Positive effects on bone mineralisation and muscular fitness after 10 months of intense school-based physical training for children aged 8–10 years: the FIT FIRST randomised controlled trial

Abstract

ObjectivesWe investigated whether musculoskeletal fitness of school children aged 8–10 years was affected by frequent intense PE sessions.Design and participants295 Danish school children aged 8–10 years were cluster randomised to a small-sided ball game group (SSG) (n=96, four schools, five classes), a circuit strength training group (CST) (n=83, four schools, four classes) or a control group (CON, n=116, two schools, five classes).InterventionSSG or CST was performed 3×40 min/week over 10 months. Whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans were used to determine areal bone mineral density (aBMD), bone mineral content (BMC) and lean body mass (LBM). Flamingo balance, standing long jump and 20-m sprint tests were used to determine muscular fitness.ResultsAnalysis of baseline-to-10 months change scores showed between-group differences in favour of the interventions in whole-body aBMD (SSG vs CON: 8 mg/cm2, 95% CI 3 to 13; CST vs CON: 7 mg/cm2, 95% CI 2 to 13, p<0.05) and leg BMC (SSG vs CON: 11 g, 95% CI 4 to 18; CST vs CON: 11 g, 95% CI 3 to 18, p<0.05). SSG had higher change scores in leg aBMD compared with CON and CST (SSG vs CON: 19 mg/cm2, 95% CI 11 to 39, p<0.05; SSG vs CST: 12 mg/cm2, 95% CI 3 to 21, p<0.05), and CST had higher change scores in whole-body BMC compared with CON (CST vs CON: 25 g, 95% CI 10 to 39, p<0.05). Both training types resulted in higher change scores in postural balance (SSG vs CON: 2.4 fewer falls/min, 95% CI 0.3 to 4.5, CST vs CON: 3.6 fewer falls/min, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.9, p<0.05) and jump length (SSG vs CON: 10%, 95% CI 5 to 16%; CST vs CON: 9%, 95% CI 3 to 15%, p<0.05). No between-group differences were observed for sprint performance or LBM (p>0.05).ConclusionsIn conclusion, 3×40 min/week with SSG or CST over a full school year improves bone mineralisation and several aspects of muscular fitness of children aged 8–10 years, suggesting that well-organised intense physical education classes can contribute positively to develop musculoskeletal health in young children.Trial registration numberNCT02000492, post results.

Recreational football is medicine against non‐communicable diseases: A systematic review

“…The results from the reviewed studies showed that there is a beneficial relationship between football practice and bone health (Table ) in children, adolescents, adults, and older adults . Among children and adolescents, a 10‐month to 1‐year intervention significantly improves bone mineralization, bone mineral content, and bone stiffness . The effect of football on bone health was more pronounced than in other activities such as swimming and cycling .…”

“…Bone is a tissue that remodels during the course of life. Although skeletal characteristics are influenced by genetic factors, a healthy lifestyle including appropriate nutrition and regular physical activity helps to improve bone health, prevent age‐related bone loss, and strengthen weak bone …”

Fitness Effects of 10-Month Frequent Low-Volume Ball Game Training or Interval Running for 8–10-Year-Old School Children

“…In the latter study, marked improvements were observed in jump length, sprint performance, and bone mineralisation over the same 10-month intervention period [27]. The explanations for this difference may be the bigger training volume and the fact that the sessions in the latter study were more than 3 times longer (40 min versus 12 min), so these children spent more time in the fatigued state, which may be a major factor contributing to higher bone strains, since under such circumstances muscle ability to absorb shocks is lower [40].…”

Motor-Enriched Learning Activities Can Improve Mathematical Performance in Preadolescent Children

“…To evaluate gross motor skills, the children completed a coordination wall, which has previously been used to assess gross motor coordinative skills in preadolescent children (Geertsen et al, 2016; Larsen et al, 2016). The children were standing facing the coordination wall, which consisted of an upright rectangular 9 × 8 grid, with the numbers 1–10 distributed on the grid.…”

“…Based on the MinimaxX proprietary software (Sprint, Catapult Sports, Canberra, Australia) the physical load (i.e., player load) was computed by the software using the following formula: $\begin{array}{c}left\text{Player} \text{load}=\\ \sqrt{{\left(fw{d}_{y1}-fw{d}_{y-1}\right)}^2+{\left(sid{e}_{x1}-sid{e}_{x-1}\right)}^2+{\left(u{p}_{z1}-u{p}_{z-1}\right)}^2}\end{array}$ where fwd y , side x , and up z indicate the accelerations in the forward, sideways and upwards plane, respectively. The player load is an arbitrary unit correlated with subjective perceived exertion measures of physical exhaustion (Casamichana et al, 2013), and the measure has previously been used to assess the intensity of various physical activities in preadolescent children (Larsen et al, 2016). …”