Abstract
Accelerometer-based wearables offer a cost-effective solution for managing match and training loads in invasion team sports. However, a multitude of acceleration-derived metrics, each employing different algorithms, has led to inconsistent and incomparable outcomes across studies and devices. This article reviews the mathematical procedures underlying whole-body mechanical load metrics, clarifies their conceptual differences, and proposes refinements to enhance standardization. Synthetic data were employed to investigate conceptual differences, while experimental accelerometric data (463 time series) from a set of elite handball training sessions (involving 16 players) were used to implement the corrected equations and analyze statistical relationships. Analysis of synthetic data revealed that derivative-based metrics, such as Jerk Modulus (typically referred to as Player Load) and corrected Accel'Rate (cAccel'Rate), tend to amplify noise compared to acceleration-based metrics, such as universal Dynamic Stress Load (uDSL) and Body Load. Experimental results indicated that when metrics were summed, their values were nearly identical. In time-series comparisons, Jerk Modulus and cAccel'Rate were predictably found to be nearly identical, while Body Load was the most distinct. Acceleration-based metrics are preferable to derivative-based ones. Sports scientists should lead the design and validation of such metrics, ensuring methodological rigor, transparency, and innovation while preventing commercial interests from introducing rebranded variables with undisclosed scaling factors and unclear calculations.