Wearable Sensors for Monitoring the Internal and External Workload of the Athlete

The convergence of semiconductor technology, physiology, and predictive health analytics from wearable devices has advanced its clinical and translational utility for sports. The detection and subsequent application of metrics pertinent to and indicative of the physical performance, physiological status, biochemical composition, and mental alertness of the athlete has been shown to reduce the risk of injuries and improve performance and has enabled the development of athlete-centered protocols and treatment plans by team physicians and trainers. Our discussions in this review include commercially available devices, as well as those described in scientific literature to provide an understanding of wearable sensors for sports medicine. The primary objective of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review of the applications of wearable technology for assessing the biomechanical and physiological parameters of the athlete. A secondary objective of this paper is to identify collaborative research opportunities among academic research groups, sports medicine health clinics, and sports team performance programs to further the utility of this technology to assist in the return-to-play for athletes across various sporting domains. A companion paper discusses the use of wearables to monitor the biochemical profile and mental acuity of the athlete

Wearable Sensors for Monitoring the Physiological and Biochemical Profile of the Athlete

Athletes are continually seeking new technologies and therapies to gain a competitive edge to maximize their health and performance. Athletes have gravitated toward the use of wearable sensors to monitor their training and recovery. Wearable technologies currently utilized by sports teams monitor both the internal and external workload of athletes. However, there remains an unmet medical need by the sports community to gain further insight into the internal workload of the athlete to tailor recovery protocols to each athlete. The ability to monitor biomarkers from saliva or sweat in a noninvasive and continuous manner remain the next technological gap for sports medical personnel to tailor hydration and recovery protocols per the athlete. The emergence of flexible and stretchable electronics coupled with the ability to quantify biochemical analytes and physiological parameters have enabled the detection of key markers indicative of performance and stress, as reviewed in this paper

On Component Forces in Physics: A Pragmatic View

Do component forces exist? I argue that the answer lies in the affirmative, on historical and operational grounds

What is theoretical progress of science?

The epistemic conception of scientific progress equates progress with accumulation of scientific knowledge. I argue that the epistemic conception fails to fully capture scientific progress: theoretical progress, in particular, can transcend scientific knowledge in important ways. Sometimes theoretical progress can be a matter of new theories ‘latching better onto unobservable reality’ in a way that need not be a matter of new knowledge. Recognising this further dimension of theoretical progress is particularly significant for understanding scientific realism, since realism is naturally construed as the claim that science makes theoretical progress. Some prominent realist positions (regarding fundamental physics, in particular) are best understood in terms of commitment to theoretical progress that cannot be equated with accumulation of scientific knowledge

Lines of Descent: Kuhn and Beyond

yesThomas S. Kuhn is famous both for his work on the Copernican Revolution and his ‘paradigm’ view of scientific revolutions. But Kuhn later abandoned the notion of paradigm (and related notions) in favour of a more ‘evolutionary’ view of the history of science. Kuhn’s position therefore moved closer to ‘continuity’ models of scientific progress, for instance ‘chain-of-reasoning’ models, originally championed by D. Shapere. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate around Kuhn’s new ‘developmental’ view and to evaluate these competing models with reference to some major innovations in the history of cosmology, from Copernicanism to modern cosmology. This evaluation is made possible through some unexpected overlap between Kuhn’s earlier discontinuity model and various versions of the later continuity models. It is the thesis of this paper that the ‘chain-of-reasoning’ model accounts better for the cosmological evidence than both Kuhn’s early paradigm model and his later developmental view of the history of science