# Growth plates: physiology and vulnerability — Knowledge base

> How the physis grows, why it's the skeleton's weak link, gymnast's wrist and traction apophysitis, and what's known about growth-spurt risk.

- [Home](https://provingconsortium.org/)
- [Principles](https://provingconsortium.org/principles/)
- [Into Practice](https://provingconsortium.org/practice/)
- [Knowledge Base](https://provingconsortium.org/knowledge/)
- [Consortium](https://provingconsortium.org/consortium/)

Working site  

How tissue responds to load

# Growth plates: physiology and vulnerability

How the physis grows, why it's the skeleton's weak link, gymnast's wrist and traction apophysitis, and what's known about growth-spurt risk.

  

# Growth Plate (Physis) Loading, Damage, and Vulnerability: A Scientific Overview

The growth plate — technically called the **physis** — is a thin layer of cartilage near the ends of a child’s or adolescent’s long bones (arms, legs, fingers) that is responsible for essentially all of the bone’s growth in length. It is not the same tissue as bone, and it is not the same tissue as the articular cartilage that lines a joint surface; it is a distinct, temporary structure that disappears once growth is complete, replaced by solid bone. Because the growth plate is cartilage rather than bone, it is mechanically much weaker than the bone, ligament, and tendon tissue that surrounds it — which means an injury that would sprain a ligament or bruise a bone in an adult can instead fracture the growth plate in a child or teenager. This matters enormously for a sport like gymnastics, where the skeleton is still growing while it is simultaneously subjected to some of the highest-magnitude, highest-repetition mechanical loading of any youth sport, including loading through joints — most notably the wrist — that are not built to be weight-bearing in the first place. This summary lays out what the growth plate is and how it works, what it needs to stay healthy, how it is damaged by acute trauma and by repetitive overuse, what is and is not well established about whether the adolescent growth spurt is a period of heightened vulnerability, and what this means in practice for training young gymnasts. As with the parallel summaries on bone, cartilage, tendon, and ligament, this is a qualitative knowledge base — a companion piece models gymnast’s wrist quantitatively, in both non-growth-spurt and growth-spurt conditions.

## 1. What the Growth Plate Is and How It Works

**Location and basic structure.** Long bones grow from a handful of active growth sites. Two structurally distinct types exist. The **physis proper** sits between the epiphysis (the rounded end of the bone, inside the joint) and the metaphysis (the flaring shaft below it), and it is responsible for the bone’s longitudinal growth — the physis is subjected mainly to compressive forces and is often called a **pressure epiphysis** [2]. A second, distinct growth structure is the **apophysis** (a traction epiphysis), which is where a major muscle-tendon unit attaches to bone — the tibial tubercle below the kneecap or the back of the heel bone are examples. Apophyses contribute to the _shape_ of a bone but not to its longitudinal growth, and they are subjected mainly to tensile (pulling) forces rather than compression [2]. This distinction matters clinically: injury to a pressure-epiphysis physis can disrupt future longitudinal growth, while injury to a traction apophysis generally does not, even though both are painful and can sideline an athlete [2].

**Zonal architecture.** Across an actively growing physis, cartilage is organized into functional zones that form a kind of assembly line for making new bone [1, 5]. The **resting (reserve) zone**, closest to the epiphysis, holds a slow-cycling population of stem-like progenitor cells that supply the whole system [1, 5]. Cells that leave the resting zone enter the **proliferative zone** , where they flatten out, line up into vertical columns, and divide rapidly — this is where most of the actual lengthening happens, as each new cell added to a column pushes the bone a fraction longer [1, 5]. Cells at the far end of a column then enter the **hypertrophic zone** , where they stop dividing, swell enormously in size, and change the chemistry of the surrounding matrix so that it can calcify [1, 5]. The junction between the calcified and still-uncalcified layers of the hypertrophic zone is the structurally weakest point in the entire physis — it is where the great majority of growth-plate fractures actually occur [2]. Beyond the hypertrophic zone, blood vessels invade from the metaphyseal side, the hypertrophied cartilage cells are replaced by bone-forming cells, and the tissue is remodeled into ordinary bone — completing the cycle [5].

**Two separate blood supplies.** Unlike the bone on either side of it, the growth plate cartilage itself has essentially no blood vessels running through it — it depends on two separate vascular networks that approach it from either face. **Epiphyseal vessels** , which typically arise from the joint side and from the surrounding perichondrium, nourish the resting, proliferative, and upper hypertrophic zones by diffusion [3]. **Metaphyseal vessels** , arising from the shaft side, supply the lower hypertrophic zone and are the vessels that physically invade the cartilage to drive its replacement by bone [3]. This dual, separate supply matters clinically because the two networks fail differently: damage to the epiphyseal vessels can starve the germinal and proliferative cells outright and cause growth arrest, while damage limited to the metaphyseal vessels instead disrupts the bone-replacement step, causing the physis to widen and persist abnormally without necessarily killing the growth-producing cells [3]. A ring of tissue around the outer edge of the plate — made up of the **groove of Ranvier** , which supports the physis’s ability to widen as the bone grows, and the tougher, more fibrous **perichondrial ring (ring of LaCroix)** — provides mechanical support to the plate’s periphery and is itself a site of injury risk [3].

**Hormonal drivers of growth and closure.** Longitudinal growth and the eventual shutdown of the growth plate are both under active hormonal control, not simply a fixed developmental timer. **Growth hormone (GH)**, secreted in a pulsatile pattern that increases substantially during puberty, drives the liver and the growth plate itself to produce **insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1)**, which is the direct signal that stimulates proliferative-zone chondrocytes to divide and hypertrophic-zone chondrocytes to enlarge [5, 6]. **Sex steroids** have a dual, almost paradoxical role: estrogen (in both sexes) helps stimulate the GH–IGF-1 axis and accelerates growth during early-to-mid puberty, but rising estrogen levels later in puberty are also the principal signal that drives the growth plate toward senescence and permanent closure — which is why, on average, growth ends earlier in girls than in boys [5, 6]. Androgens support chondrocyte proliferation and matrix production directly, and are also partly converted into estrogen within the body, feeding back into the same closure pathway [5]. **Thyroid hormone** is separately required for normal chondrocyte proliferation and hypertrophy, and **glucocorticoids** (stress hormones, and also the drugs used to treat inflammatory disease) suppress the GH–IGF-1 axis and directly inhibit chondrocyte proliferation while promoting hypertrophic-cell death — one of several reasons chronic illness, chronic stress, or corticosteroid treatment can slow a child’s growth [5]. This hormonal picture is directly relevant to gymnastics: anything that disrupts this endocrine signaling, including inadequate nutrition (Section 2), can alter both how the growth plate grows and how vulnerable it is.

## 2. What Growth Plates Need to Stay Healthy

**An intact blood supply.** Because growth-plate cartilage has no internal vessels of its own, it is entirely dependent on the integrity of the epiphyseal and metaphyseal vessel networks described above. Anything that compromises either supply — a fracture that shears through the vessels, a dislocation, or a compressive injury that collapses the vascular channels — threatens the growth plate’s function independent of any direct damage to the cartilage cells themselves [3].

**Loading — but within a much narrower window than bone.** Like bone (documented in the companion bone-loading-research summary), the growth plate is a mechanically responsive tissue: it is not simply a passive structure that loading either spares or destroys. The classical description of this relationship is the **Hueter-Volkmann law** , which in its modern form states that increased compressive load on a physis slows its growth rate, while reduced compression (or tension) accelerates it [4, 7]. It is worth being honest about the pedigree of this idea: a detailed 2024 historical analysis found that the 19th-century originators of the “law,” Hueter and Volkmann, never actually ran an experiment on physeal compression — their writings were based on clinical observation and existing literature, not controlled study, and the “law” as commonly cited today is a much later, evolved reformulation of their original, more limited claims [7]. Later 20th-century animal experiments did put the relationship to a direct test, and the modern, more precise version of the concept — developed from that experimental work — states that the relationship holds true only within a physiological range: moderate, sustained compression slows growth in a way that is reversible once the load is removed, but compression above that range instead damages the physis outright, and it can stop growing permanently [7]. In other words, the growth plate — like bone — needs mechanical stimulation to develop and remodel normally, but its ceiling for tolerable load, and especially its ceiling for load applied in a direction or pattern the tissue is not built for (such as sustained axial compression on a joint that is not normally weight-bearing), is much lower than that of the adjacent bone, ligament, and tendon. Contemporary mechanobiology research confirms that both physiological and pathological mechanical loading measurably change chondrocyte proliferation and hypertrophy in the growth plate, but also that the field still lacks a precise, quantitative model of how loading rate, cyclic versus static loading, and the plate’s own stage of maturity combine to determine the outcome — this remains a more qualitative, less mechanistically resolved picture than the equivalent bone-loading literature.

**Adequate nutrition and energy availability.** Normal chondrocyte proliferation and matrix mineralization require adequate calcium and vitamin D, but a broader and, for gymnastics, more important requirement is simply having enough total energy available to the body after the cost of training is subtracted — a state called adequate **energy availability**. When athletes chronically under-fuel relative to how much they train, they can develop **Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S)**, a syndrome first named in a 2014 International Olympic Committee consensus statement and updated in 2023, which describes a cascade of impaired physiological function — including impaired bone health — caused by chronic low energy availability, affecting both female and male athletes [8]. The 2023 IOC update is explicit that pediatric and adolescent athletes require their own diagnostic framework distinct from the adult female athlete triad literature it grew out of: among the primary clinical indicators of REDs specifically listed for children and adolescents are a bone-mineral-density Z-score decline reflecting either bone loss _or inadequate bone accrual_, and — distinctively — **a negative deviation from the athlete’s own previous growth trajectory in height and/or weight** , meaning that a young athlete’s growth curve flattening out relative to their own trend is itself treated as a warning sign of energy deficiency [8]. Because the growth plate is the engine of that height trajectory and is hormonally dependent on the same GH–IGF-1 axis that low energy availability suppresses, chronic underfueling is a growth-plate health issue as much as it is a bone-density issue, and it is a well-documented risk in gymnastics given the sport’s emphasis on low body mass.

**Normal hormonal status.** Following directly from Section 1, normal function of the GH–IGF-1 axis, sex steroids in age-appropriate concentrations, and normal thyroid function are all necessary for the growth plate to both grow normally and close on the expected schedule; disruption of any of them — through illness, energy deficiency, or (rarely, in a sports context) exogenous hormone exposure — can alter growth-plate behavior independent of the mechanical loading it experiences.

## 3. How Growth Plates Get Damaged

**(a) Acute trauma — the physis as the skeleton’s weak link.** Growth-plate cartilage is measurably less resistant to mechanical stress than the adult articular cartilage that later replaces the joint surface, and it is also substantially less resistant than the adjacent bone, ligament, and joint capsule — one estimate places the physis as roughly two to five times weaker than the surrounding fibrous (ligament and capsule) tissue at the same joint [2]. The direct consequence is that a mechanism of injury which, in an adult, would produce a complete ligament tear or a joint dislocation can instead produce a growth-plate separation in a child or adolescent, because the physis fails first [2]. Acute physeal fractures are classified using the **Salter-Harris system** , first described in 1963 and still the standard framework: Type I is a clean separation through the plate with no bone fracture; Type II (the most common, roughly three-quarters of cases) extends through the plate and out through a wedge of the metaphysis; Type III extends from the joint surface down through the plate to its edge; Type IV crosses from the joint surface straight through the epiphysis, the full thickness of the plate, and into the metaphysis; and Type V, the rarest, is a pure compression injury to the plate without an obvious fracture line — often diagnosed only later, once growth disturbance becomes apparent [2, 4]. Type I and II injuries generally carry a good prognosis if blood supply is undisturbed, but the historical view that they are essentially harmless is now considered outdated — growth impairment can still follow, and Types III–V carry meaningfully higher risk, especially when the fracture line crosses the germinal cells of the resting/proliferative zone or disrupts the epiphyseal blood supply [2, 3]. Physeal injuries make up an estimated 15–30% of all pediatric skeletal injuries [4], underscoring that this is not a rare or exotic phenomenon in active children.

**(b) Chronic, repetitive overuse — the gymnast’s wrist.** Beyond single traumatic events, a physis can also be damaged by cumulative, sub-fracture repetitive loading, in a pattern much closer to the bone-stress-injury continuum described in the companion bone-loading-research summary than to a one-time fracture. The signature example in gymnastics is injury to the growth plate at the end of the **distal radius** (the forearm bone on the thumb side of the wrist) — commonly called **“gymnast’s wrist”** or **distal radial physeal stress syndrome/injury** [9]. In gymnastics, the wrist repeatedly functions as a weight-bearing joint during tumbling, vaulting, and handstand-type skills — a role it is not structurally built for — with compressive loads during landings and handstands estimated at up to roughly twice body weight, delivered at loading rates that can exceed sixteen times body weight per second [12]. Reported point prevalence of wrist pain in gymnasts ranges widely across studies, from roughly one-third up to as high as 88–92% depending on the population and how pain is measured, and a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis pooling 25 studies and over 185,000 gymnasts estimated an overall pooled wrist-pain prevalence of 53% and a pooled chronic wrist injury prevalence of 36% [12]. Clinically, gymnast’s wrist is understood to progress through three recognized stages: Stage 1 is wrist pain with normal x-rays; Stage 2 shows radiographic evidence of physeal stress change (widening, irregularity of the growth plate); and Stage 3 is marked by **positive ulnar variance (PUV)** — a measurable, partial growth-arrest deformity in which the radius has stopped lengthening normally relative to the ulna, the other forearm bone — or other permanent growth deformity [12]. The same 2026 meta-analysis found a pooled PUV prevalence of 4% across studies, evidence that this is not merely a theoretical worst case but an outcome that occurs in a meaningful minority of affected gymnasts [12]. A focused study of young gymnasts at a single training center similarly found a substantial frequency of radiographic wrist growth-plate changes among actively training gymnasts [10], and radiologic case reports and reviews describe the specific MRI and x-ray findings — physeal widening, irregularity, and marrow edema on the metaphyseal side — used to catch the injury before Stage 3 deformity develops [11].

**(c) Chronic, repetitive overuse — traction apophysitis.** Where gymnast’s wrist arises from repetitive _compressive_ loading on a pressure-epiphysis physis, a parallel but mechanistically distinct family of overuse injuries arises from repetitive _tensile_ (pulling) loading on the traction apophyses described in Section 1 — collectively called **traction apophysitis**. The three classic examples, all common in jumping- and landing-heavy sports like gymnastics, are **Osgood-Schlatter disease** (at the tibial tubercle below the kneecap, from repeated pull of the patellar tendon), **Sinding-Larsen-Johansson syndrome** (at the lower pole of the kneecap itself, from the same tendon’s opposite attachment), and **Sever’s disease** (at the heel bone, from repeated pull of the Achilles tendon) [13]. All three share a common mechanism: repetitive traction from a major tendon, acting on an apophysis whose cartilage is still immature and prone to remodeling, produces localized inflammation, and in more advanced cases, fragmentation of the small secondary ossification center at the attachment site [13]. Risk factors identified in the literature span mechanical (repetitive tension), morphological (reduced flexibility, malalignment), functional (rapid strength gain during puberty outpacing flexibility, high training loads concentrated in a short period, early sport specialization), and environmental (training volume and intensity, nutritional deficiencies such as low vitamin D) categories [13] — a pattern that closely echoes the risk factors described for gymnast’s wrist. A notable and clinically useful pattern is that these apophyseal injuries tend to appear in a **distal-to-proximal sequence** that tracks the sequential, asynchronous nature of adolescent growth: Sever’s disease at the heel characteristically presents earlier in a young athlete’s development than Osgood-Schlatter or Sinding-Larsen-Johansson at the knee, which in turn tend to present before apophyseal injuries at the hip [14]. Unlike gymnast’s wrist, traction apophysitis does not typically threaten longitudinal bone growth, because apophyses do not drive lengthening (Section 1) — but it remains a significant, sometimes career-affecting source of pain and lost training time, and most cases are managed with activity modification and load reduction rather than surgery [13].

**(d) Why physeal injury is different in kind from adult overuse injury.** The reason all of the above deserves distinct treatment from ordinary adult tendon or bone overuse injury is the potential for **permanent structural consequences**. Because the physis is the engine of longitudinal growth, damage to its germinal and proliferative cells — whether from a single severe fracture or from accumulated stress injury such as gymnast’s wrist — can produce **growth arrest** (a partial or complete, permanent stop to growth at that site), **angular deformity** (if only part of the plate is damaged, the intact part keeps growing while the damaged part does not, bending the bone as it grows), and **limb length discrepancy** (if a plate that contributes substantially to overall limb length is affected) [2, 3, 12]. Positive ulnar variance, described above, is itself a specific, measurable example of this kind of partial growth arrest. None of these outcomes has a real analogue in adult sports medicine, where a comparable overuse injury heals back to its original structure; this is the central reason growth-plate injuries in a still-growing gymnast warrant more caution than a mechanistically similar injury would in an adult.

## 4. Sensitive Periods: Growth Spurt and Peak-Height-Velocity Vulnerability

A central practical question for anyone training young gymnasts is whether the adolescent growth spurt — the period of most rapid height gain, often summarized by its **peak height velocity (PHV)**, the single point of fastest growth — represents a period of genuinely heightened vulnerability to training load, beyond just being a period when growth-plate injuries are mechanically possible at all. The evidence here is real but should be described honestly, at several different levels of certainty.

**What is well established.** Physeal fracture rates in humans rise during puberty and appear to peak specifically around the time of peak height velocity [2]. This is consistent with experimental animal work showing that physeal cartilage measurably weakens during the pubertal growth period [2]. A proposed mechanical explanation is that bone mineralization lags behind the rate of bone lengthening during the growth spurt, leaving bone temporarily more porous — and by extension leaving the adjacent growth plate in a temporarily more vulnerable mechanical environment — until mineralization catches up [2, 12]. A large 2024 scoping review of growth, maturation, and injury across elite youth athletes (30 included studies) found a consistent general pattern: injury incidence and burden tend to rise with advancing maturity status, and growth-related injuries specifically peak during the circa-PHV window, with more rapid growth in stature and in the lower limbs associated with greater injury incidence and burden [14]. That same review explicitly frames physeal vulnerability during rapid growth as a “logical premise” grounded in the biology of rapid, asynchronous growth across skeletal, muscular, and ligamentous tissue — but its own authors are careful to note that the supporting evidence base is limited, heterogeneous across studies, and hampered by inconsistent definitions of both “maturation” and “injury” [14].

**What is more mixed or contested.** One commonly repeated mechanistic story — that the growth spurt increases injury susceptibility because bone lengthens faster than the attached muscle-tendon units can stretch, producing a temporary loss of flexibility and increased muscle-tendon tightness across the joint — is explicitly described in the literature as controversial: at least one study cited in a major review directly questioned whether a measurable reduction in flexibility actually occurs during the adolescent growth spurt at all [2]. This is a useful caution against treating every commonly cited “growth spurt mechanism” as settled science; the mineralization-lag mechanism above has more direct support than the flexibility-loss mechanism does.

**What is gymnastics-specific, and how strong that evidence is.** Direct evidence in gymnasts specifically does exist, but it is a mixed bag of study designs and should be weighted accordingly. On the more rigorous, quantitative end, one study of trampolining gymnasts found a non-linear (inverted-U) relationship between maturity status and injury probability, peaking at around 90% of adult height attained [14]. On the same topic, a study of gymnastics specifically found increased incidence of growth-related, bone, and lower-extremity injuries, and stress fractures of the back and wrist, clustered around the circa-PHV period [14]. However, at least one of the specific gymnastics findings summarized in that review came from a qualitative study of coaches’ and practitioners’ _perceptions_ of maturational risk rather than from direct biological or injury-surveillance measurement — a real but softer form of evidence [14]. A separate qualitative study of gymnastics coaches similarly reported perceived increased risk of injury and low back pain around PHV, “especially when combined with excessive training load” [14] — language that gestures at, without directly proving, an interaction between the growth-spurt window and training-load management, which is exactly the mechanism a gymnastics-specific injury-prevention model would want to capture. Separately, the wrist-specific literature notes that age 10–14 — which overlaps with, but is not identical to, the peak-growth-velocity window (roughly ages 11–12 in girls, 13–15 in boys) — is consistently associated with increased wrist pain risk in gymnasts, and proposes the same mineralization-lag mechanism as a plausible explanation, while acknowledging that the direct causal chain from “growth spurt” to “wrist injury” in gymnasts has not been experimentally isolated from other things that also change at that age, such as training intensity and skill difficulty [12].

**What is inference rather than direct evidence.** The bone- and tendon-loading literature (see the companion bone-loading-research and tendon-loading-research summaries) has established, for other tissues, that a _sudden spike_ in training load — rather than a merely high but stable or gradually progressed load — is disproportionately associated with injury. It is tempting, and biologically plausible, to extend that same “load-spike” principle to the growth plate, especially during a period when the tissue may already be operating with reduced mechanical strength. However, this literature search did not find a study that has directly tested acute training-load spikes against physeal or growth-plate-specific injury outcomes, as distinct from general youth-athlete injury outcomes; the acute:chronic workload ratio framework that has been studied for injury risk generally in youth sport was developed and tested primarily against soft-tissue and general injury outcomes, not against physeal stress injury specifically. Applying it to the growth plate during the growth spurt is a reasonable, biologically motivated extrapolation — one now explored quantitatively in the [gymnast’s wrist model](https://provingconsortium.org/knowledge/wrist-model/) — but it should be treated as a hypothesis carried over from other tissues, not as an established, physis-specific finding.

**One important myth to correct.** It is worth separating the injury-risk question above from a different and more commonly asked question: does intensive gymnastics training itself stunt growth or delay puberty? The IOC’s youth athletic development consensus statement addresses this directly and concludes that current evidence does _not_ support that claim — cross-sectional and longitudinal studies do not show that regular gymnastics training attenuates pubertal growth or compromises adult height, and the well-known short stature of many competitive gymnasts instead reflects a selection effect (shorter, later-maturing children with shorter parents being drawn to and succeeding in the sport), not a training-induced growth suppression [15]. This does not contradict anything in this summary about injury _risk_ during the growth spurt — a child can be at elevated injury risk during a period of rapid growth without that training in any way altering the growth process itself.

## 5. Relevance to Gymnastics and Practical Training Implications

Taken together, the physiology and epidemiology above point to a consistent practical picture for gymnastics specifically, distinct from — and in some ways more cautious than — the picture for bone, tendon, or cartilage loading.

**The growth plate has a narrower safety margin than the tissues around it.** Because the physis is mechanically weaker than adjacent bone and ligament (Section 3a) and has a lower failure threshold for sustained compression than the Hueter-Volkmann literature suggests bone itself has (Section 2), training approaches that would be well within a gymnast’s bone or ligament tolerance can still exceed the growth plate’s own tolerance — particularly at joints, like the wrist, that are loaded in ways evolution never built them for.

**Wrist-specific screening and monitoring is directly supported by the evidence.** Given how common wrist pain and gymnast’s wrist are (Section 3b), and given that the condition has a recognized staged progression from reversible pain (Stage 1) to a permanent growth deformity (Stage 3), routine, repeated wrist-pain screening throughout a training season — rather than a single preparticipation check — is a practical, evidence-consistent way to catch the condition while it is still in an earlier, reversible stage; general youth-sport screening literature likewise favors multiple screening touchpoints across a season over one-off preparticipation exams [9].

**Load progression and rest matter, just as they do for bone.** The literature on both gymnast’s wrist and traction apophysitis consistently identifies training volume, intensity, and the gradual (versus sudden) progression of load as modifiable risk factors, and recommends a gradual progression of training loads and dedicated periods of active rest as the primary prevention and treatment strategy for both conditions [9, 13]. Broader sports-medicine guidance for youth athletes in general (not gymnastics-specific, but broadly applicable) recommends at least one to two days off per week from a single sport and a total of about three months off per year, distributed rather than taken all at once, alongside limiting weekly training hours to roughly the athlete’s age in years — general guardrails that are consistent with, though not derived specifically from, the physeal-injury literature reviewed here.

**Growth-spurt timing deserves extra attention, with appropriate humility about the evidence.** Given the pattern described in Section 4 — physeal fracture rates that peak around PHV, gymnastics-specific findings of elevated injury risk in the same window, and a biologically plausible (if not fully proven, physis-specific) case for treating rapid-growth periods as higher-risk for training-load increases — monitoring an individual gymnast’s own growth rate (for example, tracking height at regular intervals to identify when growth is accelerating) is a reasonable, low-cost practice that several of the reviewed sources gesture toward, even though no source in this review has established a validated, gymnastics-specific protocol for adjusting training load in direct response to measured growth velocity. This is an area explicitly flagged by the underlying research itself as needing further study, rather than one with an established, quantified answer today.

**Nutrition and energy availability are a growth-plate issue, not just a bone-density issue.** Because RED-S can manifest in young athletes specifically as a faltering growth trajectory (Section 2), and because the same hormonal axis that low energy availability disrupts is the axis that drives normal growth-plate function (Section 1), monitoring growth trajectory over time and screening for signs of inadequate energy availability is directly relevant to growth-plate health, not only to the bone-density and menstrual-health concerns RED-S is more commonly associated with.

The growth plate’s distinguishing features relative to bone, cartilage, and tendon are: (1) a categorically lower failure threshold and narrower loading window than the surrounding tissues, (2) a plausible but not yet physis-specific-tested vulnerability to rapid changes in training load, concentrated in a biologically identifiable window (the growth spurt/PHV period) that can be tracked in an individual athlete, and (3) the possibility of a permanent, rather than fully reversible, negative outcome (growth arrest, angular deformity, limb length discrepancy) — a category of consequence that does not have a direct equivalent in the bone, cartilage, or tendon models already built for this project. The [gymnast’s wrist model](https://provingconsortium.org/knowledge/wrist-model/) picks up directly from these three points.

* * *

## References

1. Ağırdil Y. The growth plate: a physiologic overview. _EFORT Open Reviews_. 2020;5(8):498–507. doi:10.1302/2058-5241.5.190088. — _bot-detection-blocked — not downloaded_ (this open-access article’s PDF is served from behind a Cloudflare bot-verification challenge that could not be cleared through automated, non-interactive means during this research session; a human reader can access it directly via the DOI).

2. Caine D, DiFiori J, Maffulli N. Physeal injuries in children’s and youth sports: reasons for concern? _British Journal of Sports Medicine_. 2006;40(9):749–760. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2005.017822. — **Caine-2006-PhysealInjuriesChildrenYouthSports.pdf**

3. Waseem M, Taqi M, Marquart MJ. Pediatric Physeal Injuries Overview. In: _StatPearls_ [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; updated October 1, 2024. — _no PDF available — not downloaded_ (this is an open-access, freely readable NCBI Bookshelf chapter, but StatPearls does not publish a standalone PDF file for individual chapters; content is accessible directly at [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560546/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560546/)).

4. Levine RH, Thomas A, Nezwek TA, Waseem M. Salter-Harris Fracture. In: _StatPearls_ [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; updated August 10, 2023. — _no PDF available — not downloaded_ (same reason as reference 3; accessible directly at [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430688/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430688/)).

5. Cho JH, Jung HW, Shim KS. Growth plate closure and therapeutic interventions. _Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics_. 2024;67(11):553–559. doi:10.3345/cep.2023.00346. — **Cho-2024-GrowthPlateClosureTherapeuticInterventions.pdf**

6. Farr JN, Laddu DR, Going SB. Exercise, Hormones, and Skeletal Adaptations During Childhood and Adolescence. _Pediatric Exercise Science_. 2014;26(4):384–391. doi:10.1123/pes.2014-0077. — **Farr-2014-ExerciseHormonesSkeletalAdaptationsChildhood.pdf**

7. Bartoníček J, Naňka O. The true history of the Hueter-Volkmann law. _International Orthopaedics_. 2024;48(10):2755–2762. doi:10.1007/s00264-024-06254-w. — **Bartonicek-2024-TrueHistoryHueterVolkmannLaw.pdf**

8. Mountjoy M, Ackerman KE, Bailey DM, et al. 2023 International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) consensus statement on Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs). _British Journal of Sports Medicine_. 2024;57(17):1073–1098. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2023-106994. — **Mountjoy-2023-IOCConsensusREDs.pdf**

9. Arnold A, Thigpen CA, Beattie PF, Kissenberth MJ, Shanley E. Overuse Physeal Injuries in Youth Athletes: Risk Factors, Prevention, and Treatment Strategies. _Sports Health_. 2017;9(2):139–147. doi:10.1177/1941738117690847. — **Arnold-2017-OverusePhysealInjuriesYouthAthletes.pdf**

10. Viamont Guerra MR, Depari Estelles JR, Abdouni YA, Falcochio DF, Rosa JRP, Catani LH. Frequency of Wrist Growth Plate Injury in Young Gymnasts at a Training Center. _Acta Ortopédica Brasileira_. 2016;24(4):204–207. doi:10.1590/1413-785220162404157422. — **Guerra-2016-WristGrowthPlateInjuryYoungGymnasts.pdf**

11. El Madani A, Taihi L. MRI Diagnosis of Gymnast’s Wrist (Distal Radial Physeal Stress Injury). _Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology_. 2026;110(1):27. doi:10.5334/jbsr.4212. — **ElMadani-2026-MRIGymnastWristDistalRadialPhysealStress.pdf**

12. DiLeo SDF, Noori A, Day E, Burkhart TA, Paul RA, Chan AHW. Epidemiology and Risk Factors of Wrist Pain and Injury in Adolescent Artistic Gymnasts: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. _Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine_. 2026;14(1):23259671251395329. doi:10.1177/23259671251395329. — **DiLeo-2026-WristPainInjuryAdolescentGymnastsSystematicReview.pdf**

13. Maruszczak K, Madej T, Gawda P. Lower Limb Osteochondrosis and Apophysitis in Young Athletes—A Comprehensive Review. _Applied Sciences_. 2024;14(24):11795. doi:10.3390/app142411795. — **Maruszczak-2024-LowerLimbOsteochondrosisApophysitisYoungAthletes.pdf**

14. Parry GN, Williams S, McKay CD, Johnson DJ, Bergeron MF, Cumming SP. Associations between growth, maturation and injury in youth athletes engaged in elite pathways: a scoping review. _British Journal of Sports Medicine_. 2024;58(17):1001–1010. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2024-108233. — **Parry-2024-GrowthMaturationInjuryYouthAthletesScopingReview.pdf**

15. Bergeron MF, Mountjoy M, Armstrong N, et al. International Olympic Committee consensus statement on youth athletic development. _British Journal of Sports Medicine_. 2015;49(13):843–851. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094962. — **Bergeron-2015-IOCYouthAthleticDevelopment.pdf**

[← Back to the knowledge base](https://provingconsortium.org/knowledge/)

[Gymnastics Injury Prevention Consortium](https://provingconsortium.org/) — working reference for the founding group. Moving principles into practice.

Working reference site, shared by link and not indexed by search engines. Content is for general information and isn't medical advice; see a qualified clinician about any injury.