Not all performance testing technologies measure in exactly the same way – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Different technologies measure performance in different ways, with each offering its own level of accuracy, reliability and practicality. The right choice depends on what you want to measure and how you plan to use the results. Rather than always choosing the most accurate technology, focus on finding a tool that is fit for purpose: accurate enough to answer your question while remaining practical and repeatable. In this post, we’ll compare different technologies and explore why context matters when assessing accuracy.
Laser Gates v Stopwatches
Laser timing gates send a laser beam from one side to the other to create an ‘invisible’ line that detects motion. They automatically start and stop the timer when the individual interrupts the laser beam, delivering millisecond-level precision and highly repeatable results.
Stopwatches use simple start and stop functions, with a person manually controlling the timing. This approach can introduce greater variability, as the person timing the test must judge the exact moment an individual crosses the line. Their viewing angle can also affect how accurately they identify this moment. Add in the reaction time of the human to recognise this and press stop means that human error can cause deviation in overall timing.
BIA v Skin Callipers
BIA works by sending a small, safe electrical current through the body via the metal electrodes on the base and/or handles. The machine then measures the resistance, also known as impedance, that the electrical current meets when passing through the body.
Body fat, muscle, bone, and body water conduct electricity differently, with body fat providing more resistance than muscle and water.
Skinfold callipers measure the thickness of subcutaneous fat at specific sites, such as the triceps, abdomen and thighs. Accuracy depends on proper site selection, consistent pinch technique, and skilled measurement. Multiple readings are averaged and then applied to established formulas to estimate body fat percentage.
3D Cameras v Human Eyeball
Unlike traditional human observation, depth cameras capture 3D movement in real time, tracking joint angles, limb trajectories, and posture with millimetre-level precision.
They can automatically detect deviations, asymmetries and compensations that the human eye might miss.
Traditionally, coaches and therapists assess movement by visually watching individuals perform exercises. While experienced eyes can detect gross errors or obvious compensations, this method has limitations such as subjectivity, bias, and missing micro-movements.
