Over the last few years, I’ve heard about training windows for youth athletes – that at certain points in time before, during, and after puberty, there are “optimal” windows to train fundamental athletic qualities. On the surface, this makes sense; as children go through physiological changes, their bodies may be more responsive to certain stimuli. By providing a given stimulus at the right time, you can maximize the adaptation and lay the foundation for a lifespan of improved fitness. So, what’s the problem?
Origination of the Theory
In 2004, Bayli and Hamilton authored the paper, “Long-Term Athlete Development: Trainability in Childhood and Adolescence, Window of Opportunity, Optimal Trainability.” This article appears to be the origination of the training windows theory. The authors lay out a six-stage model for children: 1. FUNdamental stage (ages 6-9) 2. The learning to train stage (ages 9-12); 3. The training to train stage (ages 12-16); 4. The training to compete stage (ages 16-18); 5. The training to win stage (18+); and 6. The retirement stage.
The authors do point out the age ranges are guides, especially after the onset of puberty, where chronological and biological age may differ. Also, different age ranges were provided for females.
During these stages, what windows do the authors outline?
1. “The first ‘window of accelerated adaptation to speed’ or ‘critical period of speed development’ will occur during this phase [FUNdamental stage], age 6-8 for girls and 7-9 for boys, respectively.” Based on that statement, I’d imagine there are some pretty conclusive empirical studies to support that this is the best time to train speed, right? Well, the authors do not cite any studies.
2. The next training window is the accelerated adaptation to motor coordination. The authors state, “If fundamental motor skill training is not developed between the ages of 8-11 and 9-12 respectively for females and males, a significant window of opportunity has been lost, compromising the ability of the young player/athlete to reach his/her full potential.” The implications of this statement are considerable. If children do not capitalize on this vital window, they will be limited athletically for the rest of their lives. Again, no empirical research is cited.
3. The next stage (ages 12-16 in males, 11-15 in females,) is where your aerobic and strength bases “must” be developed. Apparently, “athletes who miss this phase of training will not reach their full potential… The reason why so many athletes plateau during the later stage of their careers is primarily because of an over emphasis on competition instead of on training during this important period in their athletic development.” While I do partly agree with this statement, again, no empirical research is cited. That’s the main theme here. This article is rife with sweeping statements that pass a basic logic test, but, in fact, have little to no support in the literature.
What Has Subsequent Research Found?
In 2011, Ford et al. authored the paper, “The Long-Term Athlete Development Model: Physiological Evidence and Application.” This paper provides an in-depth critique of the LTAD model proposed in 2004. I highly recommend reading it to gain a greater understanding of the flaws with the aforementioned paper.
There are a few key points from the 2011 study I’d like to highlight.
1. “Graf et al. (2005) showed that a long-term school-based intervention can improve aspects of physical literacy among 6 to 9-year-olds, but a 6-year follow-up study demonstrated that a year-long intervention during childhood did not have long-lasting effects on overall physical literacy (Barnett et al., 2009).” This contradicts the “window of opportunity” that developing physical skills at a young age will result in greater retention and long-term development as children go through puberty.
2. The authors cite several studies that examine the effects of aerobic, anaerobic, strength, and power training in prepubescent and pubescent children. Research has shown that there are points where sensitivity to specific training have been observed. That sensitivity has largely been attributed to neurological and hormonal changes.
3. Just because you have a heightened sensitivity to develop a particular quality, peak development of that skill over the lifespan is not determined based on training during a theoretical window of opportunity.
Heightened sensitivity ≠ window of opportunity
4. Finally, “without supportive and objective data to help confirm/reject these ideas, inferring any optimal training recommendation for successful athletic pathways for young participants is perhaps unsuitable… Furthermore, the term “window” suggests that the periods open and close, when in fact they may open and remain so on to and throughout childhood.”
Research Challenges
Clearly, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the 2004 LTAD model. However, if we wanted to gather evidence to refute or support the model, how would we do it?
Answer: run several 10-15+ year longitudinal studies with large sample sizes and varied interventions. Each study would have to start with children around age 6 or 7, train different qualities during different windows, then follow their peak output of that quality throughout adolescence and into early adulthood. On top of that, you would have to run different permutations of each quality. This would be a seriously daunting task. Between study parameters, participant retention, ongoing funding, etc. I could not imagine the amount of coordination and discipline it would take to generate meaningful results.
Closing Remarks
Although research doesn’t support that training windows of opportunity exist during childhood and adolescence, it is important to train athletic qualities at early ages. Early exposure to tasks that require high force production in a varied environment will likely yield benefits down the road, both physiologically and neurologically.
While this is largely a critique of the 2004 LTAD model, I did not set out to criticize. I dove into this topic with the intent of learning how to apply training windows to baseball. I was surprised to discover that much of the current research refutes the model, and that the original model was not backed by empirical studies. I hope this post will push others revise the beliefs I very recently held.
References:
Balyi, I., & Hamilton, A. (2004). Long-term athlete development: trainability in childhood and adolescence windows of opportunity, optimal trainability. Psychology.
Ford, Paul & De Ste Croix, Mark & Lloyd, Rhodri & Meyers, Robert & Moosavi, Marjan & Oliver, Jon & Till, Kevin & Williams, Craig. (2011). The Long-Term Athlete Development model: Physiological evidence and application. Journal of sports sciences. 29. 389-402.
Comments
Post a Comment