Next Article in Journal
Deep Learning Evidence for Global Optimality of Gerver’s Sofa
Next Article in Special Issue
The Test–Retest Reliability of a Belt-Fixated Dynamometer for Assessing Maximal Knee Strength, Inter-Limb Asymmetries, and Hamstring–Quadriceps Ratios
Previous Article in Journal
Sequence of Bounds for Spectral Radius and Energy of Digraph
Previous Article in Special Issue
Inter-Limb Asymmetry in Female Sepak Takraw Players: An Observational Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Symmetry
Volume 16
Issue 10
10.3390/sym16101387
symmetry-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Rapid Assessment of Morphological Asymmetries Using 3D Body Scanner and Bioelectrical Impedance Technologies in Sports: A Case of Comparative Analysis Among Age Groups in Judo

by
Jožef Šimenko
1,*,
Hrvoje Sertić
2,
Ivan Segedi
2 and
Ivan Čuk
1
1
Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, 10110 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Symmetry 2024, 16(10), 1387; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16101387
Submission received: 13 September 2024 / Revised: 12 October 2024 / Accepted: 15 October 2024 / Published: 18 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Symmetry in Biomechanics)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: The advancement of technologies has made morphological assessment rapid and reliable. A combination of 3D body scanning (3D-BS) and bioelectrical impedance (BIA) could be essential in monitoring the morphological status of athletes and the general population and their symmetries for coaches, researchers and medical professionals. (2) Methods: The current study presents the use of Inbody-720 BIA and 3D-BS NX-16 for analyzing the asymmetry profile of an athlete in 2 min on a sample of 106 male judo competitors from the following age categories: older boys—U14 (N = 24), younger cadets—U16 (N = 31), cadets—U18 (N = 17), juniors—U21 (N = 19) and seniors (N = 15). Variables observed were arm lean mass, upper arm, elbow, forearm and wrist girth, leg lean mass, thigh length, thigh, knee and calf girth. The paired sample t-test, asymmetry index (AI) and Kruskal–Wallis analysis were used at p ≤ 0.05; (3) Results: Morphological asymmetries were detected in all age categories: seniors—three, U21—four, U18—three, U16—five and U14—four. The most common asymmetrical variable in all categories was the forearm girth, while thigh length, knee girth and upper arm girth presented symmetrical variables in all age categories. AI showed that the size of the asymmetries did not differentiate between the age groups. (4) Conclusions: The current study demonstrated great potential for combining BIA and 3D-BS for rapid asymmetry detection that would allow for monitoring and quick adjustments to the training process in youth to senior age categories.

1. Introduction

There are many available methods through which one can acquire and analyse the morphological features of athletes with body asymmetries, but these methods vary depending on the time available for measurement, funds, and the accuracy of results [1]. The most known and used method for assessing the dimensions of body segments is conventional anthropometry [2], which has often been used in judo [3,4]. The literature reports that one of its limitations is that it typically measures only the right side of the body, disregarding the preferred side of the subject [5]. Additionally, it was reported to be time-consuming [6], especially when testing both body sides for asymmetry assessment. The time and accuracy of testing also depend on the trained anthropometrist’s skill and level [7], which demands time for adequate training. However, morphological and anthropometrical research has taken a new direction with the progress of technology and the application of 3D body scanners and bioelectrical impedance (BIA). The 3D scanners and BIA have made the measurements contactless, fast, accurate [8,9], safe, noninvasive, portable and easy to conduct [10]. Additionally, it has been reported that digital anthropometry could be used as a screening tool before more expensive imaging techniques or as an alternative to other less affordable techniques also in clinical practice [11]. Body dimensions play an important component in weight-sensitive sports [12]. Therefore, a fast and reliable method such as 3D body scanning and BIA analysis can be of use in determining body asymmetry status.
Judo is an attractive high-intensity combat sport with a complex time structure of short and intense movements, which may represent attacking, counter-attacking or defensive motions, with the main goal of throwing the opponent on his/her back or controlling him/her during the groundwork combat [13,14] while controlling for penalties that can impact the final outcome [15]. Motoric, technical, and tactical skills are developed in judokas from an early age since judo athletes start to compete very early in their careers [16]. Regular and intense practice of certain sports is known to result in morphological, physiological, and postural adaptations of athletes’ bodies [17]. However, each sport discipline affects the body in its particular way [18]. Judo performance in highly skilled judokas is connected to a higher symmetry of arm and leg movements [19,20], where strength factors should be equally exhibited by both sides of the body [21], which impacts the symmetrical development of the body. Symmetrisation is, therefore, of great importance for judokas, and it is a process that involves balancing motor abilities on both sides of the body [19,22,23,24]. Body asymmetries can occur from long-lasting one-sided and repeated situational training over many years [25]. Moreover, asymmetrical muscle work may cause different types of overloads, which can lead to different deformations with morphological and functional asymmetries [25,26] and are associated with increased risk factors for athletic injuries [22,27,28,29,30]. Asymmetries in judo have been noted in functional [31,32,33,34,35,36,37] and morphological [38,39,40] aspects.
Research on body symmetries with the bilateral application of manual anthropometry from the last 25 years in judo is scarce [35,41,42,43]. Three-dimensional body analysis of human shape contains information that is absent from measures used in current anthropometric practice [44]. An advantage of 3D scanning is that it captures the whole-body image, and the bilateral extraction of measurements is automatic. The literature reports that BIA can also be used to reveal morphological asymmetries in the estimated muscle mass, fluid distribution, fat mass and phase angle (PhA) in individual body segments of athletes [45]. Therefore, combining the 3D scanning method and BIA could be of interest and benefit all sports in general. In judo research, it is being used to detect morphological traits in youth judokas [39,40,46]. Judokas start to compete at an early age, and only a few studies have focused on an analysis among age groups in different aspects of judo [47,48,49], with only one study focusing on body morphology [50] and none of the studies focusing on morphological asymmetries. Therefore, our research aims to present the morphological status by using 3D body scanning and BIA on judokas of the following age categories: under 14 years, under 16 years, under 18 years, under 21 years, and senior judokas. Additionally, the research aims to investigate the status of body asymmetries and how they implement themselves through and between different age categories.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample of this cross-sectional study included a total of 106 male judo competitors of Slovenian judo clubs from the following age categories: older boys—U14 (N = 24; age = 12.93 ± 0.56 years; body height (BH) = 160.89 ± 8.56 cm; body weight (BW) = 52.99 ± 11.89 kg; skeletal muscle mass (SMM) = 24.5 ± 5 kg; body fat mass % (BF%) = 14.4 ± 8.8%; training experience (TE) = 6.00 ± 0.00 years; belt degree (BD) = 3rd ± 0 KYU), younger cadets—U16 (N = 31; age = 14.54 ± 0.47 years; BH = 172.68 ± 6.25 cm; BW = 66.87 ± 12.96 kg; SMM = 33.6 ± 5.9 kg; BF% = 10.2 ± 5.6%; TE = 6.90 ± 0.30 years; BD = 2nd ± 0.3 KYU), cadets—U18 (N = 17; age = 16.24 ± 0.56 years; BH = 175.28 ± 8.26 cm; BW = 71.98 ± 12.38 kg; SMM = 35.9 ± 5 kg; BF% = 11.4 ± 7.4%; TE = 7.41 ± 0.80 years; BD = 1st ± 0.7 KYU); juniors—U21 (N = 19; age = 18.74 ± 1.45 years; BH = 177.28 ± 3.79 cm; BW = 76.88 ± 6.78 kg; SMM = 33.7 ± 7.3 kg; BF% = 11.7 ± 6.6%; TE = 8.74 ± 0.45 years; BD = 1st ± 0.45 DAN); and seniors (N = 15; age = 24.33 ± 2.9 years; BH = 174.57 ± 7.43 cm; BW = 77.96 ± 9.02 kg; SMM = 39.1 ± 4.5 kg; BF% = 12.4 ± 4%; TE = 18.53 ± 3.89 years; BD = 2nd ± 1.05 DAN). The inclusion criteria included (1) they were all active athletes participating in official judo competitions; (2) they have been training in judo for at least three years; (3) they were free from any musculoskeletal injuries at the time of measurement; (4) they were not in the intentional process of weight loss before a competition. Hand dominance was used as an indicator of judo dominance [51], where the participants were asked which hand they use to write, draw, and throw a ball, as previously used [20]. There were 99 right-hand dominant and 7 left-hand dominant judokas. All examinees were informed about testing conditions and procedures and voluntarily participated in this research. Written consent was acquired from the participants, their parents or guardians before testing. The research was carried out following the Declaration of Helsinki and with the approval of the Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana’s Ethics Committee (no. 2033/2013).

2.2. Data Collection

The morphological measurements were performed in the morning (8–10 a.m.) in the Physiological Laboratory of the Institute of Sport in Ljubljana, Slovenia. First, Body height was measured by the GPM (Swiss) anthropometer, followed by the Bioelectrical impedance measurements (BIA), and ended with 3D body scanning.

2.3. Bioelectrical Impedance Measurements

The BIA InBody 720 (Biospace Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea) was analysed for body composition. Testing was followed in a standardised standing posture and necessary measurement guidelines were followed [52]: (1) the measurements were taken between 8 and 10 a.m.; (2) athletes were asked to abstain from large meals after 9 p.m. the evening before the analysis. On the day of the measurement, they were asked neither to eat nor drink before the end of the procedure; (3) athletes were asked to refrain from extreme physical exertions 24 h before the screening, and the last training should have been performed at least 12 h before assessment; (4) the athletes did not consume alcohol 48 h before the testing; (5) athletes emptied their bowels and bladder at least 30 min before the measurement; (6) To properly distribute the tissue fluids the athletes were in the standing position for at least 5 min before the test; (7) the testing was performed in the standing position with hands placed aside 15 cm laterally from the body. The BIA Inbody 720 has already reported high accuracy and test-retest reliability, with interclass correlation (ICC) reported at 0.99 [53]. Correlations with the reference measure of du-al-energy X-ray absorptiometry were significant at a level of r = 0.95, and the standard error of the estimate was reported at 1.8 in an adult athletic population [54]. Moreover, Inbody 720 is a valid tool that can measure the body composition of children and adolescents [55]. Before each participant, the device was cleaned with recommended disinfectant. An experienced researcher performed the testing. InBody 720 was used to measure the following variables: body mass; skeletal muscle mass; left and right arm lean mass; left and right leg lean mass and body fat mass percentage. The BIA de-vice was set in the research mode and the testing time was 1 min 36 s. Afterwards, the 3D testing took place. The pause between tests was approximately 5 min.

2.4. 3D Body Scanner Measurements

The 3D body scanner NX-16 ([TC]2, Cary, NC, USA) was used to capture and analyse the 3D anthropometric body variables. This 3D scanner presents a non-invasive scanning method to produce a true-to-scale 3D body model in 8 s that has been previously validated [56,57]. A photogrammetry technology (white light) is used in the NX-16 3D-BS that uses 32 cameras to produce raw photonic point cloud data 3D body image. This allows automatic landmark recognition and electronic tape measurements. NX-16 test-retest variability was reported as a coefficient of variation (CV%) in the range of 0.2–3.3% [57]. Correlations with the reference measure of manual anthropometry were shown to be significant in the range of r ≥ 0.95–0.99, with the average relative error in the range of 0.006–0.037 [56].
The NX-16 scanner was fully calibrated before the measurements according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. The acceptable range of the accuracy of circumferences standard deviation in the calibration process was well under 0.9 mm to pass the calibration, with the final calibration accuracy reported at 0.3725 mm. Subjects were instructed to remove all jewellery and clothes and to enter the scanner barefooted and in form-fitting bright colour underwear. They stood in a standardised position, with their feet located on landmarks on the scanner’s floor (feet set straight, not inwards or out-wards), grabbing the handles inside of the scanner with a natural standing posture (shoulders not elevated, elbows stretched, the upright position of the back, chin slightly lifted). Subjects were instructed to remain still during the scan. The software Body Measurement System Version 7.4.1 was used to create the initial point cloud. This was later processed into a 3D body model from which customised measurements were extracted. A multi-scan option with three consecutive scans was used to give us one merged file with the means of all three consecutive scans. Scanning of three consecutive scans lasted 24 s. An experienced measurer performed the scanning process. From the scan 8 paired (left and right) variables were taken for further Analysis: Upper arm Girth, Elbow Girth, Forearm Girth, Wrist Girth, Thigh Girth, Thigh Length, Knee Girth and Calf Girth. Additionally, the Asymmetry index (AI) was calculated as absolute values from paired variables|Right side–Left side| [58]. The AI was calculated for Arm lean mass, Upper arm Girth, Elbow Girth, Forearm Girth, Wrist Girth, Leg lean mass, Thigh Girth, Thigh Length, Knee Girth and Calf Girth paired variables.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Data were processed and presented using the SPSS 28.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Descriptive statistics (Means ± SD) were used to present the data. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to assess the normality, and a paired sample T-test to determine differences/asymmetries in paired body variables. Effect sizes (ES) for paired T-test were calculated utilising Cohen’s d. Threshold values for ES statistics were; >0.2 small, >0.5 moderate, >0.8 large, >1.3 very large [59]. The Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to determine differences between the Asymmetry index (AI) of morpho-logical variables of different age groups with post hoc paired comparisons by a Mann–Whitney U test with Bonferroni adjustment. Additionally, the eta-squared effect size values were calculated: >0.01—small, >0.06—medium, >0.14—large [60]. There were no missing data in the analysis. Statistical significance for all tests was set at p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

In Table 1, the paired t-test highlighted significant asymmetries in the senior age group in forearm girth t(14) = −2.59, p = 0.022; [d = 0.69; moderate effect], wrist girth t(14) = −2.51, p = 0.025; [d = 0.65; moderate effect] and calf girth t(14) = −2.43, p = 0.029; [d = 0.63; moderate effect]. In the U21 age group, significant asymmetries were highlighted in elbow girth t(18) = −2.94, p = 0.009; [d = 0.68; moderate effect], forearm girth t(18) = −3.03, p = 0.007; [d = 0.69; moderate effect], knee girth t(18) = −2.60, p = 0.018; [d = 0.60; moderate effect] and calf girth t(18) = −2.58, p = 0.019; [d = 0.59; moderate effect]. In the U18 age group, significant asymmetries were highlighted in elbow girth t(16) = −5.38, p = 0.000; [d = 1.31; very large effect], forearm girth t(16) = −5.27, p = 0.000; [d = 1.28; large effect] and leg lean mass t(16) = −2.17, p = 0.046; [d = 0.53; moderate effect]. In the U16 age group, significant asymmetries were highlighted in elbow girth t(30) = −2.93, p = 0.006; [d = 0.53; moderate effect], forearm girth t(30) = −4.15, p = 0.000; [d = 0.75; moderate effect], arm lean mass t(30) = −2.45, p = 0.020; [d = 0.44; small effect], calf girth t(30) = −2.19, p = 0.036; [d = 0.39; small effect] and leg lean mass t(30) = −3.41, p = 0.002; [d = 0.61; moderate effect]. In the U14 age group, significant asymmetries were highlighted in elbow girth t(23) = −6.09, p = 0.000; [d = 1.24; large effect], forearm girth t(23) = −5.64, p = 0.000; [d = 1.15; large effect], wrist girth t(23) = −3,20, p = 0,004; [d = 0.65; moderate effect] and arm lean mass t(23) = −2.77, p = 0.011; [d = 0.57; moderate effect].
Table 2 presents differences between the asymmetry index (AI) for selected age groups with the Kruskal–Wallis test (K-W) for upper-body variables. The K-W indicated a significant difference between AI in age groups of arm lean mass (H = 10.6, p ≤ 0.032, ES = 0.10 [medium effect]); however, there was no significance detected between groups after Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.
Table 3 presents differences between the asymmetry index (AI) for selected age groups with the Kruskal–Wallis test (K-W) for lower-body variables. The data did not show statistically significant results between AI variables and age groups.

4. Discussion

Our study results highlight the morphological asymmetries in different age groups of judokas who were rapidly assessed in 2 min via 3D scanning and BIA technology. Morphological asymmetries were detected in all age categories: seniors—three, U21—four, U18—three, U16—five and U14—four. All of the detected asymmetries were greater on the right body side, which was mainly the dominant side. The most common asymmetrical variable in all age categories was the forearm girth, while the thigh length, knee girth and upper arm girth presented symmetrical variables in all age categories. Furthermore, the AI showed that the size of asymmetries did not differentiate between the age groups. The combination of 3D-BS and BIA was shown to be an effective approach to getting comprehensive asymmetries profiles of athletes.
According to the literature, judo is a sport discipline that symmetrically develops both sides of the human body [38,61]. However, our study highlighted several morphological asymmetries occurring in different age groups in the upper and lower body. Therefore, the discussion section will be divided into sections on upper and lower body segments and advances in modern technologies in sports for greater clarity.

4.1. Upper-Body Morphological Asymmetries

Upper-body extremities are one of the most important muscle groups in positioning for judogi grip, breaking the opponent’s balance, entering the throw and controlling the opponent’s throw on the tatami in groundwork techniques. The present research shows that the upper arm girth is symmetrically developed in all age groups. This aligns with the previous research done with manual anthropometry [41,42] and 3D scanning [39,40,46].
On the other hand, elbow girth was shown to be an asymmetric body measure in all young age categories except for seniors, while the asymmetries in the forearm girth were present in all age categories. This aligns with previous research done with 3D scanning [39,40,46] for both variables regarding the asymmetries. In addition, manual anthropometry research also presented asymmetries in forearm girth [41,42]; however, it did not reveal any asymmetries in a similar measure of elbow diameter [42,62].
The results also show arm lean body mass (ALBM) asymmetries in the U14 and U16 age categories, which aligns with research done on Czech adolescent judokas, where significant differences in ALBM favoured the dominant side [63]. In addition, asymmetries favouring the dominant right side were also noted in the wrist girth of the U14 and senior age categories. Previous research has contrarily reported wrist girth as a symmetrical variable [39,40,46,62].
Asymmetries in youth age groups could be explained by the fact that in the U14 and U16 groups, first selections and talent development programs start to occur. Additionally, it was recently highlighted that talented youth judokas compete in up to three higher age group competitions to gain experience as fast as possible [64]. This could lead to intense stress on their musculoskeletal system and to the occurrence of asymmetries, which may lead to injuries in the future. This means a harder, longer and more strenuous workout. During this period, young judokas mainly focus on how to fight for the grip in the so-called “kumikata”. All this affects the skeletal adaptation in the wrist joints in the youngest categories. According to our data, the situation is stabilising among junior cadets, cadets and juniors. However, asymmetries in wrist girth reappear in seniors, where the exercise intensity is greatest, indicating adaptations to the increased workload.
One of the reasons for the occurrence of right-sided asymmetries could be that the right-hand dominant judokas fight in the right fighting stance, where the right hand is most likely the first to grab the “judogi” and its collar (lapel) to initiate the attack and later to control the opposing athlete. This repetitive movement suggests that judokas overload the dominant hand, which is expressed in muscular and skeletal asymmetries in the upper body, which is highlighted by the data from our research.
According to research in combat sports, a larger forearm girth is positively related to a greater muscle strength of the hand grip [65], which, in judo, is of vital importance in the grip fight and breaking the opponent’s balance in all possible directions of movement [66,67,68]. In controlling the opponent’s “judogi”, grip is considered a key factor influencing the outcome of the fight, as it enables the execution of attacking techniques and hinders the opponent’s ability to counter the attack [69,70]. Research shows that greater hand grip strength and greater upper limb push or pull strength are associated with better fighting success in judokas [71]. Precisely this importance of initial grip fighting results in, from a young age and up to the senior category, great attention being devoted to the development of hand strength and, in general, greater strength of the upper limbs [72]. However, we must be careful not to impose excessive asymmetries in the forearm girth, as it was reported that bilateral differences of more than 2 cm lead to a significant decrease in the hand grip of the opposite hand [65]. Furthermore, the natural occurrence of lateralisation [73,74], in combination with the one-sided repeated training of judo elements, can further develop and emphasise morphological asymmetries. The present study supports this, as most of our participants are right-dominant; consequently, all of the significant asymmetries were greater on the right side. However, we know that increased asymmetries are a major risk factor for the occurrence of injuries [22]. In judo, injuries to the upper limbs are the most common and account for as much as 41% of all injuries in judo [75]. Increased asymmetries on the right side of the body may be one of the additional reasons for them since as many as 61.8% of injuries in judo fights occurred in right-side dominant judokas [76].
During judo practice, every judoka develops favourite techniques on which they mostly rely to score the most points and wins. Such techniques are called special techniques or “tokui waza”. Especially in youth judokas, these techniques are primarily performed only to the better, dominant side. Frequent repetition and practice of special techniques in the dominant side, especially if the throw(s) comes from the group of hand technique throws, significantly impacts the development of skeletal and muscular asymmetries of the upper body [63].
Additionally, the proportion of strength training increases in the senior age category. During the strength and conditioning (S&C) of top judokas, barbell exercises, such as bench press, push press, overhead press, deadlifts, forward bend rows, etc., are frequently used [77,78,79,80], which can lead to (especially in the last series when fatigue sets in) reliance on the dominant hand to start or/and lead the movement. This increases the pressure on the musculoskeletal system, which could explain the manifestation of wrist and forearm girth asymmetries in seniors. Therefore, we recommend that multijoint unilateral exercises be introduced to a greater extent in judo S&C practice, as this can improve movement, support muscles, reduce the bilateral deficit in muscle strength and improve overall functionality and muscle group coordination [79,81,82].

4.2. Lower-Body Morphological Asymmetries

The thigh girth is only shown as an asymmetrical variable in the U21 category. On the contrary, most research has found thigh girth as a symmetrical variable in judokas [40,42,46,62]. However, when the sample comprised only one weight category [39], the results aligned with our results and revealed asymmetries. Similar findings were presented in calf girth asymmetries identified in the senior, U21 and U16 categories. Asymmetries were noted only when the sampling was done on the weight category level [39], while other studies with judokas from mixed weight categories samples revealed symmetrical results [40,41,42,46,62]. Variables of thigh length and knee girth were symmetrically developed in all age categories, aligning with current research [39,40,42,46,62]. Lastly, asymmetries were noted in lean leg mass (LLM) in the U18 and U16 categories, which aligns with previous research noting asymmetries favouring the dominant leg [38,63].
As we have already indicated for the upper body, lower-body asymmetries can be influenced by S&C training and reliance on the dominant leg to initiate and/or lead the movement in the last sets and reps when fatigue is the highest. Such bilateral exercises include squats, deadlifts, knee extensions, flexions and leg press [77,80,82]. In addition, it would be recommended to add unilateral exercises, such as alternating lunges in all directions (with dumbbells, kettlebells, flat or z-shaped barbell), single-leg squats (with body weight, dumbbells or kettlebells), unilateral leg press, alternating single-leg knee extension and flexions, single-leg deadlift (with body weight, dumbbells or kettlebells), single-leg step-ups (with dumbbells, kettlebells, flat or z-shaped barbell), etc. These exercises allow us to quickly and efficiently identify bilateral strength deficits when we test for one repetition maximum. Consequently, we can adequately tailor the S&C program to develop morphological and strength symmetries.
Lower-body asymmetries could also be explained by the majority of judokas being right-hand and right-stance dominant. Right-stance dominant judokas use the left leg as a supporting leg and the right leg as the “execution” or attacking leg. The execution leg is getting much more concentric and eccentric work than the supporting leg, which could lead to bilateral strength and, consequently, morphological asymmetries [83]. This would especially be the case if the judokas’ training is mostly unilateral and they perform most of their throwing techniques only on their dominant side [84]. Lower-body asymmetries, along with naturally occurring lateralisation, can be significantly pronounced if our special technique is from the foot techniques group [63].
The results present that the overall number of asymmetries decreases with age. From this, we can conclude that the greatest risk of asymmetry is in the younger categories—U14, U16 and U18. In these years, regular and more frequent judo training, as well as the targeted S&C of young athletes, begins. To reduce the possibility of asymmetries and consequent injuries, greater attention should be paid to bilateral technical training and more gradual unilateral S&C. With this, we can contribute to the better development of young judokas and also contribute to reducing the number of young judokas who stop training judo during this period.
Lateralisation and, consequently, the fighting stance may be the main reasons for the identified morphological asymmetries. Furthermore, lateralisation from the general population highlights that only 6–12% of people are left-handed [85], while the lateralisation in favour of the right body side in judokas was reported between 66 and 86%, which largely determines their most common fighting position and thus the most common direction of attacks and execution of techniques [19,84]. It was reported that 72% of right-dominant judokas mostly prefer and rely on throws performed to the right side [84]. In addition to training, judoists load the body’s dominant side during competitions. The increased morphological asymmetries are also directly influenced by coaches, who are primarily right-handed and thus teach and demonstrate techniques mainly to the right side for both left- and right-dominant judokas [19]. This could also be identified as one crucial reason for the occurrence of morphological asymmetries from youth to senior categories [19]. It is interesting to note that research has shown that judokas most often attack to the right side, but the most successful attacks that score points or ippon are to the left side [86]. Furthermore, judokas who compete in a left-dominant stance are typically on the podium more often and in rankings from first to fifth place compared to right-side stance competitors [87].
That is why the symmetrisation of movement and bilateral execution of attack techniques in judo is important from two aspects: (1) it initially improves the chances of winning the fight and provides more technical-tactical solutions so that we can surprise and defeat the opponent [19]; (2) it helps to load the musculoskeletal system evenly and thus enables the even development of young judokas to the member category, thereby reducing the possibility of injuries [39]. Research has shown that the symmetrisation of movement and lateral preference in judo can be modulated with long-term and planned practice [20,88]. To summarise, the symmetrisation of movement in judo can significantly positively affect morphological traits and, consequently, lower injury occurrence.

4.3. Advantages of Modern Technologies in Sport

A rapid morphological status assessment via 3D scanning and BIA in sports sciences can significantly benefit coaches and their athletes, as the combined time of direct measurement is only 2 min. Additionally, with its fast application, it is very suitable for longitudinal studies, and the vast number of automatically measured body surface dimensions (74) allows for additional exploration of detailed health risk phenotypes far beyond the classical approach (75) in athletic and general populations. Additionally, it allows for the possible exploration of new variables that could be connected to successful sports performance in particular disciplines available by the software. Moreover, 3D technology offers numerous benefits over traditional approaches, as it goes beyond 1-D measurements and extracts more complex topographical and shape outcomes. At the same time, the digital data allow for rapid processing and archiving, as these saved avatars can be rescanned in future with updated algorithms and software [89], while with classical anthropometry, we will never measure the athlete in the same state again. Three-dimensional scanning has been shown to be helpful in various sports settings; it is a reliable tool for measuring thigh volume [90], determining the best aerodynamic cycling position [91], developing jumpsuits in ski jumping and their dynamic forces [92,93], etc. Research has also reported that digital anthropometry could be used as a screening tool before more expensive imaging techniques or as an alternative to other less affordable techniques in clinical practice [11,94].
The BIA has also been shown to be a fast, noninvasive technique that is being widely used in body composition, nutritional status, hydration, general health, well-being, training and performance-level assessment [95]. Similar to 3D scanning, BIA allows for rapid data assessment, and with updated algorithms and software, it enables phase angle with segmental analysis [95,96] and the calculation of various body indexes, like protein fat index, protein mass index and others [97]. Both technologies also allow for rapid morphological asymmetry assessment [39,96], and their combination gives athletes a comprehensive asymmetries profile. The present study presents a basic asymmetries profile; however, further studies should examine a wider range of paired variables and possible new measurements that have not been explored in connection to sports performance but are available by the software. Additionally, new devices joining these technologies, like the Visbody, Anea 3D, Fit3D and Styku, are already available [94,98,99,100], which could speed up the process and its applicability. However, their reliability and validity must be assessed and confirmed before wide-scale application. Moreover, some 3D body scanners have already shown promising results [94,100,101]. This rapid analysis could be instrumental in athletes’ preparation periods or before top competitions when their schedules are packed and in regularly monitoring youth athletes’ development on their path to the senior category. Additionally, it could help distinguish what makes elite athletes elite in the micro positions of their bodies or in specific technical elements [102].

4.4. Practical Application

In regular screening of judokas, we recommend establishing the basic morphological asymmetry profile using the following paired variables: arm and leg lean mass; and elbow, forearm, wrist, thigh and calf girth. If new mobile 3D technologies are used, we should be sure that they have been previously validated. Not everything new is good, and not everything old is obsolete. Also, an experienced person should carry out the testing. If asymmetries are detected, they can be addressed in two ways: (1) via the implementation of more S&C bilateral exercises done with dumbbells and/or kettlebells and +1 additional set done on the affected side; (2) via regular bilateral execution of techniques (especially in tokui waza) in nage/uchi komi drills with 5–7 additional repetitions on the affected side.

4.5. Limitations of the Study

The present study needs to acknowledge some limitations. The analysis was done only on male judokas; therefore, further studies should examine female judokas. The analysis was done on a wide range of body weight categories. This could impact the sensitivity of asymmetries, as the discussion highlighted that in some variables, the asymmetries were noted only when examined in a particular weight category. Therefore, further studies should also take into account all weight categories. The study was cross-sectional, and a better presentation of asymmetry development would be in a longitudinal study. Therefore, further studies should try to examine these phenomena longitudinally. Also, the judoka’s special techniques (tokui waza) were not known to us, which could give us better insight into the movements that occur most often and impact the development of morphological asymmetries. Therefore, further studies should also explore and take this information into account when analysing the data. Nonetheless, this is the first study to present a combination of 3D and BIA asymmetric profiles among different age groups in judo, which gives better insight into how judo training and competition impact the body morphology of its practitioners.

5. Conclusions

The current study demonstrates great potential for the combined use of BIA and 3D scanning technologies for rapid morphological asymmetry detection. With the help of these modern technologies, we can use the acquired data for monitoring and quick adjustments to the training process to lower the possible occurrence of injuries. The data on judokas identified morphological asymmetries in all age categories, with the senior age category showing three asymmetrical variables, U21—four, U18—three, U16—five and U14—four. All of the detected asymmetries were greater on the right body side, which was mainly the dominant side, and show the impact of lateralisation on body development. Additionally, this highlights the importance of movement techniques, bilateral execution and symmetrisation in judo for healthy and symmetrical body development. The most common asymmetrical variable in all age categories was forearm girth, followed by elbow girth. Furthermore, the AI showed that the size of asymmetries did not differentiate between the age groups. Therefore, we recommend that regular screening in judo should include the basic profile of morphological asymmetries, with L-R arm and leg lean mass and L-R forearm, elbow, wrist, thigh and calf girth as variables that are the most impacted by asymmetries in judo.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, J.Š. and I.Č.; methodology, J.Š., I.Č. and H.S.; software, J.Š.; validation, J.Š., I.Č. and H.S.; formal analysis, J.Š.; investigation, J.Š.; resources, J.Š., I.S. and H.S.; data curation, J.Š.; writing—original draft preparation, J.Š., I.S., I.Č. and H.S.; writing—review and editing, J.Š., I.S., I.Č. and H.S.; visualisation, J.Š.; supervision, J.Š.; project administration, J.Š.; funding acquisition, J.Š., I.S. and H.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all participating athletes, parents, and coaches who made this research possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Krzykaa, M. Dxa as a Tool for the Assessment of Morphological Asymmetry in Athletes. In Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry; El Maghraoui, A., Ed.; InTech: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-953-307-877-9. [Google Scholar]
  2. Heyward, V.H.; Wagner, D.R. Applied Body Composition Assessment, 2nd ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2004; ISBN 0736046305. [Google Scholar]
  3. Casals, C.; Huertas, J.R.; Franchini, E.; Sterkowicz-Przybycień, K.; Sterkowicz, S.; Gutiérrez-García, C.; Escobar-Molina, R. Special Judo Fitness Test Level and Anthropometric Profile of Elite Spanish Judo Athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017, 31, 1229–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Franchini, E.; Del Vecchio, F.B.B.; Ferreira Julio, U.; Matheus, L.; Candau, R. Specificity of Performance Adaptations to a Periodized Judo Training Program. Rev. Andaluza Med. Deport. 2015, 8, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Norton, K.I. Standards for Anthropometry Assessment. In Kinanthropometry and Exercise Physiology; Norton, K., Eston, R., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 68–137. [Google Scholar]
  6. Zancanaro, C.; Lovato, C.; Sandri, M.; Giachetti, A. Reliability of Three-Dimensional Photonic Scanner Anthropometry Performed by Skilled and Naïve Operators. Int. J. Ergon. 2015, 5, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  7. da Silva, V.S.; Vieira, M.F.S. International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK) Global: International Accreditation Scheme of the Competent Anthropometrist. Rev. Bras. Cineantropom. Desempenho Hum. 2020, 22, e70517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Simmons, K.P.; Istook, C.L. Body Measurement Techniques. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2003, 7, 306–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, K.; Zheng, J.; Gao, C.; Thomas, D.; Li, X.; Heymsfield, S. Rapid-accurate Anthropometric Body Shape Assessment with Low-cost Novel 3D Imaging System (391.2). FASEB J. 2014, 28, 391–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bera, T.K. Bioelectrical Impedance Methods for Noninvasive Health Monitoring: A Review. J. Med. Eng. 2014, 2014, 381251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mocini, E.; Cammarota, C.; Frigerio, F.; Muzzioli, L.; Piciocchi, C.; Lacalaprice, D.; Buccolini, F.; Donini, L.M.; Pinto, A. Digital Anthropometry: A Systematic Review on Precision, Reliability and Accuracy of Most Popular Existing Technologies. Nutrients 2023, 15, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Clarys, P.; Geelen, B.; Aerenhouts, D.; Deriemaeker, P.; Zinzen, E. Estimation of Body Composition in Adolescent Judo Athletes. J. Combat Sport. Martial Arts 2011, 2, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sertic, H.; Sterkowicz, S.; Vuleta, D. Influence of Latent Motor Abilities on Performance in Judo. Kinesiology 2009, 41, 76–87. [Google Scholar]
  14. Franchini, E.; Del Vecchio, F.B.; Matsushigue, K.A.; Artioli, G.G. Physiological Profiles of Elite Judo Athletes. Sport. Med. 2011, 41, 147–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dopico-Calvo, X.; Santos, L.; Mayo, X.; Carballeira, E.; Clavel, I.; Ceylam, B.; Kons, R.L.; Iglesias-Soler, E. The Penalties and Scores by Events, to Predict Victory and Defeat According to When the Contest Ends in Elite Judo Contests. Rev. Artes Marciales Asiáticas 2024, 19, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Julio, U.F.; Takito, M.Y.; Mazzei, L.; Miarka, B.; Sterkowicz, S.; Franchini, E. Tracking 10-Year Competitive Winning Performance of Judo Athletes across Age Groups. Percept. Mot. Skills 2011, 113, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Castropil, W.; Arnoni, C.; Vita, I.; Paulo, S. Postural Patterns and Adaptations in Judo Athletes. Arch. Budo 2014, 10, 23–28. [Google Scholar]
  18. Wasik, J.; Motow-Czyz, M.; Shan, G.; Kluszczynski, M. Comparative Analysis of Body Posture in Child and Adolescent Taekwon-Do Practitioners and Non-Practitioners. IDO Mov. Cult. J. Martial Arts Anthropol. 2015, 15, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sterkowicz, S.; Lech, G.; Blecharz, J. Effects of Laterality on the Technical/Tactical Behavior in View of the Results of Judo Fights. Arch. Budo 2010, 6, 173–177. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mikheev, M.; Mohr, C.; Afanasiev, S.; Landis, T.; Thut, G. Motor Control and Cerebral Hemispheric Specialization in Highly Qualified Judo Wrestlers. Neuropsychologia 2002, 40, 1209–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Detanico, D.; Budal Arins, F.; Dal Pupo, J.; Dos Santos, S.G. Strength Parameters in Judo Athletes: An Approach Using Hand Dominance and Weight Categories. Hum. Mov. 2012, 13, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Stradijot, F.; Pittorru, G.M.; Pinna, M. The Functional Evaluation of Lower Limb Symmetry in a Group of Young Elite Judo and Wrestling Athletes. Isokinet. Exerc. Sci. 2012, 20, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wałowski, K.; Poliszczuk, D. Symmetry Torques Muscles Responsible for the Rotation of the Spine in Judo. J. Combat Sport. Martial Arts 2014, 5, 83–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Simenko, J. The Benefits of Functional Movement Screen in Judo. Rev. Artes Marciales Asiáticas 2019, 14, 18–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Maly, T.; Mala, L.; Zahalka, F.; Hank, M.; Simkova, M. Muscular Strength of Knee Extensors and Flexors and Bilateral and Ipsilateral Ratio in Elite Male Kickboxers. Arch. Budo Arch. Budo 2017, 13, 107–116. [Google Scholar]
  26. Barczyk-Pawelec, K.; Bańkosz, Z.; Derlich, M. Body Postures and Asymmetries in Frontal and Transverse Planes in the Trunk Area in Table Tennis Players. Biol. Sport 2012, 29, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Green, C.M.; Petrou, M.J.; Fogarty-Hover, M.L.S.; Rolf, C.G. Injuries among Judokas during Competition. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2007, 17, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Murphy, D.F.; Connolly, D.A.J.; Beynnon, B.D. Risk Factors for Lower Extremity Injury: A Review of the Literature. Br. J. Sports Med. 2003, 37, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Croisier, J.-L.; Ganteaume, S.; Binet, J.; Genty, M.; Ferret, J.-M. Strength Imbalances and Prevention of Hamstring Injury in Professional Soccer Players. Am. J. Sports Med. 2008, 36, 1469–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mala, L.; Maly, T.; Cabell, L.; Hank, M.; Bujnovsky, D.; Zahalka, F. Anthropometric, Body Composition, and Morphological Lower Limb Asymmetries in Elite Soccer Players: A Prospective Cohort Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ermiş, E.; Yilmaz, A.K.; Kabadayi, M.; Bostanci, Ö.; Mayda, M.H. Bilateral and Ipsilateral Peak Torque of Quadriceps and Hamstring Muscles in Elite Judokas. J. Musculoskelet. Neuronal Interact. 2019, 19, 286–293. [Google Scholar]
  32. Šimenko, J.; Karpljuk, D. Can Special Judo Fitness Test Be Used To Detect Asymmetries in Movement Patterns? Homo Sport. 2016, 18, 58–61. [Google Scholar]
  33. Turnes, T.; Silva, B.A.; Kons, R.L.; Detanico, D. Is Bilateral Deficit in Handgrip Strength Associated With Performance in Specific Judo Tasks? J. Strength Cond. Res. 2022, 36, 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Struzik, A.; Pietraszewski, B. Lower limb torque asymmetry in judo competitors evaluated in isokinetic conditions. Med. Sport 2015, 68, 639–650. [Google Scholar]
  35. Krstulovic, S.; Kuvacic, G.; Erceg, M.; Krstulović, S.; Kuvačić, G.; Erceg, M. Morphological, Functional, and Dynamical Asymmetry in Female Judokas. ACTA Kinesiol. 2017, 11, 12–18. [Google Scholar]
  36. Drid, P.; Drapsin, M.; Trivic, T.; Lukač, D.; Obadov, S.; Milosevic, Z. Asymmetry of Muscle Strength in Elite Athletes. Biomed. Hum. Kinet. 2009, 1, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Drid, P.; Ostojic, S.M.; Vujkov, S.; Purkovic, S.; Trivic, T.; Stojanovic, M. Physiological Adaptations of a Specific Muscle-Imbalance Reduction Training Programme in the Elite Female Judokas. Arch. Budo 2011, 7, 61–64. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mala, L.; Maly, T.; Cabell, L.; Cech, P.; Hank, M.; Coufalova, K.; Zahalka, F. Body Composition and Morphological Limbs Asymmetry in Competitors in Six Martial Arts. Int. J. Morphol. 2019, 37, 568–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Šimenko, J.; Ipavec, M.; Vodičar, J.; Rauter, S. Body Symmetry/Asymmetry in Youth Judokas in the under 73 Kg Category. IDO Mov. Cult. J. Martial Arts Anthropol. 2017, 17, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kambič, T.; Sraka Vuković, R.; Vuković, L.; Šimenko, J. Impact of One Year Judo Training on Body Symmetries in Youth Judokas. Arch. Budo Sci. Martial Arts Extrem. Sport. 2017, 13, 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  41. Socha, M.; Witkowski, K.; Jonak, W.; Sobiech, K.A. Body Composition and Selected Anthropometric Traits of Elite Polish Female Judokas in Relation to the Performance of Right-Dominant, Left-Dominant, or Symmetrical Judo Techniques in Vertical Posture (Tachi Waza). Arch. Budo 2017, 12, 257–265. [Google Scholar]
  42. Krawczyk, B.; Sklad, M.; Majle, B.; Jackiewicz, A. Lateral Asymmetry in Upper and Lower Limb Measurements in Selected Groups of Male Athletes. Biol. Sport 1998, 15, 33–38. [Google Scholar]
  43. Smaruj, M.; Orkwiszewska, A.; Adam, M.; Jeżyk, D.; Kostrzewa, M.; Laskowski, R.; JeÅyk, D.; Kostrzewa, M.; Laskowski, R. Changes in Anthropometric Traits and Body Composition over a Four-Year Period in Elite Female Judoka Athletes. J. Hum. Kinet. 2019, 70, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Thelwell, M.; Chiu, C.-Y.Y.; Bullas, A.; Hart, J.; Wheat, J.; Choppin, S. How Shape-Based Anthropometry Can Complement Traditional Anthropometric Techniques: A Cross-Sectional Study. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Malá, L.; Zahálka, F.; Maly, T. Bioimpedance for Analysis of Body Composition in Sports. In Bioimpedance in Biomedical Applications and Research; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 243–256. [Google Scholar]
  46. Vodicar, J.; Šimenko, J.; Karpljuk, D.; Vodičar, J. Body Symmetries of Youth U-14 Judokas in under 50kg Categories. Homo Sport. 2017, 19, 13–16. [Google Scholar]
  47. Buśko, K. Jumping Abilities and Power-Velocity Relationship in Judo Athletes: Comparative Analysis among Age Categories. Hum. Mov. 2018, 16, 78–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Franchini, E.; Schwartz, J.; Takito, M.Y. Maximal Isometric Handgrip Strength in Judo Athletes from Different Age Groups. Sport Sci. Health 2020, 16, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Miarka, B.; Panissa, V.L.G.V.L.G.; Julio, U.F.; Del Vecchio, F.B.F.B.; Calmet, M.; Franchini, E. A Comparison of Time-Motion Performance between Age Groups in Judo Matches. J. Sports Sci. 2012, 30, 899–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Franchini, E.; Huertas, J.; Sterkowicz, S.; Carratalá, V.; Gutiérrez-García, C.; Escobar-Molina, R. Anthropometrical Profile of Elite Spanish Judoka: Comparative Analysis among Ages. Arch. Budo 2011, 7, 239–245. [Google Scholar]
  51. Šimenko, J.; Hadžić, V. Bilateral Throw Execution in Young Judokas for a Maximum All Year Round Result. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2022, 17, 720–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rauter, S.; Simenko, J. Morphological Asymmetries Profile and the Difference between Low-and High-Performing Road Cyclists Using 3d Scanning. Biology 2021, 10, 1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gibson, A.L.; Holmes, J.C.; Desautels, R.L.; Edmonds, L.B.; Nuudi, L. Ability of New Octapolar Bioimpedance Spectroscopy Analyzers to Predict 4-Component-Model Percentage Body Fat in Hispanic, Black, and White Adults. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 87, 332–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Esco, M.R.; Snarr, R.L.; Leatherwood, M.D.; Chamberlain, N.A.; Redding, M.L.; Flatt, A.A.; Moon, J.R.; Williford, H.N. Comparison of Total and Segmental Body Composition Using DXA and Multifrequency Bioimpedance in Collegiate Female Athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 918–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lim, J.S.; Hwang, J.S.; Lee, J.A.; Kim, D.H.; Park, K.D.; Jeong, J.S.; Cheon, G.J. Cross-calibration of Multi-frequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis with Eight-point Tactile Electrodes and Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Assessment of Body Composition in Healthy Children Aged 6–18 Years. Pediatr. Int. 2009, 51, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Simenko, J.; Cuk, I. Reliability and Validity of NX-16 3D Body Scanner. Int. J. Morphol. 2016, 34, 1506–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gleadall-Siddall, D.O.; Turpin, R.L.; Douglas, C.C.; Ingle, L.; Garrett, A.T. Test–Retest Repeatability of the NX-16: A Three-Dimensional (3D) Body Scanner in a Male Cohort. Sport Sci. Health 2020, 16, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Özener, B.E.; Pelin, C.; Özener, B.E.; Kürkçüoğlu, A.; Zağyapan, R. Analysis of Facial Directional Asymmetry in Extreme Handed Young Males and Females. Eurasian J. Anthropol. 2011, 2, 96–101. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sullivan, G.M.; Feinn, R. Using Effect Size—or Why the P Value Is Not Enough. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2012, 4, 279–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Adam, M.; Sterkowicz-Przybycień, K. The Efficiency of Tactical and Technical Actions of the National Teams of Japan and Russia at the World Championships in Judo (2013, 2014 and 2015). Biomed. Hum. Kinet. 2018, 10, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mala, L.; Maly, T.; Zahalka, F.; Heller, J.; Hrasky, P.; Vodicka, P. Differences in the Morphological and Physiological Characteristics of Senior and Junior Elite Czech Judo Athletes. Arch. Budo 2015, 11, 217–226. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kuvačić, G. Morphological, Functional and Dynamic Asymmetry in Male and Female Judokas. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Split, Split, Croatia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  63. Mala, L.; Maly, T.; Camilleri, R.; Dornowski, M.; Zahalka, F.; Petr, M.; Hrasky, P.; Bujnovský, D. Gender Differences in Strength Lateral Asymmetries, Limbs Morphology and Body Composition in Adolescent Judo Athletes. Arch. Budo 2017, 13, 377–385. [Google Scholar]
  64. Simenko, J. Youth Judokas Competing in Higher Age Groups Leads to a Short-Term Success. Children 2022, 9, 1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Anakwe, R.E.; Huntley, J.S.; McEachan, J.E. Grip Strength and Forearm Circumference in a Healthy Population. J. Hand Surg. Eur. Vol. 2007, 32, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Cortell-Tormo, J.M.; Perez-Turpin, J.A.; Lucas-Cuevas, A.G.; Perez-Soriano, P.; Llana-Belloch, S.; Martinez-Patiño, M.J. Handgrip Strength and Hand Dimensions in High-Level Inter-University Judoists. Arch. Budo 2013, 9, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Iermakov, S.S.; Podrigalo, L.V.; Jagiełło, W. Hand-Grip Strength as an Indicator for Predicting the Success in Martial Arts Athletes. Arch. Budo 2016, 12, 179–186. [Google Scholar]
  68. Nicolay, C.W.; Walker, A.L. Grip Strength and Endurance: Influences of Anthropometric Variation, Hand Dominance, and Gender. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2005, 35, 605–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Farmosi, I. Body-Composition, Somatotype and Some Motor Performance of Judoists. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 1980, 20, 431–434. [Google Scholar]
  70. Little, N.G. Physical Performance Attributes of Junior and Senior Women, Juvenile, Junior, and Senior Men Judokas. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 1991, 31, 510–520. [Google Scholar]
  71. Silva, A.M.; Fields, D.A.; Heymsfield, S.B.; Sardinha, L.B. Relationship Between Changes in Total-Body Water and Fluid Distribution With Maximal Forearm Strength in Elite Judo Athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 2488–2495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bonitch-Góngora, J.G.; Almeida, F.; Padial, P.; Bonitch-Domínguez, J.G.; Feriche, B. Maximal Isometric Handgrip Strength and Endurance Differences between Elite and Non-Elite Young Judo Athletes. Arch. Budo 2013, 9, 239–248. [Google Scholar]
  73. Grouios, G. Motoric Dominance and Sporting Excellence: Training versus Heredity. Percept. Mot. Skills 2004, 98, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Corballis, M.C. From Mouth to Hand: Gesture, Speech, and the Evolution of Right-Handedness. Behav. Brain Sci. 2003, 26, 160–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Akoto, R.; Lambert, C.; Balke, M.; Bouillon, B.; Frosch, K.-H.H.; Höher, J. Epidemiology of Injuries in Judo: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Severe Injuries Based on Time Loss and Reduction in Sporting Level. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 1109–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Miarka, B.; Dal Bello, F.; Brito, C.J.; Tabben, M.; Oguma, A.; Amtmann, J.; Moreira, D.G.; Pocecco, E.; Del Vecchio, F.B.; Chamari, K. Injuries during a World Judo Championship: Differences between Sex, Weight Category and Competition Phase. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2018, 18, 229–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Amtmann, J.; Cotton, A. Strength and Conditioning for Judo. Strength Cond. J. 2005, 27, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Landow, L. Ultimate Conditioning for Martial Arts; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2016; ISBN 9781492506157. [Google Scholar]
  79. Suchomel, T.J.; Nimphius, S.; Bellon, C.R.; Stone, M.H. The Importance of Muscular Strength: Training Considerations. Sport. Med. 2018, 48, 765–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Burns, A.; Callan, M. Strength and Conditioning for Judo; Crowood Press: Ramsbury, UK, 2017; ISBN 9781785002571. [Google Scholar]
  81. McCurdy, K.; O’Kelley, E.; Kutz, M.; Langford, G.; Ernest, J.; Torres, M. Comparison of Lower Extremity Emg Between the 2-Leg Squat and Modified Single-Leg Squat in Female Athletes. J. Sport Rehabil. 2010, 19, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Broussal-Derval, A. Training and Conditioning for Judo; Human Kinetics: Champaign IL, USA, 2021; ISBN 978-1492597940. [Google Scholar]
  83. Šimenko, J.; Karpljuk, D.; Hadžić, V. Monitoring of Eccentric Hamstring Strength and Eccentric Derived Strength Ratios in Judokas from a Single Weight Category. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dopico, X.; Iglesias-Soler, E.; Carballeira, E.; Mayo, X.; Ardá, A.; González-Freire, M. The Relationship between Motoric Dominance and Functional Dominance While Executing Judo Techniques: A Study on Laterality. Arch. Budo 2014, 10, 307–314. [Google Scholar]
  85. Raymond, M.; Pontier, D.; Dufour, A.B.; Moller, A.P. Frequency-Dependent Maintenance of Left Handedness in Humans. Proc. Biol. Sci. 1996, 263, 1627–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Adam, M.; Smaruj, M.; Pujszo, R. The Individual Profile of the Technical-Tactical Preparation of the World Judo Championships in 2010–2011. IDO Mov. Cult. J. Martial Arts Anthropol. 2012, 12, 50–59. [Google Scholar]
  87. Tirp, J.; Baker, J.; Weigelt, M.; Schorer, J. Combat Stance in Judo–Laterality Differences between and within Competition Levels. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2014, 14, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Iglesias-Soler, E.; Mayo, X.; Dopico, X.; Fernández-Del-Olmo, M.; Carballeira, E.; Fariñas, J.; Fernández-Uribe, S. Effects of Bilateral and Non-Dominant Practices on the Lateral Preference in Judo Matches. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 36, 111–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wells, J.C.K. Three-Dimensional (3-D) Photonic Scanning: A New Approach to Anthropometry. In Handbook of Anthropometry; Preedy, V.R., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 205–217. [Google Scholar]
  90. Kordi, M.; Haralabidis, N.; Huby, M.; Barratt, P.R.; Howatson, G.; Wheat, J.S. Reliability and Validity of Depth Camera 3D Scanning to Determine Thigh Volume. J. Sports Sci. 2019, 37, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Schaffarczyk, A.; Koehn, S.; Oggiano, L.; Schaffarczyk, K. Aerodynamic Benefits by Optimizing Cycling Posture. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Stjepanovic, Z.; Rudolf, A.; Jevsnik, S.; Cupar, A.; Pogacar, V.; Gersak, J. 3D Virtual Prototyping of a Ski Jumpsuit Based on a Reconstructed Body Scan Model. Bul. Institutului Politeh. Iasi. Sect. Text. Pielrie 2011, 61, 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  93. Yamamoto, K.; Nishino, T.; Bale, R.; Shimada, T.; Miyamoto, N.; Tsubokura, M. Numerical Study of Transient Aerodynamic Forces Acting on a Ski Jumper Considering Dynamic Posture Change from Takeoff to Landing. Sport. Biomech. 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Alotaibi, M.A.; Alotybie, A.T.; Alotaibi, H.G. Clinical Role of Three-Dimensional Body Scanners in Presenting Direct Anthropometrics for Estimation of Body Composition: Three-Dimensional Body Scanner and Body Composition. Endocrinol. Res. Pract. 2023, 27, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Castizo-Olier, J.; Irurtia, A.; Jemni, M.; Carrasco-Marginet, M.; Fernández-García, R.; Rodríguez, F.A. Bioelectrical Impedance Vector Analysis (BIVA) in Sport and Exercise: Systematic Review and Future Perspectives. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lukaski, H.; Raymond-Pope, C.J. New Frontiers of Body Composition in Sport. Int. J. Sports Med. 2021, 42, 588–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Dopsaj, M.; Markovic, M.; Kasum, G.; Jovanovic, S.; Koropanovski, N.; Vukovic, M.; Mudric, M. Discrimination of Different Body Structure Indexes of Elite Athletes in Combat Sports Measured by Multi Frequency Bioimpedance Method. Int. J. Morphol. 2017, 35, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Mohammadi, S.; Monazzami, A.; Alavimilani, S. Effects of Eight-Week High-Intensity Interval Training on Some Metabolic, Hormonal and Cardiovascular Indices in Women with PCOS: A Randomized Controlled Trail. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2023, 15, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Visbody Professional Total Body Composition Analysis Machine|Visbody. Available online: https://visbody.com/visbody-3d-body-scanner/ (accessed on 15 February 2024).
  100. Bennett, J.P.; Liu, Y.E.; Quon, B.K.; Kelly, N.N.; Wong, M.C.; Kennedy, S.F.; Chow, D.C.; Garber, A.K.; Weiss, E.J.; Heymsfield, S.B.; et al. Assessment of Clinical Measures of Total and Regional Body Composition from a Commercial 3-Dimensional Optical Body Scanner. Clin. Nutr. 2022, 41, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Harbin, M.M.; Kasak, A.; Ostrem, J.D.; Dengel, D.R. Validation of a Three-Dimensional Body Scanner for Body Composition Measures. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 72, 1191–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Schueler, A.; Fichtner, I.; Ueberschaer, O. Using the 3D Body Scanner in Elite Sports. In Proceedings of the 3DBODY.TECH 2018—9th International Conference and Exhibition on 3D Body Scanning and Processing Technologies, Lugano, Switzerland, 16–17 October 2018; Hometrica Consulting—Dr. Nicola D’Apuzzo: Ascona, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 216–221. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of morphological variables per age group with a paired t-test to highlight asymmetries.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of morphological variables per age group with a paired t-test to highlight asymmetries.
PAIRVARIABLEAGE GROUP
U14U16U18U21SENIORS
LEFTRIGHTLEFTRIGHTLEFTRIGHTLEFTRIGHTLEFTRIGHT
Mean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SD
UPPER BODY1Arm Lean Mass (kg)2.25 ± 0.612.27 ± 0.62 *3.38 ± 0.753.43 ± 0.74 *3.75 ± 0.653.75 ± 0.624.24 ± 0.434.24 ± 0.404.18 ± 0.574.20 ± 0.62
2Upper Arm Girth (cm)26.39 ± 3.2726.10 ± 3.0130.14 ± 3.4930.35 ± 3.3031.81 ± 3.4031.88 ± 3.1533.83 ± 1.7734.13 ± 2.1534.26 ± 1.9734.05 ± 2.15
3Elbow Girth (cm)23.08 ± 2.0423.86 ± 1.92 *25.98 ± 2.3526.47 ± 2.02 *26.44 ± 1.7327.33 ± 1.82 *27.91 ± 1.4128.43 ± 1.31 *28.65 ± 1.4228.73 ± 1.45
4Forearm Girth (cm)23.60 ± 1.7624.13 ± 1.88 *26.36 ± 2.3226.93 ± 2.20 *27.29 ± 1.9427.92 ± 2.02 *28.82 ± 1.3329.16 ± 1.33 *29.21 ± 1.4529.68 ± 1.23 *
5Wrist Girth (cm)16.05 ± 1.0816.41 ± 1.11 *17.59 ± 1.0117.45 ± 0.9517.68 ± 0.9917.62 ± 0.8617.83 ± 0.9017.79 ± 0.8917.78 ± 0.9117.99 ± 0.80 *
LOWER BODY6Leg Lean Mass (kg)6.85 ± 1.576.87 ± 1.619.14 ± 1.379.23 ± 1.41 *9.65 ± 1.449.71 ± 1.49 *10.01 ± 0.6210.05 ± 0.619.94 ± 1.259.99 ± 1.21
7Thigh Girth (cm)50.19 ± 5.5650.25 ± 5.2357.25 ± 7.1357.65 ± 7.1757.37 ± 4.6157.99 ± 5.0761.68 ± 5.1562.03 ± 4.77 *64.30 ± 6.8763.97 ± 6.66
8Thigh Length (cm)30.25 ± 2.5530.25 ± 2.5932.45 ± 4.0332.53 ± 3.9931.63 ± 4.8731.72 ± 4.9133.81 ± 3.2133.91 ± 3.3332.38 ± 5.2432.36 ± 5.30
9Knee Girth (cm)35.42 ± 2.5635.45 ± 2.6137.91 ± 2.5538.06 ± 2.5838.09 ± 2.3538.26 ± 2.3238.32 ± 1.9438.76 ± 2.1539.09 ± 2.8439.34 ± 3.11
10Calf Girth (cm)33.10 ± 2.4133.27 ± 2.4535.92 ± 2.7036.14 ± 2.85 *36.51 ± 2.9536.74 ± 3.0736.46 ± 2.1236.85 ± 2.11 *37.97 ± 3.1438.42 ± 3.25 *
* Statistical significant difference between paired variables inside the selected age group at p ≤ 0.05.
Table 2. The difference in asymmetry index between age groups with the Kruskal–Wallis test and effect size for upper-body variables.
Table 2. The difference in asymmetry index between age groups with the Kruskal–Wallis test and effect size for upper-body variables.
VariableGroupMeanSDMean Rankχ2SigES
Arm Lean MassU140.0780.06438.2510.590.032 *0.101
U1660.16
U1846.94
U2160.47
SENIORS62.73
Upper Arm GirthU140.7800.64757.732.980.5620.028
U1650.37
U1850.03
U2148.68
SENIORS63.23
Elbow GirthU140.8880.68753.758.860.0650.084
U1652.31
U1863.03
U2137.61
SENIORS64.90
Forearm Girth U140.6250.49149.774.970.2900.047
U1658.95
U1858.32
U2141.53
SENIORS57.90
Wrist GirthU140.4570.38357.296.790.1480.065
U1661.97
U1852.65
U2146.53
SENIORS39.73
* p ≤ 0.05, ES—effect size.
Table 3. Difference in asymmetry index between age groups with Kruskal–Wallis test and effect size for lower-body variables.
Table 3. Difference in asymmetry index between age groups with Kruskal–Wallis test and effect size for lower-body variables.
VariableGroupMeanSDMean Rankχ2SigES
Leg Lean MassU140.1010.09743.603.790.4350.036
U1656.65
U1853.00
U2160.26
SENIORS54.83
Thigh GirthU140.8810.79339.967.040.1340.067
U1660.71
U1858.94
U2155.37
SENIORS51.73
Thigh LengthU140.2420.20050.080.940.9190.009
U1652.81
U1852.35
U2155.61
SENIORS59.03
Knee GirthU140.4440.38446.278.730.0680.083
U1655.74
U1842.62
U2169.26
SENIORS52.80
Calf GirthU140.4760.42248.002.250.6890.021
U1654.58
U1848.85
U2157.63
SENIORS60.10
ES—effect size.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Šimenko, J.; Sertić, H.; Segedi, I.; Čuk, I. Rapid Assessment of Morphological Asymmetries Using 3D Body Scanner and Bioelectrical Impedance Technologies in Sports: A Case of Comparative Analysis Among Age Groups in Judo. Symmetry 2024, 16, 1387. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16101387

AMA Style

Šimenko J, Sertić H, Segedi I, Čuk I. Rapid Assessment of Morphological Asymmetries Using 3D Body Scanner and Bioelectrical Impedance Technologies in Sports: A Case of Comparative Analysis Among Age Groups in Judo. Symmetry. 2024; 16(10):1387. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16101387

Chicago/Turabian Style

Šimenko, Jožef, Hrvoje Sertić, Ivan Segedi, and Ivan Čuk. 2024. "Rapid Assessment of Morphological Asymmetries Using 3D Body Scanner and Bioelectrical Impedance Technologies in Sports: A Case of Comparative Analysis Among Age Groups in Judo" Symmetry 16, no. 10: 1387. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16101387

APA Style

Šimenko, J., Sertić, H., Segedi, I., & Čuk, I. (2024). Rapid Assessment of Morphological Asymmetries Using 3D Body Scanner and Bioelectrical Impedance Technologies in Sports: A Case of Comparative Analysis Among Age Groups in Judo. Symmetry, 16(10), 1387. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16101387

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop