PATHWAYS INTO HIGH PERFORMANCE SPORT

There are three typical avenues taken by athletes into high performance sport:

1. A systematic, regulated pathway (the ideal) whereby the athlete avoids the aforementioned traps of
over-specialization or over-training, by design.

2. A random, unregulated pathway, characterized by athletes who succeed in high performance sport –
but get there haphazardly without a formally driven route.

3. An early specialized, regulated pathway. This occurs when athletes are pushed into early
specialization as a consequence of a result-focused coaching agenda, which overdevelops specific
abilities early on in an athlete’s career. This is often also driven by parents living vicariously through their
children, or pushing them into early success for the sake of collegiate scholarship potential, for example.

Note – There is really no such thing as an early specialized, unregulated pathway. You can’t be early
specialized unless it’s regulated by someone. Typically, someone is driving this.

1. THE SYSTEMATIC, REGULATED PATHWAY

Most highly successful athletes go through this pathway, and it is commonplace in developed countries
(GB, Germany and the like). A formal athlete pathway is characterized by a systematic, logical, and
progressive application of training loads – from general to specific. Importantly, the application of
specialized workloads is gradually introduced at the appropriate stage in an athlete’s career so as not to
interfere with the development of the core abilities of technique, speed, and basic strength.

While the finer details of the pathway may vary from country to country, the merit of having a pathway
(whatever form that takes) is in recognizing the need to avoid specialization too early. Remember
however, this pathway is of course sport specific. For example, early entry sports such as gymnastics or
diving require certain abilities – such as extreme flexibility – to be developed in a specific fashion at
an early age.

Athletes developed within a common-sense pathway typically enter high performance training with all
motor abilities ready to be fully exploited via the introduction of progressive, specialized loading. There
are no delays to progress due to rehabilitation from injury. This means the high performance coach does
not have to “play catch up” in terms of preparing the athlete for specialized loads by first teaching
correct movement patterns, or developing joint stability, for example. As Klaus Bartoneitz rightly
explained – “health is the highest rated value in human life. A long-term training plan can only be
considered effective when it also conserves an athlete’s health. Good training methods prevent injuries
and this should be a major goal for both athlete and coach.”

From a qualitative viewpoint, loads are designed spanning from a broad, multi-directional application, to
relatively focused, unilateral, singularly directional loads. This ensures that there is a wide movement
experience and balance in terms of musculoskeletal development.

Quantitatively speaking, is a systematic blend of speed, technique, and strength development. Basic
speed abilities such as frequency, acceleration, and technique are developed with paramount
importance. Strength development modalities are applied to create a base for future intensive strength
loads, while at the same time preserving natural speed and explosive abilities.
A formal athlete pathway is characterized by a systematic, logical and progressive application of training
loads, from non-specialized & multi-directional to specialized & singularly directional.

2. RANDOM, CHAOTIC PATHWAY

Many successful athletes go through a random development ‘pathway’, often due to the fact there are
no specific regulated pathways in place where they grew up. These performers are usually highly
talented, and have a multi-sport background, giving them diverse movement and sport experiences. This
pathway is also characterized by a random (possibly disorganized), multilateral development of abilities
due to this mixed participation, which naturally holds back the application of a singularly directional
loads.

While not necessarily ideal, this is preferable to the early specialization pathway below. However, the
main drawback of this course of development is that some key abilities (namely technique, possibly
speed) may be developmentally retarded, leading to a compromise in the ultimate realization of these
abilities. While some elite coaches are able to overcome this drawback due to an athlete’s exceptional
athletic proficiency, it is not optimal. On the plus side however, athletes often enter into this phase with
little or no injury history due to the multilateral, albeit haphazard nature of their athletic development;
in addition to the lack of premature intensification. A lot of time with this type of athlete, they only get
‘intensive’ in terms of load when they compete – creating an almost naturally polarized training
phenomenon.
Many successful athletes go through a random development ‘pathway’, often due to the fact there are
no specific regulated pathways in place where whey they grew up.

3. EARLY SPECIALIZED, REGULATED PATHWAY

Very few athletes who achieve long term success in high performance sport go through this pathway,
and of those who do very few achieve long term high performance success. When success is achieved it
is usually in an athletes’ early 20s. Typically a wake of injured athletes are left behind from the few that
make it out of these systems.

This pathway is typically characterized by the early introduction of singularly directional, specialized
workloads (typically maximal strength, specific strength and / or speed endurance qualities) at a point in
an athlete’s development when they are not fully able to handle the stress and intensification that
comes with such exposure. While it is true that some athletes are able to physically tolerate such
loading, they typically enter the high performance environment with over-developed specific abilities,
and therefore have little room for further progression by the elite coach. These programs often produce
early successful results (even possibly into the early phases of HP training) but they are also
characterized by high injury rates, and early departure from high performance sport.

Qualitatively, these programs over-employ movement patterns that exploit prime mover development
before the integrity of stabilizing musculature can be established. They also tend to target energy
system development at the expense of the progression of motor and speed abilities. Quantitatively,
these programs introduce too high a workload in a particular direction (event or sport) to the exclusion
of other activities and sports; or a biomotor focus that is misguided in terms of base development for
future success.

As an example, in Canada over the past couple of decades in the long sprint and middle distance events,
most of the national record holders and high level performers (World Championship or Olympic Games
finalists and medalists) came from sprint / jump backgrounds, developed with little intention (at least at
an early age) of becoming sprint-endurance athletes. It was not until later in their careers (many of them
post-junior) that they began to focus on any endurance related training. A strong argument can be made
that this provided them the speed / power ‘base’ needed for the velocity requirements of international
400m / 800m racing. Because these athletes were developed outside of the traditional endurance
development ‘domain’, they were preparing for high performance sprint-endurance / middle-endurance
work without even knowing it. This contrasts with the early ‘targeted future talents’ of their era who
never fully materialized – likely because of too much exposure to specialized loads too early, and an
absence of basic speed and power development.

Key point: Going too far the other way, we can become afraid to coach athletes. Early adolescence kids
can tolerate a lot of activity if it’s not specialized, and the sum total of their activities provide a wide
exposure to movement experiences (i.e. multi-sport development). Similar to the minimum versus
maximum effective dose debate – there is a balance. Children don’t need to be wrapped in cotton wool,
but they also should not be sent down a uni-dimensional performance production line.
Early specialized pathways tend to introduce too high a workload in a particular direction (event or
sport) – to the exclusion of other activities and sports.

AGE, SPORT ENTRY, & SPECIALIZATION

As we’ve explained, exploitation of the specific abilities required for high level participation, at too early
an age compromises an athlete’s ability to realize their full potential. Conversely, too late development
or specialization can also compromise an athlete’s long term success, because the windows of
opportunity for peak development of specific abilities has been shortened or passed. So, in effect, all
physical abilities have an “expiration date” beyond which optimal development is impeded. Of course,
there are examples of outliers that go counter to this example, but this is the norm.

For example, the graph below shows the global evolution of the best performances in the women’s
100m. It highlights that peak performance generally occurs in an athlete’s mid-twenties (minimum 20
and maximum 36 years old). Of course, there are some early and some late starters, but only a few
sprinters have performances registered before 15 years of age. As juniors (18-19 year olds), some
athletes were already running sub 11 seconds while some others were yet to break 12 seconds.
Global evolution of 50 best women’s performances. The red line is the median performance.

So, proper development coaching should be seen in the context of athlete preparation as well as
athlete performance. While good results as a youth athlete may indicate a certain level of coaching
competency in the developmental coaching ranks, the truly successful development coach can not only
produce results, but also produce appropriately developed athletes who are fully prepared to enter into
the world of high performance training.

On average it takes 10 years of specialized training for a high performance athlete to reach their
maximal potential for peak performance. (Keeping in mind that looking at the example of all time fastest
female 100m sprinters above, the personal best was set in a range of 3 to 22 years after the first
registered performance). The length of this period can be optimized or shortened by proper or
inadequate early development, so the timing of this period is critical. Ideally this period should begin 10
years prior to the optimal age of peak performance for a given sport.

If an athlete enters into this specialized training period too early or underdeveloped, then their ability to
fully exploit the specific abilities necessary for high level performance is compromised. If an athlete
enters into this period too late, then their preparation period is shortened which can also compromise
the development of these specific abilities.

AVERAGE AGE FOR OLYMPIC GAMES PARTICIPATION

The following three graphics show the average (median) age for Olympic participation in all sports to be
25 years of age. Remember this is the average; certain early entry sports such as gymnastics and diving
require specialization at an early age due to the morphological and physiological demands of the sport
(e.g. flexibility, balance and power to body mass ratios). Conversely, late entry sports require a
postponed exploitation of specific abilities in order to allow these to maturate (e.g. Endurance, speed
endurance and maximal strength sports).

Median age of 2016 Olympians in various sports.

2016 Olympians – median age for men and women.

Mean age (min – max) for specific sports and event groups.
This graph shows the average medalist age of Olympians. In the first official modern Olympiad in 1896,
the average age for athletes was 23 years of age. This increased to 25+ years of age in 2012. Image
credits: Ryan McCready.

In the first few Olympiads, the average age for Track & Field athletes hovered around 22 to 23. Since
then, it has been on an upward incline, peaking at 27 in 2000 and finally settling at age 26.5 in 2012. This
data only includes medalists. Credits: Ryan McCready.
Trending average age for medalists in event groups. Note: The odd bumps you are seeing in the years
between 1912 – 1920 and 1936 – 1948 are because there were no Olympics during the World Wars.
Credits: Ryan McCready.

If you are interested in the exact average ages for each type of event group, these can be seen below:
Average age of Track & Field Athletes. Credits: Ryan McCready.

YOUTH SUCCESS & SPORT AGE CATEGORIES

Success at youth level is not necessarily a predictor of future success as an adult. Rather, the potential of
young athletes can be predicted less by the initial level of performance, than from the rate of
improvement of biomotor abilities they show (Siris, 1974). In fact, absolute results at a young age are
less a predictor of high performance success than the rate of improvement during adolescent phases.
Then after puberty things become clearer – as progression stabilizes and the playing field is leveled. For
early developers who enjoy consistent success over their peers, when others ‘catch up’ it can be a
difficult time of adjustment – and these athletes can become disenfranchised.

Sport age categories are based on year of birth of the participants, and this accounts for much of the
above explained variance. This “chronological age”, (the age calculation from their date of birth and the
date of the participation of the competition) categorization sees athletes with varying biological
maturation rates competing together. Therefore, a truer indicator of the evaluation of the progress of
motor abilities comes less from chronological age than biological age.
Although measures of biological age are mostly subjective, objective assessment or measurements are
possible through medical exams like skeletal age, peak height velocity, age at menarche, and secondary
sex characteristics. Athletes with a  younger biological age are largely later-developing performers, while
early maturing athletes tend to be less represented as the level of performance increases.

Furthermore, the time spent in sport training is super-imposed on this maturity status. This is called the
‘training age’, i.e. the number of years the athlete has trained. It doesn’t specify the training load, nor
the specificity of the workouts; but it is understood that early maturing athletes with a high training age
generally reach their lifetime best performance earlier.

More generally, as we discussed in the Physiology module, physical abilities don’t have a consistent rate
of progression across all individuals. Males, in particular do not share an exponential or linear
progression of biomotor abilities during maturation. Training plan content should therefore take into
account trends for the general population, as well as to what extent a given athlete is matching these
trends.

All the while, we should keep in mind that the best athletes – as a result of their training and trainability
– may develop these abilities later; reach their best results later; and maintain a high level of
performance while the general population will encounter a decline. Essentially – don’t rule out late
developers!

WINDOWS OF OPPORTUNITY

The examples below are taken from Guzalocvksy. They outline optimal windows of opportunity for
training specific abilities, alongside when these qualities improve naturally biologically. These are lined
up with age groups to reveal optimal windows of training.

This graphic outlines when various biomotor abilities should be introduced, and when they should take
precedent (although of course, all qualities should be considered and one should never be focused on to
the detriment of another). Static endurance in this case refers to isometric endurance, while strength
refers to absolute strength.

IDEAL: OPTIMAL DEVELOPMENT

The graphic below shows the windows of opportunity for late entry sports. Each box refers to a period
of approximately 10 years (although this can vary per athlete, and can shift left or right in terms of age
depending on the sport). When this methodology is applied properly you get a fully exploited envelope.
Early specialization shortens the window because the 10-year window is pushed left. The athlete then
usually burns out in mid 20s. If the scenario below is followed, the athlete is likely to be optimally
developed and prepared for HP training, and injuries will be less prevalent.

Optimal development of training.

EARLY SPECIALIZATION

In this scenario, the indicated early exploitation of key motor abilities leaves a smaller window for
development before the likely arrival of burn out or injury.

Early specialization of training progressions.

LATE SPECIALIZATION

If anything, late specialization is a “better mistake” than early specialization, as it allows athletes enter
the high performance window prior to burn out. However, it reveals less time for high performance
preparation, meaning athletes can be fragile to specific workloads, even though the envelope for
specific work is larger.

Coaches who find themselves in this situation- and are successful – usually have a lot of experience
dealing with athletes who display retarded motor development and injury histories. They are very
competent at creating individualized approaches to development, and are extremely patient as ‘recipe’
and group programming strategies seldom work with these athletes. They are very, very careful with the
dosing of workloads for these athletes.
Late specialization of training progressions.

DESIGNING APPROPRIATE PROGRESSIONS IN PREPARATION FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE TRAINING

Now we’ve explored what happens when training progressions are inappropriate, we will now outline
how to design appropriate progressions.

The first step in building progressions is understanding where the “finish line” is for your athletes. In this
case it means what types of formal, specialized training will they be subject to when they enter HP
training in their sport?

For the developmental coach, understanding specific examples of what they are training their athletes
to tolerate is important. For example, throwers entering specialized training are likely to perform high
levels of maximal strength training. The development coach must therefore design progressions that
prepare an athlete for this type of training, with limited exposure to such training.

Sprints serve as another example: For developing athletes, rather than performing specialized, special
endurance workloads, these athletes should focus on developing acceleration, max velocity and sound
mechanics. These are the things which will prepare an athlete for HP training. Highly intensive forms of
work such as specific, special and speed endurance are far less effective without speed – for if you don’t
have speed, what exactly are you enduring?

Progressions should also be organized in coherence with the age group technical specifications and the
competition demands of the sport. For example, in the throwing events there are an international set of
implement measures and standards that grow in size and mass as the athletes get older. In most
countries such specifications are designed around development, and are put in place to protect athletes.
Distances in sprints are the same, whereby youths run 300m instead of 400m. Hurdle heights and
numbers progress in a similar fashion. These enforced guidelines exist to prevent coaches exploiting
specific qualities at too young an age.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE DETAILS?

Less important are the exact details of the work being performed at each stage of development, but
rather the existence of the progression itself. We see different details at each level across the globe in
successful programs, but the point is the more effective programs are progressive.

In this module we have chosen to focus less on specific details, and more on principles.
We are not trying to dictate precise prescriptions; rather educate coaches on the principles that form
the basis for effective development programming. You need to be able to develop your own programs
based upon solid and sound principles, with enough latitude to accommodate early and late maturers.