Developing Young Athletes: What’s the Hurry?

This article was made possible through the generous support of our voluntary subscribers.  If you want more coverage like this, please support FasterSkier with a voluntary subscription.  

In many endurance sports in the U.S.—including cross-country skiing—there seems to be a desire to identify standout U16 athletes as future stars. USSS, team programs, and coaches often respond by elevating their competition opportunities and increasing their training beyond what their physiological development can realistically support. In my early years as a coach, I certainly fell into this thought-trap.

What’s missing from this approach is a fundamental reality: in my 35 years of coaching in the U.S., the sporting landscape is littered with once-promising 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old athletes who burned out or failed to progress due to premature overexposure and pressure. In my coaching experience from Vermont to Alaska, and finally in Colorado, it seems to be the same.  We also need to consider that, at least here in Colorado, we are seeing a big drop in USSS Junior National Qualifier race participation. I wonder if this could be because others are seeing the same thing.

Call it burnout, overtraining, excessive expectations, or premature specialization; the pattern is clear. These athletes rarely go on to outperform their age-group peers at the national level, much less the international level, as mature athletes.

Recently, my social media feed has been full of discussions on why countries like Norway—despite a small population—dominate international sports. Common explanations include snow availability, an abundance of ski trails, and a strong skiing culture. Yet these don’t explain Norway’s dominance in non-ski sports such as track and field, cycling, triathlon, and soccer.

What Norway does have is a national system grounded in clear, developmentally appropriate guidelines. Clubs follow a consistent, proven pathway that avoids emphasizing performance at young ages. In skiing, athletes aren’t allowed to “ski up” in age categories. International race opportunities are strictly age restricted. Unlike in the U.S., 15-year-olds aren’t registered for FIS races in Norway, Sweden, Finland, or most other European countries. Why? Because these nations recognize that pushing performance too early is not developmentally sound and getting FIS points at a young age is irrelevant.

Yet in the U.S., I’ve seen repeated efforts by coaches and parents to promote young athletes to older age groups under the justification that “they’re good enough” or they might make Junior Nationals. More often than not, this approach backfires sooner or later.

For example, a U.S. coach was praised in the local press for having the top-ranked skier in the world (by FIS points) for the athlete’s birth year—just 15 years old at the time. In reality there were only a couple of 15-year-olds in the FIS system. This can create unnecessary hype and pressure. It also wasn’t true in context. Most skiing nations don’t encourage FIS licenses for  U16 athletes, so the rankings is misleading.

The Scandinavian Model: Patience and Progress

Scandinavian countries don’t emphasize results at U16 or younger levels. Instead, they focus on:

• Enjoyment of the sport
• Skill development
• Psychological growth
• Learning how to train and race
• Long-term progression

In some regions or division in the U.S.  JNQ races, U16, U18, and U20 women all competed in a seeded individual start. Sometimes U16 athletes do very well compared to the older age groups. That’s a remarkable accomplishment in the moment—but is it ideal long-term? To me it sets unrealistic comparisons, not to mention perhaps too long a distance of their races.

Older athletes in that race were once top performers at the same age, but they’ve since experienced puberty, physical changes, injury, mental fatigue, and life stress. Pitting them all together in one field may expose young athletes to unrealistic benchmarks and unhealthy expectations.

The common defense is, “It’s good exposure” or “It’s still age-ranked.” But the question remains: Where is the developmental benefit? In my opinion, that conversation is long overdue.

The Consequences of Rushing Performance

Here are just a few concerns:

1. Early success doesn’t predict long-term performance.
   Many early standouts are later surpassed by peers who develop more gradually.
2. Training loads often exceed what’s appropriate.
   Competing against older athletes drives younger ones to train more than their growing bodies and training background can handle.
3. Success creates pressure to sustain it.
   Athletes and coaches ramp up intensity and volume to “keep up,” which can lead to fatigue and stagnation.
4. There is no scientific basis for high-volume training at a young age.
   On the contrary, early overtraining may limit future physiological potential.

Even if you disagree with the details I have shared, most coaches will agree on this: keeping athletes in the sport in a sustainable way is key. Many promising athletes burn out in high school and never make it to collegiate skiing. Some peak at 15, only then to fade out by 18.

At a recent U.S. National Mountain Bike Championships, I listened to two 14-year-olds:

• “I’ve been training 17 hours a week for the past three weeks, and now I’m dead—I can’t race.”
• “I did 25 hours a week for two months and now I’m too tired to perform.”

This mindset—more is better—is widespread. Coaches and athletes often overlook whether the training is appropriate for the athlete’s development. In these cases, both could have improved with far less training. Before I get labeled as old school or overly concerned, lets just say increasing the training load over years is necessary and at an elite level a very high training load is necessary. But that all comes over years.

A Smarter, Slower Path

Yes, athletes need to train hard, race, and learn the mechanics of their sport. But that must be done within the context of:

• What’s developmentally appropriate
• What the athlete can emotionally and physically handle
• What aligns with long-term athletic progression

Theories like the 10,000-hour rule and “10-year development” are just that—theories, not science. What we know is that real development takes time: years of skill-building, strength training, endurance work, and competition. The best systems minimize setbacks, avoid burnout, and foster improvement year over year.

Conclusion

We need a clearer national direction:

• Age-appropriate development standards
• Balanced training volumes with the level of development of the athlete
• Long-term thinking about athletic success

From my experience, most athletes need to be held back, not pushed forward. The goal is not immediate success, but sustained development. That’s how we build athletes who thrive—not just at 15, but at 20 and 25 and beyond.