International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2017, 12, S2-55  -S2-62

http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2016-0423
© 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. BRIEF REVIEW

Wearable Training-Monitoring Technology:

Applications, Challenges, and Opportunities
Marco Cardinale and Matthew C. Varley

The need to quantify aspects of training to improve training prescription has been the holy grail of sport scientists and coaches
for many years. Recently, there has been an increase in scientific interest, possibly due to technological advancements and better
equipment to quantify training activities. Over the last few years there has been an increase in the number of studies assessing
training load in various athletic cohorts with a bias toward subjective reports and/or quantifications of external load. There is
an evident lack of extensive longitudinal studies employing objective internal-load measurements, possibly due to the cost-
effectiveness and invasiveness of measures necessary to quantify objective internal loads. Advances in technology might help
in developing better wearable tools able to ease the difficulties and costs associated with conducting longitudinal observational
studies in athletic cohorts and possibly provide better information on the biological implications of specific external-load pat-
terns. Considering the recent technological developments for monitoring training load and the extensive use of various tools for
research and applied work, the aim of this work was to review applications, challenges, and opportunities of various wearable
technologies.

Keywords: internal load, training technology, wearable technology, external load, GPS

Training-load monitoring has recently gained momentum in
sport science, possibly due to technological advancements and
better equipment to quantify training activities.1 The reason for such
interest resides in the need to improve and individualize the design
of training and exercise programs to maximize the improvements
in athletic performance and avoid overtraining and overreaching.
Training prescriptions have been notionally based on the concept
of progressive overload since humans embarked in structured sport
and physical activity. Early examples of training prescription2 gave
clear indications that a scientific approach to training was important
not only to identify appropriate progression strategies3 but also to
individualize the training dose and maximize performance. Training
activities and/or exercise programs are designed with the aim of pro-
ducing stimuli capable of triggering various physiological responses
leading to improvements in the form and function of various biologi-
cal systems. Early research by Selye4 on stress shaped the thinking
of modern approaches to training and exercise prescription5 and laid
the foundations for a systematic approach to quantify and describe
adaptive responses to various exercise and training paradigms. It is
a well-accepted notion that training activities can alter homeostasis
and affect various physiological structures which respond to the
training “stress” by trying to restore homeostasis. The net result of
a well-designed progressive training program is an improvement in
the structure and function of the target physiological systems which
leads to improvements in human performance. However, the outcome
of a poorly designed and/or inappropriate progression in training can
result in impaired health and maladaptation,6 immunosuppression,
Cardinale is with the Sports Physiology Dept, Aspire Academy, Doha,
Qatar; University College London, UK; and University of St Mark & St
John, UK. Varley is with the Football Science and Performance Dept, Aspire
Academy, Doha, Qatar, and the Inst of Sport, Exercise and Active Living,
Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. Address author correspondence
to Marco Cardinale at marco.cardinale@aspire.qa.
and alterations in the hormonal profile7 and typically in underper-
formance.8 The optimization of the training program resides in
managing what the athlete does and how they respond to the training
activities performed. This can be quantified by the athlete training
load. A framework proposed by Impellizzeri et al9 differentiated
between internal and external aspects of training load. The internal
load refers to the more physiological aspects while the external load
represents the activities (work) performed by the athlete. Adaptation
is the consequence of the internal training load which is primarily
determined by the external training load imposed on the athlete.9
Over the last few years, numerous studies have been con-
ducted to improve our understanding of the implications of various
training-load paradigms in various athletic cohorts,1 however despite
the growing evidence in the usefulness of monitoring training
activities, resistance is still perceived in some sporting communi-
ties. A recent review indicated,1that the reasons for the resistance
to conduct systematic training-monitoring activities can reside in
financial constraints, manpower limitations, lack of knowledge and/
or experience in specific training-monitoring activities, resistance
from the coaching staff and most of all the lack of guarantee that
training-monitoring interventions can improve the quality of training
prescriptions. A recent PubMed Search (July 2016) identified 488
papers with the keywords training load monitoring. A more precise
analysis using keywords associated with various methods of training-
load monitoring showed that a research bias exists toward methods
which are easily accessible/low cost (such as the session RPE and
similar methods) or with historical methods (lactate training load).
Recent research is mostly dominated by external load studies thanks
to the accessibility of inertial measurement systems (IMUs) which
can be worn by athletes in training and/or competition. There is a lack
of longitudinal studies employing internal-load measurements other
than sRPE, possibly due to the cost-effectiveness and the invasiveness
of measures necessary to quantify internal-load aspects. Considering
the recent advances in wearable technologies for training-load moni-
toring and the extensive array of commercially available tools, it is

S2-55
 S2-56  Cardinale and Varley

important to understand the challenges and opportunities associated
with the various technologies. Therefore, the aims of this review are
to discuss the most-used wearable technologies and practices, pro-
vide some indications for new promising technologies, and provide
simple evidence-based guidelines.
Internal-Load Monitoring
The internal load experienced by an athlete can be defined as the
summation of the physiological and psychological stimulation/
stress imposed during training activities.9 Every form of exercise/
training is characterized by specific physiological and psychologi-
cal demands which vary not only with the “dose” of the activity
(sets, repetitions, duration, etc) but also with the type (eg, strength
training vs sport-specific training) of training performed. For this
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 05/03/17, Volume 12, Article Number Suppl 2
reason, it cannot be quantified with a single modality of assessment
but should be approached holistically. While this is theoretically
sound, a comprehensive quantification of internal training load is
impractical due to the limitation of current technology. In fact, a
holistic assessment would require athletes to wear multiple moni-
toring devices while training as well as to undergo invasive and
subjective measurements (see Figure 1). The implementation of too
many devices/measurements may interfere with the athlete’s train-
ing activities and create challenges with regard to data collection.
The ability to quantify internal load is of fundamental importance
as it allows practitioners and coaches to quantify the implications of
the external load and training prescriptions on various physiological
systems. It also allows the personalization of training activities, as
well as the identification of potential health risks and maladapta-
tions. Data should be analyzed for individual athletes to establish

Figure 1 — Schematic diagram summarizing technologies to monitor internal training load.

IJSPP Vol. 12, Suppl 2, 2017


meaningful changes in the observed parameters and their biological
implications to provide meaningful feedback to the coaching staff.
Cardiovascular and Respiratory Measurements
The quantification of heart-rate responses to training is possibly
the earliest example of quantification of internal load. After the
invention of electrocardiography at the start of the 20th century,10
heart rate has been able to be detected while exercising since the
1980s thanks to the development of wrist-worn heart-rate moni-
tors (HRMs) communicating with chest bands.11 Over the years,
numerous studies have been conducted to assess the validity and
reliability of these devices and the overall conclusion is that HRMs
using chest electrodes can be both valid and reliable during physi-
cally and mentally challenging tasks (for a review see Achten and
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 05/03/17, Volume 12, Article Number Suppl 2
Jeukendrup10). The use of HRMs has allowed the development of
various training-load indices to quantify the cardiovascular load
experienced by the athletes in training and competition. Most of
the training-load indices used make assumptions related to the
linear relationship identified between heart rate and V̇O2 during
incremental tests and identify intensity zones and time spent in
each zone expressed as a percentage of maximum heart rate and
various possibilities exist to quantify training load using such
approaches.12 Recently, further developments in technology has
seen promising alternatives to chest belts. Lightweight wrist pho-
toplethysmography is gathering momentum, albeit with mixed
results with regards to accuracy/validity,13,14 and it could become
a valid alternative provided that specific algorithms are imple-
mented to account for motion artifacts so as to reduce the mean
error of detection below 3%.15 Smart textiles also offer promising
solutions with textile sensors capable of high accuracy in various
activities.16,17 This shows that more and possibly better options
will be available soon for assessing the implications of training
on cardiorespiratory parameters.
Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is nowadays a well-
accepted technology to assess muscle oxygenation in vivo, and
our previous research18,19 together with studies conducted by
others (for a review of this methodology see Ferrari et al20) sug-
gest that this technology could be implemented successfully in
most sports, including aquatic sports.21 While the market seems
to be showing an increase in portable NIRS devices, only few
present some form of validation to date. Recent developments in
miniaturizing and embedding the devices in sporting garments22
suggest that this modality of internal training-load quantification
not only has merit but also could have extended applications in the
near future.
Humoral Parameters
A large amount of research has been conducted examining a range
of biochemical, hormonal, and immunological markers able to
characterize the acute and chronic responses to various exercise
and training paradigms. It is beyond the scope of this article to
conduct a comprehensive review of the literature in this area;
however, it is important to state that it would represent a dangerous
reductionist approach to identify only 1 marker able to quantify
some aspects of internal training load. Recent reviews1,7 have
looked at different approaches and they all conclude that more
research is needed. However, the limitations of implementing such
measurements reside in the invasiveness of the measurements, the
cost-effectiveness of determining humoral responses to training
and the difficulty in performing some meaningful longitudinal
IJSPP Vol. 12, Suppl 2, 2017
Training-Monitoring Technology   S2-57
monitoring. For this reason, we believe that hopefully with further
technological developments making such measurements cheaper,
more accessible, and less invasive, as well as providing opportuni-
ties for rapid feedback, could be an area of research and applica-
tion which might shed more light on the implications of various
training regimens on adaptation. Recent advancements in various
“omics” suggest the possibility of gathering more information on
biological responses to exercise activities from relatively small
blood,23 sweat,24 and/or urine samples.25 However, such methods
are still impractical in the applied setting due to the laboratory
equipment and expertise necessary to process the samples. Future
implementations of such techniques will become reality in sport
when simple analytical processes and accessible equipment are
extensively available. Wearable solutions are also developing at
a very fast rate. The feasibility of equipping human skin with
ultrathin devices has been recently demonstrated by the pioneering
work of a few laboratories.26,27 Recent validation work has shown
promising results of epidermal sensors in quantifying biological
parameters in vivo while performing exercise activities28 suggesting
that it is not far-fetched to imagine a future of wearable sensing
capable of improving our understanding of how the body reacts to
various exercise stimuli. In general, until cheaper and less invasive
technologies and methods become available, our understanding
of the biological responses to training will remain limited with
fewer chances to affect day-to-day activities of sport scientists
and coaches. Therefore, at the moment, practitioners should use
biochemical markers of training-load monitoring with caution
taking into account the limitations, the biological and individual
variability and the fact that many parameters currently quantified
in the field can be affected by many variables.
Neuromuscular Parameters
The assessment of neuromuscular parameters of training load
has been somewhat limited by the available technology. Recent
developments include sporting garments with embedded electro-
myographic (EMG) sensors capable of quantifying muscle activity
during exercise.29 Furthermore, epidermal solutions26 suggest that
muscle activity of athletes in training could be monitored routinely
and accurately. Surface EMG data of athletes and nonathletes in
competition30 or training have been recently published, but to
the author’s knowledge there is no longitudinal study presenting
internal load assessments using this technique. The same holds
true for electroencephalographic measurements and galvanic skin
responses observed during training. This is mostly due to the
impractical use of such technologies in the sporting setting due
to the bulky equipment, as well as the prohibitive costs. For this
reason, despite the fact that in many coaching communities there
are common references to “neuromuscular load” it is virtually
impossible at this moment to quantify this aspect. However, it is
possible to assess the effect of training acutely and chronically
using various tests which assess the function of the neuromuscu-
lar system such as dynamometric measurements, reaction time,
electroencephalography (EEG) responses, vertical jumps, and
other proxy measures of neuromuscular function. As for humoral
parameters, technology in this domain is developing very quickly,
and we have examples of EEG measurements during static sporting
activities like shooting.31 Considering the potential for EEG to pro-
vide more information about the implications of training activities
on the brain,32 it is hoped that better wearable devices and more
accurate signal filtering approaches will be developed to be able
to quantify neuromuscular load in different sports.
 S2-58  Cardinale and Varley
External-Load Monitoring
External training load can be defined as the work completed by the
athlete, measured independently of their internal characteristics.
External-load measures can include duration, speed, distance cov-
ered, body load, acceleration, metabolic power, and sport-specific
movements such as balls thrown or tackles performed. The ability
to objectively quantify external training load is essential in athlete
monitoring as it allows practitioners to evaluate the effectiveness
of a training program or intervention, minimize the risk of athlete
injury,33 design individual training programs that reflect competi-
tion demands,34 and allow the athlete to maintain and optimize
performance.35
Athlete monitoring should be conducted at an individual level
to identify meaningful changes in external load. Therefore, it is
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 05/03/17, Volume 12, Article Number Suppl 2
important to understand the accuracy and reliability of the devices
used to measure external load as this will allow practitioners to
determine the athlete’s day-to-day variation in these measures and
confidently determine meaningful changes in load.
Global Positioning Systems
In elite sport, wearable technology such as global positioning
system (GPS) devices and inertial sensors such as accelerometers,
magnetometers, and gyroscopes are commonly used to monitor
the external load of the athletes during training and competition.35
GPS devices measure position, velocity, and acceleration, the
data of which are processed using various algorithms and filters
to provide a range of metrics that can be used to quantify external
load.36 Accelerometers have been used to quantify movement for
over a decade, with accelerometers now commonplace in technolo-
gies such as smartphones, wearable fitness devices, and individual
inertial sensors. Accelerometers provide a measure of acceleration
which can be used to estimate overall external load imposed on the
body.37 This may provide a more representative value of overall
muscular peripheral load than velocity and distance based metrics as
it incorporates external load from collisions, foot impact, and other
movements that are not accounted for when using GPS. Almost all
GPS devices used in sport contain a triaxial accelerometer. Devices
may also contain a magnetometer and/or gyroscope which measure
direction and orientation, and angular movement respectively.38 Data
from these additional sensors can be integrated to calculate advanced
movement patterns and be used to quantify load in indoor sports.
Distance and Velocity Measures
Total distance is the most common measure of external load using
wearable technology. This measure is provided using GPS data
and can be calculated either by positional differentiation or as the
integral of Doppler-shift velocity. Although not all manufacturers
disclose their chosen method, 2 prominent GPS manufacturers
(Catapult Sports and GPSports) use positional differentiation to
calculate distance. Often the distance covered is reported according
to specific speed thresholds and it is common to see a threshold for
low-speed running, high-speed running, and sprinting.6 The GPS
device calculates velocity either derived from the change in distance
(determined by positional differentiation) over time or using the
Doppler-shift method. As Doppler-shift appears to provide greater
precision and less error,39 this method is commonly used by manu-
facturers. Raw GPS velocity data may be further processed using
filtering techniques (eg, median or exponential filters), which will
vary based on the manufacturer. Different filtering techniques can
IJSPP Vol. 12, Suppl 2, 2017
substantially change the velocity output and are not reported by
all manufacturers. External-load metrics arising from distance and
velocity data include the distance covered within specific speed
thresholds and/or the number of discrete efforts that occur within
a specific speed threshold (ie, number of sprints). Researchers and
practitioners often focus on total distance and the distance covered
at high speeds as this is thought to be the most demanding and
important movement undertaken by the athlete. However, high-
speed running should not be interpreted as high-intensity activity
as this is not a complete reflection of the external load imposed
on the athlete.40 High-intensity activities can also include jumps,
accelerations, decelerations, changes of direction, and tackles.41
Acceleration
Acceleration is more energetically demanding than constant-
velocity movement.41,42 During a maximal 5-second sprint from
a static start 50% of the total work is achieved within the first 1.5
seconds and a peak power output 40% greater than the average
power output is obtained after only ~0.5 second.42 Thus, from a
standing start the hardest work is likely performed before the sprint
threshold is reached. Further, performing an acceleration from a
low velocity can match or even exceed the power output required to
maintain a higher constant velocity,41 Thus accelerating is not only
a metabolically demanding task, but one that does not need to occur
at a high velocity to be challenging. This suggests that if external
load is quantified based only on distance and speed measures it is
likely that the true high-intensity work undertaken by athletes will
be underestimated.
Acceleration is derived from GPS velocity data. There are two
primary levels of data processing when calculating acceleration.
The first is the time interval over which acceleration is derived from
the velocity data. Using a longer time interval will result in aver-
age acceleration which has a smoothing effect on the acceleration
data. The second level of processing applies smoothing filters to the
already calculated acceleration data. Any errors in velocity data are
magnified when acceleration is derived therefore, acceleration data
can often be substantially filtered. As with velocity data, the filter
techniques vary depending on the manufacturer. As acceleration
filters are applied to previously filtered velocity, data differences
in filtering techniques can substantially affect the acceleration
measures reported. This has been observed when GPS data were
processed before and after a software update resulting in a substan-
tial reduction in the number of accelerations detected following
the update.43 Although filtering techniques were not reported, it is
likely that changes in the data-filtering techniques contributed to
these differences. Typically, the number of acceleration efforts or
the distance covered in specific acceleration thresholds are used as
external load measures. However, caution is needed when interpret-
ing this data given the limitations of current technology.44
Accelerometer-Derived Measures
Accelerometers can provide an external load measure of physical
activity that may overcome the limitations of GPS based metrics.
This measure quantifies the overall load on the body indicating
the total stress resulting from acceleration, deceleration, change of
direction, collisions and foot impacts.35 Manufacturers may have
slight variations in how this load is calculated; however, it is typi-
cally the sum of acceleration in all 3 planes of movement measured
using a triaxial accelerometer. An example is the metric PlayerLoad
used by Catapult, which is the square root of the sum of the squared

instantaneous rate of change in acceleration in the x, y, and z axes
divided by 100.37 These load measures are described in arbitrary
units therefore, reliability is more easily determined than validity.
While GPS measures are reliant on the quality of the satellite signal,
these load measures are calculated purely from accelerometer data
and can therefore be collected indoors or in areas with poor signal
quality (eg, indoor or high-walled stadiums). Research that has used
PlayerLoad measures to quantify external load during training has
found it to have a strong relationship with total distance covered.45
It has been suggested that practitioners could use PlayerLoad mea-
sures as a surrogate for measures of total distance when GPS is not
available (ie, indoors).45 Accelerometer external-load values are of
an individual nature; therefore, when monitoring athletes practitio-
ners should compare within-athlete changes rather than between.
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 05/03/17, Volume 12, Article Number Suppl 2
Validity and Reliability
Given the expanding number of wearable devices available for
sports, understanding their reliability and validity is essential to
inform training practice. Decisions around athlete training may
be based on small fluctuations in training load; thus, precision is
extremely important to differentiate between real change and mea-
surement error.47 As manufacturer validation is rarely performed,
external validation is necessary for each device and device metric
to understand the error so that correct assumptions can be made
regarding changes in load variables. A substantial number of studies
have assessed the validity and reliability of wearable technology for
their use in sport. This has been extensively reviewed elsewhere,46
so this section will summarize the findings.
The validity of GPS devices for measuring distance and velocity
appear to improve with a higher sampling frequency.44,48 Improve-
ments may also be due to advances in chipset technology and signal
processing algorithms. Regardless of the sampling frequency, accu-
racy has been shown to be reduced at higher velocities.48 However,
validation studies have often used protocols that involve running
trials commencing from a static start when assessing high velocity.
In studies that have isolated the acceleration and high-velocity-
running phases, GPS accuracy is reduced as the rate of acceleration
(change in velocity) increases.44,49 For example, GPS was found
to have a lower coefficient of variation for measuring running at
constant high speeds (5–8 m/s) compared with low constant speeds
(1–3 m/s), 3% versus 8%, respectively.44 Similarly, validity is shown
to improve over trials of longer distances, where the acceleration
phase is relatively diminished over the trial.50 This would explain
the increased errors for movements that require rapid changes in
velocity such as change-of-direction movement and short explosive
actions. As distance and velocity are calculated independently and
are subject to filtering it is important that each measure and the
associated analysis technique from the GPS is validated appropri-
ately. For example, velocity calculated via Doppler shift has shown
a higher level of accuracy and lower error than velocity calculated
via positional differentiation.39
Of primary importance when monitoring athlete load is the
reliability of the monitoring device as this will allow practitioners
to identify meaningful changes in external load. Individuals may
respond differently to a given training load; therefore, an individual-
ized approach to athlete monitoring is important.1 Higher sampling
frequencies and improvements in technology have been found to
improve reliability in a similar way to validity.44,51 The intraunit
reliability of velocity and distance at any given velocity is difficult to
accurately determine as it requires participants to perform multiple
trials at the exact same speed. Interunit reliability is also difficult as
IJSPP Vol. 12, Suppl 2, 2017
Training-Monitoring Technology   S2-59
it is unclear how wearing multiple devices may affect GPS signal
quality and accelerometer results may vary when placed in differ-
ent locations. While interunit reliability appears to have improved
it is recommended that the same device be used on a given athlete
when monitoring training load to minimize intraunit variability.51
The validation of the accelerometers measure of Player Load is
problematic as it represents an arbitrary unit, however its reliability
has been assessed under laboratory and field conditions.37 When
using a hydraulic universal testing machine to oscillate devices at
specified acceleration ranges, devices showed strong interunit and
intraunit reliability (CV of <1.10%) for Player Load.37 Similarly in
field conditions (Australian Football match), devices were shown to
have strong interunit reliability (CV of 1.94%) for Player Load.37
Validity and reliability of wearable technology are improving
with technological developments. As validation research is often
conducted externally after the release of new technology, practi-
tioners are likely to be using the devices before this information is
available. Unfortunately, validation is required with each new device
release or upgrade, and following any changes to data processing
which may occur after firmware or software updates. The ability
to monitor athletes requires identifying changes within athlete load
measures over time. Thus practitioners are recommended to ensure
consistency in data collection, processing, and analysis where pos-
sible. For this reason, practitioners may wish to delay device and
system upgrades until the end of the season. If retrospective data
can be reprocessed this can provide comparable data for each new
season. This consistency will enhance the reliability of external-load
metrics used to assess athletes.
Use of Load Monitoring in Sport Settings
A large amount of the external-load research is descriptive, detailing
and comparing external load in different circumstances (eg, during
training and competition). The benefit of these studies is that they
provide methods to quantify and analyze external load; however,
there is limited ability to generalize or compare results as they are
dependent on the training program and athletes/team participating
in the research.
Practitioners have a variety of external-load metrics at their
disposal when monitoring athletes. The way in which these metrics
can assist practitioners in optimizing their training plan can vary
with each metric. Information regarding the body load of an ath-
lete can provide a holistic representation of the stress imposed on
the athlete, however, it is difficult to design specific training drills
based on this metric. External-load measures relating to distances
covered at specific speeds may be more appropriate as they provide
practitioners with tangible metrics that can be used to plan what the
athletes will actually do in the training program. Similarly, when
using external load to indicate fatigue, velocity and distance based
measures are unlikely to completely represent the stress on the body,
so body load and/or acceleration metrics should also be included.
It is impractical to suggest that practitioners use all metrics for
each component of the training plan and their decision should be
based on their understanding of the metric and if it can be used in
a practical way to support their training goals.
A number of studies have explored the relationship between
training and injury (for review see Drew et al52). External-load
metrics are often quantified as both acute (7 d) and chronic (eg,
last 4 wk) and as a ratio of the 2.33 The actual load metric used
varies between studies however, total distance appears to be the
most common. Both high and low external loads are associated
 S2-60  Cardinale and Varley
with injury risk, with suggestions that there may be an optimum
load threshold for individual athletes.53 It may be that a low exter-
nal load results in athletes being underprepared for the training or
competition demands whereas chronically high loads may impose
too much stress on the body. There is a strong theory that in some
sports the interplay between acute and chronic external load may
be the most important consideration for athlete monitoring with
spikes in acute load associated with a higher injury risk.54 Regard-
less of the method used, external load should be monitored from
an individual perspective as there are many other factors that may
contribute to the risk of injury.1,52
Summary and Conclusions
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 05/03/17, Volume 12, Article Number Suppl 2
Despite the increased interest in training-load quantification,
research and practice seem to focus mostly on what is easy to
measure rather than developing a holistic approach to the quan-
tification of workloads experienced by athletes with particular
reference to the biological responses. Current findings suggest that
many internal- and external-load parameters can be measured using
wearable technology with relative accuracy and in a reliable manner.
However, it is important to stress that many manufacturers do not
provide information about the accuracy, validity, and reliability of
their equipment nor give access to the raw data for further analysis.
For this reason, generalizations on the accuracy and validity of
any technology or method should not be made, and conclusions of
research studies should be always specific to the hardware and soft-
ware versions employed and the sporting context. Better wearable
solutions could possibly be available in the future using epidermal
electronics providing the basis for body-sensor networks to assess
training loads in sporting activities. Inertial measurement units
(IMUs) will ideally become smaller with better software providing
the modern sport scientist and coach access to numerous datasets
to make better-informed decisions on training prescriptions and
recovery. However, such fast-paced changes do not come without
risks. The lack of quality assurance and standards of manufactur-
ing processes and the lack of transparency by manufacturers do not
guarantee that the data gathered are/will be accurate/valid and reli-
able, so due diligence will be always required. Needless to say that
with more data comes the need to develop user friendly, accessible,
well-designed databases and athlete-management systems capable
of safely managing and storing data. Furthermore, such systems
should be able to generate rapid and meaningful reports, as well as
supporting data-modeling activities to improve the decision-making
progress in the field.
Final Recommendations
and Practical Applications
• Sport scientists and coaches should be aware of the limitations
of every device/method used.
• Industry standards need to be developed to make sure that the
quality of data generated by measurement devices is of high
enough quality to be able to make training decisions.
• Research studies should report details of hardware and software
versions used and limit the significance of the findings to the
versions used in the data-collection activities.
• More longitudinal observational studies are needed to provide
coaches and sport scientists with terms of reference with regard
IJSPP Vol. 12, Suppl 2, 2017
to internal and external training loads in different athletic
cohorts.
• Although a wide range of metrics are available, practitioners
should limit their use to those that they understand and that can
affect their training program.
References
1. Halson SL. Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes.
Sports Med. 2014;44(Suppl 2):S139–S147. PubMed doi:10.1007/
s40279-014-0253-z
2. Gardiner EN. Athletics of the Ancient World. London, UK: Oxford
University Press; 1930.
3. DeLorme T, Watkins A. Progressive Resistance Exercise: Technic and
Medical Application. New York, NY: Appleton, Century and Crofts;
1951.
4. Selye H. A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature.
1936; (138):32.
5. Szabo S, Tache Y, Somogyi A. The legacy of Hans Selye and the
origins of stress research: a retrospective 75 years after his landmark
brief “letter” to the editor# of Nature. Stress. 2012;15(5):472–478.
6. Hackney AC. Clinical management of immuno-suppression in athletes
associated with exercise training: sports medicine considerations. Acta
Med Iran. 2013;51(11):751–756. PubMed
7. Meeusen R, Duclos M, Foster C, et al. Prevention, diagnosis, and
treatment of the overtraining syndrome: joint consensus statement of
the European College of Sport Science and the American College of
Sports Medicine. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(1):186–205. PubMed
doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318279a10a
8. Budgett R, Newsholme E, Lehmann M, et al. Redefining the overtrain-
ing syndrome as the unexplained underperformance syndrome. Br J
Sports Med. 2000;34(1):67–68. PubMed doi:10.1136/bjsm.34.1.67
9. Impellizzeri FM, Rampinini E, Marcora SM. Physiological assess-
ment of aerobic training in soccer. J Sports Sci. 2005;23(6):583–592.
PubMed doi:10.1080/02640410400021278
10. Achten J, Jeukendrup AE. Heart rate monitoring: applications
and limitations. Sports Med. 2003;33(7):517–538. PubMed
doi:10.2165/00007256-200333070-00004
11. Laukkanen RM, Virtanen PK. Heart rate monitors: state of the art. J Sports
Sci. 1998;16(Suppl):S3–S7. PubMed doi:10.1080/026404198366920
12. Borresen J, Ian Lambert M. The quantification of training load, the training
response and the effect on performance. Sports Med. 2009;39(9):779–
795. PubMed doi:10.2165/11317780-000000000-00000
13. Parak J, Korhonen I. Evaluation of wearable consumer heart rate
monitors based on photoplethysmography. Conf Proc. Annu Int
Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:3670–3673. doi:10.1109/
EMBC.2014.6944419
14. Wallen MP, Gomersall SR, Keating SE, Wisløff U, Coombes JS.
Accuracy of heart rate watches: implications for weight management.
PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154420. PubMed doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0154420
15. Zhu S, Tan K, Zhang X, Liu Z, Liu B. MICROST: A mixed approach
for heart rate monitoring during intensive physical exercise using
wrist-type PPG signals. Conf Proc. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med
Biol Soc. 2015;2015:2347–2350.
16. Abtahi F, Ji G, Lu K, Rödby K, Seoane F. A knitted garment using
intarsia technique for Heart rate variability biofeedback: evaluation
of initial prototype. Conf Proc. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol
Soc. 2015;2015:3121–3124. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2015.7319053
17. Romagnoli M, Alis R, Guillen J, Basterra J, Villacastin JP, Guillen S.
A novel device based on smart textile to control heart’s activity during

exercise. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2014;37(2):377–384. PubMed
doi:10.1007/s13246-014-0271-z
18. Hesford CM, Laing SJ, Cardinale M, Cooper CE. Asymmetry of
quadriceps muscle oxygenation during elite short-track speed skating.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(3):501–508. PubMed doi:10.1249/
MSS.0b013e31822f8942
19. Hesford C, Cardinale M, Laing S, Cooper CE. NIRS measure-
ments with elite speed skaters: comparison between the ice rink and
the laboratory. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2013;765:81–86. doi:10.1007/
978-1-4614-4989-8_12.
20. Ferrari M, Muthalib M, Quaresima V. The use of near-infrared
spectroscopy in understanding skeletal muscle physiology:
recent developments. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci.
2011;369:4577–4590.
21. Jones B, Cooper CE. Underwater near-infrared spectroscopy: muscle
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 05/03/17, Volume 12, Article Number Suppl 2
oxygen changes in the upper and lower extremities in club level swim-
mers and triathletes. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;876:35–40. PubMed
doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3023-4_4
22. Borges NR, Driller MW. Wearable lactate threshold predict-
ing device is valid and reliable in runners. J Strength Cond Res.
2016;30(8):2212–2218. PubMed
23. Pechlivanis A, Kostidis S, Saraslanidis P, et al. 1H NMR study on
the short- and long-term impact of two training programs of sprint
running on the metabolic fingerprint of human serum. J Proteome
Res. 2013;12(1):470–480. PubMed doi:10.1021/pr300846x
24. Hooton K, Han W, Li L. Comprehensive and quantitative profiling
of the human sweat submetabolome using high-performance chemi-
cal isotope labeling LC-MS. Anal Chem. 2016;88(14):7378–7386.
PubMed doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.6b01930
25. Daskalaki E, Blackburn G, Kalna G, Zhang T, Anthony N, Watson
DG. A study of the effects of exercise on the urinary metabolome
using normalisation to individual metabolic output. Metabolites.
2015;5(1):119–139. PubMed doi:10.3390/metabo5010119
26. Kim D-H, Lu N, Ma R, et al. Epidermal electronics. Science. 2011;
333(6044):838–843.
27. Schwartz G, Tee BC-K, Mei J, et al. Flexible polymer transistors
with high pressure sensitivity for application in electronic skin and
health monitoring. Nat Commun. 2013;4:1859. PubMed doi:10.1038/
ncomms2832
28. Gao W, Emaminejad S, Nyein HYY, et al. Fully integrated wearable
sensor arrays for multiplexed in situ perspiration analysis. Nature.
2016;529(7587):509–514. PubMed doi:10.1038/nature16521
29. Finni T, Hu M, Kettunen P, Vilavuo T, Cheng S. Measurement of EMG
activity with textile electrodes embedded into clothing. Physiol Meas.
2007;28(11):1405–1419. PubMed doi:10.1088/0967-3334/28/11/007
30. Montini M, Felici F, Nicolò A, Sacchetti M, Bazzucchi I. Neuromus-
cular demand of a soccer match assessed by a continuous electromyo-
graphic recording. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2017;57(4):345–352.
PubMed
31. di Fronso S, Robazza C, Filho E, Bortoli L, Comani S, Bertollo M.
Neural markers of performance states in an Olympic athlete: an EEG
case study in air-pistol shooting. J Sports Sci Med. 2016;15(2):214–
222. PubMed
32. Cheron G, Petit G, Cheron J, et al. Brain oscillations in sport: toward
EEG biomarkers of performance. Front Psychol. 2016;7:246. PubMed
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00246
33. Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Lawson DW, Caputi P, Sampson JA. The
acute:chronic workload ratio predicts injury: high chronic workload
may decrease injury risk in elite rugby league players. Br J Sports Med.
2016;50(4):231–236. PubMed doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-094817
34. Varley MC, Gabbett T, Aughey RJ. Activity profiles of professional
soccer, rugby league and Australian football match play. J Sports Sci.
IJSPP Vol. 12, Suppl 2, 2017
Training-Monitoring Technology   S2-61
2014;32(20):1858–1866. PubMed doi:10.1080/02640414.2013.8232
27
35. Bartlett JD, O’Connor F, Pitchford N, Torres-Ronda L, Robertson SJ.
Relationships between internal and external training load in team-sport
athletes: evidence for an individualized approach. Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2017;12(2):230–234. PubMed doi:10.1123/ijspp.2015-0791
36. Cummins C, Orr R, O’Connor H, West C. Global positioning systems
(GPS) and microtechnology sensors in team sports: a systematic
review. Sports Med. 2013;43(10):1025–1042. PubMed doi:10.1007/
s40279-013-0069-2
37. Boyd LJ, Ball K, Aughey RJ. The reliability of MiniMaxx acceler-
ometers for measuring physical activity in Australian football. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform. 2011;6(3):311–321. PubMed doi:10.1123/
ijspp.6.3.311
38. Gabbett TJ. Quantifying the physical demands of collision sports. J
Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(8):2319–2322. PubMed doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e318277fd21
39. Townshend AD, Worringham CJ, Stewart IB. Assessment of speed
and position during human locomotion using nondifferential GPS.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(1):124–132. PubMed doi:10.1249/
mss.0b013e3181590bc2
40. Abt G, Lovell R. The use of individualized speed and intensity
thresholds for determining the distance run at high-intensity in
professional soccer. J Sports Sci. 2009;27(9):893–898. PubMed
doi:10.1080/02640410902998239
41. Osgnach C, Poser S, Bernardini R, Rinaldo R, di Prampero PE.
Energy cost and metabolic power in elite soccer: a new match analy-
sis approach. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(1):170–178. PubMed
doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ae5cfd
42. di Prampero PE, Fusi S, Sepulcri L, Morin JB, Belli A, Antonutto G.
Sprint running: a new energetic approach. J Exp Biol. 2005;208(Pt
14):2809–2816. PubMed doi:10.1242/jeb.01700
43. Buchheit M, Al Haddad H, Simpson BM, et al. Monitoring accelera-
tions with GPS in football: time to slow down? Int J Sports Physiol
Perform. 2014;9(3):442–445. PubMed doi:10.1123/ijspp.2013-0187
44. Varley MC, Fairweather IH, Aughey RJ. Validity and reliability of GPS
for measuring instantaneous velocity during acceleration, deceleration,
and constant motion. J Sports Sci. 2012;30(2):121–127. PubMed doi
:10.1080/02640414.2011.627941
45. Polglaze T, Dawson B, Hiscock DJ, Peeling P. A comparative analysis
of accelerometer and time-motion data in elite men’s hockey training
and competition. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;10(4):446–451.
PubMed doi:10.1123/ijspp.2014-0233
46. Scott MT, Scott TJ, Kelly VG. The validity and reliability of
global positioning systems in team sport: a brief review. J
Strength Cond Res. 2016;30(5):1470–1490. PubMed doi:10.1519/
JSC.0000000000001221
47. Buchheit M. The numbers will love you back in return—I promise. Int
J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016;11(4):551–554. PubMed doi:10.1123/
ijspp.2016-0214
48. Rampinini E, Alberti G, Fiorenza M, et al. Accuracy of GPS devices
for measuring high-intensity running in field-based team sports. Int J
Sports Med. 2015;36(1):49–53. PubMed
49. Akenhead R, French D, Thompson KG, Hayes PR. The acceleration
dependent validity and reliability of 10 Hz GPS. J Sci Med Sport.
2014;17(5):562–566. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2013.08.005
50. Jennings D, Cormack S, Coutts AJ, Boyd L, Aughey RJ. The valid-
ity and reliability of GPS units for measuring distance in team sport
specific running patterns. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5(3):328–
341. PubMed doi:10.1123/ijspp.5.3.328
51. Jennings D, Cormack S, Coutts AJ, Boyd LJ, Aughey RJ. Variability
of GPS units for measuring distance in team sport movements. Int J
 S2-62  Cardinale and Varley

Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5(4):565–569. PubMed doi:10.1123/
ijspp.5.4.565
52. Drew MK, Finch CF. The relationship between training load and injury,
illness and soreness: a systematic and literature review. Sports Med.
2016;46(6):861–883. PubMed doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0459-8
53. Colby MJ, Dawson B, Heasman J, Rogalski B, Gabbett TJ. Accelerom-
eter and GPS-derived running loads and injury risk in elite Australian
Downloaded by Ebsco Publishing aellsworth@ebsco.com on 05/03/17, Volume 12, Article Number Suppl 2
footballers. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(8):2244–2252 doi:10.1519/
JSC.0000000000000362. PubMed
54. Gabbett TJ. The training-injury prevention paradox: should athletes be
training smarter and harder? Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(5):273–280.
PubMed doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095788

IJSPP Vol. 12, Suppl 2, 2017

Copyright of International Journal of Sports Physiology & Performance is the property of
Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.