Training: Is Continual Improvement Possible?

This article was made possible through the generous support of our voluntary subscribers.  If you would like to see more articles like this one, please support FasterSkier with a voluntary subscription.  

Over the past three decades of coaching—monitoring dozens of athletes and using tools like Firstbeat analytics to track training load and recovery—I’ve developed my training theory that I call “continual improvement.” Some exercise physiologists, sport scientists, and coaches question whether this is even possible. Others are intrigued by the concept. I always encourage people to step back and really consider the training process; if the training load is appropriate, and skill development is in line with the athlete’s current capacity, shouldn’t we expect measurable, consistent improvement? If not, how long should we wait for improvement to appear.

There are many training theories out there, but few are supported by peer-reviewed evidence or extensive field experience. Early in my career, I followed many of those traditional models. Eventually, through trial, error, and study I learned they simply didn’t work in a positive and predictable manner. We must remember many of those periodized models that came from systems with widespread doping. Recovery and adaptation weren’t natural; they were pharmaceutically enhanced recovery and adaptation to training. These old models promoted, building volume and/or intensity week after week, month after month, with occasional recovery weeks, followed by a magic taper before competition. These load patterns rarely work in isolation, at least not without assuring recovery and adaptation occur prior to increasing training loads.  Often no improvement occurs because the athlete is in a chronically suppressed state from training stress and absence of recovery. Without ongoing adaptation and recovery, you’re not building fitness; you’re digging a hole.

The best model for each athlete is an individual program’s training loads that are known to be well tolerated and systematically developed from that point. That means we assess the loads, the dose and density of endurance and high intensity workouts, and build from that point. Consistency without setbacks is the key: doing enough to improve fitness, and not more.

Improvement in fitness and performance should be observable within a specific phase, over a week, ten days, two weeks, or a three-week cycle. Day-to-day performance will naturally vary, but the overall trend should be upward. The training data should show it.

This idea of continual improvement is especially true for junior athletes. Their natural growth, building muscle, maturing, and developing neuromuscular coordination, already contributes to improvement. When appropriate training is layered on top of that, performance should consistently progress. If you’re seeing flat or declining performance in a young athlete over a  few weeks or a month  of training, something is off. It’s a strong indicator that the balance between training load, recovery, and adaptation is broken.

Some people claim I don’t believe in hard training or high volumes, or that I think you can “rest your way” to better performance. Full stop: that’s simply not true. Continual improvement requires doing enough, right now, to stimulate adaptation. And as fitness improves, the training load needs to increase, systematically, to continue improving. Yes, high-level athletes will need large volumes and high intensities to reach their goals. But there is no set number of hours that defines success. We can’t rely on charts or someone else’s model to determine how much training a given athlete needs at a certain age.

This obsession with “X hours per year” misses the point. One hour of high-quality, well-targeted training can do more than several hours of junk.  By junk I mean training that is not implemented with purpose and to derive a specific adaptation. What matters most is how your training is implemented, controlling the proper intensity and recovery. As I’ve said in my prior piece on HRV, the key is balance: between stress and recovery, load and adaptation. Top athletes train a lot, yet performance isn’t caused by the volume alone. It’s caused by adaptation to training over time.

Make no mistake: over a span of 6 to 10 years, athletes will need to accumulate a lot of training. But the driver of performance isn’t the hours it’s the ongoing process of load, recovery, and improved physiological function. Too much, and you risk overtraining with no gain. Too little, and you lose fitness.

Stress and Recovery

Training is built on two pillars: stress and recovery. Recovery is what leads to adaptation. Using Firstbeat HRV data, we can see how training suppresses the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) and activates the sympathetic (SNS). Recovery flips that equation—PNS activity increases, SNS withdraws. With basic HR monitoring, we can see how the body responds to training and make better decisions.

Training stress and recovery should lead to improved physiological function over short cycles. Ideally, you want to stress the system, recover within a few days, and then hit a new level of performance. If an athlete stays fatigued for too long, you start losing the benefit of that training. The clearest example is junior athletes who do a massive high-intensity workout or long session at a camp that far exceeds what they’re ready for. Recovery drags on, and they gain very little. The load was too much, the adaptation too slow, and the opportunity lost.

Every training period should leave the athlete fitter, stronger, and better prepared. In my experience, if you don’t see measurable improvement in 2–3 weeks, something’s wrong. Recovery, adaptation, and performance should always be rising. If they’re not, increasing load won’t help—it will only lead to overtraining.

Overtraining

Let me be clear on how I define overtraining: it’s when the training load exceeds the athlete’s ability to recover and adapt. Whether or not clinical markers are present, if performance is flat or declining, the athlete is not adapting. That’s overtraining. The label doesn’t matter; the outcome does.

Some question my use of the term “overtraining” because it lacks a strict clinical diagnosis. But in practical terms, it’s easy to see. With HRV, the maladaptive patterns are obvious. And in my experience, over the last 20+ years, most athletes I’ve coached or monitored have shown signs of chronic overtraining. In nearly every case, recovery, correct training, and a gradual rebuild of intensity in time restored their performance.

We should approach training with the mindset that we are always building, always aiming for our next best. Each session, each week, should nudge us forward. Even the hardest workouts should be followed by recovery and a higher level of performance. Ideally, we’re never more than a week or ten days away from our current best level. From there, we build toward our major competitive goals.

Key Takeaways

1. Train only enough to stimulate improvement.
2. Keep load, stress, and recovery in balance.
3. Increase weekly loads only after measurable adaptation.
4. Progressively increase both session duration and high-intensity load.
5. Overtraining is real—especially from too much intensity or volume without adequate preparation.
6. You should see measurable improvement in fitness and performance every 2–3 weeks, at minimum.