Over the years, I have often been asked to review training programs for junior athletes. Most of the time, these requests come when an athlete is underperforming, showing signs of overtraining, or failing to make anticipated steps in competition. Unfortunately, these situations occur far more often than we might think.
In fact, I have reviewed at least a dozen similar cases in recent years, where athletes share the same training and performance profile: high motivation, heavy training loads, and stagnating results. What follows is one such example, based on my review of a U16 athlete’s training. While each athlete is unique, the themes are remarkably consistent.
Context and Background
The athlete in question was 15 years old during the period reviewed (May–August). Their maximum heart rate had been measured at 211 beats per minute. At this stage of development, the focus should have been on building a broad aerobic foundation, developing strength, fostering technical skill, and maintaining enjoyment of training.
Instead, the training program reflected a very different emphasis, while the training plans may have been well considered, the implementation of training may not be well observed or monitored. The result of the training was focused heavily on high-intensity efforts, with insufficient, almost nonexistent, volume of basic endurance training.
Training Planning Issues
The coach set training objectives, but absent was oversight to ensure workouts were properly designed or executed. As a result, the athlete accumulated an excessive load of hard sessions without the necessary balance of recovery and endurance work.
A two-week block revealed the following issues:
- Too many intensity sessions: Five hard workouts in a two-week period is simply too much for a U16 athlete.
- Excessive workout loads: Sessions such as 3 × 5 km at race pace and 6 × 6-minute uphill bounding were far too demanding for this age and stage.
- Inadequate between strength sessions: Scheduling strength training on both Saturday and Monday left inadequate recovery time between sessions.
- Lack of aerobic base work: Even during a designated “intensity week,” there was little true endurance training. Hikes and other aerobic sessions, given the terrain and execution, often turned into very high intensity efforts.
The result was a program tilted almost entirely toward high-intensity stress, with virtually no low-intensity base training to support adaptation.
Training Implementation Problems
The implementation data confirmed these concerns. In endurance sessions, the athlete routinely sustained heart rates in the range of 183–190 bpm (86–90% of max HR) for 60- and 30-minute time frame. When we assessed the high intensity sessions and races the sustained heart rates for example in a five-kilometer race or time trial, or specific interval session closely matched the heart rates in this chart for similar durations. So, in a five-minute interval we would see 190-195 heart rate and the same as we see within the typical endurance training session as shown in the chart. In the following chart the training zones are not set correctly. The chart is provided to illustrate the time duration heart rates.
In other words, the athlete’s so-called “endurance training” was performed at the same intensity as their racing efforts. Nearly every training session pushed them toward maximal values, leaving no room for proper endurance training and effective adaptation or recovery.
This is a common pattern among juniors without a strong aerobic background: everything is done too hard, which undermines aerobic development.
Establishing Proper Training Zones
To better illustrate, I established training zones for this athlete using their maximum HR of 211. The following training zones I assigned demonstrate the mismatch between intended training and actual execution:
The data showed that the athlete completed nearly all endurance sessions at L3–L4 intensities or higher, rather than in L1 where most of their development should have occurred.
Key Takeaways
- Too Much Intensity: U16 athletes cannot handle frequent race-pace or VO2max training without compromising recovery and long-term development. No more than 1-2 high intensity sessions per week.
- Insufficient Aerobic Base: Basic endurance work is the most important training at this stage, yet it was almost entirely absent.
- Lack of Monitoring: Setting training zone “objectives” is meaningless without proper monitoring and feedback to ensure sessions are executed correctly.
- Mismatch of Effort and Purpose: Endurance training performed at race intensities blurs the line between training and racing, preventing the athlete from ever truly building aerobic fitness.
Conclusion
In my experience this case is not an isolated incident, it reflects a broader challenge in junior endurance training. Left to their own devices most young athletes train too hard due to insufficient aerobic development. They simply bypass the low intensity, aerobic zone. Even if the training plans suggest proper training objectives the individual implementation may match the intent of the workout. As coaches, we should monitor what the athletes actually did for training to match it against the intent and desired adaptation from the training. The coaches role is to create a foundation for long-term development by prioritizing learning how to training effectively, skill development, aerobic development, and the proper balance of training stimulus.
Jim Galanes
Coach, competitor, correspondent, commentator—Jim Galanes has spent a lifetime on cross country skis, always serving as a keen observer of our sport. A three-time Olympian in both Cross-Country and Nordic Combined, Jim has tested the theories, initiated the instruction, assessed the results. Now, FasterSkier is thrilled to announce that Jim joins our staff of writers and contributors, adding his unique and time-tested insights to the editorial offerings of this publication.
