Wearable Biosensing and Machine Learning for Data-Driven Training and Coaching Support

Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) are increasingly integrated into sport and exercise through wearable biosensing systems that enable continuous monitoring and data-driven training adaptation. However, their practical value for coaching depends on the validity of biosensor data, the robustness of analytical models, and the conditions under which these systems have been empirically evaluated. Methods: A structured narrative review was conducted using Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (2010–2026), synthesising empirical and applied evidence on wearable biosensing, signal processing, and ML-based adaptive training systems. To enhance transparency, an evidence map of core empirical studies was constructed, summarising sensing modalities, cohort sizes, experimental settings (laboratory vs. field), model types, evaluation protocols, and key outcomes. Results: Evidence from field and laboratory studies indicates that wearable biosensors can reliably capture physiological (e.g., heart rate variability), biomechanical (e.g., inertial and electromyographic signals), and biochemical (e.g., sweat lactate and electrolytes) markers relevant to training load, fatigue, and recovery, provided that signal quality control and calibration procedures are applied. ML models trained on these data can support training adaptation and recovery estimation, with improved performance over traditional workload metrics in endurance, strength, and team-sport contexts when evaluated using athlete-wise or longitudinal validation schemes. Nevertheless, the evidence map also highlights recurring limitations, including sensitivity to motion artefacts, inter-session variability, distribution shift between laboratory and field settings, and overconfident predictions when contextual or psychosocial inputs are absent. Conclusions: Current empirical evidence supports the use of AI-driven biosensor systems as decision-support tools for monitoring and adaptive training, but not as autonomous coaching agents. Their effectiveness is bounded by sensor reliability, appropriate validation protocols, and human oversight. The most defensible model emerging from the evidence is human–AI collaboration, in which ML enhances precision and consistency in data interpretation, while coaches retain responsibility for contextual judgement, ethical decision-making, and athlete-centred care.