Signal
Heart-rate response and recovery can provide useful observations. Measurements depend on the test protocol, device quality, exercise intensity, recovery posture and timing.
WEWON • SCIENCE & VALIDATION
Evidence informs the process.
Context guides the decision.
WeWoN connects training planning, athlete monitoring and recovery awareness. This page explains the research behind those practices, the intended role of our tools and the limits of what they can tell us.
What AFE™ Safety Check is for
AFE™ Safety Check supports a structured look at exercise response and recovery signals. It is intended to support training conversations and preventive awareness, with coaches interpreting results alongside the athlete’s history and current circumstances.
Educational and non-clinical.
AFE™ does not diagnose disease, predict injury, provide medical clearance or replace evaluation by a qualified healthcare professional. A favorable result is not a guarantee that exercise is safe.
AFE™ identifies the signal. WPM adds context.
Context
Wellness Physio Monitor (WPM) organizes follow-up and athlete observations so staff can consider trends together with training load, perceived effort, sleep, fatigue and recovery.
How we interpret monitoring
- Use a consistent protocol. Record the device, test conditions, timing and relevant context.
- Follow individual trends. A single reading should not be treated as a universal readiness score.
- Combine information. Physiological signals, athlete feedback and professional judgment belong in the same conversation.
- Recognize uncertainty. Missing data, measurement noise and changing conditions can limit interpretation.
Scientific foundations
The publications below support the general practices of monitoring exercise response and training load. They are not validation studies of proprietary WeWoN tools or algorithms.
- Bellenger et al. (2016). Monitoring Athletic Training Status Through Autonomic Heart Rate Regulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Changes in heart-rate recovery and variability can accompany both positive adaptation and overreaching. Additional context is needed to interpret them.
- Bourdon et al. (2017). Monitoring Athlete Training Loads: Consensus Statement.
A foundation for considering internal and external load together in athlete monitoring.
- Soligard et al. (2016). How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury.
Provides context for the relationship between load management and athlete health. It does not make an individual monitoring result an injury prediction.
- Cole et al. (1999). Heart-rate recovery immediately after exercise as a predictor of mortality.
A clinical study highlighting the physiological relevance of heart-rate recovery. Its clinical population and thresholds should not be transferred directly to an athlete screening tool.
Product validation: a separate question
Research on heart-rate regulation or training load does not automatically validate a specific app, protocol or score. Any claim about WeWoN product accuracy requires studies of the actual tool in its intended population.
This page does not present a completed independent validation study of AFE™ or WPM. Relevant evaluation would need to document measurement agreement, repeatability, population, protocol, limitations and outcomes before stronger claims are made.
Built for real-world sport
From planning a session to reviewing a season, the aim is to give coaches and institutions a clearer, more consistent process—not to automate clinical decisions.
Discuss your institution, sport and athlete needs → Visit Science Movement →