Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology position paper: resistance training in children and adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many position stands and review papers have refuted the myths associated with resistance training (RT) in children and adolescents. With proper training methods, RT for children and adolescents can be relatively safe and improve overall health. The objective of this position paper and review is to highlight research and provide recommendations in aspects of RT that have not been extensively reported in the pediatric literature. In addition to the well-documented increases in muscular strength and endurance, RT has been used to improve function in pediatric patients with cystic fibrosis and cerebral palsy, as well as pediatric burn victims. Increases in children's muscular strength have been attributed primarily to neurological adaptations due to the disproportionately higher increase in muscle strength than in muscle size. Although most studies using anthropometric measures have not shown significant muscle hypertrophy in children, more sensitive measures such as magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound have suggested hypertrophy may occur. There is no minimum age for RT for children. However, the training and instruction must be appropriate for children and adolescents, involving a proper warm-up, cool-down, and appropriate choice of exercises. It is recommended that low- to moderate-intensity resistance exercise should be done 2-3 times/week on non-consecutive days, with 1-2 sets initially, progressing to 4 sets of 8-15 repetitions for 8-12 exercises. These exercises can include more advanced movements such as Olympic-style lifting, plyometrics, and balance training, which can enhance strength, power, co-ordination, and balance. However, specific guidelines for these more advanced techniques need to be established for youth. In conclusion, an RT program that is within a child's or adolescent's capacity and involves gradual progression under qualified instruction and supervision with appropriately sized equipment can involve more advanced or intense RT exercises, which can lead to functional (i.e., muscular strength, endurance, power, balance, and co-ordination) and health benefits.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.025 |
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".