REF-1614 · Moesch et al., 2011 · Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports · Paper · PubMed

In Danish sports decided by centimetres, grams or seconds, athletes who reached elite level had specialised later and trained less as children than near-elite peers but stepped up their training more in late adolescence, while how much they did other sports neither differed nor predicted elite status; 243 athletes, a retrospective survey, with no numbers in the abstract. From the abstract

Main caveat: Abstract only, with no numbers.
limited evidenceMeasured on highly trained to elite athletesRead from the abstract only

Moesch and colleagues set the early-specialisation view against the early-diversification view, in which children sample several sports and specialise in adolescence.

Studying 243 Danish athletes from cgs sports, 148 at elite and 95 at near-elite level, they compared practice hours accumulated in the early career, involvement in other sports and career development, and tested whether these predicted membership of the elite group.

The elite athletes had specialised at a later age and trained less in childhood, but increased their training more in late adolescence than the near-elite. Involvement in other sports did not differ between the groups and did not predict success.

The authors conclude that how practice is organised in the mid-teens appears decisive for international success in these sports, and call for longitudinal designs that allow causal inference.

Participants

n = 243 Danish athletes from cgs sports: 148 elite, 95 near-elite. Sexes and ages are indexed but not given in the abstract.

Protocol

Design: retrospective survey of training history, compared between groups.
Variables: accumulated practice hours in early career stages, involvement in other sports, career development; whether these predict elite membership.
Not in the abstract: the sports, how elite and near-elite were defined, the ages used for "childhood" and "late adolescence", and the statistics.

Key Results

Specialisation: elite athletes specialised later than near-elite athletes.
Childhood training: elite athletes trained less in childhood.
Late adolescence: elite athletes intensified training more than near-elite peers.
Other sports: involvement neither differed between groups nor predicted elite status.
No values, hours or effect sizes are reported in the abstract.

Practical Application

In 243 Danish athletes from timed and measured sports, those who reached elite level had specialised later and trained less as children, then stepped up more in late adolescence, than near-elite peers, and how much they had played other sports did not differ. For an adult endurance athlete with a sporty childhood, this gives no evidence that the other sports themselves built an adult base; it supports only a later specialisation, with a sharper rise in training in late adolescence, in elite athletes, from recalled histories.
It partly tempers REF-1613: there, coached practice in other sports went with adult world class across sports including cgs; here, involvement in other sports did not separate elite from near-elite. The two measured different things (this abstract does not define involvement).
Not causal: the authors themselves ask for longitudinal studies.

Limitations

Abstract only, with no numbers.
Retrospective recall of training from years before; survivor bias possible.
The sports and the group definitions are not in the abstract.
Danish athletes, published 2011; elite and near-elite only.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

the rubric's cross-sectional/correlational line; n = 243, but a survey of recalled training compared between two groups, and the abstract gives no hours, ages, effect sizes or model statistics, so no number from it can be cited