Measuring weight and height: madness or the only right thing to do?

In Norwegian youth football, measuring height – and especially weight – has become a hot topic. Some call it madness, fearing body image pressure, eating disorders, and locker rooms filled with comparison and shame. Others argue it’s irresponsible not to measure, given how large the differences in biological age can be between two 14‑year‑olds, where one body can effectively be “twelve” and the other “eighteen.” My view is that assessing biological age can be sensible and important, but only for a small number of environments and only if it’s done the right way.

Measuring weight on its own doesn’t serve a purpose here; it’s one variable in a broader equation used to estimate biological age.

The Norwegian Football Federation, together with Idrettens Helsesenter, has developed guidelines on this topic, and Thomas Bock Brantsæter, head of talent identification, discusses the dilemma in a video embedded in the Løkka lever workbook. You can watch it here (sorry, only in Norwegian):

When a player enters a growth spurt, it can be wise to adjust training to avoid overload and injury. In my view, that is the single most important reason to measure young players.

More fairness in youth soccer

Better insight into biological age can also be used to give late‑maturing players more fair development opportunities. The federation points out that systematic monitoring can prevent late developers – especially boys – from being consistently overlooked because the differences in biological age are so large. This is also the rationale behind the “future national team” initiative for this group.

On the other hand, we know that weighing teenagers, particularly in a phase where body and identity are vulnerable, can trigger body dissatisfaction, eating disorders, and Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDS). Athletes can over time take in too little energy to cover both training demands and the body’s basic needs.

With even a modest understanding of locker‑room culture, there is a real risk that players will start talking more about weight, even if they aren’t told the results of their own or others’ measurements.

Education is crucial

That’s why it’s vital that the federation properly educates the clubs, and that each club is very clear in its communication with players and parents about what this is – and what it is not.

The question of measuring weight and biological age is therefore not about being “good” or “bad,” but about whether clubs are actually mature enough to handle it. The Norwegian Football Federation is clear that most clubs are not. There is also a lot clubs should have in place before they even think about bringing out the tape measure and scale: a good day‑to‑day training environment, holistic load management, injury‑prevention work, and educated coaches.

If, in addition, a club has medical expertise, clear routines for information, consent, and data protection, and a plan for how results will be used, biological age can become one tool among many – not a standalone measure. Weighing must then take place in a private setting, carried out by qualified staff, at most twice a year, with the scale turned so players can’t see the number and can’t compare themselves to each other. Data should be used to say, “You’re in a growth spurt – we need to adjust your training load,” not “You weigh X kilos.”

Reducing injury risk

This is where I think much of the criticism becomes too black‑and‑white. It is entirely legitimate to be skeptical about weighing 13–16‑year‑olds at the clubhouse, and media stories about weighing and “body projects” in schools show how badly things can go when systems are not in place and intentions are unclear. But it’s equally problematic to label all weighing as madness when we know that poor load management around puberty growth spurts increases injury risk, and that early physical advantages can color selection for years. For some environments – top clubs and sports schools that already have solid expertise on growth and maturation – it may even be irresponsible not to use this tool to protect players.

To sum up: In almost all Norwegian clubs, it’s more important to ensure good coaches, safe environments, and sensible training loads than to bring out the scale. For a small number of others, measuring biological age can be reasonable – provided it’s done in line with the federation’s guidelines, with qualified staff, good communication, and no focus on the number itself. Used that way, it can help make Norwegian youth soccer both safer and more fair.

Without this framework, it’s better not to measure at all. Gambling with young people’s relationship to body, food, and soccer is not a solution.

**

Here you can read the Editorial in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, where Norwegian experts discusses this issue in more detail: Weighing risks against rewards: a call for thoughtful implementation of growth and maturity monitoring in high-level youth footbal