Author: Tom Little & Martin Buchheit (2025)
Journal: Sport Performance & Science Reports

AI generated summary

The paper critiques the widespread reliance on GPS-based normative training-load targets in elite sport. While GPS technology has improved load monitoring and communication, the authors argue that commonly used norms and benchmarks lack an empirical basis for defining optimal training loads. Most GPS norms simply reflect what teams typically do, not what best enhances performance or minimizes injury risk.

A central concern is that standard GPS metrics — especially distance, high-speed running, and acceleration counts — often misrepresent true neuromechanical and metabolic demands, particularly in multidirectional, sport-specific training such as small-sided games. As a result, normative targets may underestimate actual load and bias training toward linear, easily quantifiable activities that “hit the numbers” rather than those that most effectively stimulate adaptation.

The paper highlights how injury-prevention pressures and job security concerns can drive practitioners to rigidly adhere to GPS norms, even when this conflicts with principles of specificity, periodisation, and dose–response. Practices like post-session “top-ups” are cited as examples of training shaped by dashboards rather than physiological needs.

The authors conclude that GPS norms should be treated as contextual guides, not evidence-based targets. Training design should instead be driven by foundational principles—what qualities need to be developed, how athletes adapt to load, and when specific stimuli are best applied—using GPS data to support, not dictate, decisions. More research is needed to link detailed loading patterns directly to performance and injury outcomes rather than relying on descriptive norms as proxies.