Parents BRAG on my 4 y/o

[tooootsie]

My 4 y/o got her Back Walkover for the first time yesterday!!
She looked so cute doing it... I am so proud her her


PS- Sorry I have no other area to brag in yet

 

[EmmasMommy]

Congrats! They are so cute doing skills that like when so small <3

 

[bogwoppit]

They teach BWO's at her gym? Strange as USAG doesn't encourage them, or bridges, until age 5.

 

[tooootsie]

bog,
She is considered "5" as her birthday is in Sept. So maybe that's why? She and another older girl on her developmental team are the only ones they were trying to teach it to. I have no idea. I do know she moves up with the 5 y/o's in June.
I was just shocked to see her do it so easily, seeing her older sis just got hers a few months ago. And she is two years older.

 

[EmmasMommy]

They teach BWO's at her gym? Strange as USAG doesn't encourage them, or bridges, until age 5.

I sometimes wonder if this is locational, because I hear a lot of people say their gyms don't do them, but every gym I personally know of lets kids do them. My daughter was doing skills like this at 4-5 and I remember it being no big deal. I know 3 year olds who do them and back handsprings, and 4-5 year olds who do back flips.

I also wonder if a child's physical condition ever plays a role. For example, a 6 year old with low muscle mass probably shouldn't be doing bridges either, but a 4 year old with high muscle mass will be doing this skill using muscles more than the skeletal system. If you have strong back muscles it takes the work off your spine. I know this because I have a back injury from a car accident, and my physical therapists (from 2 different states) both told me to strengthen my back muscles and then my muscles will do the work instead of my spine. Now, MOST 4 year olds would have to use more spine than muscle, which could be why they recommend waiting, but a child should be assessed on their individual physique--some 4 year olds have the muscular strength and development of the average 6 year old, and vice versa, so I think the decision should be based on a child's personal physical development.

(However, this is coming from a woman a didn't feed her kids solid foods until they were 9 months to a year old, because I understand not everyone's body develops the same. It's not like a child turns 6 months old and magically, on that day, they are able to eat foods they couldn't eat yesterday. Or that a child who is 4 years 11 months will get hurt doing a bridge but if they wait a month they won't.) Guidelines are generally based on "average". Some kids will be developmentally (physically or otherwise) ahead or behind the average.

I do think it's good that so many gyms here er on the side of caution though

 

[bogwoppit]

Hard to know really. But as a parent of a child who had spinal fusion surgery my inner voice tells me caution is better than not. There is no need to be doing BWO's at age 4, frankly many kids who end up in the elite ranks don't even start gym until much later than 4, so there really is no rush. Seeing your kid taken out of all sports for two full years is heartbreaking to say the least. I would not wish that on any kid. It is very cute seeing them do advanced skills that young, but the main question remains "Is this really good for their spines?". You only get one back, it has to last a long, long time.

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

I think what scares me the most is that 99.9% of the videos of under fives doing bridging/flight skills also demonstrate how the child cannot align and control their muscles to simply stand up straight with good posture. Why on earth are people (coaches/parents) teaching kids inverted skills when they have no awareness or control over their body simply standing.

 

[EmmasMommy]

Hard to know really. But as a parent of a child who had spinal fusion surgery my inner voice tells me caution is better than not. There is no need to be doing BWO's at age 4, frankly many kids who end up in the elite ranks don't even start gym until much later than 4, so there really is no rush. Seeing your kid taken out of all sports for two full years is heartbreaking to say the least. I would not wish that on any kid. It is very cute seeing them do advanced skills that young, but the main question remains "Is this really good for their spines?". You only get one back, it has to last a long, long time.

So sorry you went through that That is the one of the reasons we don't spank our kids (also linked to back injury) even though lots of parents do. Did your child get their spinal injury from doing those skills to young? That would really put me on alert, too. I do still think that the answer to "Is it good for their spines" really depends on that child as an individual, with 5 being a good general marker, but not a magic number. I wonder how many kids get injured because people think their birthday magically makes their body's ready for something, instead of looking at their body and determining if their body is in the right condition to start certain things. For example, at age 4, my daughter had the muscle mass of a 6 year old. My my son, age 5 . . . well, if he was a girl, I don't care if 5 is the magic number for some gyms or not, I would not want him doing bridges with his build. He doesn't have the muscles he should to support his spine, and his spine would be doing all the work--that would be the concern for me.

I try to look at the reasons for recommendations, as I think that's the best way to decide if a child should start something early, "on time", or later. Some kids really shouldn't be doing bridges even if they are 5, IMO.

 

[tooootsie]

I would never want my child to have an injury. I am so sorry to hear about yours too. I do agree with emmasmom that 5 isn't a magic number. I also know that my 4 y.o (she will be 5 in sept) is a very strong little girl. She is probably stronger than her 6 y.o sister. I also do not allow them to practice those things at home.

 

[bogwoppit]

Yes, overuse really young and misdiagnosed back pain for years. It was a mess that took a long time to fix. What I know for sure is no preschooler of mine would be bridging, in fact the whole bridging things gives me shudders. Some gyms just do not look at upper back and shoulder flexibility and for kids with very flexible lower backs they easily compensate and trash their spines. There is no going back and fixing it later once the damage is severe, My dd will live with this for her whole life. She is 16 and has been dealing with this for 5 years. You really have to question is it worth allowing little kids to do skills that they are not ready for. You only have to google "4 year old doing BHS's", to see what I mean. They are mostly a horrific mess and just steadily trashing their spines.

 

[EmmasMommy]

Yes, overuse really young and misdiagnosed back pain for years. It was a mess that took a long time to fix. What I know for sure is no preschooler of mine would be bridging, in fact the whole bridging things gives me shudders. Some gyms just do not look at upper back and shoulder flexibility and for kids with very flexible lower backs they easily compensate and trash their spines. There is no going back and fixing it later once the damage is severe, My dd will live with this for her whole life. She is 16 and has been dealing with this for 5 years. You really have to question is it worth allowing little kids to do skills that they are not ready for. You only have to google "4 year old doing BHS's", to see what I mean. They are mostly a horrific mess and just steadily trashing their spines.

I think you hit the nail on the head. It's all about if the child has ALL the proper flexibility and strength. If they don't then whether they are 5 or 10 they should not be doing those skills. I think it also depends on much a child does something. For example, my daughter has been doing back handsprings since she was 5, but she doesn't do them every day. She did one playing around on the trampoline at home and I immediately told her can't do them at home on the trampoline until she learns to do them correctly because of possible injury and learning bad habits. I also alerted her gym, and they assessed her and signed her up for privates so she could work on them *in the gym*. She does them once a week, and usually only about 10 of them (the rest is drills), and at first it was just drills. If you put her, at age 5, next to the 7-10 year olds in her current gym, she was STRONGER and MORE flexible than them . . . by a LOT. You could tell just by looking at them. She was shorter, but had a physique more inline with the 10-12 year old girls. This also *showed* with her action actions. Any conditioning exercise she did with the "big girls" she could do longer or more reps . . . by a lot. To the point that other coaches in the gym would come over to watch while she was doing it; there would be this "gathering" and "Go Emma, go! 3 more! You can do it!" and she'd do 10 of something that the 7-10 year olds couldn't even do *one* of. So I don't believe that age magically or automatically makes a person stronger or that birthdays are magic days (in that sense).

But my daughter IS abnormally strong and flexible, more so than kids that are much older than her, and her readiness was judged not on her age but based on her ability, strength, and flexibility (which is why there are 10 year olds that aren't allowed to do those skills at her gym). A lot of people say "no way a child can be very strong at 5 or 6" but my daughter can do 100 push ups in one clip and 10-20 one arm push ups per arm. People also say that is impossible . . . until they see it. She is never sore the next day--it's easy for her. But everyone in our family builds muscle abnormally easy--our doctors have even commented on it and I've been told I have genetics that body builders would be jealous of. I actually have a hard time working out because I don't want to be muscular but I build muscle really easy, so I feel like whenever I work out within 2 weeks I feel like I'm looking bulky (for a girl) and I barely do anything!

So I don't believe in assuming children x age are strong/flexible enough and kids y age are not. I'm not a big fan of "magic number birthdays" but I AM a huge fan of looking at WHY those magic numbers exist and using that to see if a child is ready for something. Hence why my kids started solids at 9-12 months. Average is 4-6 months, but my kids did not show the readiness that those magic numbers were based on until 9-12 months. So, we didn't rush it and just went on our children's PERSONAL physical readiness.

I do take the back thing seriously, though, because everyone in my family has back problems. It's certainly not from overuse at a young age though, because none us really did sports until the age of 7-10. I did come from a family that believed in spanking children, though, so I think in our personal family that was the culprit. So many people will stop their kids from doing a skill that might injure their back based on age, when the skill is based on flexibility and strength, but you'd be surprised how many will spank their kids, when nerve damage has nothing to do with how strong or flexible a child is or how old they are. And most people begin spanking their kids at 2-3 (some even younger!), not 5. (I'm talking about the US, I realize it's less common in other countries and is illegal in many countries too).

So I hope anyone who is truly concerned about back injury will learn what ALL the risks are and what exactly creates those risks and avoid ALL those things. For me, that means I wouldn't spank my kids, I keep them properly secured in a car, and I wouldn't have them doing a skill AT ANY AGE that their body was not developed enough to be doing. We talk to our doctors a lot, too, and have physicals and get recommendations from them, and our kids go to world-renowned doctors and neurologists (due to our younger two having autism). They deal with kids with physical and mental disabilities and have been great about letting us know what to be concerned with and what not to worry about.

I do think though that MOST kids under the age of 6 shouldn't be doing bridges, so I can understand the "standard" recommendation of age 5. Most kids 6 and under don't have the strength or flexibility (let alone both) to do a skill like that without putting excessive stress on the skeletal system. But I certainly won't just the OP, her daughter, or her gym based on that, because I realized there ARE 4/almost-5-year olds that have a different build than the average 4/almost 5 year old, just as I realize there are many 6 and 7 year olds that don't have the strength and shouldn't be doing those skills either.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

triple YIKES!

 

[lhmom]

I am thankful to DD's coaches for not allowing her to do certain skills too early, especially after reading some of the stories here. She joined pre-team at 4 1/2, but was doing more conditioning and strength work in the first year before she was allowed to work on bridges (even though she could easily do them). She is super flexible, so the fact that they worked on building her strength 1st has helped a great deal I think.

 

[mommyof1]

There is a 7-year-old in my daughter's group who is already having back pain, apparently at least in part because her mother encourages her to practice bridges at home with incorrect form. Whenever she complains about it, one of the coaches reminds her, "That's why you should not practice without your coach!" Sometimes I wonder why she doesn't tell this to the mom.

 

[EmmasMommy]

tooootsie, if it helps any...

2 of my kids were born prematurely.

One was born at 36 weeks. They had the NICU staff on hand ready to whisk him away. It was one of the top 3 hospitals in our tri-state area. You know what they decided when he was born? He was EXACTLY as healthy as a full term baby. He didn't go to the NICU *or* the nursery. He came home with me just as fast as a full term baby would.

My other preemie was born at 35 weeks. I was told there was "no way" she wouldn't need a NICU stay. Again, we were at one of the top 3 hospitals in our tri state area. Guess what? Again, no NICU stay needed, no trips to the nursery, came home just as quickly as a full term baby. They were SO surprised, because this was "impossible" that they thought they must have had my due date wrong. Except for two things: 1) there is only one day I could have gotten pregnant with her and 2) when they did my blood work when I was 4 weeks pregnant, my levels were SO low I was told I WOULD miscarry. There is no way I was further along with levels that low--in fact the only possibility is I was LESS pregnant than I thought I was. Yet she was born 5 weeks early in full term health.

The point of this is, statistics are there for a reason. Recommendations based on age are there for a reason. I would never tell someone to ignore them. But also, I would say if you trust your gym and your gym has a good reputation, don't get panicked that you must have just allowed them to inflict irreparable damage on your child because she did something at 4 1/2 instead of at 5. Maybe talk to them about how they determine readiness. Maybe talk to your pediatrician about these things, too. And remember that "impossible" isn't always impossible and that every child has the potential to be ahead of or behind average. If you understand math at an elementary level, you know how averages are made Make the decisions that are best for your children as individuals. If you do that, then sure, you might let your kid do a balk walkover "3 months early" but you might also not let your kid do a balk walkover until "2 years late". I'd be more concerned if the gym was like "okay, she turned 5 this Saturday, she can do bridges now" than with a gym that tested her strength and flexibility and determined her readiness based on that. But that's just me. You are the parent and you have to educate yourself FULL and make decisions that feel right to you for YOUR kids

and even if she doesn't do another balk walkover for 6 more months, when she hits the "magic" age of 5, that doesn't mean you can't be proud she was able to do it the other day. It was a fun and exciting moments from her, and now you have a lot of information to help you decide what is the best for HER as an INDIVIDUAL moving forward

 

[EmmasMommy]

There is a 7-year-old in my daughter's group who is already having back pain, apparently at least in part because her mother encourages her to practice bridges at home with incorrect form. Whenever she complains about it, one of the coaches reminds her, "That's why you should not practice without your coach!" Sometimes I wonder why she doesn't tell this to the mom.

The coach SHOULD talk to the mom about that!!! The gym we visited the other day was telling us not to let her practice cartwheels and handstands at home, but to have her work on bridges with her feet elevated. I thought that was weird, too. Her current gym would rather her practice handstands and cartwheels and the dance moves from her floor routine. I really can't see why a child would need to do bridges or try to "push" their flexibility at home at any age. Basic stretches, sure, but no wonder that girl's back hurts And goes to show 5 wasn't the magic number for her! Sad she is in pain though, and hopefully that changes.

We took my daughter to the doctors once because she had pain in her shin, but the doctor said it was just growing pains and nothing to do with sports. (Our daughter also does Jui Jitsu)

Oh, another point:

breastfeeding is safer than formula feeding.
natural childbirth is safer than getting an epidural.
extended rear-facing car sears are safer than turning the car sooner.
using a booster seat until your child is 65 lbs is safer than not doing so.
cloth diapering is safer than disposables and using organic body wash is safer than using Johnson and Johnson. (carcinogenics are found in disposable diapers and J&J baby products. Carcinogenics are ingredients linked to causing cancer.)
waiting to give you kid solid foods until 6-12 months is safer than giving them solid foods at 4-6 months.

That said, I'd never tell a parent "I can't believe your doctor let you formula feed!" or "I can't believe you let the hospital give you an epidural" or "I can't believe you stopped using a booster seat before you child was 65 lbs or "I can't believe you don't only use organic products for your child!"

Why? Because as parents, we are all going to do what we believe is best for our child as an individual. That's the way it should be. We'll all be cautious. We'll all be more cautious about some things about others--maybe even to the point that we are being unreasonable paranoid about things (such as how paranoid I am about giving my kids solids before 9-12 months old; that's probably me being paranoid!). There will always be parents who are more cautious about certain things than we are, and we might be more cautious about other things than they are. VERY few of us will ALWAYS choose THE safest option. (And if any of us here say we always do, we're lying, because doing gymnastics at all is safer than never doing it). We have to assess our kids as individuals and do what we feel is best for them, which doesn't mean sticking them in a bubble necessarily, but does mean being appropriately cautious, which I would agree (in this case) for means no bridges for most 4-6 years olds.

But the second someone stops looking at their child as an individual, that is where the real danger comes in IMO. For example, some people TRULY cannot breastfeed. I was able to overcome supply issues and I do think most people can, but there ARE rare cases of women who don't make enough milk. If they stubbornly held to the idea that "breast milk is best", their child could end up with failure to thrive. I'm not saying withholding formula is the same as with holding letting a child do bridges, because it's not at all--especially since generally it IS better to wait to do bridges--but I AM saying that I think it's probably not the best idea to ignore your child's individual strengths and weaknesses and what makes them stronger or weaker than "average".

Anyway, I'm telling you all this because I hope it puts everything in perspective for you and maybe lets you breathe a little easier knowing that you aren't some monster mom who is forcing her child into a back injury just because you are looking at your child as an individual instead of making decisions for her based "average".

For example, the average child doesn't have a reaction to vaccines; yet my oldest had a severe doctor-confirmed reaction to vaccines that severely affected him for years and will continue to moderately affect him for the rest of his life. It made me look at my family history and realize this isn't so uncommon in our family. That means I know make vaccine decisions based on my kids as individuals and my family genetics--NOT based on the "statistics" that "on average" children don't have vaccine reactions.

Nothing in this world is as black and white as most people will want you to think. Educate yourself and make the decision you feel are healthiest for your children

 

[gymgal]

I sometimes wonder if this is locational, because I hear a lot of people say their gyms don't do them, but every gym I personally know of lets kids do them. My daughter was doing skills like this at 4-5 and I remember it being no big deal. I know 3 year olds who do them and back handsprings, and 4-5 year olds who do back flips.

Sent from my AT100 using ChalkBucket mobile app

 

[gymgal]

Sorry for the empty post above. I hit the submit by accident and when I tried to edit it, it said I couldn't.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that the "5 yr old" recommendation is based on solid medical research of the spine and head. It is not just the flexibility of the spine and the strength of the supporting muscles, which in itself is enough for the recommendation. Toddlers and preschoolers also have a disproportionate head size that affects their the balance and compensation of sudden movements. If you have ever seen an out of control toddler who crashes into everything, you get the picture. They lead with their heads and often end up tumbling to the floor or into a wall (or headbutt the adult who is trying to contain them). While 3-4 yr Olds have better control of their body, the head size is still significantly disproportionate (even though it may not look it) and it still creates imbalance. Add backward inverted movement (especially a flight skill) and you have a potential for a serious injury.

of course every child matures at different rates and there are certainly children who are physically mature enough to handle certain skills earlier than average, but as a coach, why take the risk? Is it really going to change the child's path if you wait until she is 5 to start introducing these skills? my guess is that the vast majority of the gyms who allow their under 5's to do the bridges/bwo/bhs simply don't understand the mechanics behind why the recommendation is in place. And they likely are not evaluating their preschoolers to determine who is ready and who is not. I think many times the problem arises in gyms who don't have separate preschool tracks for their advanced girls, like what the OP noted. When you place 4s and 5s together, it its more difficult to stick to the recommendations.

As to the OP, congrats to you dd on the new skill. Don't panic that you have ruined her spine for life but do talk with the coach about her readiness to do these and definitely don't let her do any of them at home

 

[Deleted member D3987]

it's a great debate. but simply, most kids by age 6 are physically ready for bridges, back bends and walk overs. there is no rush and there is no indication that doing them sooner will find that child on the Olympic Team. in fact, you seldom see any of these in gymnastics after level 9. they are hard on the back. and that's a gymnastic and medical fact. that's all.

 

[JBS]

Oh, another point:

breastfeeding is safer than formula feeding.
natural childbirth is safer than getting an epidural.
extended rear-facing car sears are safer than turning the car sooner.
using a booster seat until your child is 65 lbs is safer than not doing so.
cloth diapering is safer than disposables and using organic body wash is safer than using Johnson and Johnson. (carcinogenics are found in disposable diapers and J&J baby products. Carcinogenics are ingredients linked to causing cancer.)
waiting to give you kid solid foods until 6-12 months is safer than giving them solid foods at 4-6 months.

Just so everyone knows...EmmasMommy was deleted at her request.

I am now imposing a ban against her if we ever find out that she comes back under a different username. Going off topic (see above) and then "flaming" an admin is grounds for removal here at ChalkBucket. Good riddance!