Training load: floor to ceiling

Recently, three simple concepts, of the ‘floor’, ‘ceiling’ and time have been described to safely progress athletes to peak performance.6 The floor represents the athlete’s current capacity; the ceiling represents the potential capacity to perform without injury. A challenge in most sporting environments is the time required to progress from the floor to the ceiling. If athletes’ training loads are progressed too rapidly, they will be at increased risk for injury and underperformance.7

Training load is recognised as an integral component of capacity, performance and injury.7 In fact, higher chronic training loads that have been systematically developed are associated with reduced injury risk and enhanced performance.7 While effective training can develop resilient athletes, it is important to recognise that training load is not the only factor that can contribute to good performance.8 Sleep and psychological stress also contribute to capacity and impact an individual’s ceiling. Although research relating to training youth athletes is scarce, well-established training principles offer practitioners the best evidence-based guide for progressing load to improve capacity and performance.

Adjustable healthy training of the specialised youth athlete

We propose a theoretical model of three types of youth athletes to consider when providing guidance on training load progressions (figure 1). Classifying the youth athlete may help to determine appropriate load progressions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1

Young specialised athlete training models. (A) Load tolerant. (B) Load naive. (C) Load sensitive.

1. Load-tolerant youth athletes are skeletally mature and/or have previously been exposed to higher, intense and specialised training loads (figure 1A). It is possible that an individual may train to a higher age-predicted optimum ceiling (capacity), be able to safely tolerate increasing loads and have performance benefits from this accumulation of training load even beyond the weekly training hours recommended for their age. Additionally, a minimum adjustable floor needs to be established as a baseline load, which allows an easier transition to competition loads, thereby reducing risk of overuse injuries. This transition in training load from floor to ceiling may be safely increased more rapidly in these individuals. Maintaining local tissue and sport-specific loading will minimise the risk of ‘spikes’ in load in an athlete who quickly resumes competition following off-season break.

2. Load-naive youth athletes are skeletally immature and/or have not been exposed to higher, intense and specialised training loads (figure 1B). To limit overuse injury risk, general recommendations may include limiting the total number of weekly training hours to not more than a child’s age.1 These vulnerable young athletes (who are often experiencing rapid growth) may consider smaller increases in load over time, or even temporarily lowering their ceiling to reduce injury risk until they approach skeletal maturity. In the setting of (non-serious) injury (eg, apophysitis), the ceiling and floor may be reduced rather than eliminated, to maintain some training load and avoid prolonged absences. As symptoms improve, load can be increased at a slow rate to a new ‘lowered ceiling’ (figure 1B).

3. Load-sensitive youth athletes (figure 1C) are either skeletally immature or skeletally mature and/or have experienced injury or recurrent injury related to training load progressions. After injury and temporary reduction in load, an appropriately slower staged load progression to return the athlete to their new lowered ceiling is then started. Once an athlete can sustain this new lowered ceiling without affecting performance or developing recurrent injury, then an attempt can be made to return to the previous ceiling. However, if this pattern of injury frequently recurs, there may be a relative intolerance to higher training loads and a recreational sports pathway may need to be considered.

Training load recommendations in the elite specialised young athlete should be adjustable through growth periods, times of injury (without cessation of training) and accommodate athletes with greater resilience. While single-sport specialisation may potentially carry greater overuse injury risk, future research should evaluate an individualised adjustable training model that allows a safe and appropriate accumulation of load to achieve elite level status.