Are We Being Bluffed by Technology in Sports Science?
I'm going to start this blog very simply: we have been bluffed.
In the world of sports science and performance, we've been sold the idea —by technology companies, universities and social media — that the be-all and end-all of athlete monitoring and physical assessment happens predominantly in the gym with isometrics, eccentrics and force plate tests in conjunction with the outdoor monolith; GPS.
The Overreliance on Gym-Based Technology
Tools like force plates, eccentric hamstring assessments, and isometric contractions certainly have a place in our understanding of athletes.
If you've ever seen me present on performance rehabilitation, you'll know I advocate for a continuum: at the early stages of rehab, it’s crucial to measure isometric strength, eccentric strength, hop and jump performances. This offers us insight into fundamental structural capacity. These tools matter — no question.
Just last night, I was reviewing running mechanics data for a running back in one of my NFL teams. When presented with the information, my feedback to the coaching staff was clear:
"Coach, you need to check if this athlete has the appropriate strength to run at all. What we're seeing could simply be a function of a lack of capacity."
So yes, these gym-based metrics are important.
But my concern — especially for young performance coaches — is that many are becoming obsessed with the ease of information that these tools provide. Many coaches born after 1990 have never known professional life without these devices.
Why Running Mechanics Matter More
I'm biased. I'll admit it.
I'm as biased about running mechanics as much as other providers are about their gym-based technologies.
The difference however is I’m trying to answer a very specific question that has not been addressed since the introduction of GPS/IMU sensors in 2004…How does my athlete generate speed? I have case studies showing:
Athletes with perfect gym-based symmetry in strength tests,
Yet showing clear asymmetries and movement deficiencies on the field — deficiencies linked to injury history and risks.
Take hamstring injuries, for example.
Two of the most common markers I see in athletes recovering from hamstring injuries are:
Loss of horizontal force production:
Using running biomechanics data, we can track a surrogate measure of horizontal force by assessing how the pelvis accelerates relative to the foot during the propulsion component of stance phase. Research (like JB Morin’s 2011 work – Technical Ability of Force Application as a Determinant Factor of Sprint Performance) has shown that a reduction in horizontal force leads to a loss of speed — a critical factor post-injury (see Brughelli - Contralateral Leg Deficits in Kinetic and Kinematic Variables During Running in Australian Rules Football Players with Previous Hamstring Injuries). This cannot be detected by a gym-based test!
Loss of frontal plane hip control (Hip Lock):
This isn’t something you’ll pick up from a force plate. It becomes obvious only when the athlete is running.
I've seen plenty of athletes with great numbers in eccentric hamstring strength, isometric strength, jump testing...
But put them on a field and their mechanics fall apart. They weren't ready — not in a way that matters for real sport.
The Limits of Gym Data and GPS
The gym metrics?
They can be used to qualify an athlete to start running, answering the question “Is the athlete ready to start running?”.
But running itself is a far more complex, highly coordinated movement. Even at modest speeds the limb velocities far exceed anything possible in the gym.
It’s not just about force — it’s about how and when that force is applied (motor control).
Similarly, GPS data was revolutionary when it emerged.
But GPS offers only a piece of the bigger picture. It doesn’t capture the nuanced biomechanical deficits that can cause or a result of injuries. It offers us WHAT the athlete does, not HOW they do it.
Pushing Beyond Easy Measurements
I urge young sports scientists and performance coaches: Don't stop asking questions.
Our job isn't just to collect easy metrics. Our job is to understand variability in our environment — to dig into HOW athletes move the way they do, and how that movement changes after injury, fatigue, or training.
We must push boundaries to get closer to understanding performance at a deeper level.
We’ll never reach 100% certainty — but we must try to get closer, even when it’s complicated.
A Real-World Example: Why Gym Data Alone Isn't Enough
Last night, I reviewed the case of an NFL running back for a client. At first glance, his speed was holding up — but deeper analysis showed HOW he was achieving it, poor ground contact mechanics, stemming from an old left-limb injury, was likely unsustainable.
The question I was posed was to examine a right leg calf injury.
What I found was his left leg a long way off on several metrics, meaning it wasn’t really contributing to generating speed effectively.
The data indicated his right leg was doing all the work.
The symptom (right leg calf strain) was likely not the cause (left leg dysfunction).
No gym test would have caught that. No GPS alone would have told the full story.
It’s only by analyzing running mechanics that we uncovered the true cause — and from there, we can start addressing training loads, rehab strategies, and performance plans more intelligently.
Final Thoughts: Let's Move Forward, Smarter
Biomechanics may not be "first nature" to many coaches. Our academic system in sports science still leans heavily on physiology. But for those willing to put in the effort — to learn the language of force application, coordination, and real-world movement — the payoff is immense.
At SpeedSig, we're working hard to build tools that make this process more accessible.
The goal?
Better information. Better athletes. Better careers.
Let’s not settle for what's easy to measure.
Let’s aim for what matters.
— Jason Weber
