.png){kind=small}
The Relationship Between Asymmetry and Athletic Performance [Article Review]
- GPS DataViz
- Jul 21
- 2 min read
In the critical review "The Relationship Between Asymmetry and Athletic Performance," Dr. Sean J. Maloney from the University of Bedfordshire explores the complex interplay between bodily asymmetries and athletic performance. Published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, this article challenges widely held assumptions about the detrimental effects of asymmetry in athletes and provides a nuanced examination of current research on the topic.
Key Takeaways
Types of Asymmetry
Directional Asymmetry: Consistent development toward one side, such as organ placement.
Antisymmetry: Tendency to develop toward a side, but the specific side varies (e.g., handedness).
Fluctuating Asymmetry (FA): Small, random deviations from perfect symmetry, often viewed as markers of developmental instability.
Sporting Asymmetry: Bilateral differences in performance attributes (e.g., force output, jump height) that develop as adaptations to sport-specific demands.
Asymmetry and Athletic Performance
Fluctuating Asymmetry: Some evidence links FA (e.g., differences in nostril width, ear size) to impaired performance, but findings are inconsistent. The magnitude of any effect is generally small, and FA does not seem to be significantly influenced by training.
Sporting Asymmetry: These arise from limb dominance and are often magnified by long-term participation in specific sports. Contrary to popular belief, most research does not show a clear negative impact of sporting asymmetry on athletic performance. In fact, some studies suggest that asymmetry may be a functional adaptation rather than a deficit1.
Task Specificity: The relationship between asymmetry and performance is highly task-dependent. For example, asymmetries may have different implications for jumping, sprinting, or change-of-direction tasks, and the direction or magnitude of asymmetry can vary between tasks and individuals.
Training Interventions: Both unilateral and bilateral training can reduce asymmetry and improve performance, especially in athletes with greater initial asymmetry or lower training status. However, it remains unclear whether performance improvements are directly due to reduced asymmetry or general neuromuscular gains.
Conclusion and Practical Recommendations
While asymmetry has often been viewed as a negative trait in athletic performance, this comprehensive review demonstrates that the evidence does not support a blanket condemnation. For sports practitioners, coaches, and athletes in professional and collegiate settings, the following recommendations emerge:
Focus on Overall Development: Rather than targeting asymmetry reduction as an end in itself, prioritize general neuromuscular improvements and address the weaker limb as a "development window" for growth.
Individualized Assessment: Recognize that asymmetry is highly individual and task-specific. Assess athletes within the context of their sport and performance demands.
Cautious Use of Asymmetry Testing: Routine testing for fluctuating or sporting asymmetries is unlikely to yield actionable insights for intervention planning in most cases.
Ethical Considerations: Avoid using asymmetry measures for talent identification or selection, as the evidence for their predictive value is limited and raises ethical concerns.
Ultimately, practitioners should view asymmetry as a natural and often adaptive feature of athletic development, intervening only when it clearly impedes performance or increases injury risk
Article PDF
Comments