Review of the

Literature

How are
considerations for
strength and
conditioning affected
by Peak Height
Velocity? A Review of
Youth Athlete
Development Models
Brett Kaplan
0406 436 944
10 Clyde Street, North Bondi, NSW
BLUF

While all youth athletic development models highlighted have flaws, only some recommend
strength and conditioning practices for athletes surrounding Peak Height Velocity (PHV). It
is recommended that coaches are careful in training athletes around this time.

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate how models of youth athletic development provide
training considerations and exercise prescriptions for athletes around the period of PHV.
PubMed, Google Scholar, Lippincott Williams and Wilson, Springer, MDP, Sage
Publications, and Taylor and Francis were used to research articles regarding youth athletic
development during adolescence and specifically, peak height velocity. 5 models of youth
athletic development were then described and evaluated based on their relevance to training
during PHV, as well as other features of the models. The results found that the models all
have various limitations, with only some specifically describing exercise and training
prescriptions around PHV. The ‘Conclusion and Practical Applications’ section then provides
recommendations for future models of youth athlete development, highlighting concepts like
'windows of opportunity' that may need revision. In addition, this section describes the need
for more specific strength and conditioning practices for athletes around the age of PHV,
detailing exercise prescriptions for these athletes. This section also emphasises that coaches
must be judicious in training athletes around the age of PHV.

Keywords: peak height velocity, models, youth athlete development, long term
athletic development, youth physical development.

INTRODUCTION
Growth spurts in teenagers concurrently happen with the development of secondary sexual
characteristics. The time at which this rapid growth spurt occurs is called Peak Height
Velocity (1). It generally occurs from 13-15 in boys, and 11-12 in girls (2). During this
period, there is also an increase in muscle mass (3), and a temporary decrease in bone mineral
density (4). Furthermore, Peak height velocity, specifically predicted age at peak height
velocity (APHV) has been shown to optimize the process of talent identification. For
example, early maturing boys tend to experience a more intense growth spurt during
adolescence, resulting in greater pubertal gains in height weight, and lean mass (1). This
would afford them greater athletic advantages compared to their later-maturing peers,
especially at around the years of 11-14, where differences in maturity are most noticeable (5).

Despite the maturity effects of PHV, there may be some decrements in certain aspects of
performance around PHV ‘adolescent awkwardness’, and a decrease in movement skills.
Some evidence suggests that during this period, the rapid increase in physical size was
accompanied by changes in how the brain processes body positioning (6). The literature
surrounding this subject has argued that decrements in coordination during PHV decrease
motor and functional performances (7), a need to relearn motor skills (8), and an increased
potential risk of injury, particularly in female athletes (9). It is worth noting though that not
all individuals experience these decrements. A number of training models and methodologies
such as the Long Term Athletic Development (LTAD) model (10) , and the Youth Physical
Development (YPD) (11) model have been developed in order to manage these potential
decrements during PHV and maximise athletic development over puberty. However, few
studies exist that critically review the various models and methodologies that have been
proposed. Despite this, youth athletic development during PHV is vital to ensure that athletes
can perform at their best during this time and without injury.

Therefore, this review aims to provide strength and conditioning coaches with a greater
insight into strength and conditioning practices for athletes around the age at which PHV
occurs. The 'Discussion' section of the review will evaluate how five models contribute to
strength and conditioning practice for athletes around the age at which PHV occurs. The
'Conclusions and Practical Application' section will describe various guidelines for future
models on youth athletic development and provide training recommendations for athletes
around the age of PHV.

METHODS
Search Strategy
The following online databases were used for research: PubMed, Google Scholar, Lippincott
Williams and Wilson, Springer, MDP, Sage Publications and Taylor and Francis. The search
was conducted in the months of April and May 2023. Keywords used to retrieve publications
from 1975 to 2022 were peak height velocity, adolescence, long term athletic development,
youth athlete development, review, review of the literature, youth athlete models, sports
specialisation, implementation and paediatric athlete. Only articles that were available as full
text, written in English and published in peer reviewed journals were included.

Inclusion Criteria
The articles included were on athlete development in the paediatric population, at ages
around PHV. Additionally, articles included were on the effects of athlete development
models in the paediatric population.

Exclusion Criteria
Articles excluded were on athlete development and athlete development models past the age
of 23 and were focused on short term training programs, and training programs only focused
on a singular sport or physical quality i.e., speed or power. In terms of papers that were
excluded, the original search had 100 publications related to athlete development but 50 were
cut because they did not fulfil the selection criteria.

DISCUSSION
Developmental Model of Sports Participation (DSMP) Model
This model, originally proposed in the article ‘The Influence of the Family in the
Development of Talent in Sport’ in 1999 by Jean Cote (12), describes patterns in dynamics of
families of talented athletes throughout their sport development. Interviews were conducted
with each athlete, parent and sibling to explore how they have dealt with the difficulties and
pressures of being involved in sport (12). The results of the study identified three phases of
sport participation that tie into youth athletic development: The ‘sampling years’, the
‘specialising years’ and the ‘investment years’ (12).

The paper by Cote was a qualitative study based on interviews, with 15 individuals chosen to
be interviewed, consisting of 4 athletes, with the rest of the individuals being parents or
siblings of these athletes (14). The results of the study, which involved meaningful pieces of
information or ‘meaning units’ being derived from the study informed the model that Cote
proposes. The ‘sampling years’ are from 6-13, the ‘specialising years’ are from 13-15 and the
‘investment years’ are 15 and over (12). This report will cover the first two phases of youth
athletic development according to the DSMP model.

During the sampling years, there is a high amount of deliberate play, low amounts of
deliberate practice and participation in several sports, while during the specialising years,
sport specific skill development through practice is introduced, and is an important
characteristic of children’s’ involvement in sport (12). In the specialising years, there is a
deliberate balance of play and practice, and reduced involvement in sports outside the
athlete’s sport of focus (12). Depending on whether an athlete pursues a sport which requires
early or late specialisation, the athlete may not undergo the sampling, specialisation and
investment stages, and enter the early specialisation stage, where there is a high amount of
deliberate practice, low amounts of deliberate play and focus on only one sport (12). There is
a marked difference between early specialisation and the specialising phase, which is
followed by the investment phase, in terms of generating elite performance, but more
importantly in the eyes of this model, enhanced physical health and enjoyment.

Criticisms of the DMSP model

The DMSP model demonstrates the importance of developing an athlete’s entire being, as
opposed to maximising their sports performance, but fails to mention any training
considerations for PHV, most likely because PHV as a marker for youth athlete development
was proposed later in 2004 by Bayli and Hamilton (10), whereas the DMSP model was
proposed in 1999. As well as this, despite this study providing one of the first structured
models for youth athlete development, the sample size only consists of 4 athletes and 2
sports, (13) and the time periods were based on chronological age versus indicators of
biological maturation such as PHV, (13) which may be a better indicator of readiness for each
stage. In addition, this study has recall bias because of retrospective study design (13). The
DMSP model, despite its flaws on basing participation and performance pathways off
chronological age, it emphasises the importance of ‘sampling before specialising’, (14) which
is a theme that continues throughout other youth athletic development models.

Long-term Athlete Development (LTAD) Model

The LTAD model was proposed by Bayli and Hamilton, in 2004 in the article ‘Long-term
Athlete Development: Trainability in Childhood and Adolescence Windows of Opportunity,
Optimal Trainability’, based on their presentation given at the Scottish Strength and
Conditioning Seminar in May 2003 in Largs (10).

Research done by Ericsson et al., concluded that it takes 8-12 years of training for an athlete
to reach elite levels, translating to 10,000 hours of overall practice (15). However, Bayli and
Hamilton purport in this article that most coaches approach training with only short-term
goals in mind, not considering the entire ‘picture’ of an athlete’s development (10). The
authors further state that the short-term solution of training youth athletes like “scaled down”
adults, is not an effective solution and instead advocates to use the onset of PHV in order to
design an appropriate program (10). However, prior to PHV, athletes can train based on their
chronological age (10), not taking any other maturation landmarks into consideration, which
may reduce the individual applicability of the model.

In addition, it is stated that PHV can be monitored and can be used to ‘exploit’ important
periods of trainability for various qualities, which they claim to enhance the development of
short- and long-term individualised training (10). The authors particularly mention the ‘5
S’s’: Stamina, Suppleness, Speed, Strength and Skill (10).

The LTAD model can be split into two separate models, the ‘early’ and ‘late’ specialisation
models (10). The early specialisation model concerns itself with the athletic development of
sports like diving, gymnastics and table tennis which require athletes to specialise on these
sports early (10). However, the article focuses on the late specialisation model, which
concerns itself with sports like track and field, rowing and most team sports (10).

The ‘training to train’ stage proposed by the authors in the article, from 12-16 in males and
11-15 in females best align with the ages where PHV occurs in these genders. Bayli and
Hamilton state that this is the “window of accelerated adaptation to aerobic and strength
training” (10). Furthermore, flexibility training is emphasised due to the growth of bones,
tendons, ligaments and muscles (10). Female athletes have two windows for accelerated
strength adaptation, one being immediately post PHV, and the second with the onset of the
first menstrual period, whereas males have one window 12-18 months post PHV (10).
However, Ford et al. states that there appear to be no longitudinal studies that have
determined PHV and have controlled for growth and maturation (16), making the ‘window of
opportunity’ for strength dubious. In addition, only one study by Vrijens in 1978 confirmed
the LTAD ‘window of opportunity’ on accelerated strength development, (17) confirming the
lack of evidence.

In terms of aerobic performance, there are several studies (18, 19, 20) which found an
exponential rise in peak oxygen uptake following PHV, justifying the ‘window of
opportunity’ for accelerated aerobic development. However, there is conflicting evidence on
aerobic development, as a study by Viru et al. in 1999 suggested that peak aerobic
development happens for boys at 10-16 and girls at 7-13 (21), which isn’t necessarily the
time period of PHV. Furthermore, results from studies by Naughton et al., (2000) and
Rowland in 1985 conflict on when ‘windows of opportunities’ for aerobic development occur
(22, 23).

In terms of speed, the LTAD model proposes that two windows of opportunity exist, the
latter of which is from 11-13 in girls and 13-15 in boys, which correlates with PHV.
Supporting this is a study by Viru et al. (21) which speculate that hormone-dependent
selective hypertrophy of fast twitch fibres occurs around this time. Philippaerts et al.,
demonstrated that large increases in sprint speed in footballers occur around PHV (24). This
may be related to increased lower limb strength around this time (16) which may be further
evidence to support a 'window of opportunity' for accelerated development of strength around
PHV but may not correlate with a similar 'window' for speed.
The authors advocate for less periods of peaking during the year in favour of the focus for
training being still learning the basics (10). However, competitions are kept frequent in order
to allow athletes to develop competition specific technical and tactical skills as well as to
prepare for the physical and mental demands of competition (10). This is the authors’
justification for proposing a 60:40 training to competition ratio for these athletes is advisable,
with athletes training in competitive situations daily, with games and drills that simulate
competition (10). The authors claim that this phase is paramount, and those that miss it will
not reach their full potential, as athletes of this age spend more time in competition than in
training, the latter of which should be a priority (10).

McKeown and Ball concluded that LTAD is the most popular model of youth athletic
development (25) and was an early model to include PHV as a reference point for periods for
‘windows of opportunity’. Despite its popularity, recent literature has questioned the
exclusivity of the LTAD model only being for athletes, when large numbers of children are
unhealthy and physically illiterate (14). Additionally, the 10,000-hour rule has been
questioned, as Baker and Young show elite development can occur in much less time (26).

The Youth Physical Development (YPD) Model

The YPD model was first proposed in the article ‘A New Approach to Long-Term Athletic
Development’ by Lloyd and Oliver in 2012. The authors criticise the LTAD model for stating
that a failure to exploit windows for accelerated development for various qualities will result
in the limitation of future athletic development, which lacks empirical evidence and is
questioned by researchers for its simplicity (11) In addition, the authors state the LTAD
model suggests increased sensitivity to training certain qualities at specific time periods,
however there is a lack of empirical evidence to suggest this (11). The 5 S’s is also criticised
for presenting a limited and reductionistic approach to young athlete development, with no
guidance being offered as to when qualities like power, agility and hypertrophy are supposed
to be trained throughout an athlete’s development (11).

The YPD model aims to suggest a new alternative to athlete development, based on the
limitations of previous athletic development models. In terms of training for certain qualities,
the YPD model outlines strength, power, speed, agility and sport specific skill development,
and in what priority these qualities are developed is in line with the maturation status of the
athlete (14). Despite acknowledging the impact of training history, baseline fitness levels and
sex differences on determining training prescription, as well as having more physical
qualities that can be developed during youth athletic development, there is still a lack of
empirical evidence that supports increased periods of sensitivity to developing certain
physical qualities.

Strength and Power

The authors further criticise that the LTAD male ‘window of opportunity’ for strength is 12-
18 months post peak height, whereas the YPD window of opportunity aligns with peak
weight velocity (PWV), the period in their development where an athletes weight increases
rapidly (11). The rationale behind this is increased muscle growth from increased circulating
hormones accompanies PWV, subsequently increasing strength (21). However, the YPD
model proposes that strength development should not be limited to post PHV but also
throughout the athlete’s entire life, citing research that in paediatric populations, muscular
strength could account for up to 70% of the variability in a range of sport specific skills (27).
This continuous development is also recommended by the YPD model for power as well.
Hypertrophy
The YPD model depicts that an emphasises on hypertrophy training will occur post PHV,
around 14 years in males and 12 years in females, suggesting that hypertrophy training
should supplement strength gains an athlete has made pre and post PHV (11).

Speed
The LTAD model suggests that windows of opportunity for speed are entirely age related,
due to neural effects (10), which may be reductionistic. However, the YPD proposes that
speed may also be affected by maturation, with research by Rumpf et al., revealing that pre-
PHV individuals more so benefit from high neural activation, post-PHV individuals who
respond more favourably to both neural and structural strength training (28).

Agility
The YPD model makes inferences in relation to the accelerated developments of change of
direction speed, linear speed and cognitive function (10). The YPD model loosely bases their
inferences off literature based off when an athlete most rapidly develops peak force and peak
RFD, as well as cognitive function theories, which all occur most rapidly around PHV (11).

Mobility
The YPD advocates that mobility should be maintained during PHV (11) citing that mobility
training is most important around 5-11 years of age, referencing articles (29, 30) that term
this period as a critical period for flexibility development. However, it does not state any
training guidelines for this quality around PHV.

Energy System Development (ESD)

The model proposes that more attention is given to endurance and metabolic conditioning as
the child approaches adulthood and is never the focus of training (11). They rationalise this
by stating that the individual will be exposed to sport-specific endurance during competition,
and in their fitness classes at school (11). However, the model does not state any training
considerations for ESD related to PHV.

Further Criticisms of the LTAD and YPD Models

Since the LTAD and YPD models share many similarities, this section of the article is
dedicated to criticisms that are common to both the LTAD and YPD models.

Consideration of recreational and high school level sports participation

These models are also focused around developing youth athletes with the goal of developing
them into elite performers, without including alternative training stages for youth interested
in recreational sports and lifelong physical activity (13), limiting the scope of this model.

Windows of opportunity
Van Hooren and De Ste Croix suggest that breaking down athletic training into manageable
constructs is reductionistic and discredits the overall complexity of youth athlete
development (31). Especially at PHV, Van Hooren and De Ste Croix note that the YPD and
LTAD models do not provide frameworks for how to best train certain qualities related to
‘windows of opportunity’ (31). Loko et al., comment that there is no evidence to suggest that
the best effect of training that the performance capabilities is achieved when natural growth is
at its peak, (32) potentially meaning that PHV and the time periods around PHV may not
necessarily be windows of opportunity. In fact, Ford et al., state that the term ‘window of
opportunity’ needs clarification as this suggests that periods of accelerated development open
and close throughout PHV and adolescence, when they are permanently open for the rest of
the athletes’ lives (16). In addition, this terminology may imply that if athletes do not take
advantage of these windows, their athletic potential will be squandered, which is also untrue.

Impact of Extrinsic factors

The LTAD and YPD models do not consider nutritional, environmental and psychological
factors that influence an athlete’s readiness to advance from one stage to the next (13). As
well as this, these models do not consider socioeconomic status and individuals that have
disabilities, and therefore may need additional support when progressing through stages (13).

Approaching Physical Preparation for Youth Team-Sports Players

This article, by Paul Gamble in 2008, discusses physical preparation for youth team sport
athletes, proposing that youth training requires a different approach to design and implement
compared to adults (33). The article states that physiological and physical performance
parameters peak at around PHV, however the age that PHV occurs is highly variable, leading
to individualisation of training programs (33).

This article introduces some new concepts into the conversation on training considerations
for PHV. The author states that pre puberty athletes have a very limited capacity for aerobic
and anaerobic training, however the rate of maturation related improvements in anaerobic
capacity peaks around PHV (22). In terms of metabolic conditioning, game and skill-based
conditioning is advocated for as it elicits game-appropriate aerobic and anaerobic adaptations
(33). Pre-pubescent athletes have less mechanical efficiency compared with adolescent
athletes, (22) with some evidence supporting the use low coordination training to improve
athletic performance and has even been shown to reduce knee valgus angles in female
athletes (34). In addition, prepubescent athletes have the tendency to have coordination
deficits, particularly knee valgus during jump landing tasks, where post PHV they undergo a
coordination ‘spurt’ which improves their biomechanics (35). The author mentions the
various injury preventative effects of specific strength training. He also mentions that in
terms of bone, ligament and tendon training for young athletes, post pubescent females may
be less responsive to skeletal adaptation, suggesting a narrower window of opportunity (36).

The author divides maturation status of team-based athletes into prepubescence, early
puberty and adolescence, with the divisions between stages ‘necessarily vague’ (33).
However, PHV is what the author describes as the transition between early puberty and
adolescence (33), so the training considerations for these stages is what is going to be
covered.

Early puberty
The author notes that there may be short-term performance decrements before PHV, and
therefore coordination and ‘movement skills’ training should ensue, especially in female
athletes to ‘artificially’ create a ‘neuromuscular spurt’, to combat the higher rates of lower
limb injury (33). Metabolic conditioning will continue to play an important role during this
time, as Gamble further advocates for the use of game-based conditioning, with modifications
to the games’ work-to-rest ratios (33). Interval training should be introduced, but with the
intensity kept relatively low with relatively high rest (33). Unilateral exercises should be
performed frequently during puberty, and Bilateral exercises i.e., squats and deadlifts are to
be introduced to improve strength and expand the athlete’s movement capabilities. However,
movement quality is still of priority (33). Loading should be done with caution, particularly
of the lumbar spine, and asymmetries should be dealt with through extra reps and sets on the
weaker side, as asymmetries may persist past puberty (37). Hamstring training for females is
a priority to increase hamstring recruitment during activities like running, which the author
argues is important to offset the quadriceps dominance that may increase strain on the ACL
(38). Strength work should be done within 6-12 RM (33). Coordination training like single
leg balance exercises and balance on unstable surfaces should be included in their strength
sessions, with them being done on non-consecutive days to prioritize recovery (33).

Adolescence
Coordination training should be progressed to include jumping and change of direction drills,
which can then be progressed in various ways i.e., bi-lateral to uni-lateral jumps and landings
(39). Proper movement mechanics especially correct lower limb alignment should be
prioritised. Metabolic conditioning is largely kept the same, with an emphasis on aerobic
endurance, as athletes begin to specialise, and should be largely kept sport specific (33).
Interval training should be progressed, as should game-based conditioning (33). Speed
endurance should be introduced, with movement quality being the emphasis, with a shift
from agility and other speed-based qualities being categorised as more ‘coordination’ training
to more ‘metabolic conditioning’ (33). Strength training should be more sports specific
compared to pre-puberty, however strength training is always based upon training history and
current performance benchmarks, so that if significant deficits are noted, they can be
addressed (33). Explosive lifts like barbell squat jumps can be introduced, or other exercises
that involve triple extension, as a means of injecting sports specificity into the program (40),
and unilateral exercises should be still prominently featured and progressed. Injury
prevention exercises should be included and individualised. Strength work should be done
within 4-12 RM (33).

Criticisms
The model that is presented by the author, unlike the previous models that have been
evaluated, have provided specific training considerations and exercise prescriptions for
athletes before, during and after PHV. Furthermore, these considerations and prescriptions
are mostly evidence based. Despite this, the divisions between ‘early puberty’ and
‘adolescence’ not being dependent on indicators of maturity like peak height velocity but
rather dependent on the coaches’ observations of the athlete could lead to issues. A coach
could make a poor judgement on when to progress the stages, potentially leading to
athletically ‘underdeveloped’ individuals that are unready for the increased physical demands
of the ‘adolescence’ stage. Alternatively, an athlete could be disengaged with their program
due to it being unchallenging and undemanding physically. Furthermore, the specific strength
training rep ranges may not account for individual athlete demands, especially those that have
little experience performing certain movements, and may require higher rep ranges for
mastery. Additionally, this model is intended for team sports, limiting its scope and is based
off ‘windows of opportunity’, the flaws of which have been discussed already.

The Integrated Model

This model, which this review of the literature terms the Integrated Model or IM, was
proposed in the article, ‘Integrating Models of Long-term Athletic Development to Maximise
the Physical Development of Youth’ by Pichardo et al. in 2018 (14). The IM aims to
incorporate the DMSP stages into pre-existing models, adding a psychosocial emphasis
throughout childhood and adolescence for youth athlete development, which the authors state
makes the IM more holistic (14).
Resistance training models
The IM is like previous models as it advocates for resistance training as early as possible, to
increase sports performance and reduce injury risk (14). The IM further integrates proposals
from Granacher et al., (41) to provide guidelines on training prescription, detailing how
coaches should use skill competency to determine exercise prescription, and how exercise
should change over the course of maturation (14). In terms of strength training considerations
during PHV, the model relies on the LTAD model and work by Granacher et al., to determine
training prescription during this period, around the time of late childhood (Male 10-13 years),
to Adolescence (Male 14-18 years). ‘Late Childhood’ and the early part of ‘Adolescence’
best align with the time of PHV.

Around PHV, the IM advocates plyometric training should transition from jumping and
landing exercises pogos and standing jumps, to more intense exercises that involve higher
eccentric loading i.e., countermovement jumps and landings, to eventually exercises like drop
jumps (14). However, this should all be based on technical competence. Furthermore, the IM
advocates for the introduction of Olympic weightlifting exercises around this period, loosely
aligning with the LTAD model, renaming the ‘learning to train’ and ‘training to train’ stages
as ‘learning weightlifting’ and ‘training weightlifting’ respectively (14). The transition from
the former stage to the latter during PHV involves a transition from technical competency in
‘learning weightlifting’ to more performance-based outcomes in ‘training weightlifting,
however a high amount of technical reinforcement is still present (14). However, the article
states that there is little empirical evidence that informs the effects of Olympic weightlifting
and its effect on athletic performance in the paediatric population (14) so the inclusion of
these stages in youth athlete development is dubious.

Fitness specific models for athletic development

This part of the article describes how the training of power, speed, agility and aerobic fitness
during youth athletic development can be integrated into combinations of various models, as
well as evidence-based models that the IM discusses that only describe the development of
one athletic quality.

Power
The IM model references the DMSP model and a model by Meylan et al., (42) relating power
development during PHV as the transition from the ‘sampling years’ to the ‘specialisation
years. Specifically, moving to exercises that involve higher RFD and velocity from
foundational movements like running, skipping hopping and jumping (14). Additionally,
weightlifting and more intense plyometrics should be introduced, and strength training should
transition from 1-2 times per week for 10 to 20 minutes to 2-3 times per week, for 20-40
minutes per session (14).

Speed
The IM model relates speed development to the circumpubertal period (11-15 in males and
12-15 in females), which is more closely correlated to PHV, based on a review done by
Oliver et al., (43) where stages of speed development were based on maturational status and
training age. The IM model states that the circumpubertal stage should focus on sprint
technique and maximal sprints, with an emphasis of coordination around PHV (14), and post
PHV a focus on hypertrophy in resistance training programs to maximal structural
adaptations associated with increased RFD (44)
Agility
The IM model addresses the ‘adolescent awkwardness’ associated with PHV and the
circumpubertal years, and advocates for coaches to give attention to body position and
technique as part of coordination training (14). The primary focus should be on COD and
speed development, but there should be an increasingly prominent focus of reactive agility
(46).

Aerobic fitness
This quality in the IM model is based off the developmental stages of the DMSP model,
wherein the late sampling years and the early specialising years correlate with the time
around PHV and was based off an evidence-based model by Harrison et al (47) During the
sampling stage, aerobic fitness sessions should be in the form of deliberate practice and play,
whereas training during the specialising years should be in the form of short-sided games and
high intensity interval training that should focus on mastering sport specific skills, (14) with
care to monitor training load as repetitive loading during the adolescent growth spurt can lead
to injury (48). The IM model states that some or all the work should be completed at or above
85% HR max, to elicit aerobic fitness improvements (49).

Criticisms of the IM
The IM, like the model described by Gamble, provides specific and evidence-based exercise
prescription for athletes in PHV, however its main flaw is that it is inconsistent in using
different models for its stages of progression for the fitness specific models of athletic
development. For example, the quality of aerobic fitness follows the stages of the DSMP
model, whereas the speed quality bases its progression on a model by Oliver et al. (44). This
leads to incoherence in terms of holistic youth athlete development, where some qualities are
progressed while others are not due not being at a certain developmental stage, where it
should ideally be based off movement competence. Also, the integration of older models like
the DMSP and LTAD when newer evidence in terms of maturation status and athletic
development is available, hinders this model from being the most up to date.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Throughout this review of the literature, several models of youth athletic development have
been evaluated. In terms of the youth athletic development field, more research must be
performed on specific exercise prescriptions that are done to mitigate the problems youth
athletes face around PHV. Future models should not make inferences based off loosely
related literature or attempt to assume that periods of rapid growth and development during
an athlete’s maturation, should be complemented with periods of training specific qualities,
and that once a period of maturation is over i.e., PHV, this does not mean that a ‘window of
opportunity’ is closed for the rest of the athletes’ lives. In terms of applying the research that
has been presented in this review, it is recommended that coaches apply the parts of each
model that best suits their athlete’s development, as no model at this stage is a gold standard.

However, the key consideration that needs to be in place during PHV appears to be
coordination training, to mitigate the lack of coordination that athletes experience around this
time. This should include running drills that progress in complexity over time to ensure
correct running technique is maintained i.e., ‘A-marches’ to ‘A’ and ‘B’ skips, which should
be included for individual and team sports. In addition, exercises performed on unstable
surfaces to promote stability and challenge coordination i.e., bodyweight push-ups and squats
performed on a balance ball, can be done, particularly for lower body coordination for team
sports performed, where performance requires frequent changes in direction. Finally,
unilateral exercises may be paramount in establishing coordination in a single limb that may
be causing deficits in technique for movements like running and throwing.

Furthermore, coaches of youth athletes should have knowledge of training surrounding PHV,
and therefore make appropriate judgements on when to progress youth athletes, regardless of
any models, and therefore athlete movement competency plays a role in determining this
progression, as opposed to chronological age.

REFERENCES
1. Tsutsui, T., et al. (2022). "Growth until Peak Height Velocity Occurs Rapidly in Early Maturing
Adolescent Boys." Children 9(10): 1570.

2. Gryko, K., et al. (2022). "Does predicted age at peak height velocity explain physical performance in
U13–15 basketball female players?" BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation 14(1): 21.

3. Malina, R. M., Bouchard, C., & Bar-Or, O (2004). Growth, Maturation and Physical Activity.
Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics.

4. Takei, S., et al. (2020). "Growth pattern of lumbar bone mineral content and trunk muscles in
adolescent male soccer players." J Bone Miner Metab 38(3): 338-345.

5. Malina, R. M., et al. (2015). "Biological maturation of youth athletes: assessment and implications."
British Journal of Sports Medicine 49(13): 852-859.

6. Bisi, M. C. and R. Stagni (2016). "Development of gait motor control: what happens after a sudden
increase in height during adolescence?" BioMedical Engineering OnLine 15(1): 47.

7. Sheehan, D. P. and K. Lienhard (2019). "Gross Motor Competence and Peak Height Velocity in 10- to
14-Year-Old Canadian Youth: A Longitudinal Study." Measurement in Physical Education and
Exercise Science 23(1): 89-98.

8. Baxter-Jones, A. D. G., et al. (2002). "Growth and Maturation in Elite Young Female Athletes." Sports
Medicine and Arthroscopy Review 10(1): 42-49.

9. Bowerman, E., et al. (2014). "Are maturation, growth and lower extremity alignment associated with
overuse injury in elite adolescent ballet dancers?" Phys Ther Sport 15(4): 234-241.

10. Bayli, I. (2004). "LONG-TERM ATHLETE DEVELOPMENT: TRAINABILITY IN CHILDHOOD

AND ADOLESCENCE Windows of Opportunity, Optimal Trainability.".

11. Lloyd, R. S. and J. L. Oliver (2012). "The Youth Physical Development Model: A New Approach to
Long-Term Athletic Development." Strength & Conditioning Journal 34(3): 61-72.

12. Côté, J. (1999). "The Influence of the Family in the Development of Talent in Sport." The Sport
Psychologist 13: 395-417.

13. Varghese, M., et al. (2022). "Youth Athlete Development Models: A Narrative Review." Sports Health
14(1): 20-29.

14. Pichardo, A., et al. (2018). "Integrating models of long-term athletic development to maximize the
physical development of youth." International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 13:
174795411878550.

15. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). "The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance." Psychological Review 100: 363–406.
16. Ford, P., et al. (2011). "The Long-Term Athlete Development model: Physiological evidence and
application." Journal of Sports Sciences 29(4): 389-402.

17. Vrijens, J. (1978). Muscle Strength Development in the Pre- and Post-Pubescent Age.

18. Kobayashi, K., et al. (1978). "Aerobic power as related to body growth and training in Japanese boys: a
longitudinal study." Journal of Applied Physiology 44(5): 666-672.

19. Baquet, G., et al. (2003). "Endurance Training and Aerobic Fitness in Young People." Sports Medicine
33(15): 1127-1143.

20. Payne, V. G. and J. R. Morrow (1993). "Exercise and VO2max in Children: A Meta-Analysis."
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 64(3): 305-313.

21. Viru, A., et al. (1999). "Critical Periods in the Development of Performance Capacity During
Childhood and Adolescence." European Journal of Physical Education 4(1): 75-119.

22. Naughton, G., et al. (2000). "Physiological Issues Surrounding the Performance of Adolescent
Athletes." Sports Medicine 30(5): 309-325.

23. Rowland, T. W. (1985). "Aerobic response to endurance training in prepubescent children: a critical
analysis." Med Sci Sports Exerc 17(5): 493-497.

24. Philippaerts, R. M., et al. (2006). "The relationship between peak height velocity and physical
performance in youth soccer players." J Sports Sci 24(3): 221-230.

25. McKeown, I. and N. Ball (2013). "Current practices of long term athlete development of junior athletes
in high performance sport environments." Journal of Australian Strength & Conditioning 21: 16-25.

26. Baker, J. and B. Young (2014). "Baker, J., & Young, B.W. (2014). 20 years later: Deliberate practice
and the development of expertise in sport. International Review of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 7(1),
135-157." International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 7: 135-157.

27. Teeple, J. B., et al. (1975). "Contribution of Physical Development and Muscular Strength to the Motor
Performance Capacity of 7 to 12 Year Old Boys." Br J Sports Med 9(3): 122-129.

28. Rumpf, M. C., et al. (2012). "Effect of Different Training Methods on Running Sprint Times in Male
Youth." Pediatric Exercise Science 24(2): 170-186.

29. Borms, J., Sands, W. A., & Caine, D. J. (1970). Scientific aspects of Women's Gymnastics.
Karger,Basel-New York.

30. Malina, R., et al. (2015). "Biological maturation of youth athletes: Assessment and implications."
British Journal of Sports Medicine 49: 852-859.

31. Van Hooren, B. and M. De Ste Croix (2020). "Sensitive Periods to Train General Motor Abilities in
Children and Adolescents: Do They Exist? A Critical Appraisal." Strength & Conditioning Journal
42(6): 7-14.

32. Loko, J., et al. (2006). SENSITIVE PERIODS IN PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT.

33. Gamble, P. (2008). "Approaching Physical Preparation for Youth Team-Sports Players." Strength &
Conditioning Journal 30: 29-42.

34. Noyes, F. R., et al. (2005). "The Drop-Jump Screening Test:Difference in Lower Limb Control by
Gender and Effect of Neuromuscular Training in Female Athletes." The American Journal of Sports
Medicine 33(2): 197-207.
35. Quatman, C. E., et al. (2006). "Maturation Leads to Gender Differences in Landing Force and Vertical
Jump Performance:A Longitudinal Study." The American Journal of Sports Medicine 34(5): 806-813.

36. Greene, D. A. and G. A. Naughton (2006). "Adaptive Skeletal Responses to Mechanical Loading
during Adolescence." Sports Medicine 36(9): 723-732.

37. KUJALA, U. M., et al. (1996). "Low-back pain in adolescent athletes." Medicine & Science in Sports
& Exercise 28(2): 165-170.

38. Cook, G. (2003). Strength and endurance exercises. In: Athletic Body in Balance. Champaign, IL,
Human Kinetics.

39. FORD, K. R., et al. (2003). "Valgus Knee Motion during Landing in High School Female and Male
Basketball Players." Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 35(10): 1745-1750.

40. Myer, G. D., et al. (2006). "The effects of plyometric vs. dynamic stabilization and balance training on
power, balance, and landing force in female athletes." J Strength Cond Res 20(2): 345-353.

41. Gamble, P. (2004). "Physical Preparation for Elite-Level Rugby Union Football." Strength &
Conditioning Journal 26.

42. Granacher, U., et al. (2016). "Effects of Resistance Training in Youth Athletes on Muscular Fitness and
Athletic Performance: A Conceptual Model for Long-Term Athlete Development." Front Physiol 7:
164.

43. Meylan, C. M. P., et al. (2014). "An Evidence-Based Model of Power Development in Youth Soccer."
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 9(5): 1241-1264.

44. Oliver, J., et al. (2013). "Developing Speed Throughout Childhood and Adolescence: The Role of
Growth, Maturation and Training." STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING JOURNAL 35: 42-48.

45. Tonson, A., et al. (2008). "Effect of maturation on the relationship between muscle size and force
production." Med Sci Sports Exerc 40(5): 918-925.

46. Lloyd, R., et al. (2013). "Considerations for the Development of Agility During Childhood and
Adolescence." STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING JOURNAL 35: 2-11.

47. Harrison, C. B., Gill, N. D., Kinugasa, T., & Kilding, A. E. (2015). Development of Aerobic Fitness in
Young Team Sport Athletes. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 45(7), 969–983.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0330-y (2015). "Development of Aerobic Fitness in Young Team
Sport Athletes." Sports Medicine(45(7)): 969–983.

48. Read, P. J., et al. (2016). "The scientific foundations and associated injury risks of early soccer
specialisation." Journal of Sports Sciences 34(24): 2295-2302.

49. Harrison, C. B., et al. (2014). "Small-sided games for young athletes: is game specificity influential?"
Journal of Sports Sciences 32(4): 336-344.