The readiness–preparedness bias: recalibrating monitoring logic

This perspective argues that readiness monitoring metrics may be given disproportionate decision-weight relative to sport-specific preparedness indicators when daily load choices are made for athletes whose chronic physical capacity remains below the demands of competition. We term this tendency the "Readiness-Preparedness Bias" and propose a theoretical model in which readiness monitoring may assume greater practical importance as athletes approach relevant preparedness standards, while still retaining supportive value in underprepared athletes by helping practitioners calibrate progressive exposure and identify clinically meaningful deviations. We synthesise evidence from athlete monitoring, training theory, normative profiling, and return-to-sport literature to highlight that monitoring data are most useful when interpreted against measurement error, contextual dependence, and current sport demands. We also highlight the cognitive, organisational, and interpretive costs of dense monitoring systems. Our aim is not to reject monitoring, but to recalibrate its role: in underprepared athletes, monitoring should primarily guide progressive exposure and dose prescriptions, thereby supporting long-term physical development, sport-specific adaptation, and the gradual accumulation of the capacities required for higher-level performance, rather than repeatedly diluting training stimuli in response to trivial short-term fluctuations.