Junior age- and central nervous system-type specific group differences in strength abilities

PhD, Associate Professor E.M. Revenko
Siberian State Automobile and Highway Academy, Omsk

Keywords:  physical qualities, age differences, central nervous system type.

Background. Knowledge of the age-specific progress logics helps design and manage the physical education and sport system on the most efficient basis. At the same time, due consideration shall be given, as provided by Y.P. Ilyin, to the individual age-specific physical development paces [2], with the poor customization of the physical education systems to the latter believed to be among the core reasons for the physical education service inefficiency.

Physical fitness and physical progress is normally rated and analyzed on a calendar-age-specific basis rather than with account of the individual psychological traits. As found by V.A. Salnikov, the 13-16 year-olds are tested with significant differences in the anthropometric characteristics and physicality rates, with the young individuals with the stronger central nervous system and dominating ‘internal balance’ driven excitation mechanisms having a clear advantage [5]. Studies to profile differences in the physical abilities and the age-specific growth paces versus the psychophysical qualities are important both for the accurate age-versus-progress data analyzing purposes and for the individual developmental profiles with every process determinant/ factor taken into account [3].

Objective of the study was to analyze the age- and central nervous system-type specific differences in strength abilities of the 12-20 year-olds.

Methods and structure of the study. The test data for analysis was mined in the period of 2007-16. Sampled for the study were 481 people including the 12, 14 and 16 year old schoolchildren (n=87, 78 and 104, respectively) from Lyceum #149 in Omsk; and 18 and 20 year old students (n= 159 and 53, respectively) of Siberian State Automobile and Highway Academy grouped by the central nervous system (CNS) types. Since the study was intended to profile physicality versus the central nervous system types, we selected in every age group the individuals with the relevant central nervous system qualities: see Table 1 hereunder. Physical qualities of the sample were tested by the strength-rating deadlift test (kgf); strength endurance rating pull-ups on a horizontal bar test (count); and speed-strength rating standing long jump test (cm).The central nervous system types were identified by the central nervous system activity rating (strength, excitation/ inhibition and external/ internal stress tolerance rates) Y.P. Ilyin tests [1].

Results and discussion. Analysis of the physical qualities made in our prior study [4] showed leadership of the individuals tested with a stronger central nervous system, high excitation rates and dominating ‘internal balance’ driven excitation mechanisms. However, as argued by Y.P. Ilyin [2], actual manifestations of physical qualities are normally determined by a few central nervous system qualities that may be synergized when their effects are combined in a non-conflict manner. Therefore, it may be beneficial in practical terms to identify the central nervous system types of special importance for specific individual physical qualities. This was the reason for us to select in every age groups the individuals tested with the contrasting manifestations of the above three central nervous system types.

The age- and central nervous system-type specific analysis of the physical qualities was designed to compare the close age groups (e.g. 12 and 14 year olds) with the contrasting central nervous system types of the opposite effects on the physical qualities. Juniors in every central nervous system-type subgroup were selected of the individuals with the central nervous system types favorable for the subject physical qualities (i.e. tested with the stronger central nervous system, high excitation rates and dominating ‘internal balance’ driven excitation mechanisms); and seniors in every central nervous system-type subgroup were selected of the individuals with the opposite central nervous system qualities – of inhibiting effect on the physical progress.

As seen from Table 1, physicality tests of the 12 year-olds with the favorable central nervous system type showed their physical progress rates being virtually the same as those the 14-year-olds with the unfavorable central nervous system-type, with the only exclusion for the muscular strength test rates that showed some natural domination of the senior age group - apparently due to the age-specific fast progress in anthropometric characteristics, i.e. intensive body mass and muscular mass growth rates that cannot but tell on the tested physical qualities. It should be emphasized that with age such differences in the muscular strength and other physical qualities tend to naturally level down.

Table 1. Age- and central nervous system-type-specific physical qualities test rates

 

CNS type

Physicality tests

Deadlift, kgf

Pull-ups on a horizontal bar, count

Standing long jump, cm

Type 1 (n=14)

12 year-olds

70,14 ± 13,71

3,93 ± 3,32

170,29 ± 15,67

Type 2 (n=8)

14 year-olds

82,5 ± 14,88

3,75 ± 2,19

171,5 ± 5,81

Р

Type 1 (n=9)

14 year-olds

90,22 ± 13,8

6,89 ± 2,8

198,11 ± 10,45

Type 2 (n=9)

16 year-olds

90,67 ± 23,44

6,44 ± 3,13

199,67 ± 15,76

Р

Type 1 (n=12)

16 year-olds

124,5 ± 20,09

11,67 ± 3,58

231,67 ± 16,83

Type 2 (n=14)

18 year-olds

102,07 ± 18,6

8,29 ± 3,65

224,79 ± 16,44

Р

≤ 0,01

≤ 0,05

Type 1 (n=16)

18 year-olds

128,38± 15,27

13,63 ± 3,96

246,31± 16,13

Type 2 (n=6)

20 year-olds

112,17 ± 14,84

8,67 ± 2,34

228,0 ± 13,28

Р

≤ 0,05

≤ 0,01

≤ 0,05

Note: Type 1: stronger CNS, high excitation rates and dominating ‘internal balance’ driven excitation mechanisms; Type 2: relatively weaker CNS, lower excitation rates and dominating ‘internal balance’ driven inhibition

The 14 year-olds with the physical progress facilitating central nervous system Type 1 were tested with virtually the same physical qualities as the 16 year-olds with the physical progress inhibiting central nervous system Type 2. This logics was found to manifest itself even stronger in case of the 16 year-olds with the physical progress facilitating central nervous system Type 1 - that were tested with significantly better physical qualities than the 18 year-olds with the physical progress inhibiting central nervous system Type 2: 124.5 versus 102.07 with р≤0.01 in the muscular strength tests; and 11.67 versus 8.29 with р≤0.05 in the strength endurance tests; the intergroup difference in the speed-strength tests was less expressed albeit still noticeable. The same trend was found in case of the 18 year-olds with the physical progress facilitating central nervous system Type 1 - that were tested with significantly better physical qualities than the 20 year-olds with the physical progress inhibiting central nervous system Type 2: 128.38 versus 112.17 with р≤0.05 in the muscular strength tests; 13.63 versus 8.67 with р≤0.01 in the strength endurance tests; and 246.31 versus 228.0 with р≤0.05 in the speed-strength tests.

The test data and analyses demonstrate that the physical differences of peers in the age period of 12-20 years are determined by the central nervous system types rather than the age as such. Juniors with the physical progress facilitating central nervous system type may be tested with even better physical qualities than the seniors of the closest age group with the physical progress inhibiting central nervous system type.

Conclusion. Studies and training systems focused on the junior individuals’ physical qualities and abilities are recommended giving more attention to the individual physical progress profiles rather than the age group as such. Further research in this field should be geared to define more accurate the notion of ‘age norm’ and improve the physical training systems in this context on a reasonably individualized basis.

References

  1. Ilyin E.P. Differentsialnaya psikhofiziologiya [Differential psychophysiology]. St. Petersburg: Piter publ., 2001, 464 p.
  2. Ilyin E.P. Psikhomotornaya organizatsiya cheloveka [Psychomotor organization in men]. St. Petersburg: Piter publ., 2003, 384 p.
  3. Kalashnikova M.B. O modeli vozrastnoy sensitivnosti [Model of age-related sensitivity]. Voprosy psikhologii, 2007, no. 4, pp. 98 – 106.
  4. Revenko E.M., Salnikov V.A. Vozrastnye osobennosti iskhodnykh urovney i tempov prirosta dvigatelnykh sposobnostey yunoshey, razlichayushchikhsya tipologicheskimi svoystvami nervnoy sistemy [Age features of initial levels and growth rates of motor abilities in young men depending on typological properties of nervous system]. Uchenye zapiski universiteta im. P.F. Lesgafta,2018, no. 8, pp. 161 – 169.
  5. Salnikov V.A. Vozrastnye i individualnye osobennosti fizicheskogo razvitiya na razlichnykh etapakh sportivnogo sovershenstvovaniya [Age and individual characteristics of physical development at various stages of sports excelling process]. Doct. diss. abstract (Hab.). St. Petersburg, 1994, 42 p.

Corresponding author: revenko.76@mail.ru

Abstract

The article analyzes the junior age- and central nervous system-type specific group differences in strength abilities based on the test data mined in the period of 2007-16. Sampled for the study were 481 people including the 12, 14 and 16 year old schoolchildren (n= 87, 78 and 104, respectively) and 18 and 20 year old university students (n= 159 and 53, respectively), grouped by the central nervous system types. Physical qualities of the sample were tested by the strength-rating deadlift test (kgf); endurance rating pull-ups on a horizontal bar test (count); and speed-strength-rating standing long jump test (cm). The central nervous system types were identified by the central nervous system activity, excitation/ inhibition and external/ internal stress tolerance rating Y.P. Ilyin tests.

It was found that the relatively younger age groups are normally tested equally or better than the seniors when their central nervous system type is favorable for the relevant physical qualities building trainings. The study data and analysis give grounds to believe that the physical qualities and abilities building logics shall be governed by the individual central nervous system type and personality progress rather than only the age specifics.