How good triathlon coaches
think about technology
What seven experienced coaches revealed about how they choose, trust, limit, and sometimes reject the technology surrounding their practice — and why their relationship with data is more complicated than most athletes realise.
Coaches are surrounded
by technology claims.
New devices, new platforms, new metrics. Every season brings another wave. But how do experienced coaches — the ones coaching real athletes, managing real squads — actually decide what to adopt, what to question, and what to refuse?
This study didn't count how many coaches use which tool. It asked why they use what they use — and what they've chosen to leave behind.
Seven coaches.
In-depth conversations.
Four themes that emerged.
Seven qualified triathlon coaches with five or more years of experience participated in semi-structured interviews. Each conversation explored how they evaluate new technologies, which tools anchor their practice, how they communicate with athletes through and about technology, and where they draw the line.
The analysis used thematic coding to identify four major themes that cut across the interviews. This is qualitative research — not a survey of market share. What it offers is depth and insight, not statistical breadth.
Four themes. One question underneath
all of them: what do you trust?
"The best coaches don't have more tools.
They have clearer reasons for the tools they use."
The most-used tools are not always
the most-trusted.
Bike power meters and GPS watches were trusted and widely adopted. But newer tools — run power, HRV, social platforms — generated more ambivalence. Coaches don't just adopt or reject technology. They hold it at different levels of trust, and that trust shifts with experience and context.
Coach's Read
Power on the bike has earned its trust over two decades. Run power is still proving itself. That difference matters — coaches who treat all metrics equally may be placing too much weight on data that hasn't been validated for their specific use case.
Coaches don't hold one fixed view
of technology. They oscillate.
One of the study's strongest findings is that coaches shifted between different views of technology depending on context. In one conversation, a coach would describe data as essential and objective. In the next breath, they would stress the importance of feel, intuition, and the athlete's internal state.
This is not contradiction. It is practical wisdom. Good coaches hold both perspectives and move between them as the situation demands.
"Coaches do not want either themselves or their athletes to feel controlled by technologies. They choose a suite of technologies that aligns with what they believe coaching is."
From the study findings
"Develop an understanding of what your
technology philosophy is — and ensure it aligns
with your coaching philosophy."
Some coaches prescribed sessions
without technology — deliberately.
Multiple coaches described deliberately asking athletes to train without devices. The reasoning: to protect flow state, develop internal effort perception, and prevent the athlete from becoming psychologically dependent on numbers.
Others worried about the data gap this creates. If an athlete trains without a device, the session doesn't appear in the TMS. That missing data can distort weekly load calculations and monitoring.
The tension is real and unresolved. The study suggests that coaches should encourage athletes to train both with and without technology — to develop a better sense of their own effort level alongside the objective data.
Coach's Read
If an athlete can only tell you how a session went by checking their watch, something has been lost. The best athletes can feel the difference between zones without looking. Technology should sharpen that instinct, not replace it.
Strava as accountability tool —
and potential risk vector.
Several coaches identified Strava as both useful and problematic. On one side, it provides a layer of accountability and social connection. On the other, athletes may chase segments, compete with peers, or push harder than prescribed in order to "perform" on the platform.
Coaches indicated that if unmanaged, Strava-influenced behaviours may lead to over-training, deviation from prescribed sessions, and — in worst cases — possible negative health outcomes. The study proposed that future research should explore strategies to balance technology use and data capture with the risks of over-measurement and social competition.
What no device can measure.
The paper repeatedly stressed that devices do not capture the athlete's internal world. These are the things that matter to coaches — and that technology cannot reach.
before a key session or race
an athlete stops trusting themselves
doesn't appear in any TMS
to a power meter
feels effortless — unmeasured
is wrong — before the data shows it
Coach's Read
This is the strongest Summit-aligned finding in the paper. Technology gives you information about what happened. Coaching gives you interpretation of what it means. The gap between those two things is where the real work happens — and where experienced coaches earn their value.
"Technology gives you information.
Coaching gives you interpretation."
This changes how you think
about your own technology use.
- Stop assuming more data equals better coaching
- Start evaluating technology as a system — not individual tools in isolation
- Consider the athlete's relationship with data, not just your own
- Ask whether your athletes can still feel effort without checking a screen
- Develop a clear technology philosophy — and make sure it aligns with your coaching philosophy
"Technology gives you information.
Coaching gives you interpretation.
The gap between those two things
is where the real work happens."
This study reveals that the best coaches are not the ones with the most tools. They are the ones who have thought most carefully about which tools to use, which to question, and which to set aside — in service of the athlete, not the data.
Leighton Wells
Sport scientist, endurance coach, and founder of Summit Triathlon Coaching
What this study does not claim.
This was a qualitative study with seven coaches. It provides depth and insight — not statistical generalisability. The sample is Australian. The interviewer is an age-group triathlete, which may introduce some bias but also offers the benefit of deeper rapport and richer conversation.
The study does not rank technologies or recommend specific platforms. It does not claim that one coaching philosophy is better than another. What it provides is a window into how experienced coaches actually think about the tools they use — and the principles behind those choices.
This is Summit's interpretation. The published paper is the primary record.