Beyond the Algorithm: Technology and Human Connection in Sport
Only 10% of gym-goers would choose an AI-created workout over a human-led one, according to the Les Mills 2026 Global Fitness Report. That's a striking result at a time when AI coaching apps, connected equipment and wearables are cheaper and more capable than ever. The organisations getting the most out of technology are using it to support coaches, instructors and communities rather than replace them. For the technology side of the story, see our guides to AI in sport and wearables as coaches.
Key Takeaways
People still want people: A 2026 Les Mills survey of more than 10,000 consumers found only 10% prefer an AI-created workout to a human-led one.
Future dropped its AI trainer: In June 2026, the coaching app shelved a free AI-built product after member feedback and doubled down on human coaches.
Simple data wins coaches over: AZ Alkmaar narrows hundreds of match metrics down to a few points its coaches can act on.
AI works as a sounding board: Seattle Reign coach Laura Harvey tested a ChatGPT formation idea with her staff before using it, and it helped win a match.
Younger adults are the least keen on AI coaching: In the same Les Mills survey, only 11% of 16 to 27-year-olds preferred AI-generated coaching.
Young women use tech with the people around them: A Deakin University study found young women used trackers and apps to stay motivated, and leant on friends and family to decide what to trust.
Data rights build trust: Athletes engage more readily with monitoring when they know who owns their data and how it's used.
What You'll Find in This Guide
The Tension Explained
Technology in sport isn't new. Video analysis, GPS tracking and heart rate monitors have been part of elite sport for decades. What has changed is the price and the reach. AI-generated training plans, automated member messaging and wearables that track dozens of metrics are now within reach of community clubs, local gyms and individual athletes, not just professional teams. Our look at technology in community sport in Australia shows how far that has spread.
There is no denying that the upside is real in that good technology removes admin, personalises training and gives coaches information they couldn't otherwise get. The risk is that it gets used to replace the human contact people came for, and members, players and volunteers notice when that happens.
I work in technology in sport and recreation, so I'm always looking at what's next. What I really want to know is whether technology and AI actually help our customers and the community groups we work with, or just get in the way of the people side. The five examples below come from different corners of sport and fitness, and each one has an interesting observation and were they site with it.
Case Study 1: Future Shelves Its AI Trainer
Future is a coaching app that pairs members with real personal trainers, who write their programs and check in through the app. In February 2026 the company split its offer in two, Future Pro, built around human trainers, and a free beta with AI-built workouts.
Four months later it changed course. According to Athletech News, Future decided not to launch the AI beta after testing the product and listening to member feedback, and said it would focus on its human coaching.
"among the first in the fitness app space to pull back from AI" — Athletech News
What makes the decision instructive is that Future had the capability and chose not to use it. The technology stayed where it was already working, handling scheduling, reminders and program delivery, while the coaching stayed with people.
Case Study 2: AZ Alkmaar Keeps Data Simple for Its Coaches
Dutch club AZ Alkmaar describes data as its compass and wants it in every decision it makes. Its Head of Data, Daan Uitermark, told Training Ground Guru in November 2025 that around 400 metrics are available for every match, and that much of it is noise.
"If you make it too complex, you lose the coach." — Daan Uitermark, Training Ground Guru
So AZ deliberately gives its coaches less. After each game, an analyst meets the head coach and assistant coach with just a few focused points.
AZ isn't alone in seeing this. In a survey of 41 elite football clubs, every one used GPS and heart rate monitors in every training session, yet staff said monitoring delivered less than they expected and ranked limited staff and coach buy-in as the biggest barriers. A 2020 survey of 176 coaches, players and performance staff at English professional clubs found that too much information was one of the main things getting in the way of useful feedback. AZ's model puts the coach at the centre and builds the data around what they'll actually use.
Case Study 3: Laura Harvey Uses ChatGPT as a Sounding Board
Before the 2025 season, Seattle Reign head coach Laura Harvey asked ChatGPT about her team's identity and found the answer unreliable. She then asked it what formation to play to beat each team in the NWSL. For two opponents it suggested a back five, according to CBS Sports.
Harvey didn't simply follow the suggestion. Her staff studied the idea first.
"We researched it. We did a deep dive on it." — Laura Harvey, quoted by CBS Sports
The Reign used five at the back in a 1-0 loss to Orlando Pride in April and a 1-0 win over Kansas City in May. The team finished the 2025 regular season fifth, up from 13th the year before. Nobody credits that rise to a chatbot, and Harvey's first question shows its limits. What the example shows is an AI suggestion treated as one input, tested by experienced coaches, and kept only because it worked on the pitch.
Case Study 4: What Gym-Goers Told Les Mills About AI
Les Mills, which creates group fitness programs used in gyms around the world, asked more than 10,000 people across five continents how they want to be coached for its 2026 Global Fitness Report. Only 10% preferred AI workout guidance, according to Athletech News. Another 52% leaned towards a human trainer, including 31% who strongly preferred one, and 37% were undecided.
The age breakdown is the surprising part. Only 11% of 16 to 27-year-olds and 9% of 28 to 40-year-olds preferred AI coaching. The group most open to it was people aged 55 and over, at 13%. The younger adults who grew up with smartphones were the least keen on being coached by one. Les Mills makes its money from instructor-led classes, which is worth keeping in mind, but the result lines up with what Future found when it tested its AI trainer.
Trainers aren't avoiding AI, though. They're using it behind the scenes. In a 2025 survey by the International Sports Sciences Association, 70% of fitness professionals said AI had made them more efficient, according to Health & Fitness Business.
"Adherence isn't a programming problem" — Cedric Bryant, CEO of the American Council on Exercise, Health & Fitness Business
For anyone running a gym or club, the split is clear. Let AI handle the programming, scheduling and admin, and put people where customers say they want them, coaching, encouraging and noticing when someone is struggling.
Case Study 5: Young Women Use Fitness Tech With the People Around Them
Researchers at Deakin University's Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition interviewed 14 women aged 20 to 28 about how they stay active, in a study reported by Deakin in April 2026. Most had used fitness apps and social media workouts since early high school, and started wearing fitness trackers at around 18. Many combined a tracker with an app to build a routine that suited them, and said the technology made exercise more enjoyable. That's important, because interest in exercise often drops once school sport ends.
None of them used the technology to build fitness. They used it to stay motivated, and what worked varied from person to person.
"There is no single type of technology that suits all young women" — Kimberley Watson-Mackie, Deakin University
The people around them made a big difference. The women doubted much of what they saw from influencers and on social media, and that doubt made the technology less fun and less motivating. Using apps and trackers with friends or family helped, because they had someone to check things with, and that made them more confident to exercise.
It's a small study, and a 2024 review of 23 studies by the same Deakin team found only limited evidence that technology increases young women's physical activity. Mobile apps did best, with 60% of analyses showing a benefit, compared with 18% for wearable trackers. In the interviews, the technology helped most when the women used it with people they trusted.
Who Owns the Data?
Every wearable and tracking system raises the same question of who controls the data it collects about people's bodies. In professional sport, players' unions have fought hard over this, and our post on athlete biometric data rights covers the legal detail. The practical lesson for any club or gym is simple. Athletes and members engage more readily with monitoring when they know who owns the data, what it's used for and what protections are in place.
What the Research Says
These examples line up with the wider research on what people want from fitness technology.
McKinsey's 2025 Future of Wellness survey of more than 9,000 consumers in China, Germany, the UK and the US identified a group it calls health traditionalists, about 20% of wellness consumers and mostly older, who prefer simple routines and are less open to new options, including AI-enabled products. That sits a little at odds with Les Mills, where people over 55 were the most open to AI coaching, although even there only 13% preferred it. Wearables are now mainstream, with about half of consumers having bought one, yet McKinsey also found that people value recommendations from doctors more than ever as worries grow about dubious health opinions online.
A 2024 study in Digital Health used a US national survey of 6,252 adults and found fitness tracker users did more moderate exercise and strength training than non-users. For strength training, part of that link ran through what people did on social media, sharing their own health information and watching health videos. It's a snapshot survey, so it can't prove cause and effect, but it fits the Deakin findings. Trackers seem to help partly through what they lead people to share and watch.
A study by the Les Mills Research Lab, presented at the American College of Sports Medicine conference in 2022, had 54 regular BODYCOMBAT participants do the same workout as a live gym class, a livestream and an on-demand video. Average heart rate was 14% higher in the live class, and participants rated it 13% more enjoyable. Les Mills sells both live and digital classes and ran the study itself, so it's worth reading with that in mind.
Retention is where the gap shows most. A consumer survey by software company Zenoti, reported by Athletech News in June 2026, found that 49% of lapsed gym members say their gym never contacted them after they stopped coming. Plenty of systems can flag a member who has gone quiet. The flag only helps if someone then picks up the phone.
Getting the Balance Right
Use technology to clear time for people. Future's app handles the scheduling, AZ's analysts filter the data, and trainers use AI for programming and admin so they can spend more time with clients. In each case the technology takes work off the people at the centre.
Keep the decision with a person. Laura Harvey's back five worked because her staff tested it before trusting it.
Be clear about data. People share more, and more accurately, when they know who owns their information and what it's used for.
Put people where customers want them. Most gym-goers in the Les Mills survey wanted a human coach, and the young women in the Deakin study trusted technology more when they used it with friends and family. Technology works best when it supports those relationships.
Industry Bodies and Resources
Australia: AUSactive, formerly Fitness Australia, is the peak body for the exercise and active recreation industry.
United Kingdom: ukactive represents the UK's fitness and physical activity sector.
Global: The Health & Fitness Association, formerly IHRSA, publishes industry research and represents operators worldwide.
Exercise science: The American College of Sports Medicine sets exercise science and professional standards.
Final Thoughts
I started this wanting to know whether technology and AI actually help our customers and the community groups we work with, or just get in the way of the people side. Having worked through these examples, my answer is that it helps when it takes work off people and gets in the way when it tries to replace them. Future kept its coaches, AZ Alkmaar built its data around the coach, and Laura Harvey tested an AI idea with her staff before using it. Gym-goers told Les Mills they still want a person coaching them, and the young women in the Deakin study used their tech with friends and family.
I see the motivation side in my own training. My Apple Watch keeps me going, with an exercise streak that's almost two years long and my move goal completed more than 1,500 times, and I don't think I'd have done that without it. That's the job technology does well. What the research says our customers still want from us is the person, someone to coach them, encourage them and notice when they're struggling.
So when I look at the next tool for our customers and community groups, I'll be asking one thing. Does it give our staff, trainers and volunteers more time with the people in front of them? If it does, it's worth a closer look. If it doesn't, it probably isn't.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Will AI replace personal trainers?
A: Not on current evidence. Only 10% of people in the Les Mills 2026 Global Fitness Report preferred an AI-created workout to a human-led one, and the coaching app Future shelved its AI product in June 2026 after member feedback. AI is more likely to take over admin and program logistics, leaving trainers more time to coach.
Q: Is technology making sport less human?
A: It can, but it doesn't have to. The case studies above show technology working best when it gives coaches better information and handles admin, and causing problems when it replaces the relationships that keep people involved.
Q: Do people work harder in live classes than online workouts?
A: One study suggests so. A Les Mills Research Lab study presented in 2022 found average heart rate was 14% higher in a live class than in the same workout done by livestream or on demand. Les Mills sells both formats and ran the study itself, and the sample was 54 people.
Q: Why did Future drop its AI trainer?
A: Future said it decided not to launch its free AI-built beta after spending time with the product and hearing feedback from members. It now focuses on pairing members with human coaches.
Q: How do elite teams use data without overwhelming coaches?
A: AZ Alkmaar cuts around 400 available match metrics down to a few focused points that an analyst takes to the coaching staff after each game, because its Head of Data believes too much complexity loses the coach.
Q: Do younger people prefer AI fitness coaching?
A: Not according to the Les Mills 2026 Global Fitness Report. Only 11% of 16 to 27-year-olds and 9% of 28 to 40-year-olds preferred AI-generated coaching. People aged 55 and over were the most open to it, at 13%.
Q: Does fitness technology help young women stay active?
A: It can help with motivation. A Deakin University study found young women used trackers and apps to keep exercise enjoyable rather than to build fitness, and a 2024 review by the same team found the evidence that technology increases young women's activity is still limited.
Q: Who owns an athlete's biometric data?
A: It depends on the sport, the league and the country. In some professional leagues, players' unions have negotiated formal protections, and our guide to athlete biometric data rights explains how they work.
