Muscle morphological adaptations to resistance training and sports participation in children and adolescents: a scoping review

Introduction: This scoping review aimed to systematically map the existing literature on the effects of resistance training (RT) and sports participation on muscle morphology in children and adolescents.

Methods: Herein, a literature search was conducted using three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were as follows: articles that were written in English, which used chronic RT or a combination of RT with other training methods, or investigated the effects of sports participation, and reported muscle morphology as an outcome.

Results: This scoping review included 29 studies: 17 cross-sectional studies, 3 prospective observational studies, and 9 interventional studies. The following distribution was obtained after categorizing the included studies according to participant age: aged 6–11 years, 12 articles; aged 12–14 years, 10 articles; and aged 15–17 years, 10 articles. The designs of interventional studies included eight quasi-experimental parallel-group trials and a quasi-experimental crossover trial. However, none of the included interventional studies followed the CONSORT guidelines for conducting randomized controlled trials. Across the included studies, 14 different sports were analyzed for their effects on muscle morphology. Four studies combined players from various sports. In the included studies, 47 different muscles or muscle groups were examined. Our results identified unexplored muscles because our included studies did not examine the volume of lower leg muscles.

Conclusion: Future research directions in this field, including experimental design and targeted muscles, are warranted.

1 Introduction

The World Health Organization recommended that children and adolescents should engage in at least 60 min of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity daily throughout the week (1); additionally, muscle-strengthening activities were recommended at least three times per week (1). Several studies have investigated the effects of resistance training (RT) and sports participation, with recent reports highlighting their positive physical (2, 3) or mental (4, 5) benefits in children and adolescents. The effects of RT and sports participation include enhancements in strength (2, 6), fundamental movement skills (7, 8), and academic performance (9, 10), as well as a particularly noteworthy alteration in muscle morphology.

Evidence suggests that an individual's lean mass is established before adolescence and persists into adulthood (11), emphasizing the importance of increasing muscle mass during childhood for better health in later life. Furthermore, greater muscle size in children is reportedly associated with superior sprint (12–15) and agility (13) performances. Therefore, it is important to elucidate the trainability of muscle morphology to RT and sports participation during childhood.

Studies on adults have shown that RT (16) and sports participation (17) induce muscle hypertrophy. In contrast, a previous study reported that in prepubertal children (18), RT did not lead to muscle hypertrophy that exceeded natural growth. However, another study contradicting this observation suggested that prepubertal children may experience muscle hypertrophy beyond their natural growth when engaged in RT (19). Similarly, findings regarding sports participation remain inconsistent. Hoshikawa et al. (20) showed that adolescent soccer players exhibited a larger cross-sectional area (CSA) of the psoas major than age-matched non-athletes. In contrast, another study reported no significant differences in CSA of rectus femoris between pre- or early-pubertal swimmers, gymnasts, and age-matched non-athletes (21). The conflicting findings regarding the effects of RT and sports participation in studies on childhood may be attributed to differences in factors across studies, such as participant age, intervention and study duration, training volume, load, and the type of sport examined. Therefore, it is essential to synthesize the available evidence to better understand the current state of knowledge in this field and identify directions for future studies.

Several review articles have synthesized the morphological adaptations of muscles to RT and sports participation in children and adolescents (22–24). Legerlotz et al. (22) reviewed physiological adaptations to RT in young athletes. Tumkur Anil Kumar et al. (24) reviewed the effect of RT on the muscle-tendon unit in youth. However, since these reviews were narrative reviews, previous studies were not systematically included. Sánchez Pastor et al. (23) conducted a systematic review that focused exclusively on prepubertal children.

Therefore, this study aimed to systematically map existing literature on the effects of RT and sports participation on muscle morphology in children and adolescents. Specifically, our review evaluated the types of studies that investigated the effects of RT and sports participation on muscle morphological adaptation in children and adolescents, the chronological and biological age and sex groups the studies focused on, the muscles that were examined in these studies, and the existing gaps in evidence in this field.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Design

To systematically synthesize existing evidence, several types of reviews are employed based on the purpose (25), such as systematic reviews or scoping reviews (25). We conducted a scoping review based on the aim of this study. This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (26) and followed the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Mallay (27).

2.2 Information sources and search strategies

The literature search was conducted in November 2024 using three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The “Population, Concept, and Context” approach was used to design the eligibility criteria, referring to children and adolescents (<18 years old at baseline) without diseases, any intervention of RT or exposure to any sports activity, and evaluation of muscle morphology. Database searches were conducted using a combination of terms such as “child*”, “preadolescen*”, “adolescen*”, “junior”, “resistance”, “exercise”, “sport*”, “cross-sectional area”, “muscle thickness”, “muscle hypertrophy”, and “muscle morphology”. These terms are provided as examples and do not represent the full list of search keywords used. The full search strategy for each database is shown in the Supplementary Tables.

2.3 Study selection

Among studies identified in the literature search, duplicates were removed using EndNote (Endnote 20.6; Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA). In the first screening step, eligible studies were independently selected by two authors based on titles and abstracts. In the second screening step, eligible studies were independently selected by two authors based on their full text. After the completion of each step, the authors discussed discrepancies in decisions, which were resolved through consensus.

2.4 Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria to screen studies in this study were as follows: (1) published in peer-reviewed journals, (2) included healthy or typically developing children, (3) studies on humans, (4) reported muscle morphology as an outcome, (5) included children aged <18 years old at baseline, (6) used chronic RT or combinations of RT with other training or investigated the effects of sports participation, (7) had a control group to demonstrate the effects of RT or sports participation, and (8) were written in English. No date restriction was imposed for the search. Studies were excluded if they (1) involved only children with diseases, (2) reported only body mass index or circumference or fat-free mass as indicators of muscle mass or size, and (3) were review articles.

2.5 Summarizing the findings

Microsoft Excel was used to calculate the descriptive statistics of the data extracted from the included articles, which were summarized and grouped based on categories.

2.6 Data charting

Two authors developed a data-charting form to address the purpose of this study. The data were extracted and then charted using Microsoft Excel. The following information was collected from all included studies: publication year, country of the first author, study design, sample size, sex, age, biological age, competition history and level of participants, targeted muscle, measurement equipment, whether an a priori power analysis was conducted, and outcomes related to muscle morphology (i.e., muscle thickness, CSA, volume, fascicle length, and pennation angle). For interventional studies, the following information was additionally collected: intensity, frequency, duration, and volume of the training program. The following information was additionally collected for observational studies: number of measurements and study duration.

3 Results

Among 11,482 articles initially identified, 29 were considered eligible for inclusion after screening (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the literature search.

3.1 Study description

The included studies were conducted in Japan, Germany, Spain, Australia, the United States, Canada, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, and Colombia (eight, six, four, three, two, two, one, one, one, and one articles, respectively) (Table 1). We included articles published in the 1990s or later, with 5, 2, 16, and 6 studies conducted in the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s, respectively. The study design included 20 observational studies (17 cross-sectional and 3 prospective studies) and 9 interventional studies (Table 1, Figure 2). Among the studies, 13, 7, and 8 included male, female, and both sexes as participants, respectively; one study (50) did not report the sex of the subjects (Figure 3). The age ranges were 6–11, 12–14, and 15–17 years in 12, 10, and 10 studies, respectively (Figure 3). Six studies performed a power analysis (34–36, 43, 45, 46).

Table 1

Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies (n = 29).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Number and percentage of studies by study design.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Number and percentage of studies by sex (A) and age categories (B). A study that did not report the participant's sex is excluded (A).

Biological age was assessed in 20 articles, including one (36) that did not report results (Table 1). Assessments of maturity status included Tanner stage (15 articles), predicted peak height velocity (two articles), Tanner-Whitehouse II methods (two articles), and percentage predicted adult height (one article) (Table 1). Muscle morphology was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (13 articles), ultrasonography (14 articles), and computed tomography (3 articles) (Figure 4). The measured variables were muscle volume, CSA, thickness, fascicle length, and pennation angle. The evaluation targets of the muscles for size are listed in Table 2.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Number and percentage of studies by assessment methods (A) and variables (B), MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; CT, computerized tomography; CSA, cross-sectional area.

Table 2

Table 2. Targeted muscles and muscle groups for size evaluation.

3.2 Observational studies

Total sample sizes ranged from 12 to 184 (Table 1). Targeted activities included middle-distance running, weightlifting, soccer, volleyball, rowing, karate, sumo, sprinting, throwing, jumping, swimming, tennis, gymnastics, and triathlon. Four studies combined players from various sports. Four articles focused on the sex differences in muscle morphology due to participation in sports (33, 34, 38, 41). Two articles focused on age differences in muscle morphology due to participation in sports and recruited middle- and late-adolescent boys (20, 30).

Regarding prospective studies, the total sample sizes ranged from 32 to 38. Two studies recruited males, and one study recruited participants of both sexes. The durations of study were 6 (37), 9 (28), and 12 (46) months. One article assessed the outcome measures more than three times, at three-month intervals (46).

3.3 Interventional studies

The designs of interventional studies included eight quasi-experimental parallel-group trials and a quasi-experimental crossover trial (Table 1, Figure 2). No study followed the CONSORT guidelines for conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The sample size per group ranged from 6 to 58. The age ranges were 6–11, 12–14, and 15–17 years in 4, 3, and 2 studies, respectively. Among the nine studies, five involved participants with no athletic background (18, 19, 31, 32, 35), two involved participants engaged in extracurricular activities at a regional competitive level (51, 52), one involved surfing athletes (50), and one involved gymnasts (43). The intervention periods were from 5 weeks to 10 months. The activities of the intervention group included RT, multiple exercise and sports, gymnastics, plyometrics, and neuromuscular exercise (Table 3). The frequency of intervention was two to six times per week. One article focused on the differences in training effects between sexes or grades in school (19). Volume was only evaluated for the total thigh muscle group (Table 2).

Table 3

Table 3. Characteristics of the included interventional studies (n = 9).

4 Discussion

This scoping review aimed to systematically map the existing evidence on the effects of RT and sports participation on muscle morphology in children and adolescents. This study included 29 articles and clarified the current state of research and gaps in the relevant literature.

4.1 Study design

This study included interventional and observational studies. Nine studies examined the effects of RT or sports activities compared with a control group. The designs of these studies included eight quasi-experimental parallel-group trials and a quasi-experimental crossover trial. However, none of these studies followed the CONSORT guidelines for RCTs, which are the primary standard for determining relationships between interventions and outcomes. In studies involving adults, numerous RCTs have been conducted on the effects of RT on muscle hypertrophy (53), and systematic reviews synthesizing these findings have contributed to a growing body of high-level evidence on the effects of RT on muscle morphology (54). Our findings not only emphasize the scarcity of studies on children and adolescents but also highlight the low quality of existing evidence compared with studies on adults. In contrast to research involving adult populations, interventions are often implemented at the class level during regular classes of children and adolescents, making it difficult to randomly assign individual participants. In this review, most of the interventional studies stated that they conducted interventions in school settings (31, 32, 35, 51, 52). Moreover, the studies included in this review were non-RCTs with relatively small sample sizes, precluding the implementation of intention-to-treat analysis. By comparison, both RCTs (55) and cluster RCTs (56) have been implemented as part of efforts to strengthen the evidence in other research fields. Future studies should consider adopting designs such as that of cluster RCTs, for example by utilizing after-school programs or community-based settings as intervention platforms.

Additionally, 20 studies examined the effects of sports participation, including 17 cross-sectional studies and three prospective observational studies. Time-course data on muscle morphological adaptations provide valuable insights into the timing and induction period of adaptations. Specifically, Pentidis et al. (46) assessed the muscle morphology in preadolescent gymnasts and untrained peers at three-month intervals over a year, providing time-course data on muscle morphological adaptations during this age group. However, due to the design limitations of other studies, a time-course analysis was not feasible.

Among all studies included herein, only 20.7% determined their sample size using an a priori power analysis [three cross-sectional studies (34, 36, 45), one longitudinal study (46), and two interventional studies (35, 43)]. An a priori power analysis is a critical procedure for sample size determination (57). This scoping review highlights the importance of building evidence in this field using appropriately determined sample sizes.

4.2 Population of the participants

In addition to study design and methodological rigor, the selection of the study population is also essential. The following distribution was obtained after categorizing the included studies according to participant age: aged 6–11 years, 12 articles; aged 12–14 years, 10 articles; and aged 15–17 years, 10 articles. Additionally, 34.5% of the studies did not report biological age. Testosterone (58) or insulin-like growth factor-1 (59), which influences muscle morphological adaptations, fluctuates across developmental stages. Therefore, understanding how muscles adapt to RT and sports participation at different ages and developmental stages is essential. A suitable approach for investigating age- or growth-related differences in adaptation involves designing experiments that include multiple age groups or biological ages as independent variables. This approach enables the examination of how muscle morphology adapts to the same training or sports participation across different ages or biological age groups within the same study. Our findings revealed that only two observational studies (20, 30) and one interventional study (19) adopted this experimental design. Furthermore, studies that target groups subdivided by biological maturation (e.g., early, mid, and late adolescence) would be valuable. Such study designs could provide more detailed information on muscle morphological adaptations across biological maturation.

Sex differences exist in the hormonal regulation of muscle morphology and hypertrophy (59). Extensive research has been conducted on how sex differences influence the effects of RT on muscle morphology in adults (60, 61). Among the included studies, the sex distribution was as follows: male, 13 articles; female, seven articles; both, eight articles; not listed, one article. Notably, only four observational studies (33, 34, 38, 41) and one interventional study (19) designed experiments using sex as an independent variable. For example, Gomez-Bruton et al. (34) compared the muscle CSA between young male and female swimmers. To gain a deeper understanding of muscle morphological adaptations to exercise stimuli and develop appropriate training programs, future studies should more thoroughly assess sex differences in these adaptations. Moreover, it should be noted that the number of studies involving female participants was approximately half that of those involving males (Figure 3).

4.3 Targeted activities

Several studies have investigated the effects of training parameters (intensity, frequency, duration, and volume) of RT on hypertrophic outcomes in adults (16, 62). Among the nine interventional studies included herein, the intervention duration ranged from 5 weeks to 10 months, with 77.8% implementing interventions lasting 12 weeks or less. The total number of interventions ranged from 14 to 60. Regarding load, various methods were employed; for example, body-mass based squat and isometric training of elbow flexion. However, none of the included interventional studies examined the influence of these factors on muscle hypertrophy. While training intensity, frequency, duration, and volume are critical components in the designing of RT programs, current evidence on muscle hypertrophy in children and adolescents remains insufficient to evaluate their specific effects.

Across the included studies, 14 different sports were analyzed for their effects on muscle morphology. Four studies combined players from various sports (Table 1). Although participants in each study had engaged in the target sports for a certain period, there were variations in the participants’ reported competitive levels. Both Hoshikawa et al. (39) and Giraldo García et al. (33) required junior soccer players as participants. In the study by Hoshikawa et al. (39), participants took part in regional and national junior competitive meets during the research period. In contrast, Giraldo García et al. (33) did not report the competitive level of their participants. Competitive level may be associated with the nature of training, which can, in turn, influence muscle morphological adaptations. Therefore, future studies should provide as much detail as possible regarding participants’ competitive level to better understand how sports participation affects muscle morphology in children and adolescents.

4.4 Targeted muscles and measurement methods

Not only the type of activity but also the targeted muscles and measurement methods can influence the morphological outcomes of RT and sports participation. The included studies examined the size of 47 different muscles or muscle groups (Table 2). Our results identified unexplored muscles and measurement methods. For example, the included studies did not examine the volume of lower leg muscles, which play a crucial role in human locomotion—such as walking and running—as well as in sports activities. Previous studies on adults have reported that muscle adaptations to RT (63) and sports participation (64) vary according to muscle. Abe et al. (63) reported that upper-body muscle thickness increased more rapidly and to a greater extent than lower-extremity muscle thickness. Although these findings have not been corroborated in children and adolescents, if similar heterogeneity exists in muscle adaptations, the choice of the target muscle could alter the results of muscle size adaptations. Future studies should determine whether morphological adaptations vary across the muscles.

Regarding the number of studies classified according to the measurement method, those assessing muscle volume were the fewest (Figure 4). Measuring muscle volume requires a relatively greater number of slices compared with measuring CSA or thickness, which may have limited growth in the number of such studies. However, for example, muscle volume has been shown to be more appropriate than anatomical CSA for evaluating the size–strength relationship (65), highlighting the importance of measuring muscle volume. Future research should therefore assess muscle volume to better understand the effects of RT and sports participation in children and adolescents.

4.5 Practical implications

This review has practical implications. First, we identified relatively fewer interventional studies than observational studies, indicating that information on the effects of RT on muscle morphology in children and adolescents remains limited for coaches, physical education teachers, and strength and conditioning professionals. Second, as discussed above, the relationships between RT and sports participation and muscle morphological adaptation in children and adolescents can be influenced by various factors such as developmental stage, sex, and the specific muscles targeted. These factors varied greatly across the studies included in this review. Moreover, in the included interventional studies, training parameters, such as intensity, frequency, duration, and volume, also varied considerably. Therefore, when those engaged in coaching and physical education attempt to apply existing evidence in practice, careful attention should be paid not only to the results and conclusions, but also to how these influential factors were defined in the original studies, as they may affect muscle morphological outcomes.

4.6 Limitations

This review only included studies that directly measured muscle morphology, excluding articles that reported body mass index or circumference or fat-free mass as indicators of muscle mass or size. This should be considered when interpreting the results of the present study. Moreover, we only included studies published in English. Consequently, the scope of the collected studies and regions in which the research was conducted may have been biased.

5 Conclusion

Changes in muscle morphology are a key aspect of the effects of RT and sports participation. However, available knowledge regarding this has not been systematically integrated. This study systematically collected and analyzed 29 studies to consolidate existing evidence in this field. Our findings reveal several key points. None of the included interventional studies used RCT designs following the CONSORT guidelines. Regarding sports participation, our findings highlight the lack of prospective studies. Moreover, our results showed that the number of studies involving female participants was approximately half that of those involving male participants and that the volume of lower leg muscles—which play a crucial role in human locomotion or sports activities—have not been assessed. These results indicate the future research directions in this field, including experimental design, participant selection, and targeted muscles.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

SE: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NT: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Hisao Suzuki for providing useful discussions.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2025.1646835/full#supplementary-material

References

1. Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, Borodulin K, Buman MP, Cardon G, et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med. (2020) 54:1451–62. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Myers AM, Beam NW, Fakhoury JD. Resistance training for children and adolescents. Transl Pediatr. (2017) 6(3):137–43. doi: 10.21037/tp.2017.04.01

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Weintraub DL, Tirumalai EC, Haydel KF, Fujimoto M, Fulton JE, Robinson TN. Team sports for overweight children: the stanford sports to prevent obesity randomized trial (sport). Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. (2008) 162(3):232–7. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2007.43

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Hoffmann MD, Barnes JD, Tremblay MS, Guerrero MD. Associations between organized sport participation and mental health difficulties: data from over 11,000 US children and adolescents. PLoS One. (2022) 17(6):e0268583. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268583

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Zhang X, Jiang C, Zhang X, Chi X. Muscle-strengthening exercise and positive mental health in children and adolescents: an urban survey study. Front Psychol. (2022) 13:933877. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.933877

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Dotan R, Mitchell CJ, Cohen R, Gabriel D, Klentrou P, Falk B. Explosive sport training and torque kinetics in children. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. (2013) 38(7):740–5. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2012-0330

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Chaabene H, Lesinski M, Behm DG, Granacher U. Performance—and health-related benefits of youth resistance training. Sports Orthop Traumatol. (2020) 36(3):231–40. doi: 10.1016/j.orthtr.2020.05.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Peker AT, Erkmen N, Kocaoglu Y, Bayraktar Y, Arguz A, Wagman JB, et al. Perception of affordances for vertical and horizontal jumping in children: gymnasts versus non-athletes. Res Q Exerc Sport. (2021) 92(4):770–8. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2020.1775768

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Owen KB, Foley BC, Wilhite K, Booker B, Lonsdale C, Reece LJ. Sport participation and academic performance in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2022) 54(2):299–306. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002786

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Robinson K, Riley N, Owen K, Drew R, Mavilidi MF, Hillman CH, et al. Effects of resistance training on academic outcomes in school-aged youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. (2023) 53(11):2095–109. doi: 10.1007/s40279-023-01881-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Cheng S, Völgyi E, Tylavsky FA, Lyytikäinen A, Törmäkangas T, Xu L, et al. Trait-specific tracking and determinants of body composition: a 7-year follow-up study of pubertal growth in girls. BMC Med. (2009) 7(1):5. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-7-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

12. Enomoto S, Oda T, Kaga M. Relationship between the morphological and mechanical properties of muscle-tendon units and sprint performance in prepubescent sprinters. Transl Sports Med. (2019) 2(5):263–9. doi: 10.1002/tsm2.80

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Stock MS, Mota JA, Hernandez JM, Thompson BJ. Echo intensity and muscle thickness as predictors of athleticism and isometric strength in middle-school boys. Muscle Nerve. (2017) 55(5):685–92. doi: 10.1002/mus.25395

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Tottori N, Suga T, Isaka T, Fujita S. Knee extensor morphology and sprint performance in preadolescent sprinters. Res Q Exerc Sport. (2022) 93(4):781–7. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2021.1919593

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Tottori N, Suga T, Miyake Y, Tsuchikane R, Otsuka M, Nagano A, et al. Hip flexor and knee extensor muscularity are associated with sprint performance in sprint-trained preadolescent boys. Pediatr Exerc Sci. (2018) 30(1):115–23. doi: 10.1123/pes.2016-0226

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. (2016) 46(11):1689–97. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0543-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Abe T, Fukashiro S, Harada Y, Kawamoto K. Relationship between sprint performance and muscle fascicle length in female sprinters. J Physiol Anthropol Appl Human Sci. (2001) 20(2):141–7. doi: 10.2114/jpa.20.141

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Ramsay JA, Blimkie CJ, Smith K, Garner S, MacDougall JD, Sale DG. Strength training effects in prepubescent boys. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (1990) 22(5):605–14. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199010000-00011

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Fukunaga T, Funato K, Ikegawa S. The effects of resistance training on muscle area and strength in prepubescent age. Ann Physiol Anthropol. (1992) 11(3):357–64. doi: 10.2114/ahs1983.11.357

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Hoshikawa Y, Iida T, Ii N, Muramatsu M, Nakajima Y, Chumank K, et al. Cross-sectional area of psoas major muscle and hip flexion strength in youth soccer players. Eur J Appl Physiol. (2012) 112(10):3487–94. doi: 10.1007/s00421-012-2335-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Mitchell C, Cohen R, Dotan R, Gabriel D, Klentrou P, Falk B. Rate of muscle activation in power- and endurance-trained boys. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. (2011) 6(1):94–105. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.6.1.94

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Legerlotz K, Marzilger R, Bohm S, Arampatzis A. Physiological adaptations following resistance training in youth athletes-a narrative review. Pediatr Exerc Sci. (2016) 28(4):501–20. doi: 10.1123/pes.2016-0023

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Sánchez Pastor A, García-Sánchez C, Marquina Nieto M, de la Rubia A. Influence of strength training variables on neuromuscular and morphological adaptations in prepubertal children: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2023) 20(6):4833. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20064833

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Tumkur Anil Kumar N, Oliver JL, Lloyd RS, Pedley JS, Radnor JM. The influence of growth, maturation and resistance training on muscle-tendon and neuromuscular adaptations: a narrative review. Sports. (2021) 9(5):59. doi: 10.3390/sports9050059

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2018) 18(1):143. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

26. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. Prisma extension for scoping reviews (prisma-scr): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. (2018) 169(7):467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

27. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. (2005) 8(1):19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Birat A, Garnier YM, Dupuy A, Bontemps B, Dodu A, Grossoeuvre C, et al. Neuromuscular adaptations in endurance-trained male adolescents versus untrained peers: a 9-month longitudinal study. Scand J Med Sci Sports. (2024) 34(6):e14681. doi: 10.1111/sms.14681

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Burt LA, Naughton GA, Greene DA, Courteix D, Ducher G. Non-elite gymnastics participation is associated with greater bone strength, muscle size, and function in pre- and early pubertal girls. Osteoporosis Int. (2012) 23(4):1277–86. doi: 10.1007/s00198-011-1677-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Charcharis G, Mersmann F, Bohm S, Arampatzis A. Morphological and mechanical properties of the quadriceps femoris muscle-tendon unit from adolescence to adulthood: effects of age and athletic training. Front Physiol. (2019) 10:1082. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01082

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Eliakim A, Barstow TJ, Brasel JA, Ajie H, Lee WN, Renslo R, et al. Effect of exercise training on energy expenditure, muscle volume, and maximal oxygen uptake in female adolescents. J Pediatr. (1996) 129(4):537–43. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(96)70118-x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Eliakim A, Burke GS, Cooper DM. Fitness, fatness, and the effect of training assessed by magnetic resonance imaging and skinfold-thickness measurements in healthy adolescent females. Am J Clin Nutr. (1997) 66(2):223–31. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/66.2.223

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Giraldo García JC, Meneses Oquendo AN, Hernández Hernández E. Study on the differences in quantitative ultrasound of the quadriceps between schoolchildren who practise different sports. Arch Med Deporte. (2020) 37(6):379–86. doi: 10.18176/archmeddeporte.00012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Gomez-Bruton A, Gonzalez-Aguero A, Matute-Llorente A, Lozano-Berges G, Gomez-Cabello A, Moreno LA, et al. The muscle-bone unit in adolescent swimmers. Osteoporos Int. (2019) 30(5):1079–88. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-04857-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Granacher U, Goesele A, Roggo K, Wischer T, Fischer S, Zuerny C, et al. Effects and mechanisms of strength training in children. Int J Sports Med. (2011) 32(5):357–64. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1271677

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Greene D, Naughton G, Briody J, Kemp A, Woodhead H, Farpour-Lambert N. Bone and muscle geometry in female adolescent middle-distance runners. Pediatr Exerc Sci. (2005) 17:377–89. doi: 10.1123/PES.17.4.377

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Hoshikawa Y, Iida T, Muramatsu M, Ii N, Nakajima Y, Chumank K, et al. Thigh muscularity and strength in teenage soccer players. Int J Sports Med. (2013) 34(5):415–23. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1323780

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Hoshikawa Y, Muramatsu M, Iida T, Ii N, Nakajima Y, Kanehisa H. Sex differences in the cross-sectional areas of psoas major and thigh muscles in high school track and field athletes and nonathletes. J Physiol Anthropol. (2011) 30(2):47–53. doi: 10.2114/jpa2.30.47

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

39. Hoshikawa Y, Muramatsu M, Iida T, Uchiyama A, Nakajima Y, Kanehisa H. Event-related differences in the cross-sectional areas and torque generation capabilities of quadriceps femoris and hamstrings in male high school athletes. J Physiol Anthropol. (2010) 29(1):13–21. doi: 10.2114/jpa2.29.13

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

40. Kanehisa H, Funato K, Abe T, Fukunaga T. Profiles of muscularity in junior Olympic weight lifters. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. (2005) 45(1):77–83.16208294

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

41. Mersmann F, Charcharis G, Bohm S, Arampatzis A. Muscle and tendon adaptation in adolescence: elite volleyball athletes compared to untrained boys and girls. Front Physiol. (2017) 8:417. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00417

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

42. Mersmann F, Laube G, Bohm S, Arampatzis A. Muscle and tendon morphology in early-adolescent athletes and untrained peers. Front Physiol. (2020) 11:1029. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.01029

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

43. Moeskops S, Oliver JL, Radnor JM, Haff G, Myer GD, Ramachandran A, et al. Effects of neuromuscular training on muscle architecture, isometric force production, and stretch-shortening cycle function in trained young female gymnasts. J Strength Cond Res. (2024) 38:1640–50. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004856

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

44. Peltonen JE, Taimela S, Erkintalo M, Salminen JJ, Oksanen A, Kujala UM. Back extensor and psoas muscle cross-sectional area, prior physical training, and trunk muscle strength—a longitudinal study in adolescent girls. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. (1997) 77:66–71. doi: 10.1007/s004210050301

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

45. Pentidis N, Mersmann F, Bohm S, Giannakou E, Aggelousis N, Arampatzis A. Effects of long-term athletic training on muscle morphology and tendon stiffness in preadolescence: association with jump performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. (2020) 120(12):2715–27. doi: 10.1007/s00421-020-04490-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Pentidis N, Mersmann F, Bohm S, Schroll A, Giannakou E, Aggelousis N, et al. Development of muscle-tendon adaptation in preadolescent gymnasts and untrained peers: a 12-month longitudinal study. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2021) 53(12):2565–76. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002742

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Sanchis-Moysi J, Dorado C, Idoate F, González-Henríquez JJ, Serrano-Sanchez JA, Calbet JAL. The asymmetry of pectoralis muscles is greater in male prepubertal than in professional tennis players. Eur J Sport Sci. (2016) 16(7):780–6. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2015.1135986

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

48. Sanchis-Moysi J, Idoate F, Álamo-Arce D, Calbet JAL, Dorado C. The core musculature in male prepubescent tennis players and untrained counterparts: a volumetric MRI study. J Sports Sci. (2017) 35(8):791–7. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1189589

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

49. Sanchis-Moysi J, Idoate F, Serrano-Sanchez JA, Dorado C, Calbet JAL. Muscle hypertrophy in prepubescent tennis players: a segmentation MRI study. PLoS One. (2012) 7(3):e33622. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033622

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Secomb JL, Farley OR, Nimphius S, Lundgren L, Tran TT, Sheppard JM. The training-specific adaptations resulting from resistance training, gymnastics and plyometric training, and non-training in adolescent athletes. Int J Sports Sci Coach. (2017) 12(6):762–73. doi: 10.1177/1747954117727810

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Takai Y, Fukunaga Y, Fujita E, Mori H, Yoshimoto T, Yamamoto M, et al. Effects of body mass-based squat training in adolescent boys. J Sports Sci Med. (2013) 12(1):60–5.24149726

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

52. Yoshimoto T, Takai Y, Fukunaga Y, Fujita E, Yamamoto M, Kanehisa H. Effects of school-based squat training in adolescent girls. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. (2016) 56(6):678–83.27336797

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

53. Nakamura M, Yoshida T, Kiyono R, Sato S, Takahashi N. The effect of low-intensity resistance training after heat stress on muscle size and strength of Triceps brachii: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disord. (2019) 20(1):603. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2991-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Yagiz G, Akaras E, Kubis H, Owen J. The effects of resistance training on architecture and volume of the upper extremity muscles: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses. Appl Sci. (2022) 12(3):1593. doi: 10.3390/app12031593

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Koutsandréou F, Wegner M, Niemann C, Budde H. Effects of motor versus cardiovascular exercise training on children’s working memory. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2016) 48(6):1144–52. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000869

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Wassenaar TM, Wheatley CM, Beale N, Nichols T, Salvan P, Meaney A, et al. The effect of a one-year vigorous physical activity intervention on fitness, cognitive performance and mental health in young adolescents: the fit to study cluster randomised controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2021) 18:47. doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01113-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Heinsberg LW, Weeks DE. Post hoc power is not informative. Genet Epidemiol. (2022) 46(7):390–4. doi: 10.1002/gepi.22464

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Kraemer WJ, Fry AC, Frykman PN, Conroy B, Hoffman J. Resistance training and youth. Pediatr Exerc Sci. (1989) 1(4):336–50. doi: 10.1123/pes.1.4.336

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Kanbur NO, Derman O, Kinik E. The relationships between pubertal development, igf-1 axis, and bone formation in healthy adolescents. J Bone Miner Metab. (2005) 23(1):76–83. doi: 10.1007/s00774-004-0544-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

60. Refalo MC, Nuckols G, Galpin AJ, Gallagher IJ, Hamilton DL, Fyfe JJ. Sex differences in absolute and relative changes in muscle size following resistance training in healthy adults: a systematic review with Bayesian meta-analysis. PeerJ. (2025) 13:e19042. doi: 10.7717/peerj.19042

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

61. Roberts BM, Nuckols G, Krieger JW. Sex differences in resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. (2020) 34(5):1448–60. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003521

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. (2017) 31(12):3508–23. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002200

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Abe T, DeHoyos DV, Pollock ML, Garzarella L. Time course for strength and muscle thickness changes following upper and lower body resistance training in men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. (2000) 81(3):174–80. doi: 10.1007/s004210050027

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

64. Handsfield GG, Knaus KR, Fiorentino NM, Meyer CH, Hart JM, Blemker SS. Adding muscle where you need it: non-uniform hypertrophy patterns in elite sprinters. Scand J Med Sci Sports. (2017) 27(10):1050–60. doi: 10.1111/sms.12723

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

65. Akagi R, Takai Y, Ohta M, Kanehisa H, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T. Muscle volume compared to cross-sectional area is more appropriate for evaluating muscle strength in young and elderly individuals. Age Ageing. (2009) 38:564–9. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afp122

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar