Physical and pubertal development in young male gymnasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of intense training on physical growth and sexual maturation in young male gymnasts. Physical development, pubertal development, testosterone levels, energy expenditure, and relative body fat were examined in 21 circumpubertal male gymnasts (13.3 +/- 0.3 yr) and 24 age-matched controls (13.5 +/- 0.3 yr). Subjects completed a self-assessment of genital and pubic hair development with the use of the Tanner scale. All subjects were measured for height, weight, and salivary testosterone levels (T). The Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents was used to estimate weekly energy expenditure in metabolic equivalents. Percent body fat (%BF) was assessed by using bioelectrical impedance analysis. Developmental stages and T, as well as height and weight, were not different between groups. Energy expenditure was significantly higher (P <or= 0.05) and %BF was lower (P <or= 0.05) in athletes than in controls, but lean body mass was not significantly different between groups. Energy expenditure was negatively correlated (P <or= 0.05) with %BF but not related to T. Developmental stages were strongly (P <or= 0.05) related to T but not to energy expenditure or %BF. It is concluded that, although there is a higher energy expenditure accompanying intense training in young male athletes, their body composition is not necessarily affected, and there is no determined effect on their physical and pubertal development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".