FSHP Academy
Sports Technology — all lessons

Module 1 – Introduction

Evolution and role of technology in sportImpact on training, recovery and competitionCase studies: technology in Olympic and elite sport

Module 2 – Biomechanics & Motion Capture

Biomechanics basics for technology usersMotion analysis tools: cameras, sensors and appsForce plates (e.g. VALD ForceDecks)Reaction-light systems (e.g. BlazePod)DynamometryRunning gait analysis (e.g. GaitON)Timing and jump systems (e.g. Hyperlab)

Module 3 – Wearables & Monitoring

Types of wearables: GPS and heart-rate monitorsInterpreting speed, load, fatigue and HRV dataIntegrating wearable data into training

Module 4 – Performance Testing & Analytics

Performance testing and analytics workflows

Interpreting speed, load, fatigue and HRV data

Making sense of monitoring data — external and internal load, high-speed running, HRV trends, typical error, smallest worthwhile change, and acute:chronic ratio debates.

Advanced Evidence: Strong evidence 3 min read Reviewed 2026-10-31 Status: draft

Learning objectives

  • Distinguish external and internal load measures
  • Interpret HRV with rolling averages and baselines
  • Apply typical error and smallest worthwhile change
  • Evaluate load ratios critically

Before this lesson

Why this matters

Data only helps if interpreted correctly; most day-to-day changes are noise.

Signal versus noise in repeated testing Ten weekly countermovement jump heights plotted around a baseline of 40 centimetres. A shaded band shows the smallest worthwhile change of plus or minus 0.8 centimetres. Each point has error bars of plus or minus 1 centimetre showing typical error. Most weeks fall within the band and are treated as noise. Weeks 6 and 7 drop clearly below the band, prompting a check on fatigue. Week 10 rises clearly above it, suggesting a likely real improvement. baseline ± smallest worthwhile change wk 6–7: real drop? check fatigue wk 10: likely real gain 12345678910 3537.54042.545 Week · error bars = typical error of the test CMJ height (cm) Illustrative data. A change is more likely real when it exceeds both the smallest worthwhile change and the test’s typical error.
Figure 1. Signal versus noise: interpreting repeated test results. — Original diagram, FSHP Academy (schematic, not to scale).

Load types [bourdon2017]

ExternalInternal
Distance, high-speed running, accelerationsHeart rate, HR zones
Sets × reps × loadSession-RPE × minutes
Bowling deliveries, jumpsHRV, wellness

HRV

Use morning measures, rolling 7-day averages and individual baselines [plews2013].

Meaningful change

Smallest worthwhile change ≈ 0.2 × between-athlete SD; compare with typical error [hopkins2000].

Load ratios

Spikes in load have been linked to injury [gabbett2016], but the ACWR has statistical and conceptual problems [impellizzeri2020]. Use load trends with context, not a single ratio.

Common mistakes and misconceptions

Case study

A rower’s 7-day HRV average falls below his normal range for five days with poor sleep. Training intensity is reduced for three days and values return to baseline.

Further learning: video lessons

Video links are only marked “verified” after a human has watched them. Unverified entries open a YouTube search for that channel and topic rather than a guessed link.

Technical needs verification — opens a YouTube search

Interpreting speed, load, fatigue and HRV data

sport science practitioners and manufacturers’ education channels (search)

You will understand: interpreting speed, load, fatigue and hrv data

Why: Practitioner content; verify the specific video and be aware of commercial bias.
Technical needs verification — opens a YouTube search

Validity and reliability explained

sport science practitioners and manufacturers’ education channels (search)

You will understand: judging measurement quality

Why: Practitioner content; verify the specific video and be aware of commercial bias.

Knowledge check

Knowledge check · 0/5

1. Internal load examples include…

Answer B. Physiological response.

2. Plews et al. (2013) recommend HRV be interpreted using…

Answer B. Reduce noise.

3. The smallest worthwhile change is often estimated as…

Answer A. Hopkins.

4. Impellizzeri et al. (2020) argued the ACWR…

Answer B. Critique.

5. A falling HRV trend with poor wellness suggests…

Answer B. Possible accumulated fatigue.

Short-answer & application questions

  1. Interpret a fictional HRV dataset.
  2. Calculate SWC for a squad’s CMJ.
  3. Critique the ACWR for a coach.

Key takeaways

  • External load is what the athlete does; internal load is how the body responds.
  • HRV should be interpreted as rolling averages against an individual baseline.
  • A change is more likely meaningful when it exceeds the test’s typical error and the smallest worthwhile change.
  • The acute:chronic workload ratio has conceptual and statistical problems; use it cautiously.

Connected topics

sports technology

Integrating wearable data into training

strength conditioning

Overtraining: recognition and load monitoring

sports technology

Performance testing and analytics workflows

References

  1. Bourdon PC, Cardinale M, Murray A, et al. (2017). Monitoring athlete training loads: consensus statement. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 12(Suppl 2):S2161–S2170. Guideline check pending
  2. Plews DJ, Laursen PB, Stanley J, Kilding AE, Buchheit M (2013). Training adaptation and heart rate variability in elite endurance athletes: opening the door to effective monitoring. Sports Medicine, 43(9):773–781. Narrative review check pending
  3. Hopkins WG (2000). Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Medicine, 30(1):1–15. Narrative review check pending
  4. Impellizzeri FM, Tenan MS, Kempton T, Novak A, Coutts AJ (2020). Acute:chronic workload ratio: conceptual issues and fundamental pitfalls. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 15(6):907–913. Narrative review check pending
  5. Gabbett TJ (2016). The training—injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder?. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(5):273–280. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2015-095788 Narrative review check pending

Educational content only — not medical advice. Consult a qualified clinician for diagnosis or treatment.