Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Physical Readiness Training For Cadets in Army Reserve Officer Training Corps
May 4th, 2015
By: Jeremy Ross, BS, CSCS
An evidence-based review of the efficacy and safety of physical readiness training
programs conducted by Army Reserve Officer Training Corps at the University of
Texas during the Spring 2015 semester with recommendations for process
improvement.
2
I. Abstract
Over the course of the spring 2015 semester, two physical readiness training
programs for the Army ROTC battalion at The University of Texas were evaluated
for efficacy vs. injury risk to inform commanders’ Composite Risk Management
(CRM) of the current PRT cycle. Standard unit training (PRT) was compared with an
aggressive combat skills training program for competitors in the Sandhurst Ranger
Challenge (RC). Both groups completed an Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) as a
marker of fitness performance and improvement. In addition, 11 cadets from PRT
and 7 cadets from RC completed a vertical jump field test of muscular power and a
“Beep Test” measurement of anaerobic endurance pre- and post-training. These tests
were evaluated and determined to provide sufficiently novel performance data over
standard APFT scores. Musculoskeletal injuries and their relative severity was
recorded over the course of the 12 week training period. Both PRT and RC
demonstrated a significant improvement in field test performance (p<0.01) and PRT
demonstrated significant improvement in APFT performance (p<0.00). The between
group interaction was not significant (p>0.05). 24% of cadets in the battalion
reported a musculoskeletal injury with RC representing a significantly higher
incidence of musculoskeletal injury with significantly more man-weeks lost training
time due to injury (p<0.05). Overall battalion injury numbers appeared to exceed the
US Army average when extrapolated to a full 48-week training year. In light of these
results, injury preventive measures were made to ROTC command and are included
with this report.
3
II. Introduction
The United States Army is one of the largest and is arguably the most effective
fighting force in the history of the world. The US Army is currently engaged in broad
spectrum operations across the world to include counter-insurgency, peace keeping
operations, and humanitarian relief efforts. This elite fighting force is capable of
deploying and engaging in these broad spectrum operations anywhere in the world and
thus must be adaptable, mobile, agile and lethal. The Army’s field manual for physical
readiness training (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2012) denotes that these full
spectrum operations require strength, stamina, agility, resiliency, and coordination on the
part of the individual warfighter. With that in mind, physical readiness programs such as
the one discussed here should be geared toward making the individual soldier stronger,
more agile, more survivable, and more lethal on the battlefield.
The Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (AROTC) is a crucial component of
the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and is instrumental in
developing the Army’s future leaders. Since its inception in 1916, Army ROTC has
grown to be the largest commissioning source in the American military, commissioning
more than half a million officers, according to US Army official recruitment information.
While enrolled in this program, university students are exposed to training in Army
doctrine including basic soldiering skills, Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills, Army
leadership, and are afforded opportunities to participate in official Army schools during
the summer months. This long-term exposure places AROTC in a unique position to
provide progressive and comprehensive training to the Army’s future officers.
In addition to various other types of Army training required of AROTC cadets,
there is also a physical readiness component. Unlike most Army training which is
focused on teaching on the cognitive level or facilitating improved coordinated
operations at the unit level, physical readiness training is aimed at creating tangible,
organic changes in the in individual soldier in order to prepare her for physical operations
in a rigorous environment. Following the principle of progressive overload, these
changes must necessarily occur gradually and, with the application of a proper training
4
program, can and should develop the warfighter during her entire tenure in training and
beyond into the regular fighting force of the Army. The long training tenure of AROTC
cadets combined with the low operational tempo and complete lack of combat operations
means that AROTC is in a unique position to provide what is likely to be the most
comprehensive physical readiness training implemented anywhere in the US Army.
Another important consideration for the implementation of a physical readiness
training program is the injury risk inherent in any physical readiness training. The single
largest health threat facing the US Army’s combat readiness is not combat-related
injuries, but rather musculoskeletal injuries caused by improper training or lack of
physical readiness for combat-related stressors such as load carriage. Hauret et. al., in a
review of non-combat related injuries across all US military services, found
musculoskeletal injuries accounted for an outstanding 628 injuries per 1000 person years
in 2006. Of these, overuse injuries and stress fractures accounted for 84.2% of
musculoskeletal disorders requiring medical attention (Hauret, 2007). These
musculoskeletal injuries can have long-lasting effects including removing the soldier
from training for long periods of time, resulting in removing the soldier from a combat
deployable status, or even permanent disability for the individual. Army leaders have a
responsibility to their soldiers to keep them healthy and well, to their units in order to
make them more survivable and lethal, and to their superiors to provide them with the
most combat effective units possible. All three of these responsibilities can be
compromised by excessive training injuries. With this in mind, physical readiness
programs should be evaluated not only for their efficacy in improving the physical
readiness of those still in the fighting force, but for the fighting force as a whole and thus
should take into account maintenance of the physical health of the individual.
In order to ensure best practices for physical readiness training programs, it is
vital that the Army test and validate its training programs for safety, efficacy, efficiency,
and feasibility. These findings are encoded into Army training doctrine, predominantly
in the form of its field manual on physical readiness training, FM 7-22, with the most
recent revision being October 2012. In addition to its specifications for general
conditioning of US soldiers at all levels, this doctrine states that commanders can and
5
should also take mission-specific factors into account when implementing their own
physical readiness training programs. These training programs then should be monitored
whenever possible based on the same unit relevant criteria of safety, efficacy, efficiency,
and feasibility. Much of this monitoring may be performed at the unit command level
with on-hand personnel, but commanders may choose to consult with an exercise
physiologist for a more in depth analysis.
It is important to note that a simple monitoring of APFT scores could be missing
key variables in program evaluation, particularly in the realm of injury risk. All physical
fitness programs carry an injury risk. Failing to account for this injury risk when
evaluating results will lead to a phenomenon known as Survivor Bias, wherein only the
most fit (i.e., those most likely to “survive” the training program without injury),
complete retesting at the record APFT and therefore artificially inflate the mean APFT
score. For this reason an effort should be made to account for both training effectiveness
and survivability during the analysis process.
In an effort to analyze these multitude variables, a project was designed and
proposed with cooperation with unit leadership. This project evaluated 27 cadets
enrolled in Army ROTC at The University of Texas during the Spring 2015 semester.
Eighteen of these cadets were in the general physical readiness training population (PRT)
and 9 were members of the unit’s team competing in the Sandhurst Ranger Challenge
competition (RC). All cadets were subjected to pre- and post-testing involving an Army
Physical Fitness Test as well as a vertical jump test, and a beep test as a measures of
anaerobic performance. These tests were chosen for being the most generally relevant
tests for combat soldier in the US Army and are described in detail in the next section of
this document. After pre-testing, cadets completed 10 weeks of physical readiness
training as per their group’s specifications. 11 cadets in the PRT group and 7 cadets in
the Ranger Challenge group completed the trial.
6
III. Testing
Fitness testing is a crucial part of physical readiness training. Appropriately
designed, validated, and implemented fitness testing provides results-based information
to commanders on the efficacy and efficiency of physical readiness training programs.
Fitness testing is used in consideration for promotion or placement in high level positions
and, in cases where the soldier fails to maintain a base level of conditioning can be used
in flagging against favorable action and potential chapter proceedings (wherein the
soldier may be forcibly separated from the Army.) Appropriately designed fitness testing
procedures can also provide valuable information to commanders on unit combat
readiness and even provide early warning signs of a training program that has become too
lax or too difficult to be a benefit to the unit.
The cornerstone of physical fitness testing in the US Army is the Army Physical
Fitness Test, or APFT. The APFT consists of the 2-minute push-up, 2-minute sit-up, and
2-mile run (or an approved alternate aerobic event). Soldiers are allowed a minimum of
10 minutes and a maximum of 20 minutes to recover between events. Each metric is
scored on a 1-100 scale and a minimum score of 60 in each event must be attained in
order to receive a passing grade. Details for the APFT are described in FM 7-22,
Appendix A (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2012).
While the APFT provides information on muscular endurance of the upper and
lower body, its purpose is merely to provide information on a base level of conditioning
for the soldier and should not be construed as an inclusive test of fitness skills necessary
for the warfighter (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2012). Indeed, the primary
tasks tested in the APFT are muscular endurance of the upper body, specifically muscles
of the chest and triceps; muscular endurance of the trunk muscles in flexion; and aerobic
capacity. It is easily argued that several components related to performance for the
modern warfighter are not represented in the results of the APFT. Among these are
muscular power, strength, anaerobic endurance, and agility. Currently, there is a defense
project aimed at developing a more comprehensive physical fitness test, but it may not be
active for years to come. In the mean time, commanders can still increase their
7
cognizance of more global fitness factors in the unit by incorporating additional physical
fitness testing into the physical readiness program. Although these supplementary tests
are not official Army doctrine and cannot be used formally as a consideration for
promotion or career advancement in the same way APFT scores are used, these tests can
provide valuable information about the potential combat and training readiness status in
their soldiers. In order to maximize effectiveness, these tests should be mission-specific
to the demands of the unit. Commanders should be encouraged to consult an exercise
physiologist when determining the appropriateness of certain fitness tests.
Physical fitness tests should ideally be structured in such a way that makes use of
readily available equipment to measure variables that are pertinent to the soldier’s
performance and can be measured without infringing unnecessarily on unit training time.
The additional fitness tests chosen for this project were vertical jump as a measure of
muscular power and a beep test measure of high intensity running and anaerobic
endurance. These tests were chosen as general performance markers that were expected
to provide important information on the efficacy of existing physical readiness training
programs.
Vertical Jump
Power is defined as Work (or Force multiplied by distance) divided by time.
Muscular power is the measure of physiological force output over a set time period. This
is often expressed in terms of absolute power or relative to bodyweight. The vertical
jump task is an example of a test of power relative to body weight. As a single jump
requires a small time component in terms of Force application into the ground and
jumping force can be considered a function of body mass and acceleration; a
8
measurement of vertical jump height can be considered a measurement of instantaneous
force output relative to body weight.
The vertical jump test of muscular power is an easily identified marker of
physical performance for a soldier. Common combat tasks such as sprinting and jumping
relate directly to this task. Furthermore, a test of muscular power is an important metric
that can inform commanders on their program’s training load compared with the
individual soldier’s adaptive ability. The complex neuromuscular systems involved in
producing peak muscular power appear to degrade under excessive physiological stress.
While some training programs, particularly high contraction speed training programs can
increase force production at high contraction speeds (Coyle, 1981), an acute decrease in
muscular power appears to be an early indicator of over-reaching. This is most likely
due to the fact that neurological factors such as altered motor unit coordination and
biochemical factors such as decreased creatine kinase that are particularly instrumental in
the production of anaerobic power, are some of the earliest markers of over-reaching (Fry
and Kraemer, 1997). Athletes, including tactical athletes, who are over-reaching have
placed their bodies under such acute stressors that physical abilities have begun to
decrease. Lowering the training volume will allow these athletes to adapt to training and
should improve performance markers. Continuing training while over-reaching, however
could lead to overtraining syndrome which drastically increases injury risk and leads to
prolonged decreases in performance (Kraemer and Nindi, 1998).
Another advantage of testing vertical jump as a measure of muscular power is the
relative ease and low cost of testing. A Vertec® vertical jump testing device can be
purchased for only a few hundred dollars and can be used for several years with little to
no maintenance. Additionally, such a test requires minimal training for the testing
official. Due to the relative ease of testing and the multitude of potential benefits, the
vertical jump test is an excellent addition to a unit’s testing protocols.
9
(image from www.power-systems.com)
The vertical jump test should be performed by first testing the soldier’s vertical
reach, followed by testing his maximum jump height. The vertical reach should be tested
by having the soldier stand with feet flat on the floor, shoulders square, arm raised and
outstretched vertically. By having the soldier walk forward, your will be able to gauge a
baseline height for the soldier. Once vertical jump is assessed, the soldier will be asked
to jump as high as possible attempting to touch the highest marker to determine a
maximum vertical. The soldier should be allowed as many repeats as possible, provided
he is able to continue to reach progressively higher verticals in order to control for the
learning effect. For this trial, soldiers were required to continue attempts until failing to
achieve a higher score for three consecutive jumps.
Beep Test
The “Beep Test” as described in the Eurofit Provisional Handbook (Strausberg,
1985) has been used for decades as a field test of maximal aerobic performance. In
contrast to the aerobic test of the APFT, of the 2-mile run portion of the test, the beep test
is a progressive exercise test to failure using maximal velocity as a measure of intensity.
The test requires soldiers to run between two points 20 meters apart during a
progressively shorter time period as indicated by a recorded audio “beep.” Due to the
design of this test, the ability to change direction and accelerate rapidly becomes an
10
important limiting factor in individual performance. This distinction is especially
important for warfighters, as the ability to change direction and accelerate is necessary
for performance in combat scenarios such as movement under fire (Headquarters,
Department of the Army, 2012).
An additional testing advantage over the 2-mile run test is that the beep test could
rightly be considered a test of anaerobic endurance as well (Aziz, 2008). The Army Field
Manual for Physical Readiness Training, FM 7-22, identifies anaerobic endurance as a
crucial physical readiness component of all skill level 1 Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills
(WTBD’s), however there is currently very little testing emphasis on this metric.
Although many tests have been suggested to accurately measure lactic anaerobic
performance, no current gold standard exists (Green, 1995). The majority of these tests
such as the Wingate cycling power test require an ergometer and specialized computer
equipment in addition to trained testing personnel in order to obtain an accurate
measurement. In this light, one benefit to the beep test is its ease in employment as an
operational field test due to the limited equipment and specialized training necessary for
implementation. This test should be possible to conduct cheaply using only unit
personnel.
The testing set-up requires two markers placed 20 meters apart. An audio
recording is then played consisting of a series of progressively quicker beeps with a step
increase approximately every minute. The test speed begins at 8.5 km/h and increases by
0.5 km/h at each step. Cadets are required to run from one marker to the next in between
each beep. If the cadet fails to make two consecutive markers, the test is complete and
the cadet’s score is the last round completed. For this trial, cadets were asked to begin
each round facing perpendicular to the line of movement in order to emphasize turning
and accelerating as an aspect of this test.
11
IV. Methods
During a typical spring semester, 82 UT Army ROTC students were evaluated for
performance markers as well as the nature and prevalence of injury during ten weeks of
physical readiness training in combination with typical school and training duties. As
part of this analysis, 29 cadets were selected for physical pre- and post-testing in the
vertical jump and beep test. This sample represented 9 of the 11 high-performing cadets
training for the Sandhurst Ranger Challenge taking place during the 10th week of the
program, and a convenience sample of 18 of the remaining 62 cadets engaged in 3-
days/week training of typical unit Physical Readiness Training. A total of 7 Ranger
Challenge (RC) cadets and 11 unit PRT cadets completed both pre- and post-testing.
Both groups were evaluated in their entirety for the nature and prevalence of injury and
the severity of each injury was measured in man-weeks of training time lost. These
findings are intended to help inform commanders on potential injury risks compared with
fitness benefits of a typical unit PRT program compared with an aggressive combat skills
training program.
A one-tailed paired t test was performed pre- and post-test on measures of
fractionated beep test, push ups, sit ups, 2 mile run time, and overall APFT score for each
group. As vertical jump was not expected to show unidirectional change, a two-tailed
paired t-test was performed for pre- and post test on measures of vertical jump for each
group. In the case of the beep test, differences were recorded by fractionated round
where the score was equal to the total number of rounds completed, plus the number of
shuttles completed divided by the total number of shuttles in the particular round. The
formula for this calculation was (total number rounds completed) + ((number of shuttles
completed in last round)/(total number of shuttles in final round)). Between group
interactions were evaluated by 2 group repeated measures ANOVA for all fitness tests.
Measurements of injury were evaluated by total number of musculoskeletal injuries and
by number of estimated lost man weeks of training time due to those injuries.
Significance was calculated by performing independent z tests for each group.
12
V. Results
Beep test performance in RC group was significantly higher than PRT both pre-
and post-test (p<0.01) but vertical jump performance was non-significant in either
condition (p=0.339). Neither PRT nor RC group showed statistically significant changes
in pre- and post- test scores in the vertical jump task (p>.05). PRT group showed a mean
improvement in the beep test of .96 fractionated rounds (+/- SE .58, p<0.01). RC group
showed a mean improvement in the beep test of 1.33 (+/- SE .16, p<0.001). The
interaction between groups for improvement in the beep test was non-significant
(p=0.332) suggesting that there is not a difference in beep test performance improvement
between treatments.
(Vertical jump performance was not significantly different pre- to post-intervention for PRT (p=0.42). There was no mean difference in vertical jump for RC. Beep test performance was significant (p<0.05) pre- to post-intervention and between groups in all conditions.)
In cadets who completed both pre- and post-intervention APFT’s, PRT group
showed a mean increase in APFT scores of 15.9 points to reach a mean record APFT of
259. A paired t test confirmed this increase as significant (p<0.00). Only three of the
final 53 computed scores were failing scores on performance-relevant data alone. The
increase was accounted for predominantly by an increase in running scores and sit-up
scores with a mean increase of 7.0 and 7.8 points respectively. A more modest 1.1 mean
point increase in push ups accounted for the remainder of the mean increase in total
scores. RC group saw a mean increase of 0.83 points from 296.5 to 297.33 on the 300
point scale. This accounted for a loss of 2.16 points on the push up event and a gain of
13
1.83 and 1.16 points on the sit-up and 2 mile run scores respectively. The difference in
APFT scores for RC group pre- and post-intervention was not significant (P>0.05).
(PRT showed a significant increase (p<0.00) in APFT scores where RC saw a nonsignificant (p=0.78) mean increase. Differences between group were different (p<0.01) pre- and post-intervention.)
During the ten-week training period, the battalion as a whole reported 20
musculoskeletal injuries. The severity of each injury was estimated as the number of
weeks of training that would be limited by such an injury. The method used here is a
simplified method as that used by Bruce et. al. in describing military injury prevention
priorities for the US Department of Defense (2004). As each injury only directly affects
one cadet, the unit of measurement was man weeks of training lost and compared to the
total number of man weeks possible given a 12 week training cycle. Given a battalion of
82 cadets, this gives us a total possible number of training weeks as 82 x 12 or 984 man
weeks of training. The average injury resulted in a loss of 2.4 man weeks of training with
a total od 49 lost man weeks accounting for 4.97% of total possible training time. A
significantly higher proportion of RC group (55%) reported some musculoskeletal injury
and lost training time compared with PRT group (20%, p<0.05). Injury proportions
between male and female groups both overall in within group were non-significant
(p>0.05).
14
Finally, an analysis was conducted to determine if the field tests of vertical jump
and beep test were sufficiently different from the current APFT testing procedures to
justify their use as performance markers given a finite training schedule. Pearson
correlation and r-squared analyses were conducted for both field tests in conjunction with
each APFT measurement. Two APFT events presented a medium-strength correlation
with one of the field tests. These were push ups to vertical jump (r=0.64; r^2=0.41) and 2
mile run to beep test (r=-0.74; r^2=0.56). All other tests showed extremely weak
correlations to APFT scores with the next higher correlation in beep test and push up
performance (r=0.27; r^2=0.07). Correlation between vertical jump and beep test was
moderate (r=0.44; r^2=0.19).
15
VI. Discussion
As recently as 2010, The US Army Medical Command has reaffirmed its
commitment to reducing the number of injuries across the force. This report noted that
“injuries are the leading health problem in the U.S. Army, resulting in over 900,000
injury-related encounters with Army medical providers in 2006” (Schoomaker, 2010).
During that same year, more than 84% of musculoskeletal injuries appeared to be
preventable overuse injuries or stress fractures as a result of physical readiness training or
job performance (Hauret, 2007). At the forefront of producing the leaders of tomorrow’s
Army, ROTC is placed in a unique position to train future soldiers both mentally and
physically to take on the challenges of America’s conflict at home and abroad. In that
providing units with the most capable young officers as possible is the definition of
success in the ROTC system, Army ROTC at the University of Texas has both the
opportunity and the responsibility to support the Army Medical Command’s commitment
to reducing injuries while simultaneously preparing its cadets to take on the physical
demands of modern combat.
The findings of this report suggest that anaerobic capacities were improved by the
unit physical readiness training program. That the vertical jump samples did not
determine a change in muscular power suggests that the physiological systems of the
cadets were not over-reached considerably by either intervention. These findings suggest
that ROTC cadets are capable of handling the training load of the current unit PRT
schedule as well as the course load at the University of Texas without negative
physiological effects (Kraemer and Nindi, 1998).
The net increase of 15.9 points on the record APFT by the main group is a very
positive element of the results of this research. As APFT scores are used in consideration
for special assignments and promotion in the regular Army, this improvement is career-
relevant to incoming Army officers. Intriguingly, raw scores appeared to actually
decrease on average by 1.2 push ups and 9.9 seconds on the 2 mile run during the record
APFT. As APFT scores are recorded on a gender and age relative basis, this discrepancy
16
is accounted for by interplay between male and female scoring improvements and by
cadets crossing age thresholds during the semester. An additional explanation for this
phenomenon could be a ceiling effect, wherein cadets scoring more than the maximum
100 points per event could be somewhere in a large range of raw scores without changing
there APFT score. In that the difference is small, and counteracted by a mean increase of
4.6 sit-ups, it was not considered to be an area of concern, although further research may
be warranted.
RC APFT scores amounted a mean increase of only 0.83 points during the record
APFT at the end of the observed semester. However, the overall improvement in scores
is not accurately represented by the APFT scoring metric. Of the six RC cadets who
completed both pre- and post-intervention testing in the APFT, four achieved a maximum
score of 300 during post-testing whereas only 2 had achieved a maximum score in pre-
testing. The lack of statistical significance is likely due to a ceiling effect, wherein the
scoring metric was unable to account for performances above maximum. Regardless, all
raw scores trended upwards with a mean gain of 6 push ups, 2.66 sit-ups, and an average
run improvement of 8.5 seconds. None of these differences reached statistical
significance (p>0.05), but the positive trend in scores reflects somewhat favorably on the
intervention.
The injury numbers reported by the battalion were extremely high considering the
short duration of the observed time period during the semester. Although the total injury
incidence was only 24% of the battalion, the observed time period for our injury record
was only 12 weeks. Assuming a full training year of 48 weeks, as we would see in a
regular Army unit, we could reasonably estimate that given a full training year we would
expect to see 80 musculoskeletal injuries (20 multiplied 4) in a battalion of 82. Although
it is possible this number is inflated due to mitigating factors, this level of injury
incidence is potentially a cause for concern. The break in training between semesters
may be responsible for some of the higher injury incidence, as a lack of physical activity
leading up to Army training appears to be a primary risk factor for musculoskeletal injury
(Jones, 1993). It is also important to note that the Ranger Challenge competitive team,
despite only having 11 members on the roster, amounted 6 musculoskeletal injuries
17
which is more than double the rate of the rest of the unit. This was likely exacerbated by
how the team chose to train through minor injuries in order to prepare for the
competition. In addition, the competitive aspect itself may well have posed some risk, as
competitive sports carry an increased risk of injury compared even with extreme
conditioning programs similar to the one chosen by the Ranger Challenge team (King,
2010). Despite these mitigating factors, future injury prevention measures are included in
the recommendations portion of this document.
Interestingly, this project found no significant difference in musculoskeletal
injuries between male and female cadets. In contrast, the incidence of musculoskeletal
injury in soldiers entering basic combat training is substantially higher in female soldiers,
ranging from 19% to 40% in males and 40% to 67% in females (Gilchrist, 2000;
Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2013). Due to the small number of cadets in the
battalion, however, it is possible that the unit was merely on the low end of the female
injury spectrum and did not provide a large enough sample to approach significance.
Injury numbers did trend higher for females with 38% reporting a musculoskeletal injury
compared to 21% for males. In light of these numbers, there is no reason to believe that
unit physical readiness programs present an adverse impact on the female population with
regard to injury incidence.
Our results also indicate that field testing of the vertical jump and beep test
provide performance-relevant data that is not already available via APFT results. The 2
mile run was able to predict only 55.5% of performance on the beep test. As the beep test
was incorporated as a more direct test of modern combat movement performance, this
test appears to be extremely valuable for monitoring combat-relevant performance in
training soldiers. Similarly, the vertical jump task did not seem to be already accounted
for by APFT scores. In that its highest correlation (r=0.64) was with performance in the
push up (physiologically a very different exercise), we are confident that this test also
represents novel data, not accounted for with the APFT. It is recommended that this
battalion continue both tests in the future as a measurement of PRT effectiveness.
18
VII. Recommendations
Due to the unusually high incidence of musculoskeletal injury in the battalion,
injury preventive measures are highly recommended for future semesters and classes.
The primary risk factors associated with musculoskeletal injuries in Army include low
fitness level, low strength, high running mileage, and low levels of activity prior to
beginning training (Jones, 1993; Gilchrist, 2000; Headquarters, Department of the Army,
2013). In light of this, certain changes and additions to the present physical readiness
programs could be implemented in order to achieve a healthier and more successful class
of cadets. Particular areas for opportunity in advancement are barbell-based strength
training, reduced running with a concomitant increase in general physical preparedness
conditioning, the incorporation of proprioceptive and agility training, and interventions to
sustain physical activity during the off times between semesters.
It is sometimes postulated that strength training is not wholly beneficial for
military trainees due to fears that the increase in muscle mass will hinder performance in
bodyweight exercises. This concern is condensed to a phrase attributed to Mark Twight,
a strength coach in Utah and often repeated, “You have to carry your own engine.” This
concern is likely unfounded, particularly in trainees pursuing a base level of conditioning
as mass tends to remain relatively constant during early resistance training interventions
(Ballor and Keesey, 1991). Adaptations to strength training programs do not occur
purely from the addition of lean muscle mass. Rather, physical strength adaptation is also
expressed though neurological factors such as coordinated firing of motor units and the
reduction of inhibitory mechanisms. In fact, the majority of strength gains in beginner
athletes and female populations appear to occur without drastic increases in muscle mass
(Sale, 1988).
More than simply not detrimental to tactical performance, strength training can
and should be an important aspect of injury prevention and movement efficiency in a
military setting. As previously stated, low strength is a risk factor for injury in military
training. It seems only reasonable that addressing this issue should begin with the
incorporation of programs to develop strength in military trainees. Fortunately, many
19
operational requirements placed on soldiers can be closely mimicked and overloaded in
training with barbell based, general strength training. In fact, when these movements are
applied as part of a progressive resistance training regimen, load carriage performance
increases substantially (Knapik, 20120). The incorporation of strength movements that
require the trainee to use large amounts of muscle mass to move in a smooth, coordinated
fashion assists neurophysiological learning to aid in performance in operational
scenarios. For these reasons, strength training is one of the 6 interventions
recommended by researchers in the US Army Public Health Command to reduce non-
battle injuries in the force (Bullock, 2010). Intelligent, progressive strength training
using compound strength movements can be a force multiplier by both reducing injury
incidence and increasing operational performance.
(Image credit: FM 7-22)
Another opportunity for improvement is the incorporation of multi-axial,
proprioceptive training as described by Knapik, et. al. in an injury prevention project with
soldiers engaged in Advanced Individual Training (2003). This type of training focuses
on engaging the body in multiple planes of movement to coordinate exercise and more
closely mimic real-world tasks. These types of exercises, such as the medicine ball and
gymnastic ring exercises described in Appendix D. Exercises and Equipment allow for
trunk control and stability training utilizing a closed kinetic chain (i.e., without the use of
balance balls, mats, or wobble boards) and have been shown to decrease injury incidence
20
in military trainees. This is likely due in part to the more even distribution of
musculoskeletal stressors (Bullock, 2010). In addition, this training technique closely
coincides with the training principle of specificity, which states that performance is only
improved in the specific stressor imposed upon the body in training. Proprioceptive
training requires the body to perform in many different positions and may aid in real-
world tasks and may reduce injury outside of training simply by increasing the body’s
familiarity with joint angles not commonly used in traditional, uni-axial training
programs. These cutting edge techniques should be considered as an addition to current
training programs.
The final recommendation for both injury prevention and increased tactical
performance is the implementation of a testing procedure to prevent and combat
overtraining. Overtraining compromises operational readiness by both increasing injury
risk and decreasing performance. The Joint Physical Training Injury Prevention Working
Group recommends a standardized physical training program for all soldiers that controls
the amount of total body overload performed; and the group strongly recommends
avoiding overtraining. In fact, the same group in a meta-analysis and policy brief in 2010
found 8 academic papers on interventions to prevent overtraining in military populations,
all of which had positive results (Bullock, 2010). As discussed in Section III. Testing,
the early symptoms of over-reaching include altered activation of motor units and
disrupted levels of creatine kinase, an enzyme important for high power-producing
activities (Fry and Kraemer, 1997). These symptoms may be most easily recognized by
using a test of muscular power to effectively quantify any in decrease in performance.
The most accurate measurements of muscular power include a Monark cycle ergometer
(Martin, 1997), a Margaria-Kaleman test, and a vertical jump on a force plate. However,
as each of these tests requires some form of specialized equipment and training, they may
not be reasonable as a long-term solution for an ROTC battalion. What is recommended
instead is a vertical jump task a field test of instantaneous muscular power. Assuming a
relative constant bodyweight, the difference pre- and post-training in total height reached
on the vertical jump can be considered a valid measurement of changes in muscular
power over the course of the training semester. The test may be best performed indoors
21
to help account for changes in outdoor temperature or other weather factors. Barring any
weather extremes, if a decrease in muscular power is observed commanders are advised
to consider a de-load or a lighter training load for soldiers. Although no evidence of
widespread overtraining was apparent during the testing process described here, a
continued effort to ensure that cadets are trained to the point of adaptation, rather than
breakdown) is recommended as training programs evolve. Details on the vertical jump
task as a field test of muscular power can be found in Section III, Testing.
22
VIII. Appendices
Appendix A.
Physical Readiness Training (PRT) Program
The training conducted by the PRT main group during this semester consisted of
somewhat traditional Army physical readiness training. An effort was made by
command to select training that was both in accordance with FM 7-22 and met unit
demands. The training included medicine balls, weight room (predominantly non-
barbell, isolation training), ability group runs, and bodyweight fitness training. There
were also portions of training which were conducted offsite at Camp Mabry, where
cadets performed CrossFit® training.
A note on CrossFit®:
CrossFit® is a commercial of the shelf (COTS) strength and conditioning training
system similar in style to the Sandhurst training described for the Ranger Challenge team,
with the exception that its goals and training modalities are much broader. CrossFit® is
self-described as constantly varied, high-intensity, functional movement with the goal of
increasing work capacity “across broad time and modal domains.” CrossFit® training is
aimed at increasing General Physical Preparedness (GPP), which the company alleges
lends itself generally well to any physical endeavor. This type of GPP could be useful for
an organization such as AROTC as unit- and job-specific demands are not incredibly
specialized.
There is some concern in military populations that CrossFit® training will result
in an increased incidence of musculoskeletal injuries due to the high-intensity and
inherently competitive nature of the program (Bergeron, 2014). This concern, though
reasonable, may not be supported by current evidence. The limited data on CrossFit®
injury incidence places it near known values for general strength training, Olympic
Weightlifting, and Powerlifting (Hak, 2013) and lower than that for distance running (van
Gent, 2007) and for competitive contact sports (2010). While the initial data seems to be
23
positive, there is still very little information concerning the nature and prevalence of
injury during CrossFit® training. Due to this relative lack of evidence concerning
CrossFit®, commanders should be encouraged to consider the most current data and
make use of the most qualified strength and conditioning and/or CrossFit® trained
personnel possible when considering Composite Risk Management for adding CrossFit®
or similar extreme conditioning protocols to their physical readiness training programs.
24
Appendix B.
Sandhurst Ranger Challenge Training Program
The Ranger Challenge intervention group described here chose a commercial off
the shelf (COTS) strength and conditioning program to prepare for their competition.
This program was modified slightly to suit unit needs and weight room strength
training sessions were overseen by a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist
(CSCS). This program is available for purchase from strongswiftdurable.com
currently for $39.95. The program is described as:
8-Week Training Program specifically designed to prepare athletes for the annual
Sandhurst Competition held at West Point. The plan includes a 1-week taper, and is
designed to be completed the 8 weeks directly prior to the competition.
This plan is “sport specific” to the specific fitness demands you’ll face at the Sandhurst
Competition – specifically rucking and ruck running with a 30-40# pack. It also
includes:
- Weekly strength training in the weighroom
- Extended, mulit-modal work capacity events
- Distance running and sprinting for general aerobic and work capacity fitness
– Obstacle course intervals
– Step ups to build hill climbing ability
– Grip strength training
– Core strength
– Intense core, mobility, and stabilzer strength training for durability
This program gets progressively harder each week, until week 7, when the training tapers
down into the start of selection. Also understand this training plan addressed the fitness
demands of the Sandhurst Competition only. It does not include marksmanship, ropes
course, etc. technical training.
(Spelling and grammar in this program description is from the source material.)
25
Appendix C.
Recommended Training Template
The current training schedule allows for three days of PRT every week. This
schedule appears to allow for ample training time to improve fitness scores and prevent
overtraining over the course of the semester. Confirming this, vertical jump (our early
marker of overtraining) showed a non-significant increase in our PRT group and PRT
APFT scores increased by 15.9 points on the 300 point scale, over the course of the
semester. As the cadets enrolled in this PRT program are also engaged in a rigorous
academic program, it seems reasonable to continue the three day per week training
schedule to allow for maximum performance both physically and academically.
Additional training days during the semester are not recommended at this time.
Following our three day per week training schedule, a rotating schedule of
varying focuses has been constructed as a theoretical training template that follows the
recommendations put forth in this document. The three primary focuses for each training
day will be:
1. Agility, proprioception, multi-axial movement and muscular endurance
2. Metabolic conditioning (aerobic and anaerobic endurance)
3. Strength and power
Each of these days should involve a general warm up, a specific warm up, an execution,
and a brief cool down and stretching period. These sessions will allow the unit to
conduct training in line with the recommendations put forth in FM 7-22 as well the
recommendations in the technical reports published by the Army Public Health
Command in their technical report entitled Prevention of Physical Training-Related
Injuries (Bullock, 2010).
26
Session Descriptions:
Agility, proprioception, multi-axial movement and muscular endurance
These sessions could be considered as aimed at increasing overall athleticism.
Athletic movement, including combat movement, tends to consist of quick and decisive
movement wherein the body position changes to adapt to new tasks and positions
quickly. By developing the ability to change direction quickly (agility) and body
awareness (proprioception), we can better equip the warfighter for tactical and athletic
movement. Increased proprioception may also be protective against injury. When the
body learns to operate in a variety of positions, it allows safer and more effective
muscular stabilization and movement. Simply put, this training will allow the warfighter
to move more quickly and more safely through both the athletic field and the battlefield.
(Image credit: teachmeanatomy.info)
Multi-axial (also called multi-planar) movement is defined as movement that
occurs through more than one anatomical plane. The three most commonly used
anatomical planes are the sagittal plane, the frontal or coronal plane, and the transverse
plane. Most movements require movement in more than one of these planes, however
many “gym” exercises focus only on one primary plane of movement. For example, the
27
bench press moves almost exclusively through the sagittal plane as the bar is lowered to
the chest and presses to lockout. Conversely, an ammunition resupply to a manned gun
turret may require rotating to bring ammunition from the side to the front of the body
(transverse plane) and lifting the ammunition up and away to place it on a platform or in
another soldier’s hands (frontal and sagittal plane). Therefore, in addition to uni-axial
strengthening movements, it seems prudent to incorporate multi-axial athletic movements
into an exercise program to develop these natural skills. Examples of multi-axial
movements are included in Appendix D. exercises and equipment, and include medicine
balls, sand bags, and agility ladders.
Metabolic conditioning
Metabolic conditioning, often colloquially referred to as “cardio,” is training that
emphasizes the bioenergetic pathways to create human movement. More than simply
cardiovascular endurance, metabolic conditioning includes all conditioning multiple
metabolic pathways used to generate energy. These metabolic pathways include the
phosphocreatine pathway for short, high-powered events; the anaerobic glycolysis
pathway in the mid-range; and the aerobic pathway for lower-powered endurance events.
Each of these pathways works in concert to produce the energy required to sustain
exercise of any intensity and time domain possible. As the soldier may be required to
perform at any intensity for any reasonable duration during broad spectrum operations, a
variety of time domains should be addressed during metabolic conditioning workouts.
Therefore, these workouts should contain a mixture of long-duration aerobic events such
as ability group runs and shorter-duration, high-intensity, low rest work intervals such as
sprints, buddy carries, and combatives. The template provided below identifies each
metabolic conditioning session as predominantly aerobic, predominantly anaerobic, or a
mixture of the two. An effort should be made to include a variety of movements and
muscle groups so as to provide a well-rounded level of conditioning. Tools such as
sandbags, kettlebells, and sleds are ideal for anaerobic and aerobic conditioning,
depending on the relative level of intensity.
Strength and Power
28
Strength and power days should be focused on developing a stronger and more
durable tactical athlete. A soldier with well-developed strength operates at a lower
intensity relative to maximum capacity when moving external objects of the same
absolute load. This additional capacity allows the warfighter to move greater loads
longer distances and is protective against injury. The primary tool for developing
strength is the barbell. Correctly performed barbell movements such as deadlifts, squats,
and presses will safely build the necessary strength and stability to perform on the
battlefield. Strength and power days should focus on developing maximal strength in the
1-5 rep range in the primary barbell training movements.
The primary concern during maximal strength days is the safety of the cadets
during their lifts. An effort should be made to have qualified, educated strength training
personnel in the weight room during these sessions. Newer personnel must be instructed
in proper exercise form before attempting to lift near maximal loads. Commanders
should attempt to identify qualified strength training personnel in the unit to satisfy this
role or reach out to third parties to ensure maximum safety and efficacy.
Typical Training Week
To make ideal use of the available training facilities, the unit should be split into
near equal parts and training days should be rotated week to week. This should allow for
maximum use of training space and equipment at minimal cost. Below is a theoretical
template that shows all three types of training days with reasonable exercise rotations.
The following four-week template incorporates varying exercises to provide a general
training adaptation and, if repeated in a progressive fashion, should be sufficient to elicit
a positive training benefit to the unit. This theoretical template is provided as an example
only, but may be used or adapted to meet unit needs. To apply this template,
commanders are encouraged to use creativity and sensible solutions to ensure that an
appropriate training stimulus is introduced. Training schedules should take into account
the relative fitness and ability of each individual in both exercise and rep/set selection to
maximize use of training time and to prevent injury.
29
A Note on Periodization:
The best programs for athletes involve an exercise programming technique known
as periodization. This technique allows for maximal adaptation by targeting different
goals throughout the training cycle with a “peak” in performance at the beginning of the
competitive season. It is reasonably argued that warfighters may use this technique to
peak in job-relevant performance at the beginning of a combat deployment. However,
due to limited training time during an ROTC training semester, the recommended
program forgoes periodization and focuses solely on progressive overload of aerobic and
anaerobic systems.
30
Four-week training template
Week 1
Session 1: Agility and Proprioception
Agility ladders, ring rows, lunge matrices, squat matrices, push ups, sit ups and partner
resisted exercise
Session 2: Aerobic conditioning
30 min ability group run
Session 3: Strength training
5x5 reps bench press (80-85%)
5x5 reps front squat (80-85%)
5x5 deadlifts (80-85%)
Week 2
Session 1: Agility and Proprioception
Agility ladders, medicine ball partner throws (overhead, rotational, from the ground,
chest pass), plyo box step matrices, plyo box jump matrices, box jumps, push ups, sit ups.
Session 2: Anaerobic conditioning
4x400m sprints followed by intervals of sandbag lunges, sandbag slams, and pull ups
Session 3: Strength training
6x3 push press (~90-95%)
6x3 back squat (~90-95%)
31
6x8 reps barbell rows (As heavy as possible for 8 clean reps)
Week 3
Session 1: Agility and Proprioception
Agility ladders, ring rows, lunge matrices, squat matrices, push ups, sit ups and partner
resisted exercise
Session 2: Aerobic/Anaerobic conditioning
“30:60’s”
Run all out effort 30’s, walk/jog 60s recovery (light pace)
Session 3: Strength training
6x3 reps bench press (~90-95%)
6x3 reps front squat (~90-95%)
6x3 deadlifts (~90-95%)
Week 4
Session 1: Agility and Proprioception
Agility ladders, medicine ball partner throws (overhead, rotational, from the ground,
chest pass), plyo box step matrices, plyo box jump matrices, box jumps, push ups, sit ups.
32
Session 2: Anaerobic conditioning
Two-cadet teams, one cadet working at one time
20 min, as many rounds as possible of:
30m buddy carry (down and back, switch at turnaround)
50 push ups (switch as needed)
20 Sandbag clean and slam (switch every rep)
Session 3: Strength training
5x5 push press (80-85%)
5x5 back squat (80-85%)
5x5 reps barbell rows (As heavy as possible for 5 clean reps)
33
Appendix D.
Exercises and Equipment
This list is included as a reference guide for the recommended exercise and equipment
described in Section VII. Recommendations and Appendix C. Recommended training
template. This should not be interpreted as an exhaustive list of training exercises for
ROTC cadets.
Deadlift
Maximal strength, uni-axial
(Image source: StartingStrength.com)
When properly implemented, the deadlift is one of the most foundational strength
movements. The deadlift is typically the heaviest barbell lift a lifter can perform and
requires activation of nearly all of the body’s prime movers. The primary aims of the
deadlift are to strengthen the deep core muscles and the knee and hip extensors in order to
develop superior strength when lifting from the ground, which is a common task in both
war fighting and common non-combat operations.
34
The deadlift is typically performed with a loaded barbell placed on the ground.
Standard plate diameter is 18” so the pull is initiated from approximately 9” off the
ground. The lifter positions himself over the bar holding onto the bar with a comfortable
grip width. Engaging his erector spinae in such a way as keep the back’s natural
curvature, the lifter pulls the bar upward, keeping it as close to the lifter’s center of
support as possible, until he reaches a full standing position. At the top of the lift, the
lifter allows the bar to trace back down along its original path into a resting position.
Benefits of the deadlift include overload of muscles in the posterior chain,
strengthening of the deep postural muscles, and overload of pulling strength from the
ground. As one of the most physically demanding tasks presented to warrior on the
battlefield is moving under a heavy load, development of the posterior chain musculature
is crucial for combat performance. Perhaps more importantly, strengthening the postural
muscles of the spine allows heavy loads to be carried with reduced risk of spinal
rounding or buckling, which can dramatically increase the risk of spinal injuries.
Drawbacks of the deadlift include the large amount of required equipment (including
more weight plates than most other exercises) and the need for proper instruction in order
for this movement to be properly performed.
35
Front and Back Squat
Maximal strength, uni-axial
(Image source: StartingStrength.com)
The squat is the single, most crucial exercise for building full range of motion
strength in the legs. A properly performed squat has the ability to induce overload in the
quadriceps, hamstrings and gluteal muscles and places a large external load on the trunk
musculature. Similar to the deadlift, the squat is one of the “core” strength exercise and
should form the base of any strength program. Although this exact task may be rarely
performed during operations by a tactical athlete, the strength gain offers an amount of
crossover into other relevant tasks such as kneeling and lifting in the litter carriage and
climbing an incline under load.
The front squat and back squat (pictured above) differ primarily by where on the
body the external load is placed. Each exercise begins in a standing, supported position
and is performed by bending at the knees and hips to a depth where the hips dip just
below knee height creating a “below parallel” angle of the femur. Once the athlete has
reached an appropriate depth, she presses with her feet down through the floor until she
has returned to a supported, standing position. The large moments created by the external
load on the barbell necessitate that the center of mass of the barbell stay over the center
36
of support of the athletes foot as closely as possible throughout the movement. For this
reason, the change in loading of the barbell will also create a change in positioning of the
athlete during the movement.
More than simply a nuance on the lift, each one of these lifts introduces a unique
training effect on the tactical athlete. The back squat, with its more posteriorly- focused
loading causes the stronger posterior musculature to be more activated. Typically, a
much larger external load can be applied on the back squat, with a typical value being
about 33% in 1RM strength than the front squat. For this reason the back squat can be
used to create overload specifically in the leg and gluteal musculature and is a useful
training tool for the tactical athletes. In contrast, the front squat, although engaging less
posterior musculature resulting in a lower overall load placed on the body, requires the
athlete to have a more upright spinal posture and therefore can be more closely related to
many tactical tasks. Specifically, the front squat creates a moment around the spinal
musculature in an upright position similar to that of a soldier moving under load. In the
modern battlefield soldiers on the assault and approach must be able to move steadily
under an external load sometimes exceeding 40 kg (Knapik, 2012). To perform this
consistently and without injury, the tactical athlete must be able to keep the spine in a
proper alignment. Strength training, particularly involving barbell movement such as the
squat can provide the requisite strength to maintain spinal alignment and prevent injury.
In fact, Knapik et. al., found in a 2012 meta-analysis that when a progressive resistance
training program was combined with aerobic training, a large training effect (Cohen’s
d=0.8) was observed in performance in road marches of various loads and speeds. The
spinal position created by the front squat more closely mimics the position of a moving
soldier under a combat load and is therefore more advisable, particularly late in the
deployment or competitive cycle. The program described herein makes use of both the
back squat and the front squat for each of the reasons described above.
37
Push Press
Maximal strength/uni-axial
(Image credit: WorkoutLabs.com)
The push press is a preferred pressing exercise over other pressing variations (i.e.,
bench press, strict press) for a tactical athlete. Although other exercises may be
considered to develop pressing strength, the push press has the added benefit of including
a force transfer from the hips, legs, and trunk to the barbell and requiring pressing
strength to complete the movement. As the hips and knees must be flexed and extended
quickly in order to facilitate power transfer, this task is considered a power movement.
In that the push press also requires a strength “grind” to lockout, it may also be
considered to develop maximal strength in the shoulders and triceps. By utilizing the
natural tendency to create power with the legs before pressing overhead, the push press
more closely mimics lifting tasks in the tactical world, such as resupplying ammunition to
a gunner’s turret, than stricter versions of this exercise.
The push press is performed by placing the bar on the across the shoulders and
clavicles with the elbows placed slightly in front of the barbell, then creating a quick,
vertical dip by bending the knees and the hips and extending, taking advantage of the
stretch-shortening cycle for maximum power production. Once the bar is lifted from the
shoulders via the powerful dip-drive movement the bar is pressed to an overhead,
38
supported position. For the best performance, the bar should travel in a straight, vertical
line during all portions of the lift and the bar should remain over the lifter’s center of
support at all times. This movement can also be performed one- or two-handed with
dumbbells, kettlebells or similar implements to create more a more dynamic and even
multi-axial exercise.
39
Gymnastic Rings/TRX
Muscular strength, stability and endurance/multi-axial
Gymnastic rings and/or TRX devices offer the unique aspect of instability to
bodyweight pushing and pulling movements. By opening the kinetic chain in movements
like push-ups, pull ups, Aussie pull ups, and dips, these devices require stability
throughout the movement. Another extremely important aspect of these devices is the
ease with which these movements can be progressed or regressed based on the
individual’s capability. For example, a soldier who is unable to perform a full ring pull
up will be able to perform a modified version called a ring row, where the feet are
supported on the ground and the body is pulled at an angle to the rings. In this way, the
exercise can be made progressively easier or more difficult by lowering or raising the
rings respectively and creating a differing angle of force distribution between the legs and
arms. This concept will also work for push-up variations. In this way, these devices
allow the movements to be programmed to a large group of differing physical capacities
without over- or under-working individuals in the group. Gymnastic rings are typically
preferred due to their substantially lower cost. Gymnastic rings typically cost between
$30-50 per pair and TRX suspension trainers cost between $200-250 per set. In addition
to pull up and push-up variations, gymnastic rings can be used for more advanced
gymnastic exercises such as dips, muscle ups, and iron cross variations.
40
Sandbags
Muscular strength, stability and endurance/multi-axial
Sandbags are a useful conditioning tool for building both strength and stability in
a dynamic environment. The movement of the loaded sand inside the bag creates added
difficulty in both gripping and stabilizing the sandbag during a lift. This instability helps
to mimic combat situations such as evacuating a casualty and even ruck marching, where
the load is not evenly distributed such as with a barbell. Although not suited for maximal
or near-maximal strength training, these implements can be used for both stability
training and anaerobic conditioning.
Although changing the load of a sandbag can be a challenge, they are simple to
make out of everyday materials such as an Army duffle bag and thus can be made to
match certain loading requirements and stored easily as unit equipment. Commercial,
standardized sandbags with adjustable loading options are available and typically cost
between $50-200 per unit.
Exercises suitable for sandbag training may include:
-‐ Squats (front and back variety)
-‐ Lunges
-‐ Step ups
-‐ Farmers carries
-‐ Yolk walks
-‐ Cleans (lifts to shoulder height)
-‐ Presses (shoulder to overhead)
-‐ Slam
41
Medicine Balls
Muscular strength, stability and endurance/multi-axial
Medicine balls are an excellent choice for development of stability, athleticism,
and full body throwing power. Medicine balls typically range in weight from 4-25 lbs
and therefore are typically not used for strength overload, but can be used for anaerobic
conditioning. Human movement requires movement in all three biomechanical planes:
frontal, sagittal, and transverse. While barbell training, push ups, sit ups, running, and
other typical forms of exercise focus heavily on the sagittal plane of movement, medicine
ball training is ideal for developing movement patterns in the frontal and sagittal planes
as well. Medicine balls typically range in cost between $75-150 per ball and can
sometimes have a short lifespan when consistently used. For this reason, brands which
carry a lifetime warranty such as Dynamax® may be a preferable unit purchase.
Exercises which can be performed with a medicine ball include:
-‐ Bilateral chest pass
-‐ Hammer rotation/throw
-‐ Sit-up throw
-‐ Wall hammer rotation (underhand/overhand)
-‐ Lunge matrix rotations
-‐ Overhead throw
-‐ Russian twist
-‐ Lateral plyometric push up
42
References
Aziz, A., Mukherjee, S., Chia, M., & Teh, K. (n.d.). Validity of the Running Repeated Sprint Ability Test Among Playing Positions and Level of Competitiveness in Trained Soccer Players. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 833-838.
Ballor, D. L., & Keesey, R. E. (1991). A meta-analysis of the factors affecting exercise-induced changes in body mass, fat mass and fat-free mass in males and females. International journal of obesity, 15(11), 717-726.
Bergeron, M., Nindl, B., Deuster, P., Baumgartner, N., Kane, S., Kraemer, W., . . . O'connor, F. (n.d.). Consortium for Health and Military Performance and American College of Sports Medicine Consensus Paper on Extreme Conditioning Programs in Military Personnel. Current Sports Medicine Reports, 383-389.
Bullock, S. H., Jones, B. H., Gilchrist, J., & Marshall, S. W. (2010). Prevention of physical training–related injuries: recommendations for the military and other active populations based on expedited systematic reviews. American journal of preventive medicine, 38(1), S156-S181.
Coyle, E. F., Feiring, D.C., Rotkins, T.C., Cote, R.W. Roby, F.B., Lee, W., Willmore, J.H. (1981). Specificity of power improvements through slow and fast isokinetic training. (Dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721.
Gilchrist, J., Jones, B. H., Sleet, D. A., & Kimsey, C. D. (2000). Exercise-related injuries among women: strategies for prevention from civilian and military studies. MMWR. Recommendations and reports: Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports/Centers for Disease Control, 49(RR-2), 15-33.
Green, S. (n.d.). Measurement of Anaerobic Work Capacities in Humans. Sports Medicine, 32-42.
Hak, P., Hodzovic, E., & Hickey, B. (2013). The nature and prevalence of injury during CrossFit training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 1-1.
Hauret, K. G., Jones, B. H., Bullock, S. H., Canham-Chervak, M., & Canada, S. (2010). Musculoskeletal injuries: description of an under-recognized injury problem among military personnel. American journal of preventive medicine, 38(1), S61-S70.
Headquarters, Department of the Army. (2012). Army physical readiness training (FM 7-22). Washington, DC.
Jones, B., Cowan, D., Tomlison, J., Robinson, J., Polly, D., & Frykman, P. (n.d.). Epidemiology of injuries associated with physical training among young men in the army. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 197???203-197???203.
43
King, D., Hume, P., Milburn, P., & Guttenbeil, D. (2010). Match and Training Injuries in Rugby League. Sports Medicine, 163-178.
Knapik, J. J., Bullock, S. H., Toney, E., & Wells, J. D. (2003). The Aberdeen Proving Ground Injury Control Project: Influence of a Multiple Intervention Program on Injuries and Fitness Among Ordnance School Soldiers in Advanced Individual Training (No. USACHPPM-12-HF-7990-03). ARMY CENTER FOR HEALTH PROMOTION AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE (PROVISIONAL) ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD.
Knapik, J., Harman, E., Steelman, R., & Graham, B. (n.d.). A Systematic Review of the Effects of Physical Training on Load Carriage Performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 585-597.
Kraemer, W. J., & Nindl, B. C. (1998). Factors involved with overtraining for strength and power. Overtraining in sport, 107-127.
Martin, J., Wagner, B., & Coyle, E. (n.d.). Inertial-load method determines maximal cycling power in a single exercise bout. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1505-1512. Retrieved April 27, 2015.
Ruscio, B., Jones, B., Bullock, S., Burnham, B., Canham-Chervak, M., Rennix, C., . . . Smith, J. (n.d.). A Process to Identify Military Injury Prevention Priorities Based on Injury Type and Limited Duty Days. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, S19-S33.
Sale, D. G. (1988). Neural adaptation to resistance training. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, (20), S135-45.
Schoomaker, L. (n.d.). The U.S. Army Medical Department Commitment to Injury Reduction. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, S217-S217. Retrieved April 22, 2015.
Technical Bulletin Med 592: Prevention and Control of Musculoskeletal Injuries Associated with Physical Training. Washington, DC: US Dept of the Army; May 2011. Available at: http://armypubs.army.mil/med/dr_pubs/dr_a/pdf/tbmed592.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2013.
van Gent, R. N., Siem, D., van Middelkoop, M., van Os, A. G., Bierma-Zeinsfra, S. A., & Koes, B. W. (2007). Incidence and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: a systematic review. British Journal Of Sports Medicine, 41(8), 469-480. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2006.033548
44
Acknowledgments
First and foremost I would like to thank the ROTC cadre and cadets who were
willing to work with me over the semester at all hours to accommodate testing, retesting,
training, oversight and anything else I needed during this process. Specifically, MAJ
Cody Damron, Kelsey Peta, Holiman Kim, Alan Figurski, and Michael Gonzales: thank
you for all your help and cooperation.
I would also like to thank my fellow graduate students Brain Leary, Kevin
Christmas, and Jordan Patik for help in conceptualizing the testing, helping me figure out
the equipment, statistical analyses, and opening the lab at seemingly unnecessary hours of
the morning. Thank you.
Lastly, I offer my deepest appreciation to the Fitness Institute of Texas for going
out of your way to afford me access to your equipment and facilities without any
complaint.
