Weightlifting for children

I forgot to mention that I try to limit his "grinders" to on the platform. If he can't lift it with a smooth cadence, which could be slow as long as it never sticks, then he doesn't do it in training. Taking small weight increases between heavier sets protects against this.

My kids want to lift with me. My 11yo would be able to focus enough for form, but my 7yo has the attention span of a fish.

But they recently came up with their own bodyweight "training schedule" lol
Pushups, planks, squats and a few other things. The 7yo does it once and the 11yo does it through twice. They have done it every morning except on the mornings when the 11yo is at swim training (3x week at 5am ).

The best bit? They can both do proper toe pushups, and my 11yo girl can beat all the boys in her class - she's pretty chuffed with that

So, do you just let your kids do this when/how they want. Or do you start having them do it when you do? I would love for my daughter to do some weights/circuit with me. But she does one thing and gets bored. She definitly needs more exercise.

Lofteren wrote: »

mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »

dieter1200 wrote: »

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/tween-and-teen-health/in-depth/strength-training/art-20047758

"Strength training: OK for kids?
Strength training offers kids many benefits, but there are important caveats to keep in mind. Here's what you need to know about youth strength training. By Mayo Clinic Staff

Strength training for kids? You bet! Done properly, strength training offers many bonuses to young athletes. Strength training is even a good idea for kids who simply want to look and feel better. In fact, strength training can put your child on a lifetime path to better health and fitness.
Strength training, not weightlifting

For kids, light resistance and controlled movements are best — with a special emphasis on proper technique and safety. Your child can do many strength training exercises with his or her own body weight or inexpensive resistance tubing. Free weights and machine weights are other options.

Don't confuse strength training with weightlifting, bodybuilding or powerlifting. These activities are largely driven by competition, with participants vying to lift heavier weights or build bigger muscles than those of other athletes. This can put too much strain on young muscles, tendons and areas of cartilage that haven't yet turned to bone (growth plates) — especially when proper technique is sacrificed in favor of lifting larger amounts of weight. "



I guess I confused strength training with weightlifting

Thanks for the link. Im not sure I understand the distinction between the strength training and weightlifting when they give free weights and machines as options for strength training. I am going to assume they are talking about Olympic style weightlifting as a sport.

I still have not seen any evidence that growth plate damage has been recorded in all the studies I looked at. There were even a few that tested 1RM's.

Of course none of them are going to test how often and how much it takes to get damage. I think Lofteren has the right idea about how to avoid the potential risk and keeps the heaviest lifting to the actual competitions.

Olympic weightlifting actually has a lower injury rate than any other sport; whereas, soccer has the highest rates of injury. I find it funny that parents would put their kids on a soccer team with absolutely no worries but wouldn't let them touch a barbell.

That being said, I work with a mayo-trained neuromuscular specialist who knows absolutely nothing about exercise, diet, strength training, etc..... I mean NOTHING AT ALL. I would really question the validity of a study on weight lifting coming out of the mayo clinic. I would even be somewhat skeptical of studies on weight training coming out of the NSCA and the ACSM because I've seen some absolute garbage in their journals.

That being said, I started lifting when I was 12 years old and wound up being the tallest person in my entire family by 2 inches. The only "side effect" that has occurred from me lifting is an increased amount of muscle mass and strength. The old wives tale that lifting stunts your growth holds about as much weight as "coffee will stunt your growth", "masturbating will make your palms hairy" and "bigfoot is real".

Lofteren, that is really an excellent point that you brought up about injuries and sports. The incidence of non-contact ACL injuries in adolescents is on the rise. I wish I was home to pull some of the research I did last semester for class, but it's fairly significant. A lot of it just kids in-need of some basic strength training to counter-balance deficiencies in their movement. How many parents that don't let their kids strength training for old myths sign their kids up for football when that's a 100% injury sport?

The Mayo Clinic is definitely well respected for their treatment of diseases and what not, but I would definitely question their information here. There is plenty of easily accessible research related to adolescent resistance-training that shows it is safe as long as they are supervised by somebody that knows what they're doing.

mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »

Strength training as possible injury prevention was mentioned in a few of the links I posted here. It is also mentioned in a lot of articles on strength training for the elderly.

Hopefully some the info will get out there and people will start to lose their fear of it.

I've read more research on preventing non-contact ACL injuries than I care to admit to this year. Unfortunately most people associate resistance-training only with being "jacked-and-tan" but there's more to it for the athletic population and just for general health.

For elderly it's very important because it can help improve basic quality of life. One study indicated that resistance-training alone was enough to help improve cardiovascular ability as well.

In to read - and as I just mentioned to SS who pointed this thread out - I am very happy that I was a small part of turning them to the dark side!!

Thanks for all the research linked also.

Proud soccer mom. But I give the kids plenty of strength work. Using Halloween colored resistance bands makes it fun. Also playing more than one sport. Indoor winter rock climbing gymnastics scarf twirling whatever gets them using different muscles.
My seven year old can do fifty knuckle push-ups, chest touching a book.
Also lots of research about not irradiating those young bones. On the east coast the worst are the soccer girls with spinal cord injuries. Sorry for the rant but my 17 yo niece is in the surgical icu in ny.

Here's the aap draft position statement on radiation. The american academy of pediatrics says
AAP Headquarters
141 Northwest Point Blvd
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007-1019 Phone: 847/434-4000
Fax: 847/434-8000
E-mail: kidsdocs@aap.org www.aap.org
Reply to
Department of Federal Affairs Homer Building, Suite 400 N 601 13th St NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202/347-8600
Fax: 202/393-6137
E-mail: kids1st@aap.org
Executive Committee President
Robert W. Block, MD, FAAP
President-Elect
Thomas K. McInerny, MD, FAAP
Immediate Past President
O. Marion Burton, MD, FAAP
Executive Director/CEO
Errol R. Alden, MD, FAAP
Board of Directors
District I
Carole E. Allen, MD, FAAP Arlington, MA
District II
Danielle Laraque, MD, FAAP Brooklyn, NY
District III
Sandra Gibson Hassink, MD, FAAP Wilmington, DE
District IV
Francis E. Rushton, Jr, MD, FAAP Beaufort, SC
District V
Marilyn J. Bull, MD, FAAP Indianapolis, IN
District VI
Michael V. Severson, MD, FAAP Shakopee, MN
District VII
Kenneth E. Matthews, MD, FAAP College Station, TX
District VIII
Kyle Yasuda, MD, FAAP Seattle, WA
District IX
Myles B. Abbott, MD, FAAP Berkeley, CA
District X
Sara H. Goza, MD, FAAP Fayetteville, GA
September 6, 2012
The Honorable Margaret Hamburg, MD Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
Division of Dockets Management (HFA– 305) 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
Docket No. FDA–2012–D–0384 Dear Dr. Hamburg:
On behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a professional organization of 62,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the health, safety, and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults, we appreciate this opportunity to provide comments regarding the draft guidance on pediatric information for x-ray imaging device premarket notification. We would also like to thank you for allowing the AAP to speak at the recent public workshop on the draft guidance.
The AAP values the longstanding relationship we have had with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on a range of pediatric issues, including the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act, and we thank you for this important step in the promotion of radiation protection for children. As you know, children are not small adults. Radiation risk in children warrants special attention because children are more radiosensitive than adults, have a longer expected lifetime for effects of radiation exposure to manifest, and are often treated with equipment and exposure settings designed for adults, which can result in excessive radiation exposure for smaller patients. Additionally, many children receive treatment from facilities that lack pediatric imaging expertise.
The AAP is encouraged that the draft guidance offers voluntary guidelines for manufacturers regarding documentation of design features and risk mitigation strategies, specifications for pediatric protocols and settings, laboratory tests for dosimetry and image quality, instructions and educational materials directed to technologists, radiologists, physicists, and other imaging professionals, and the means by which individual facilities can contact the sponsor for assistance when developing pediatric dose reduction protocols and procedures.
Page 2 American Academy of Pediatrics
The AAP agrees that optimizing imaging equipment - maximizing image quality, while minimizing radiation dose - is important for all ages, but it is particularly important in pediatric patients. Improvements in the hardware and software for optimization are important, as is the accessibility of training manuals for the appropriate use of equipment for pediatric patients. Training and education of the end-users need to be understandable to all those involved in imaging and must be easily accessed.
As most pediatric imaging is conducted primarily in adult facilities, equipment manufacturers should assume that their equipment will be used both for children and adults. Children’s body size varies from the premature infant to the obese adolescent and covers the spectrum of adult body size. Devices optimized for pediatric use therefore can be appropriate for the adult population as well. As such, we support FDA efforts that promote equipment modifications that optimize radiation dose for patients of all body sizes, standardization of nomenclature, and reduction of technique variables.
Education of the end-users on optimization is important during the initial installation of the equipment, as well as on a continuing basis. Learning the dose optimization of patients of all body sizes will benefit both adult and pediatric patients. These educational materials should be easily accessible, on-line, and open source for all purchasers.
There are a few areas where further consideration and clarification may be necessary in order to prevent unintended consequences. For example, the draft guidance proposes that manufacturers label equipment with a warning not to use on children below a certain height or weight. The AAP is concerned that this could limit the choice of imaging equipment available for centers that work primarily with pediatric patients. Similarly, we are concerned about whether it would limit the ability of adult centers to provide pediatric imaging. Accessibility to imaging for all children is as important as the optimization of available equipment.
Children already face fewer medical treatment options and many medical technology advances for adults simply are not available to children due to their relatively smaller market share, cost of production, and liability and ethical considerations. As such, the draft guidance should take care to balance safety and dose optimization for pediatric patients with costs to manufacturers so that children do not face even fewer options. Off-label use of medical technologies is an unfortunate, but necessary, standard of care in pediatrics. As the FDA finalizes the draft guidance, careful attention should be paid to the unintended consequence of increasing, rather than decreasing, off- label use of imaging devices in children.
The AAP agrees with the FDA that standardized dose information for pediatric patients is the ideal. However, real questions exist about the evidence base for measuring such a standardized dose. Similarly, the goal of radiation equipment that displays patient dose or dose index is a good one, but how would accuracy be assured and are there quality assurance tools to track radiation
Page 3 American Academy of Pediatrics
dose management? More research is needed to better understand and measure dose optimization. The AAP encourages the Agency to pursue this needed investment and we would welcome the opportunity to pursue this further with the Agency.
The AAP strongly encourages the FDA to clarify how the guidance affects the use of “home grown” pediatric positioning aids that are not included in the vendor’s 510(k) application but are developed by the end user. While we would be concerned if such a modification caused a device to be unsafe or caused injury to a child, these types of end-user modifications can be critical to the care we give our patients. Further clarification on their use in the final guidance document would be helpful.
The AAP applauds the FDA for this thoughtful initiative to protect unnecessary exposure to radiation in children. We are grateful for the opportunity to comment on the draft guidance. If the AAP can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Tamar Magarik Haro in AAP’s Department of Federal Affairs at 202-347-8600.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Block, MD, FAAP President
RWB/bd