Based on what you’ve described, I would investigate his ability to recover and reproduce high power, along with his aerobic support and how he distributes effort. However, this test alone cannot identify the limiting mechanism. First, I’d be careful about interpreting the 90-second test. 550 W is approximately 169% of his measured MAP. That is a substantial supramaximal demand, so a significant decline isn't that surprising. There is no universal expectation that an athlete should sustain 170% MAP for 90 seconds at least from findings. The result demonstrates that he could not maintain that particular workload; it does not, by itself, establish an aerobic or anaerobic deficiency. Also, one continuous 90-second effort assesses something different from repeated explosive exchanges separated by lower-intensity wrestling. The legs feeling like cotton is useful feedback, but the absence of burning does not identify the energy system responsible. It cannot establish low lactate production, inadequate glycolytic capacity, or “CNS fatigue.” Metabolic changes can impair force production through several mechanisms. I would investigate the following, in this order: 1. Test conditions and accumulated fatigue. How much recovery occurred between the MAP test and the 90-second effort? If they were close together, the second result includes fatigue from the first. Confirm the MAP protocol, bike setup, familiarization, arm contribution, and whether he overshot 550 W initially. Ramp and step protocols can produce different maximal power values, so 325 W needs that context before being classified as good or poor. 2. Fueling, recovery, and weight management. At 15, I would review total training load, sleep, carbohydrate availability, hydration, recent illness, growth, and any weight-cutting practices. Inadequate energy intake can impair performance in male athletes too. His height and weight alone cannot establish whether he is adequately fueled. 3. Aerobic support and recovery between bursts. This is reasonable especially if his first effort is strong but subsequent efforts deteriorate. Aerobic metabolism supports the work itself and phosphocreatine restores it during recovery. 4. Local muscular endurance and wrestling efficiency. Review training footage for prolonged maximal clinch positions, unnecessary muscular tension, breath-holding, and exchanges that are excessively costly. An athlete can have good maximal strength while struggling to sustain repeated contractions in certain positions.

You can also compare that with his fresh short-sprints and a standardized aerobic assessment. If you have the ability use gas-exchange testing, this would clarify aerobic capacity and thresholds. The important distinction is whether he: - Produces good initial power but loses it across repetitions. - Struggles mainly during longer uninterrupted efforts. - Performs adequately on the bike but deteriorates disproportionately during wrestling. Those patterns would lead me toward different programming priorities. For now inside of training, I’d choose a small, targeted dose rather than prescribe all conditioning methods together. Initially, I would use easy aerobic work plus one targeted interval session, choosing the interval format from the assessment. Count hard wrestling practices toward his high-intensity load and replace existing conditioning where appropriate. Then transfer the improvement to controlled wrestling exchanges: brief explosive actions, purposeful lower-intensity movement between them, and consistent technical execution. If longer uninterrupted exchanges remain the specific limitation, introduce longer demanding intervals progressively. Reassess after 4–6 weeks under the same conditions. Look for higher repeatable power, less deterioration at the same initial output, and better maintenance of effective actions on the mat. Let me know if that helps I can send over a few studies as well.