Article

Analysis of Magnitude and Direction of Body Composition

Asymmetries in Male Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Athletes: Pilot Study
Alex Ojeda-Aravena 1, * , Rafael L. Kons 2 , Jairo Azócar-Gallardo 3,4 , Xurxo Dopico-Calvo 5 ,
Aida Fernández 6 , Marcelo Tuesta-Roa 7 , Mauricio Cresp-Barria 8 , Jorge Olivares-Arancibia 9
and Eduardo Báez-San Martín 10,11

1 Dirección de Docencia, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno 1305, Chile

2 Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education, Federal University of Bahia,
Salvador 40170-110, BA, Brazil; rafael.kons@ufba.br
3 Departamento de Ciencias de la Actividad Física, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno 1305, Chile;
jairo.azocar@ulagos.cl
4 Programa de Investigación en Deporte, Sociedad y Buen Vivir (DSBv), Universidad de Los Lagos,
Osorno 1305, Chile
5 Performance and Health Group, Department of Physical Education and Sport, Universidade da Coruña,
15001 A Coruña, Spain; xurxo.dopico@udc.es
6 Faculty of Education, Universidad Central de Chile, Santiago 8370292, Chile; aida.fernandez@ucentral.cl
7 Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences Laboratory, School of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences,
Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago 8370292, Chile; marcelo.tuesta@unab.cl
8 Department of Innovation and Education, Faculty of Education, Catholic University of Temuco Chile,
Temuco 4810399, Chile; mcresp@uct.cl
9 AFySE Group, Research in Physical Activity and School Health, School of Physical Education,
Faculty of Education, Universidad de las Américas, Santiago 8370292, Chile; jolivares@udla.cl
10 Carrera de Entrenador Deportivo, Escuela de Educación, Universidad Viña del Mar,
Viña del Mar 2580022, Chile; eduardo.baez@upla.cl
11 Laboratorio de Evaluación y Prescripción de Ejercicio, Facultad de Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del
Deporte, Universidad de Playa Ancha, Valparaíso 850, Chile
* Correspondence: aojeda.aravena@gmail.com

Abstract: In order to optimize body composition and its components, it is of interest to

Academic Editor: Andrew Hatchett
analyze inter-limb asymmetries in athletes of popular combat sports such as Brazilian
Received: 8 January 2025 Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ). This study aimed to assess the magnitude and direction of body composition
Revised: 26 January 2025
asymmetry in competitive male BJJ athletes. Seventeen experienced and competitive male
Accepted: 4 February 2025
BJJ athletes (age 34.59 ± 8.00 years, 172.94 ± 5.46 cm, BJJ experience 7.88 ± 5.57 years,
Published: 12 February 2025
and 3.71 ± 1.05 days of weekly volume training), including Guard Fighters (n = 7) and
Citation: Ojeda-Aravena, A.; Kons,
Pass Fighters (n = 10), participated in this study. In a single session, whole-body and
R.L.; Azócar-Gallardo, J.;
Dopico-Calvo, X.; Fernández, A.;
segmental upper limb and lower limb body composition (BC) was assessed utilizing dual-
Tuesta-Roa, M.; Cresp-Barria, M.; energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The assessment included total mass (TM), fat mass
Olivares-Arancibia, J.; Báez-San (FM), fat mass percentage (%FM), fat-free mass (FFM), and bone mineral content (BMC).
Martín, E. Analysis of Magnitude and Absolute differences between limbs were analyzed using a paired t-test. A comparison of
Direction of Body Composition
BC asymmetries according to combat styles was conducted using an independent t-test.
Asymmetries in Male Brazilian
The effect size (ES) was interpreted as Cohen’s d. The main results revealed significant
Jiu-Jitsu Athletes: Pilot Study. Sports
2025, 13, 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/
asymmetries in the upper limbs (ULs) of the total group; greater values were found on
sports13020054 the left side for TM (p = 0.009, ES = 0.725), FM (p = 0.016, ES = 0.650), FFM (p = 0.026,
ES = 0.594), and BMC (p < 0.001, ES = 0.993). In Pass Fighters, differences favored the right
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
side in TM (p = 0.003, ES = 1.277), FM (p = 0.009, ES = 1.039), FFM (p = 0.011, ES = 1.000),
This article is an open access article and BMC (p < 0.001, ES = 1.916). In contrast, Guard Fighters showed no discrepancies in
distributed under the terms and these parameters. No notable disparities were observed in the lower limbs. This pilot study
conditions of the Creative Commons reveals that BJJ athletes present significant asymmetries in BC, particularly in the ULs, with
Attribution (CC BY) license
a marked predominance on the right side, especially in Pass Fighters.
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).

Sports 2025, 13, 54 https://doi.org/10.3390/sports13020054

Sports 2025, 13, 54 2 of 12

Keywords: asymmetry; Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu; sports sciences; body composition

1. Introduction
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ) is a modern martial art and combat sport that focuses on sub-
duing the opponent through submission and joint-lock techniques. BJJ athletes specialize
in various fighting styles. Notably, there are Guard Fighters, who prefer to fight from the
guard position on the ground, and Pass Fighters, who aim to overcome the guard to achieve
a dominant position over their opponent [1]. It is important to note that Guard Fighters and
Pass Fighters share several physical traits, such as flexibility, balance, isometric handgrip
strength, endurance, and quadriceps and hamstring strength and the ability to perform
well in specific BJJ physical tests [2]. However, Pass Fighters tend to excel in isometric trunk
extension endurance, which can be attributed to the specific demands of their fighting
style [2]. BJJ competitions are organized not only by weight categories but also by technical
skill levels (grades or belts), which can lead to matchups between competitors of different
weights and technical proficiency.
In this context, body composition (BC) is a critical factor in athletic performance and
injury prevention in combat sports such as BJJ [3]. The optimal distribution of muscle mass,
bone mass, and fat mass significantly influences an athlete’s ability to execute effective
techniques, maintain endurance during matches, and comply with weight categories [4].
Additionally, muscle and bone mass play fundamental roles in force production and
transmission, whereas excess fat mass can negatively affect physical performance in combat
sport athletes [3,4].
Specifically, bilateral asymmetries (i.e., differences in athletic performance and func-
tion between the two limbs) have emerged as a research topic, primarily derived from
unilateral or bilateral strength tasks. The focus of this topic is on understanding how such
discrepancies between limbs can influence performance and injury risk [5,6], as well as
being a manifestation of fatigue [7]. Various equations are currently being discussed for
determining asymmetries based on unilateral and bilateral tasks, although there is currently
no consensus [8,9]. In sports such as judo, bilateral asymmetries have been observed to in-
crease following the execution of sport-specific tests [10]. Meanwhile, in simulated combat
in this sport, bilateral asymmetries do not appear to be significant to performance [10].
From this line of research, the analysis of body composition asymmetries (BC-ASs)
has been extrapolated by comparing both limbs using advanced technologies including
dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) [11–14]. These asymmetries can affect an athlete’s
functionality and balance, thereby influencing their technical performance and increas-
ing the risk of injuries [15–17]. However, most studies to date have only quantified the
magnitude of BC-AS (quantification of the percentage difference between limbs), while
the analysis of direction (i.e., which side of the body is less developed) is still in its early
stages [18].
In BJJ, the preference for a certain laterality during combat movements can lead to
predominant unilateral development, exacerbating BC-AS [19]. Therefore, it is reasonable
to suggest that BJJ athletes may present BC-AS. Consequently, it is important to understand
that asymmetries in body composition can have a negative impact on physical performance
given their relationship to muscle strength and the biomechanics of movement in this
sport. Despite the importance of this research topic, there is limited information regarding
studies related to the prevalence, magnitude, and direction of BC-AS in BJJ athletes. An
individualized approach is essential to accurately and meaningfully assess asymmetries as
it allows training and injury prevention programs to be adapted to the specific needs of each
Sports 2025, 13, 54 3 of 12

athlete. These findings provide valuable information for optimizing training programs,
preventing injuries, and improving performance. Coaches and sports professionals can use
this information to design specific interventions that address asymmetries and enhance the
physical capabilities of athletes by considering their fighting styles and skill levels.
Therefore, this study aimed to assess the magnitude and direction of body composition
asymmetry in competitive male BJJ athletes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants
Seventeen male BJJ athletes (age 34.59 ± 8.00 years, 172.94 ± 5.46 cm, BJJ experience
7.88 ± 5.57 years, and 3.71 ± 1.05 days of weekly volume training) participated in this
pilot study. Seven athletes were self-declared Guard Fighters and ten Pass Fighters. Ten
athletes had black belts, while seven had blue- or purple-level belts. The inclusion criteria
were (i) training a minimum of three times per week; (ii) having at least two years of
continuous BJJ training; (iii) possessing at least a blue belt; (iv) competing regularly during
the last two years; (v) participation in at least one annual International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu
Federation (IBJJF) competition; and (vi) no injuries or health conditions that could affect
their performance in this study. The research methodology adhered to the ethical principles
of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local Ethics Committee (CODE:
BIOPUCV-H 520-2022). The procedures, benefits of participation, and risks associated with
X-ray exposure were communicated one week prior to the assessments.

2.2. Measures and Procedures

Anthropometric and Body Composition Measures
The athletes participated in two assessment sessions during a one-day period, con-
ducted in an exercise and sports science laboratory maintained at a temperature of 21 ◦ C.
DXA-certified professionals measured the anthropometric and BC variables. Athlete height
(±0.1 cm) was measured using a stadiometer (Seca 217; Hamburg, Germany) following
standard protocols. Subsequently, BC was evaluated using DXA (General Electric Lunar
iDXA, Boston, MA, USA). Briefly, the athletes removed any metal or jewelry and laid
supine on a scanning table. A whole-body scan was performed in standard mode, fol-
lowing the manufacturer’s recommended procedures. The standard thickness mode was
determined by using an automatic scanning function. The results were analyzed using GE
EnCORE 2015 v18 software (GE Healthcare) [14]. Each athlete’s race/ethnicity was selected
from available software options to accurately reflect their ancestry. Quality assurance was
maintained through daily calibrations performed before all scans, using a calibration block
provided by the manufacturer. All DXA measurements were performed by a laboratory
technician certified in X-ray procedures by the Ministry of Health. Standardized athlete
positioning procedures were employed [20]. The BC results included total mass (TM), fat
mass (FM), percentage of fat mass (%FM), fat-free mass (FFM), and bone mineral content
(BMC) for the total body, upper limbs (ULs), and lower limbs (LLs).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data were entered in Microsoft Excel and subsequently analyzed using the statistical
software JASP version 0.17.3 (JASP Team, 2023, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Con-
tinuous BC descriptors are presented as the mean ± standard deviation with a 95%
confidence interval (CI95%). Categorical data were expressed as absolute and relative
frequencies in percentage terms. Initially, the assumptions of normality were assessed
using the Shapiro–Wilk test and homoscedasticity using the Levene test. The magni-
tude of asymmetry was described as the percentage difference between the upper and
Sports 2025, 13, 54 4 of 12

lower limbs, separately based on the higher or lower score obtained, using the equation
(([Strongest − Weakest]/Strongest) × 100) [21] modified to higher and lower values ac-
cording to Bishop et al. [22]. To represent the direction of asymmetries between individual
limbs, an IF function was added to Microsoft Excel at the end of the formula *IF(left < right,
1, −1) without altering the magnitude [18]. The mean differences between body segments
were determined using a paired sample t-test. Differences in the proportions of BC-AS were
analyzed using a contingency table with Fisher’s exact test and the Odds Ratio (OR) [23].
Asymmetries based on fighting style were evaluated using an independent sample t-test.
The magnitude of differences or effect size (ES) was interpreted using Cohen’s d, where
values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 indicate small, medium, and large effects, respectively. A p value
of <0.05 was established as the significance threshold.

3. Results
In the normality analysis using the Shapiro–Wilk test, the evaluated variables did
not show significant deviations from a normal distribution. In the homogeneity of vari-
ance analysis using the Levene test, none of the evaluated variables showed significant
differences between the groups (p > 0.05).

3.1. Global Analysis of Differences and Asymmetries

Table 1 and Figure 1 provide a detailed description of the differences and asymmetries
observed in the BC of the analyzed BJJ athletes. Regarding TM in the ULs, statistically
significant differences were observed between the right and left limbs (p = 0.009, ES = 0.725).
A total of 70.59% of participants showed greater TM in the right limb and 23.53% in the
left limb, and 5.88% presented symmetry favoring the right side (OR = 9.0, p = 0.012).
Conversely, in the LLs, no significant differences were found (p = 0.239), although 64.71%
of athletes exhibited greater FFM in the right leg and 23.53% in the left leg, and 11.76%
showed symmetry, slightly favoring the right side (OR = 7.56, p = 0.027).

Table 1. Inter-limb differences and body composition asymmetries in BJJ athletes analyzed (n = 17).

BC Variables LIMBS SIDE Mean SD BC-AS ± SD t p ES

L 5.141 0.833
ULs 5.236 ± 2.969 2.991 0.009 ** 0.725
R 4.953 0.802
TM (kg)
L 12.876 1.746
LLs 3.236 ± 2.766 1.222 0.239 0.296
R 12.724 1.704
L 17.259 4.889
ULs 5.484 ± 4.372 1.580 0.134 0.383
R 16.782 5.082
%FM
L 18.494 4.303
LLs 3.345 ± 2.983 0.164 0.872 0.040
R 18.324 4.333
L 0.841 0.283
ULs 9.198 ± 5.839 2.678 0.016 ** 0.650
R 0.785 0.262
FM (kg)
L 2.269 0.689
LLs 5.860 ± 2.833 1.590 0.131 0.386
R 2.215 0.657
L 4.052 0.725
ULs 5.107 ± 2.804 2.449 0.026 * 0.594
R 3.929 0.717
FFM (kg)
L 9.989 1.468
LLs 3.317 ± 2.848 1.081 0.296 0.262
R 9.881 1.446
Sports 2025, 13, 54 5 of 12

Table 1. Cont.

BC Variables LIMBS SIDE Mean SD BC-AS ± SD t p ES

L 0.249 0.043
ULs 4.605 ± 3.194 4.094 <0.001 *** 0.993
R 0.240 0.043
BMC (kg)
L 0.610 0.086
LLs 2.780 ± 3.352 0.164 0.872 0.040
R 0.609 0.091
SD: standard deviation. BC-ASs: body composition asymmetries. p: statistical significance value (* p < 0.05,
Sports 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001). BC: body composition. LIMBS: limbs (upper limbs—ULs—upper body;
5 lower
of 12 limbs—
LLs—lower body). Side (L: left; R: right). ES: effect size expressed as Cohen’s d. TM: Total mass. %FM: fat mass
percentage. FM (kg): fat mass. FFM: fat-free mass. BMC: bone mineral content.

OR = 7.56, p = 0.027
OR = 9.00, p = 0.012
A n = 4 (23.59%) n = 12 (70.59%) B n = 4 (23.52%) n = 11 (64.70%)
15 10
UL TM LL TM
10 5
Asymmetry (%)

Asymmetry (%)
5 0

0 -5

-5 -10

-10 -15

OR = 5.76, p = 0.038 OR = 2.04, = p 0.494

n = 5 (29.41%) n = 12 (70.58%) n = 7 (41.17%) n = 10 (58.82%)
C D
15 10
UL %FM LL %FM
10
Asymmetry (%)

Asymmetry (%)

5
5
0
0

-5 -5

-10 -10

OR = 9.00, p = 0.012 OR = 5.76, p = 0.038

E n = 4 (23.52%) n = 12 (70.58%) F n = 5 (29.41%) n = 12 (70.58%)

30 15
UL FM LL FM
20 10
Asymmetry (%)

Asymmetry (%)

5
10
0
0
-5
-10
-10

-20 -15

OR = 18.78, p = 0.001 OR = 1.27, p = 1.000

n = 5 (29.41%) n = 12 (70.58%)
n = 4 (23.52%) n =12 (70.58%)
G H
15 UL FFM 10
LL FFM
10 5
Asymmetry (%)

% Asymmetry

5 0

0 -5

-5 -10

-10 -15
OR = 18.78, p = 0.001 OR = 1.27, p = 1.000
n = 3 (17.64%) n = 13 (76.47%) n = 9 (52.94%) n = 8 (47.05%)
I J
15 15
UL BMC LL BMC
10
Asymmetry (%)
Asymmetry (%)

10
5
5
0
0
-5

-5 -10

Figure
Figure1.1.This
Thisfigure shows
figure thethe
shows magnitude and and
magnitude direction of theofasymmetry
direction percentages
the asymmetry in the body
percentages in the body
composition
compositionasymmetries of the
asymmetries athletes.
of the (A): (A):
athletes. UL TM
UL (kg); (B): LL
TM (kg); TM
(B): LL(kg);
TM(C): UL%FM;
(kg); (D): LL(D): LL
(C): UL%FM;
FM%;
FM%;(E):
(E):UL
ULFM
FM(kg); (G):(F):
(kg); ULLL
FFM;
FM;(H): LLUL
(G): FFM; (I): (kg);
FFM UL BMC;
(H): (J):
LL LL BMC.
FFM (kg); (I): UL BMC (kg); (J): LL
BMC (kg).
Sports 2025, 13, 54 6 of 12

Concerning %FM, no significant differences were found in the ULs, although 70.59%
exhibited a higher %FM in the right limb (OR = 5.76, p = 0.038) compared to 29.41% in
the left limb. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the LLs (p = 0.872,
ES = 0.040), with 58.82% favoring the right leg and 41.18% favoring the left leg (OR = 2.04,
p = 0.494).
FM in the ULs showed a significant difference (p = 0.016, ES = 0.650), with 70.59% of
participants presenting a greater FM in the right limb and 23.53% in the left limb and 5.88%
showing symmetry (OR = 9.0, p = 0.012). In the LLs, no significant differences were found
(p = 0.131, ES = 0.386), although 70.59% of athletes presented a greater FM in the right leg
and 29.41% in the left leg (OR = 5.76, p = 0.038).
FFM in the ULs revealed a significant difference (p = 0.026, ES = 0.594), with 76.47% of
participants presenting a greater FFM in the right limb (OR = 18.78, p = 0.001) and 17.65%
in the left limb and 5.88% showing no asymmetry. In the LLs, no statistical differences were
observed (p = 0.296, ES = 0.262), with a relatively balanced distribution of asymmetries
between the right leg (52.94%) and the left leg (47.06%; OR = 1.27, p = 1.000).
Lastly, BMC in the ULs showed significant differences (p < 0.001, ES = 0.993), with
76.47% of athletes presenting a greater BMC in the right limb (OR = 18.78, p = 0.001) and
17.65% in the left limb and 5.88% showing symmetry. In the LLs, no significant differences
were observed (p = 0.872, ES = 0.040), with asymmetry proportions evenly distributed
between the right leg (52.94%) and the left leg (47.06%; OR = 1.27, p = 1.000).

3.2. Comparative Analysis by Fighting Style

Tables 2 and 3 present a detailed comparison of body composition asymmetries by
fighting style (i.e., Guard Fighters vs. Pass Fighters). Regarding TM, the ULs showed
similar mean values between Guard Fighters (5.339%) and Pass Fighters (5.164%), without
significant differences (p = 0.909, ES = 0.057). For the LLs, Guard Fighters presented a
higher mean value (4.262%) compared to Pass Fighters (2.518%), although this difference
was not significant (p = 0.211, ES = 0.644), suggesting a possible trend warranting further
analysis. In absolute terms, no significant differences were reported in Guard Fighters
for either limb, whereas in Pass Fighters, significant differences were observed in the ULs
(p = 0.003, ES = 1.277).
Regarding %FM, global asymmetries in the ULs were similar between Guard Fighters
(5.965%) and Pass Fighters (5.149%), with no significant differences (p = 0.718, ES = 0.181).
In the LLs, Guard Fighters also presented slightly higher values (3.961%) compared to Pass
Fighters (2.915%), though without statistical significance (p = 0.495, ES = 0.345). In absolute
terms, no significant differences were reported by fighting style for either limb.
In terms of FM, Guard Fighters recorded a higher mean percentage of asymmetry
in the ULs (9.974%) compared to Pass Fighters (8.655%), though this difference was not
significant (p = 0.661). In the LLs, Guard Fighters presented higher average values (7.434%)
compared to Pass Fighters (4.759%), without significant results (p = 0.052) and a large effect
size (ES = 1.041). In absolute terms, significant differences were reported only in Pass
Fighters for the ULs (0.862 kg vs. 0.799 kg; p = 0.009, ES = 1.039) and the LLs (2.318 kg vs.
2.230 kg; p = 0.011, ES = 1.016).
For FFM, Guard Fighters presented a mean asymmetry percentage in the ULs
(5.141%) similar to that of Pass Fighters (5.084%), with no significant differences (p = 0.909,
ES = 0.057). In the LLs, Guard Fighters exhibited a higher average percentage (4.771%)
compared to Pass Fighters (2.300%), though this difference was not statistically significant
(p = 0.211, ES = 0.644). In absolute terms, Pass Fighters presented significant differences in
the ULs (4.138 kg vs. 3.970 kg; p = 0.011, ES = 1.000).
Sports 2025, 13, 54 7 of 12

Table 2. Absolute inter-limb differences according to fighting style.

BC 95% CI 95% CI
Limbs RIGHT SD LEFT SD t p
Variables Lower Upper
GUARD FIGHTERS (n = 10)
ULs 4.957 0.665 4.857 0.648 0.810 0.449 −0.202 0.402
TM (kg)
LLs 12.586 1.551 12.500 1.493 0.318 0.761 −0.574 0.745
ULs 17.100 3.237 16.614 3.154 0.860 0.423 −0.896 1.867
%FM
LLs 18.400 2.346 18.543 2.472 −0.406 0.699 −1.004 0.718
ULs 0.811 0.191 0.766 0.158 1.009 0.352 −0.064 0.153
FM (kg)
LLs 2.200 0.338 2.195 0.348 0.066 0.950 −0.171 0.180
ULs 3.928 0.558 3.870 0.581 0.610 0.564 −0.175 0.291
FFM (kg)
LLs 9.796 1.320 9.663 1.259 0.618 0.559 −0.393 0.658
ULs 0.233 0.023 0.229 0.026 1.020 0.347 −0.006 0.014
BMC (kg) LLs 0.579 0.060 0.589 0.074 −1.117 0.307 −0.033 0.012
PASS FIGHTERS
ULs 5.270 0.945 5.020 0.922 4.038 0.003 ** 0.110 0.390
TM (kg)
LLs 13.080 1.924 12.880 1.900 1.762 0.112 −0.057 0.457
ULs 17.370 5.956 16.900 6.265 1.324 0.218 −0.333 1.273
%FM
LLs 18.560 5.407 18.170 5.407 2.169 0.058 −0.017 0.797
ULs 0.862 0.342 0.799 0.324 3.287 0.009 ** 0.020 0.106
FM (kg)
LLs 2.318 0.872 2.230 0.828 3.212 0.011 * 0.026 0.151
ULs 4.138 0.841 3.970 0.827 3.163 0.011 ** 0.048 0.289
FFM (kg)
LLs 10.124 1.619 10.033 1.611 0.977 0.354 −0.120 0.302
ULs 0.260 0.051 0.247 0.052 6.059 <0.001 *** 0.008 0.018
BMC (kg)
LLs 0.632 0.097 0.623 0.103 1.101 0.300 −0.010 0.028
Differences in body limbs in terms of body composition between BJJ fighting styles. Definitions: *: p < 0.05,
**: p < 0.005; ***: p < 0.001; t = t value; p = p value. Definitions: ULs: upper limbs. LLs: lower limbs. TM: total
mass. %FM: percentage of fat mass. FM: fat mass. FFM: fat-free mass. BMC: bone mineral content.

Table 3. Comparison of body composition asymmetries according to BJJ fighting style (n = 17).

BC AS% Mean
Limbs BJJ Style SD t p Lower Upper ES
Variables Mean Difference
Guard Fighters 5.339 3.494
ULs 0.116 0.909 0.175 −3.045 3.396 0.057
Pass Fighters 5.164 2.744
TM
Guard Fighters 4.262 3.361
LLs 1.307 0.211 1.744 −1.099 4.587 0.644
Pass Fighters 2.518 2.163
Guard Fighters 5.965 4.563
ULs 0.368 0.718 0.816 −3.906 5.538 0.181
Pass Fighters 5.149 4.450
%FM
Guard Fighters 3.961 3.171
LLs 0.700 0.495 1.046 −2.139 4.232 0.345
Pass Fighters 2.915 2.937
Guard Fighters 9.974 7.673
ULs 0.447 0.661 1.319 −4.974 7.612 0.220
Pass Fighters 8.655 4.536
FM
Guard Fighters 7.434 2.851
LLs 2.113 0.052 2.675 −0.024 5.373 1.041
Pass Fighters 4.759 2.363
Sports 2025, 13, 54 8 of 12

Table 3. Cont.

BC AS% Mean
Limbs BJJ Style SD t p Lower Upper ES
Variables Mean Difference
Guard Fighters 5.141 3.124
ULs 0.116 0.909 0.175 −3.045 3.396 0.057
Pass Fighters 5.084 2.734
FFM
Guard Fighters 4.771 3.163
LLs 1.307 0.211 1.744 −1.099 4.587 0.644
Pass Fighters 2.300 2.227
Guard Fighters 3.674 3.178
ULs −1.006 0.330 −1.583 −4.937 1.771 −0.496
Pass Fighters 5.257 3.203
BMC
Guard Fighters 3.108 2.452
LLs 0.328 0.748 0.558 −3.067 4.182 0.162
Pass Fighters 2.550 3.979
t: Student’s t-test value. p: statistical significance value. Difference: mean difference between groups. CI:
confidence interval for mean difference. ES: effect size expressed as Cohen’s d. Definitions: ULs: upper limbs.
LLs: lower limbs. TM: total mass. %FM: percentage of fat mass. FM: fat mass. FFM: fat-free mass. BMC: bone
mineral content.

Finally, BMC in the ULs showed a lower mean value in Guard Fighters (3.674%)
compared to Pass Fighters (5.257%), though the difference was not significant (p = 0.330),
with a moderate negative effect size (ES = −0.496). In the LLs, differences between both
styles were minimal (p = 0.748, ES = 0.162). In absolute terms, significant differences were
reported only in Pass Fighters for the ULs (0.260 kg vs. 0.247 kg; p < 0.001, ES = 1.916).

4. Discussion
This study is the first to explore the prevalence, magnitude, and direction of BC-AS in
BJJ athletes. To date, most studies have focused on analyzing asymmetries from a functional
perspective using bilateral or unilateral strength tasks. However, BC-AS has emerged as
an area of study that focuses on understanding the morphological impact of BJJ athlete
characteristics. Our main results showed significant differences between both limbs for
the ULs in TM, FFM, and BMC, with ES ranging from moderate to large (ES = 0.594 to
1.19). BC-AS could originate from the specific demands and unilateral movement patterns
inherent to BJJ, where athletes often use one side of the body more frequently to execute
grip, submission, and opponent control techniques.
The predominance towards the right side suggests functional laterality, possibly
related to hand dominance and specific BJJ techniques that favor one arm over the other.
This finding contrasts with those of other studies in similar sports. For example, Mala
et al. [24] observed less pronounced asymmetries in FFM in judokas than in sports that
emphasize unilateral limb use, such as fencing and karate, in which athletes showed
significant differences between dominant and non-dominant limbs in the arms (t = −4.24,
p < 0.01) and legs (t = −6.07, p < 0.01). Greater muscle and bone mass on the dominant side
could provide advantages in strength and endurance, but it is also proposed that they could
generate musculoskeletal imbalances, increase susceptibility to overuse or compensatory
injuries on the less developed side, and potentially influence sports performance, although
the results to date are inconclusive [17,25].
In the LLs, differences were not statistically significant in most parameters, except in
the TM, where the proportions of asymmetry favored the right side (OR = 7.56, p = 0.027).
The lower magnitude of asymmetries in the LLs could be due to BJJ techniques requiring
a more balanced involvement of both legs for movements, such as sweeps, leverages,
and displacements. Interestingly, although this study did not directly evaluate functional
asymmetries, research in similar sports, such as judo, has reported increases in asymmetries
after simulated combats. Kons et al. [10] analyzed the effects of successive judo combats on
Sports 2025, 13, 54 9 of 12

inter-limb asymmetries and bilateral deficit, finding that the magnitude of asymmetry in
unilateral countermovement jump height increased after the second combat (p = 0.001).
When considering fighting style, a tendency was observed in the FM of the LLs
between Guard Fighters and Pass Fighters (t = 2.113, p = 0.052, ES = 1.041). Guard Fighters
who prefer to fight from the guard position on the ground and extensively use their legs
to control and manipulate the opponent might develop greater asymmetries in the fat
mass and FFM of the LLs. These differences may be related to the technical and tactical
characteristics of each style. Báez et al. [1] observed that Guard Fighters presented a higher
percentage of fat mass compared to Pass Fighters, which aligns with our findings. However,
Pass Fighters tend to excel in isometric trunk extension endurance, which can be attributed
to the specific demands of their fighting style [2].
This highlights the potential differences in morphological terms between fighting
styles, which deserves further study. The limitations of this study include the sample size,
the absence of female participants, the varying levels of practice among the athletes in the
sample, and the lack of consideration of athlete laterality (dominance). These limitations
restrict the generalization of the results. Future studies should aim to increase the sample
size, include female athletes, and incorporate the assessment of laterality to provide a more
comprehensive understanding of asymmetries in sports performance.
Although our study focused on body composition asymmetries, we acknowledge
that other factors such as neuromuscular coordination, specific sport techniques, and
fatigue also play crucial roles in sports performance and the manifestation of asymmetries.
Moreover, while laterality was not directly evaluated in this study, it is a recognized factor
that can significantly influence the observed asymmetries. Dominance can affect strength,
coordination, and movement efficiency, thereby impacting both performance and injury
risk. Therefore, future research should include the evaluation of athlete laterality to better
understand its impact on asymmetries and overall performance.
Regardless of the above, coaches, strength professionals, and conditioning profession-
als should consider BC-AS when designing training programs. This includes incorporating
exercises that promote muscular and functional balance between both sides of the body.
The inclusion of unilateral training and specific strength exercises could help correct these
imbalances and improve performance [5,6]. Additionally, the regular monitoring of body
composition and asymmetries can serve as a tool for adjusting training and rehabilita-
tion programs. Ojeda-Aravena et al. [14] highlighted the importance of relating body
composition asymmetries to specific performances such as taekwondo, suggesting that
individualized assessments can contribute to the optimal development of athletes.
Several coaches emphasize the importance of specific training for increasing sports
performance, highlighting its role in metabolic and neuromuscular improvement. Hence,
specific training and the repetition of technical gestures and combat actions often create
bilateral deficits by working more on the dominant side. While specificity is crucial for
enhancing sports performance, it can also lead to more pronounced bilateral deficits,
characteristic of high-performance athletes.
In a study by Turnes et al. [26], it was concluded that bilateral symmetry was not
associated with better performance in a handgrip strength test carried out with a sample of
judokas. On the other hand, when athletes were categorized based on the years of training
experience specific to judo, those with the greatest lateral deficit were those who performed
more hours of specific training, suggesting that practice and training time may contribute
to the deficit. This finding was verified in both studies. However, this deficit should not
increase to a level that compromises the athlete’s sporting performance, injury risk, or
health, highlighting the importance of studying asymmetry in the upper and lower limbs.
Sports 2025, 13, 54 10 of 12

However, a systematic review on the relationship between asymmetry and injury risk
by Helme et al. [27] concluded that the evidence supporting the functional asymmetry of
the lower limbs as a risk factor for sports injuries was of moderate to low quality. Despite
evidence showing that some measures were statistically associated with injury risk in
different sporting populations, this field of research is still limited by a high degree of
variation in methodological approaches and quality. Researchers should be mindful of these
observations before implementing athletic interventions. From this review, it was identified
that more research is needed that adopts key recommendations specifically addressing
standardized injury definitions, the quantification of asymmetry, and the adoption of a
multivariate approach, encapsulating exposure among other variables, within a sample
of sufficient size. Without this investigation, no clear results are apparent for accepting or
rejecting upper or lower limb functional asymmetry as a risk to sports participation.
Consequently, the topic of BC-AS and its impact on performance, injury risk, and
fatigue holds significant potential for further study. This is based on their relevance to the
structural morphology and force production of different body limbs. Future research should
focus on analyzing the longitudinal effects of BC-AS through strength programs and/or
specific BJJ training. Additionally, the efficacy of training programs designed to reduce
asymmetries and their impact on performance and injury prevention should be investigated.
Furthermore, structural asymmetries could be related to functional measures such as
strength, power, and balance to better understand their influence on sports performance.
Importantly, future studies should also consider the laterality of athletes, as dominance can
significantly influence asymmetries. Including female athletes and athletes with different
skill levels would broaden the generalizability of the findings.

5. Conclusions
BJJ athletes exhibited significant asymmetries in body composition, especially in
the ULs, with a predominance towards the right side. Guard Fighters showed greater
asymmetries in the LLs, possibly because of the increased use of the legs in their fighting
style. These asymmetries appear to be influenced by the specific demands of the sport and
the fighting style.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.O.-A.; methodology, A.O.-A.; software, A.O.-A.; valida-

tion, A.O.-A., M.C.-B. and M.T.-R.; formal analysis, A.O.-A.; investigation, A.O.-A., R.L.K., J.A.-G.,
X.D.-C., A.F., M.T.-R. and M.C.-B.; resources, A.O.-A., R.L.K., J.A.-G. and X.D.-C.; data curation,
A.O.-A., R.L.K., J.A.-G. and X.D.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.O.-A.; writing—review
and editing A.O.-A., R.L.K., J.A.-G., X.D.-C., A.F., M.T.-R., J.O.-A., E.B.-S.M. and M.C.-B.; visualization
A.O.-A.; supervision, A.O.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: CODE: BIOPUCV-H 520-2022).

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement: Data may be requested from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Báez, E.; Franchini, E.; Ramírez-Campillo, R.; Cañas-Jamett, R.; Herrera, T.; Burgos-Jara, C.; Henríquez-Olguín, C. Anthropometric
Characteristics of Top-Class Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Athletes: Role of Fighting Style. Int. J. Morphol. 2014, 32, 1043–1050. [CrossRef]
2. Lima Kons, R.; da Silva Athayde, M.S.; da Silva Junior, J.N.; da Silva Tavares, W.; Detanico, D. Vertical Jump Performance in Judo and
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Athletes: An Approach with Different Training Levels. Ido Mov. Cult. J. Martial Arts Anthropol. 2017, 17, 25–31.
Sports 2025, 13, 54 11 of 12

3. Reale, R.; Burke, L.M.; Cox, G.R.; Slater, G. Body Composition of Elite Olympic Combat Sport Athletes. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2020, 20,
147–156. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Ojeda-Aravena, A.; Azocar-Gallardo, J.; Galle, F.; García-García, J.M. Relación Entre Las Características de La Composición
Corporal y El Rendimiento Físico General y Específico En Competidores de Taekwondo Chilenos de Nivel Nacional de Ambos
Sexos: Un Estudio Observacional. Rev. Esp. Nutr. Humana Dietética 2020, 24, 154–164. [CrossRef]
5. Afonso, J.; Peña, J.; Sá, M.; Virgile, A.; García-de-Alcaraz, A.; Bishop, C. Why Sports Should Embrace Bilateral Asymmetry: A
Narrative Review. Symmetry 2022, 14, 1993. [CrossRef]
6. Bishop, C.; Turner, A.; Read, P. Effects of Inter-Limb Asymmetries on Physical and Sports Performance: A Systematic Review. J.
Sports Sci. 2018, 36, 1135–1144. [CrossRef]
7. Kons, R.L.; Orssatto, L.B.D.R.; Sakugawa, R.L.; da Silva Junior, J.N.; Diefenthaeler, F.; Detanico, D. Effects of Stretch-Shortening
Cycle Fatigue Protocol on Lower Limb Asymmetry and Muscle Soreness in Judo Athletes. Sports Biomech. 2023, 22, 1079–1094.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Bishop, C.; Read, P.; Chavda, S.; Turner, A. Asymmetries of the Lower Limb: The Calculation Conundrum in Strength Training
and Conditioning. Strength Cond. J. 2016, 38, 27. [CrossRef]
9. Bishop, C.; Read, P.; Lake, J.; Chavda, S.; Turner, A. Interlimb Asymmetries: Understanding How to Calculate Differences from
Bilateral and Unilateral Tests. Strength Cond. J. 2018, 40, 1–6. [CrossRef]
10. Kons, R.L.; Pupo, J.D.; Gheller, R.G.; Costa, F.E.; Rodrigues, M.M.; Bishop, C.; Detanico, D. Effects of Successive Judo Matches on
Interlimb Asymmetry and Bilateral Deficit. Phys. Ther. Sport Off. J. Assoc. Chart. Physiother. Sports Med. 2021, 47, 15–22. [CrossRef]
11. Bell, D.R.; Sanfilippo, J.L.; Binkley, N.; Heiderscheit, B.C. Lean Mass Asymmetry Influences Force and Power Asymmetry during
Jumping in Collegiate Athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 884–891. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Chapelle, L.; Bishop, C.; Clarys, P.; D’Hondt, E. International vs. National Female Tennis Players: A Comparison of Upper and
Lower Extremity Functional Asymmetries. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 2021, 62, 944–952. [CrossRef]
13. Chapelle, L.; Rommers, N.; Clarys, P.; D’Hondt, E. Whole-Body Morphological Asymmetries in High-Level Female Tennis Players:
A Cross-sectional Study. J. Sports Sci. 2021, 39, 777–782. [CrossRef]
14. Ojeda-Aravena, A.; Warnier-Medina, A.; Brand, C.; Morales-Zúñiga, J.; Orellana-Lepe, G.; Zapata-Bastias, J.; Tuesta, M. Rela-
tionship between Body Composition Asymmetry and Specific Performance in Taekwondo Athletes: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Symmetry 2023, 15, 2087. [CrossRef]
15. Polletta, J.; Leung, K.; Diaz, D.; Branum, N.; Mokha, M. Influence of Interlimb Lean Muscle Mass Asymmetry on Coun-
termovement Jump Neuromuscular Performance Qualities Among American Football Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2024.
[CrossRef]
16. Sanchis-Moysi, J.; Dorado, C.; Vicente-Rodríguez, G.; Milutinovic, L.; Garces, G.L.; Calbet, J.A.L. Inter-Arm Asymmetry in Bone
Mineral Content and Bone Area in Postmenopausal Recreational Tennis Players. Maturitas 2004, 48, 289–298. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Vaillancourt, N.; Montpetit, C.; Carile, V.; Fortin, M. DEXA Body Composition Asymmetry Analysis and Association to Injury
Risk and Low Back Pain in University Soccer Players. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 559. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Bishop, C.; Lake, J.; Loturco, I.; Papadopoulos, K.; Turner, A.; Read, P. Interlimb Asymmetries: The Need for an Individual
Approach to Data Analysis. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 695–701. [CrossRef]
19. Loffing, F.; Deeken, O.; Schorer, J. Lateral Preference in Complex Combat Situations: Prevalence and Relationship with General
Measures of Hand and Foot Preference. Laterality 2024, 29, 37–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Ackland, T.R.; Lohman, T.G.; Sundgot-Borgen, J.; Maughan, R.J.; Meyer, N.L.; Stewart, A.D.; Müller, W. Current Status of Body
Composition Assessment in Sport: Review and Position Statement on Behalf of the Ad Hoc Research Working Group on Body
Composition Health and Performance, Under the Auspices of the I.O.C. Medical Commission. Sports Med. 2012, 42, 227–249.
[CrossRef]
21. Mertz, K.H.; Reitelseder, S.; Jensen, M.; Lindberg, J.; Hjulmand, M.; Schucany, A.; Binder Andersen, S.; Bechshoeft, R.L.; Jakobsen,
M.D.; Bieler, T.; et al. Influence of Between-Limb Asymmetry in Muscle Mass, Strength, and Power on Functional Capacity in
Healthy Older Adults. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2019, 29, 1901–1908. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Bishop, C.; Turner, A.N.; Gonzalo-Skok, O.; Read, P. Inter-Limb Asymmetry during Rehabilitation Understanding Formulas and
Monitoring the ”Magnitude” and “Direction”. Aspetar Sports Med. J. 2020, 9, 18–22.
23. Azócar-Gallardo, J.; Ojeda-Aravena, A.; Báez-San Martín, E.; Herrera-Valenzuela, T.; Tuesta, M.; González-Rojas, L.; Calvo-Rico,
B.; García-García, J.M. Effect of a Concurrent Training Program with and Without Metformin Treatment on Metabolic Markers
and Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Individuals with Insulin Resistance: A Retrospective Analysis. Biomolecules 2024, 14, 1470.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Mala, L.; Maly, T.; Cabell, L.; Cech, P.; Hank, M.; Coufalova, K.; Zahalka, F. Composición Corporal y Asimetría Morfológica de
Miembros En Competidores En Seis Artes Marciales. Int. J. Morphol. 2019, 37, 568–575. [CrossRef]
25. Cohen, T.R.; Rosenstein, B.; Rizk, A.; Frenette, S.; Fortin, M. Body Composition Asymmetry in University Rugby Players: Influence
of Sex, Position, and Injury. J. Sport Rehabil. 2023, 32, 385–394. [CrossRef]
Sports 2025, 13, 54 12 of 12

26. 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. [CrossRef]
27. Helme, M.; Tee, J.; Emmonds, S.; Low, C. Does Lower-Limb Asymmetry Increase Injury Risk in Sport? A Systematic Review. Phys.
Ther. Sport 2021, 49, 204–213. [CrossRef]

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.