Back to all available

Structural vs. Functional specialization: distinct competitive profiles in youth male and female flatwater paddlers

anthropology
biomechanics
sports-medicine

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to determine the extent to which structural (anthropometric) versus functional (physiological) characteristics drive the specialization of youth kayakers and canoeists.
Methods: Using a cross-sectional comparative design, e ighty-two youth athletes (42 kayakers, 40 canoeists) from the Zhejiang Provincial Training Camp were assessed. Comprehensive profiling included anthropometry (height, arm span), body composition, hematological markers (Hb, HCT), and specific fitness tests (Wingate anaerobic test, 1-RM strength, core stability, and 3000m run).
Results: Distinct specialization patterns emerged, differentiated significantly by gender. Male athletes exhibited both structural and functional divergence: kayakers possessed significantly greater height, arm span, and hematological capacity (Hb, HCT), whereas canoeists demonstrated superior posterior core stability and anaerobic endurance. In contrast, female athletes showed no significant anthropometric differences; divergence was exclusively functional. Female kayakers displayed a classic aerobic and strength-endurance profile, while female canoeists specialized in anaerobic power-endurance.
Conclusion: The findings confirm that while male specialization is constrained by structural mismatches, female specialization allows for greater talent mobility due to the lack of structural barriers, relying instead on functional adaptation.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].