After my posted articles on FasterSkier on “Junior Nationals” and “What’s the Hurry”, there was some anticipated discussion on my statements around over training, burn out, and the attrition rate in the sport. When I write, it is based on my experience, my research, and my opinion. I encourage and welcome the debate.
Over training and burnout in junior athletes is real
I think it is important to define the ways I view over training and the psychological and physiological impacts of over training. Following is one of many definitions of over training. “Overtraining is a chronic, maladaptive state in which the accumulated stress of training and life exceeds an athlete’s ability to recover, leading to a sustained decline in performance, persistent fatigue, and widespread physiological and psychological disruption that does not improve with normal rest.”
I only use tools that I have at my disposal to measure over training.
Psychological Disruption
- Persistent reports of fatigue not explained by acute load
- Loss of motivation training
- Irritability, mood volatility
- Poor sleep or wake up unrefreshed
- Increased RPE for normal sessions
Physiological Disruption
- Chronic, maladaptive state lasting one or more months, despite continued training.
- The athlete does not improve after 7–14 days of reduced load and rest
- Small tests: pace/power at aerobic threshold, submax HR response, repeatable intervals
- Look for:
- Higher HR at a given workload
- Lower power/pace at same RPE
- Flattened ability to hit high intensity
- Parasympathetic and Sympathetic branch of the Autonomic Nervous system are out of balance as assessed through HRV
- Rest alone often does not solve it, the system is dysregulated
In the last decade, I have coached several athletes whose training logs and in personal discussion revealed that they were chronically fatigued for several months, that their performance had plateaued or declined over the long term, and whose HRV testing revealed an HRV of a 70-year-old man. Over the following 2-3 months of controlled recovery and training, we saw the HRV return to an expected high range for young athletes. What that suggests was over training (or burn out). In a thorough review of their training, going too hard every day was the common denominator, all while trying to increase the volume of training. They had fallen victim to the typical practice of chasing hours to meet some arbitrary objective rather than learning how to train effectively.
As a coach, athlete, and program builder who’s spent a lifetime in this sport, I’ve had 40+ years to observe what works, what burns out talent, and what produces the kind of skiing that eventually is competitive internationally. In looking at the issue over the long term—and in my years at the US Ski Team, Stratton Mountain School, and the APU Nordic Ski Center—burnout appears to be a relatively common theme. The issue of burnout probably has many factors: time commitment, cost, lifestyle demands, etc. Right now, too many young skiers are being pushed into “high-performance” pathways, high volume, constant racing and travel that outpaces training age, and pressure to specialize before they’ve developed the capacity, the skills, or the joy that keep athletes in the sport long enough to realize their individual potential. That’s a compelling goal on paper: “prepare them for the next level” and fall into the long term development pathway. But when you look closely at the training, the incentives, and the results, the system begins to look like a short-term race to nowhere.
We talk endlessly about “development pipelines,” yet we’re still losing too many athletes by age 17-18, and far too many programs are built around chasing early results instead of building long-term potential. I feel it is time for a reset, one grounded in training age, physiology, and long-term athlete development, keeping athletes in the sport longer, rather than the stress and anxiety of reaching high level of performance to early.
In nations with deep endurance sport cultures—Norway, Sweden, Finland—you see the benefits of a different athlete-development philosophy: large focus on youth participation at the base, broad retention into the teenage years, and keeping athletes in the sport as long as possible. From this perspective, we develop healthy athletes and a solid sport that has the future potential of developing top skiers. That’s how developmental pathways work.
The biggest competitive advantage Norway has is not technique or wax, it’s retention. They simply have more 20-year-olds who have trained correctly for 8-10 years. Some reports suggest that there are more than 100,000 youth under the U18 age group skiing in Norway. That’s the real edge. As an example in Saturday’s 11/22 FIS race in Beitostoelen men’s race, there we 90 Norwegian skiers over the age of 23, and many in their early to mid 30’s. The makeup of the women’s race was similar. In the U.S., however, it seems our system selects skiers out at an early age to ensure that we always have a few who perform at the highest levels of the sport. We treat 14 and 15 year-olds like mini-elites when they’re still developing coordination, technical skills, and aerobic base. Meanwhile, the countries we’re trying to beat are putting many more kids on skis, keeping more of them engaged through U23’s, and waiting until later to identify who’s ready for high-performance training. If U16 and U18 programs are built around Junior Nationals performance, it has already failed.
