Age limit issue revisited; an article on young athletes & big injuries

[capcomop]

I don't think that's the right way to think about it, or at least it's an incomplete way.

Any highly trained skill, whether figure skating or playing an instrument, often requires intense training from an early age. No amazing pianist or violinist got started after 16-17. It's not only about the physical development, it's also about neural development, including a skill as apparently physical as landing a 3/3. Skaters need to take advantage of the neural plasticity of their brain (which inexorably goes into a steady decline from mid-teens, sadly!) to learn these tough moves, which require fine timing and coordination of the different parts of the body. Physical attributes like power and flexibility alone definitely wouldn't get you there.

Besides being able to learn more and faster, children have over adults the advantages of not being afraid of learning new things, and also healing much faster when they do get injured. It's much more dangerous for Joannie Rochette to try to master the 3-3 at her age, than it is for 14-year-olds. An older skater has slower reaction time, is more prone to falling, and any injury is more likely to affect a whole season.

Well playing an instrument and skating aren't really comparable because of the physical aspect. If a pianist could stunt her growth from over playing maybe.
I know that the brain of children learn languages easier at early ages for many reasons but I have not seen reserach on learngin physical movement easier. Intuitive I would figure there is a big difference. We know there is a "magic period" for learning language after which a child learns very, very little no matter what.
Often though a childs physical growth isn't sufficient for him/her to master tougher physical skills (riding a bike for example). So trying to teach a nine year old 3-3 jumps because her brain is better able to learn d doesn't mean that her brain and body are ready to handle the timing and coordination requirted. Common sense and experience also can't be discounted. Joannie might be able to use problem solving and experience to prevent injury and learn a skill better than a nine year old who Piaget would say still struggles with abstract reasoning (if I do X, Y will happen). Inujuries to children can be more damaging because a child may injury something that isn't fully developed and now never will. It is one of the reasons I've heard ballet teachers use against putting young girls on pointe. Their foot bones haven't even hardened until 11 years old! It may be hard to damage such a bone but it causes more damamge also.
I do agree that sport needs a better balance of sport and artistry. If a 14 year old gets nailed for poor basic skills, lack of balance and muscle control on top of not really interpreting the music maybe the balance will come back. Who knows.

 

[attyfan]

Well, if I have to decide between seeing Triple-Triple-Combos at competitions and having less young girls terribly injured and emotionally distressed at an early age - I choose the wellfare of the young ladies / children. What we see and hear about is just the tip of the iceberg - how many promising skaters, gymnasts, ballet-dancers and divers were promising at the age of 10 to 12, got injured, never fulfilled their potential and are still handicapped by their injuries? If a big trick in figure skating or gymnastics is so dangerous and stressful on the body, so difficult that just tiny girls can learn it - perhaps it's time to say goodbye to that trick.

ITA, also.



No sport is worth letting little kids get injured. Sometimes, I think the attitude towards something that should be fun is becoming the modern equivalent to the Biblical Molech -- something placated by children being sacrificed to it.

 

[Medusa]

You say that these girls can't learn the Triple-Triple when they are older because of the neuronal circumstances. But what about the Quad? There are quite a few men who didn't manage the Quad before they were twenty - and still were able to land it in competition. Browning himself was 22 when he landed the first Quad ever in competition.

And I remember in a fluff piece with Yagudin (?) that the Quad Toe is a whole new jump, a completely different technique than the Triple Toe. So the timing etc. is probably as difficult as the timing during a Triple-Triple. Why should men be able to learn the Quad after their teens, but ladies not the triple-triple? I don't think that makes much sense.

No sport is worth letting little kids get injured.

That's what I am talking about. There is a difference between a challenging task and a stupid ridiculously risky one.

 

[feraina]

You say that these girls can't learn the Triple-Triple when they are older because of the neuronal circumstances. But what about the Quad? There are quite a few men who didn't manage the Quad before they were twenty - and still were able to land it in competition.

Good question!

It's more or less accepted that physically men and women are different, and a mature woman's body with all its curves isn't ideal for creating 3 revolutions in the air. But neural differences between the sexes? After all the hormones that make our bodies different also act on our brains. Now that's bordering on political heresy! I only kinda feel like I can cite some of these results because I'm female. (Well, and I'm also a neuroscientist, though not a specialist in plasticity.)

So I had a quick look on PubMed, and a few articles came up including this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

These results suggest that testosterone enhances hippocampal neurogenesis via increased cell survival in the dentate gyrus through an androgen-dependent mechanism.

Everybody probably knows that testosterone is a dominant hormone in males, and estradiol (estrogen) is dominant in females (along with progesterone). But just to unpack some of the other technical terms:
-- neurogenesis, the creation of new cells
-- hippocampus (adj. hippocampal) is a brain structure critical for memory formation
-- dentate gyrus, part of hippocampus, especially important for the formation of new memories
-- androgen (male hormone such as testosterone)
-- cell survival (note not all newly created cells survive)

It used to be thought that adult mammalian brains didn't create new cells, but about ten years ago it was discovered that actually there was neurogenesis in the hippocampus of adult rats -- and now there's some evidence that the same is true for adult human brain, though both in rats and humans the amount of neurogenesis is a tiny fraction of that in developing brains. Neurogenesis is a critical part of neural plasticity. It is thought that the ability to learn all kinds of skills (whether motor or cognitive) is dependent on the level of hippocampal neurogenesis.

What this paper showed was that testosterone promotes the net growth of new cells in the adult hippocampus, which underlies memory formation, by enhancing cell survival. In contrast, estradiol (estrogen) has no effect on cell survival.

A separate study shows that estrogen has the initial effect of stimulating cell proliferation (initial cell creation), but subsequently suppresses it, and progesterone (the other dominant hormone in females) attenuates the stimulating effect of estrogen.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112230024/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

The overall implication of all these studies (note that they're relatively new and the results are not totally established or understood) seems (to me) to be that testosterone enhances adult neurogenesis and female hormones suppress it. Therefore, depressing as it is, it would not surprise me that adult males in general have greater capacity for new memory formation (e.g. learning new skills) than adult females.

One attenuating circumstance is that in females (rats anyway), there's temporary increase of hippocampal neurogenesis during pregnancy, and the new cells migrate to the olfactory bulb (important for smell) -- it is hypothesized that it helps new rat mothers to learn to identify their newborns through smell.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5603/117

Oh, and exercise also increases hippocampal neurogenesis! Active aged rats can retain neurogenesis at 50% the level of young sedentary rats (well, you can't really turn back the clock, just delay it!), as compared to sedentary aged rats at 10%. For skaters, this means both males and females will probably stay smarter than the rest of us less active people, but I don't think any one gender can benefit more than the other from exercise.
http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/25/38/8680

 

[balletmom]

What an interesting thread - got me to post for the very first time though I have been lurking here for a long time. I wanted to add that I think it is possible to have young athletes wait to practice certain skills until they are physically ready. My daughter takes ballet, an activity that used to be quite damaging (and probably still is for those who aren't lucky enough to have good teachers). There was a time when girls went on point after just a couple of years of dancing, at very young ages. The school my daughter attends follows the Royal Academy of Dance curriculum, which has been carefully designed to take these issues into account. They do not allow a lot of barre work or certain kinds of stretching until a certain age. Also, before they can go on point, every girl has to have her feet xrayed to ensure the growth plates are mature enough to take the stress. In addition, the teachers constantly monitor the girls' muscle tone and flexibility and hold girls back if they do not appear to be strong enough. I bet when this system was first used a lot of people were upset about their little ballerinas not going on point at 8 or 9, and thought they would be behind other dancers, but geuss what, the Royal Ballet system still turns out lots of fantastic dancers! I know it's a lot different when you're talking about a sport where kids compete so publicly at such young ages, but it seems to me that this philosophy could be implemented in skating if coaches were willing. I don't think the solution is age limits for certain competitions, but age, growth or skill requirements for learning certain tricks. Of couse, this would take the cooperation of the coaches and parents, and a willingness to sacrifice competition for kids' health. I can't help wondering if there would be a nice side effect of a system like this. If young kids can't practice a lot of jumps, they could put the ice time to good use perfecting their basic skating skills. Is anyone else tired of seeing wobbly spirals, where the position of the leg and back might be nice but the edge just doesn't cut it?

 

[Mathman]

Thanks for posting, Balletmom. Welcome to the forum! :agree:

While we are talking about physical development, the question also came up earlier about home schooling. Is this a euphemism for "no schooling?" Parents and the Internet are not trained teachers. If the young athlete does not have time to go to school because she is always at the ice rink, does she have time to devote to studying at all?

Michelle Kwan has said that she found it really difficult to go back to college, that she has to spend long hours in the library to catch up because she had fallen out of the habit of using her brain. The way she put it in an interview, the brain requires constant exercise just like the body. (I can't tell you how much respect I have for Michelle for persevering in her educational goals, by the way.)

Then there is the social aspect. Do these tiny elite athletes have a chance to interact with other kids outside of skating? To form normal friendships? Do they have time to hang out at the mall?

Edited to add: Thank to Feraina for the great post, #44 above.

 

[Justlooking]

No amazing pianist or violinist got started after 16-17. It's not only about the physical development,

I just wanted to say that s not true, there are some who began really late. Didn t Khachaturian and Shinichi Suzuki begin playing their instrument at 17-18?

 

[SusanBeth]

My husband was an accomplished pianist. He started playing at the age of 6 . He practiced very hard. He was a professional pianist. He then taught other pianists. He never suffered a serious piano related injury, There just isn't the same risk to young children.

This just clouds the issue. Is it ok to put a kid's health at serious risk for figure skating? With the increased reports of injuries, why aren't the Federations doing more to keep the sport safe for the young kids?

My guess is that, they don't want to lose standing by holding back the jumping beans. Young jumping beans tend to be plentiful. Plus, with people thinking that a simple age restriction is too severe a safety measure, why should they do more to keep the kids from potential lifelong injuries? They've always needed pressure to change.

It could also be because they haven't been sued yet. I wonder how likely that is to work?

 

[gkelly]

In the US at the lower and middle levels, at least, I think that the prohibition on triples in juvenile competition (and limits on doubles at prejuvenile and preliminary) since the early 2000s has somewhat held back the rush to add jumps at as soon as possible at lower levels.

I think the new judging system with its severe penalties for underrotated jumps has slowed things down even more. A few years ago, it seemed that juvenile and intermediate skaters were putting double axels and triples into their programs as soon as they could make a recognizable attempt, even if they couldn't quite rotate the jumps, on the theory that it would get them noticed. Now that a good single axel or a good double anything is officially worth more points than a downgraded double axel or triple, we're seeing a lot fewer no-way attempts than a few years back in the old system.

At this point I would be less concerned about pushing the jump content than I was 8-10 years ago and more concerned about rushing to include certain extreme flexibility positions in spins and spirals for higher levels, or overusing them, before or beyond developing control of that flexibility, core strength, and edge security to control them safely.

Of course at home in practice, at certain times of year anyway, developing skaters are going to spending more time working on moves that they're trying to learn and aren't ready to put into programs than on those that they have already mastered.

That's always going to be the case, and that's where repetitive use injuries are going to occur.

At best, rules limiting what skaters may do in competition at a given age or a given competitive level, or at what age they can compete at what level, can discourage skaters from pushing too hard on moves their bodies aren't ready for and maybe never will be.

But different kids' bodies are different, their talents and early training are different, so moves that come easily to one skater with little risk can lead to significant injury in someone else. And in some cases moves that skaters could perform safely in childhood or early adolescence become more dangerous for them as their bodies mature. (And as they age, for us adult skaters, and for elite skaters who keep competing in their 20s and 30s.)

So I don't think that rules about what elements are allowed at what age are the best way to prevent injuries. Rather, I think that adjusting the well-balanced program rules and the scale of values and the level features to reward quality and to give skaters more options for how to earn points with moves that showcase their own strengths rather than some theoretical norm, so that the skaters and coaches can make wise choices for their own bodies about where to push the limits and where to remain cautious.

Research and dissemination of information about injury trends would also be useful. Skating federations can't police the training methods of every coach and every skater under their jurisdiction. They can offer recommendations based on the best knowledge at the time.

So that would leave the question of whether minimum and/or maximum age limits at certain levels of competition are useful for other purposes (e.g., level playing fields for the competitors; images of physical and/or artistic maturity for the public; pscyhological stresses on young skaters competing at the highest levels).

 

[Medusa]

But different kids' bodies are different, their talents and early training are different, so moves that come easily to one skater with little risk can lead to significant injury in someone else. And in some cases moves that skaters could perform safely in childhood or early adolescence become more dangerous for them as their bodies mature.

But there are still constant factors during development. You can never include everyone in a definition - but certain points, e.g. the growth retardation and belated puberty in girls are well proven - so it should be possible to build age limitations around that.

Of course at home in practice, at certain times of year anyway, developing skaters are going to spending more time working on moves that they're trying to learn and aren't ready to put into programs than on those that they have already mastered.

That's always going to be the case, and that's where repetitive use injuries are going to occur.

I know that this will always be the case, but if you read my section about injuries in my post at page 2 you will read that I found some articles about the occurence of injuries and that injuries tend occur more often under pressure and during competitive periods than during regular training. Logic dictates that this should also be the case for injuries caused by overuse - e.g. you are more prone to injure yourself if your muscles are tense. Of course athletes stretch before training - but if you are under pressure to get something done in a limited amount of time (like perfecting the Triple-Triple before entering your first senior competition - Caroline Zhang) you are often more tense, more nervous etc. That's why I think that the age limit still makes sense.

@balletmom: great info, thanks! I am glad that there are projects and guidelines like that.

@feraina: this turns out to be the most sophisticated discussion I ever had on the boards . Great info, I even could read some of the articles completely - my med-school pays for lots of online subcriptions. Of course some of the stuff is very hypothetical - but still very interesting and a bit insulting for the men, given the fact that girls tend to do better at school and college (at least in my little country).

What would interest me now is: there are some things men generally do better than women - sense of orientation, car driving (at least theoretically - men still cause more accidents because of carelessness and recklessness), the ability to visualise something in three dimensions. Especially the last one is probably very important while learning a jump, helps you with the timing etc. So how about this theory: there is a problem where you need three-dimensional imagination - testosterone - enhances adult neurogenesis - the brain adapts to the new problem better than a female one - man can master problem better and faster because of adaptation. An interesting test would be to teach girls car-driving at the age of 12, let them drive on a regular basis and control at the age of 22 if they are better - and in which areas - than the women who learnt car-driving at the age of 16/18.

My husband was an accomplished pianist. He started playing at the age of 6 . He practiced very hard. He was a professional pianist. He then taught other pianists. He never suffered a serious piano related injury, There just isn't the same risk to young children.

I only referred to the psychological issues that arise when a child is a "prodigy" and invests decisively more time into practicing a certain skill than most of the other children. Psychologically it doesn't make a difference if the increased stress (because of competitions, public performances, less contact with other children, less time to develop freely) is caused by figure skating, chess, mathematics or music. Every speciality also has its own problems - eating disorders for figure skaters, gymnasts, ballet-dancers - autistic problems and social behaviour disorders for academically gifted and trained children (who e.g. perform exceptionally well in math, chess etc.).

While we are talking about physical development, the question also came up earlier about home schooling. Is this a euphemism for "no schooling?" Parents and the Internet are not trained teachers. If the young athlete does not have time to go to school because she is always at the ice rink, does she have time to devote to studying at all?
[...]
Then there is the social aspect. Do these tiny elite athletes have a chance to interact with other kids outside of skating? To form normal friendships? Do they have time to hang out at the mall?

Well, as said before I am against home schooling, not because I believe that parents can't be good teachers - but the experience of being with other children you don't necessarily like, having to live with them for 7 hours a day, having to talk / work with them, arguing with them, hating them... That's a damn good and useful experience and the best preperation you can give a child for its adult life, especially at work.

And I admire Kwan too for wanting to finish her education, the same as Goebel (who is at university in New York I think) and also Sarah Hughes.

 

[Tonichelle]

I don't think homeschool is wrong, when it's done right. Yes parents may not be able to teach every thing, but what if those parents have an education degree

heck most teachers in public schools get a certificate with never having gone through an Education degree program at a college or university?

The idea that home schoolers never socialize with people of different race, religion, lifestyle really isn't true on a whole. Most homeschoolers do go outside for many activities - especially sports which have their own cliques and pecking orders - and most homeschoolers belong to a group - in which parents take turn teaching their strengths. In a way it's their own private school. And trust me, there are the same crappy experiences in those situations as there are in a normal school demographic (I've experienced both ways of schooling).

In my Jr. High we had a physical education teacher who was MORBIDLY OBESE. And she would sit while we did our 20 minute runs (not jog, you had to be going at a set pace and if you didn't you failed the 'test'). She also got on the cases of the girls who 'threw too aggresively' when we went through our 'football' section. I was one that got in trouble because I through the ball 'too much like a boy' and it 'scared the other girls' (so they can't catch, that's not MY problem). Tell me how THAT is education? Other than the fact that everyone has a lousy PE teacher story to tell, how the heck are we to learn good health from a PE teacher who would rather stuff her face than be physically active herself?

Are some homeschoolers that stereotypical shut in kid with no life and really no education? Yeah, but that doesn't mean all of us who were home schooled (in part or full) are braindead morons.

 

[Medusa]

Do you know what I find rather strange? If someone writes a post that sounds as if he/she hasn't read the posts before that post. I actually think that this became a great discussion and that the opinions voiced here are well thought out. Mathman only questioned the quality of education - and everybody is entitiled to that, most people also question high schools - and I said

Well, as said before I am against home schooling, not because I believe that parents can't be good teachers - but the experience of being with other children you don't necessarily like, having to live with them for 7 hours a day, having to talk / work with them, arguing with them, hating them... That's a damn good and useful experience and the best preperation you can give a child for its adult life, especially at work.

• I never questioned the quality of education when children are homeschooled. I barely learnt anything useful at school, spent my time entertaining my classmates, terrorizing the teachers and showing off my intellectual abilities. But I wouldn't want to miss the school experience - I had such a great time
  
• I do believe that home-schooled kids have a wide range of activities with other children, sports etc. And I do believe that there are also problems and a hierarchy among children when they play together - but in my opinion it is still not the same as being in school without parents for the majority of a day.
  
• you are being forced to work with kids you hate fiercely, being forced to make decisions about where to sit in the classroom (jocks, stupid giggly girls, nerdy geeks...), developing new ways to cheat in tests, finding new failsafe places somewhere in the school where you could smoke and snog in secret, pranking the secretary together with your best friend, experiencing stupid, mean, horrible teachers (and plotting revenge on them) is also part of being at school, and in my opinion much more important than learning all Presidents of the USA by heart (do you have to do that? I learnt all the Kings and Emperors and Presidents and Chancellors of Germany...)
  
• And all this is why I think school is an important experience and if you are able to go to school (= not living in the outback of Australia or some other remote region without schools in your area) - I think kids should go to school, even if that means they can't spend as many hours on ice as others.
  
• nobody said anything about braindead morons

 

[skatergirl45]

I compete and I think that school is incredibly important to being well rounded and social intelligence. At area comptetitions, I have often seen the home schooled skaters around just their parent/coach because they do not know how to react to the skaters around them.
Everybody needs to go to regular school especially during middle/high school.

 

[Tonichelle]

who's to say those same skaters wouldn't be the wallflowers if they were in the public school system?

I'm more outgoing as an adult as I ever was as a child (and I went to public school until 10th grade, and then I took several classes at the high school every semester)

 

[Mathman]

So I don't think that rules about what elements are allowed at what age are the best way to prevent injuries. Rather, I think that adjusting the well-balanced program rules and the scale of values and the level features to reward quality and to give skaters more options for how to earn points with moves that showcase their own strengths rather than some theoretical norm, so that the skaters and coaches can make wise choices for their own bodies about where to push the limits and where to remain cautious.

I agree with this. It would also provide more interesting competitions at the eleite level. The current system encourages every skater and coach to pour over the rule book and do this kind of spin because it gets 2.4 points instead of that kind, which is worth only 2.2.