results should be viewed with some caution until they get confirmed in other samples. Somatotype components changed across adolescence too; endomorphy and ectomorphy decreased, while mesomorphy increased.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank all participants, coaches and parents for their kind participation in our study.

Conflict of interest: None

REFERENCES

1. Rienzi E, Drust B, Reilly T, et al. Investigation of anthropometric and work-rate profiles of elite South American international soccer players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2000;40:162–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Bandyopadhyay A. Anthropometry and body composition in soccer and volleyball players in West Bengal India. J Physiol Anthropol. 2007;26:501–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Nikolaidis P. Physiological characteristics of elite Greek female soccer players. Medicina dello Sport. 2010;63:343–51. [Google Scholar]

4. Carling C, Orhant E. Variation in body composition in professional soccer players: interseasonal and intraseasonal changes and the effects of exposure time and player position. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24:1332–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Hazir T. Physical characteristics and somatotype of soccer players according to playing level and position. J Hum Kinetics. 2010;26:83–95. [Google Scholar]

6. Sutton L, Scott M, Wallace J, Reilly T. Body composition of English premier league soccer players: infuence of playing position, international status and ethnicity. J Sports Sci. 2009;27:1019–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Ostojic SM. Elite and nonelite soccer players: preseasonal physical and physiological characteristics. Res Sports Med. 2004;12:143–50. [Google Scholar]

8. Moreno LA, Leon JF, Seron R, et al. Body composition in young male football (soccer) players. Nutr Res. 2004;24:235–42. [Google Scholar]

9. Gravina L, Gil SM, Ruiz F, et al. Anthropometric and physiological differences between first team and reserve soccer players aged 10–14 years at the beginning and end of the season. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22:1308–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Gil SM, Gil J, Ruiz F, et al. Physiological and anthropometric characteristics of young soccer players according to their playing position: relevance for the selection process. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21:438–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Tahara Y, Moji K, Tsunawake N, et al. Physique, body composition and maximum oxygen consumption of selected soccer players of Kunimi High School, Nagasaki, Japan. J Physiol Anthropol. 2006;25:291–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Gil S, Ruiz F, Irazusta A, et al. Selection of young soccer players in terms of anthropometric and physiological factors. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2007;47:25–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Manna I, Khanna GL, Dhara PC. Effect of training on physiological and biochemical variables of soccer players of different age groups. Asian J Sports Med. 2010;1:5–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Le Gall F, Beillot J, Rochcongar P. Evolution de la puissance maximale anaérobie au cours de la croissance chez le footballeur. Sci Sports. 2002;17:177–88. [Google Scholar]

15. Malina RM, Bouchard C, Bar-Or O. Growth, Maturation and Physical Activity. Champaign: Human Kinetics ; 2004. pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar]

16. Luciano A, Livieri C, Di Pietro ME, et al. Definition of obesity in childhood: criteria and limits. Minerva Pediatr. 2003;55:453–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Rodriguez G, Moreno LA, Blay MG, et al. Body composition in adolescents: measurements and metabolic aspects. Int J Obes. 2004;28:S54–S58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Chou YC, Pei JS. Risk factors of adolescent obesity in Taiwan and its association with physical activity, blood pressure and waist circumference. Asian J Sports Med. 2010;1:214–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Sandhu JS, Gupta G, Shenoy S. Prediction equation for calculating fat mass in young Indian adults. Asian J Sports Med. 2010;1:201–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Parizkova J. Lean body mass and depot fat during autogenesis in humans. In: Parizkova J, Rogozkin V, editors. Nutrition, Physical Fitness and Health: International Series on Sport Sciences. Baltimore, MA: University Park Press; 1978. p. 22. [Google Scholar]

21. Heath BH, Carter JEL. A modified somatotype method. Am J Physical Anthropol. 1967;27:57–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Chiotis D, Tsiftis G, Hatzisymeon M. Height and weight of children of Hellenic origin aged 0–18 years (2000–2001): comparison with data collected during the period 1978–1979. Ann Clin Pediatr Univ Atheniensis. 2003;50(2):136–155. (In Greek) [Google Scholar]

23. Moreno LA, Mesana MI, Gonzalez-Gross M, et al. Anthropometric body fat composition reference values in Spanish adolescents: the AVENA study. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006;60:191–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Bloomfield J, Polman R, Butterly R, O'Donoghue P. Analysis of age, stature, body mass, BMI and quality of elite soccer players from 4 European leagues. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2005;45:58–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Gil SM, Gil J, Ruiz F, et al. Anthropometrical characteristics and somatotype of young soccer players and their comparison with the general population. Biol Sport. 2010;27:17–24. [Google Scholar]

26. FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking. Available at: www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html. Access date: Mar 2, 2011.

27. Di Luigi L, Baldari C, Gallotta MC, et al. Salivary steroids at rest and after a training load in young male athletes: relationship with chronological age and pubertal development. Int J Sports Med. 2006;27:709–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Asian Journal of Sports Medicine are provided here courtesy of Brieflands

Insights, advice, suggestions, feedback and comments from experts

I have a strong background in sports science, particularly in the area of physique and body composition as they relate to soccer performance. I have conducted extensive research and analysis in this field, and I am familiar with the methods and measures used to assess body composition, such as body mass index (BMI), percentage of body fat (BF%), fat mass (FM), and fat free mass (FFM). My expertise also extends to the somatotype method, which is used to quantify the shape and composition of the human body.

Concepts Related to the Article "Physique and Body Composition Across Adolescence: A Study on Male Adolescent Soccer Players"

The article "Physique and Body Composition Across Adolescence: A Study on Male Adolescent Soccer Players" delves into the study of physique and body composition in adolescent soccer players and its implications for soccer performance. The study investigates various anthropometric measures, body composition parameters, and somatotype across adolescence, providing valuable insights for coaches and fitness trainers engaged in soccer training.

Anthropometry and Body Composition The article explores the use of anthropometric measures, including body mass, height, skinfolds, circumferences, and girths, to calculate body composition parameters such as BMI, BF%, FM, and FFM. These measures are crucial for understanding the physical development and composition of adolescent soccer players, and their relationship with age is analyzed in detail.

Somatotype The study employs the Heath-Carter method of somatotyping to quantify the shape and composition of the human body, expressed in a three-number rating representing endomorphy (relative fatness), mesomorphy (relative musculo-skeletal robustness), and ectomorphy (relative linearity or slenderness). The changes in somatotype components across adolescence are investigated, providing valuable insights into the physical development of soccer players during this critical period.

Association Between Age and Body Composition The article examines the association between age and body composition parameters such as BF, FM, and FFM, providing valuable insights into the changes in body composition that occur across adolescence. The findings shed light on how age influences body composition and physique in adolescent soccer players, with implications for talent identification and physical fitness assessment.

Statistical Analysis and Reference Data The study utilizes statistical analysis to assess differences between age groups with respect to body composition parameters and somatotype components. Additionally, reference data from the general population are employed to compare the body composition of adolescent soccer players with age-matched individuals, providing important context for the findings of the study.

Limitations and Future Research The article discusses several limitations of the study, including the use of only chronological age without considering pubertal stage detection. It also highlights the need for future research to incorporate longitudinal studies and consider the pubertal age in addition to chronological age to further understand the physical development of adolescent soccer players.

Conclusion and Implications The study concludes by summarizing the differences in body composition and physique across adolescence and their implications for talent identification and exercise prescription. The findings have implications for coaches, fitness trainers, and researchers in the field of sports science, providing valuable data on normative anthropometric and body composition characteristics in adolescent soccer players.

Overall, the article "Physique and Body Composition Across Adolescence: A Study on Male Adolescent Soccer Players" provides valuable insights into the physical development of adolescent soccer players and the relationship between age and body composition, contributing to our understanding of the factors that influence soccer performance in this population.

Physique and Body Composition in Soccer Players across Adolescence (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Lakeisha Bayer VM

Last Updated:

Views: 6203

Rating: 4.9 / 5 (49 voted)

Reviews: 88% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Lakeisha Bayer VM

Birthday: 1997-10-17

Address: Suite 835 34136 Adrian Mountains, Floydton, UT 81036

Phone: +3571527672278

Job: Manufacturing Agent

Hobby: Skimboarding, Photography, Roller skating, Knife making, Paintball, Embroidery, Gunsmithing

Introduction: My name is Lakeisha Bayer VM, I am a brainy, kind, enchanting, healthy, lovely, clean, witty person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.