ImprovingPerformanceof Heavy Load Carriage … Heavy Load Carriage During High-Intensity ... may be instances where explosive ... calisthenics and cardiovascular training
Post on 29-May-2018
226 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Improving Performance ofHeavy Load CarriageDuring High-IntensityCombat-Related TasksJesse Mala, MS,1 Tunde K. Szivak, MA, CSCS,2 and William J. Kraemer, PhD, CSCS*D, FNSCA2
1Department of Educational Leadership, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut; and 2Department of HumanSciences, College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
A B S T R A C T
THE MODERN BATTLEFIELD IS ONE
OF AN ANAEROBIC NATURE WITH
ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY AND
TROOP MOVEMENTS. CONDITION-
ING PROGRAMS MUST ADDRESS
FUNDAMENTAL STRENGTH AND
POWER CAPABILITIES WITH OPTI-
MALLY DESIGNED PERIODIZED
HEAVY RESISTANCE TRAINING PRO-
GRAMS. IN ADDITION, RECOVERY
MUST BE CAREFULLY MONITORED
WHEN PERFORMING ANY DEMAND-
ING WORKOUT. CONCURRENT
TRAINING WITH CARDIOVASCULAR
ENDURANCE PROGRAMS MUST BE
CAREFULLY PRESCRIBED TO MINI-
MIZE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE
WARFIGHTER’S STRENGTH AND
POWER CAPABILITIES. A WELL-DE-
SIGNED TRAINING PROGRAM WITH
SENSITIVITY TO RECOVERY NEEDS
AND EMPHASIS ON THE DEVELOP-
MENT/MAINTENANCE OF STRENGTH
ANDPOWER ISVITAL TOOPTIMIZING
PHYSICAL READINESS FOR THE
MODERN WARFIGHTER.
INTRODUCTION
Throughout history, load carriagehas been shown to be an essen-tial aspect of soldiering during
military operations. During trainingand on the battlefield, soldiers are
required to carry various loads, on theirperson or in a pack (4,6,20,21). Whilecarrying loads, soldiers must navigatevarious terrains and are expected to per-form all occupational duties at a highstandard. Knapik et al. (22) displayedthe various loads that have been carriedby different soldiers throughout history,showing a progressive increase in loadscarried onmarches.Much of the externalload can be attributed to technologicaladvances in weaponry and armor, whichaim to improve combat effectiveness andsurvivability. The increase in weight hasnegative implications onmobility, endur-ance, and combat effectiveness, with sys-tematic increases in load producingsystematic decreases in performance(5,30,31,33,40). Efforts have been madeto reduce the absolute loads carried bythe soldier because heavier loads area factor that contribute to decreasedcombat performance (4). In addition, toameliorate the performance decrementthat occurs from heavy load carriage incombat tasks, multiple investigationshave been conducted. Studies haveexamined training programs that opti-mally develop the physical capacities ofthe soldier to bear heavy loads duringmedium-to-long distance marching op-erations (14,22,28).
Considerable attention in the literatureof military load carriage has emphasizedthe development of the ability to cover
medium to long distances with variousloads (7,22,23). Also, this emphasis onlong-distance (3.2–20 km) marching isseen within current U.S. Army infantrybasic training (11). Road march trainingbegins with shorter marches and lighterloads and culminates in a 15–25-milemarch before course completion.Within the U.S. military, long roadmarches are often used as a graduationrequirement for many leadershipschools and entry into certain SpecialOperations units. Marching with heavyloads over long distances has tradition-ally been a defining characteristic of aninfantryman. It is a primary componentof military training, which can be attrib-uted to battlefield experience in previ-ous wars. History has shown thatduring various wars, soldiers wouldhave to march long distances into battlecarrying their supplies.
However, combat operations and tac-tics have evolved with each war. Withthe varying terrain and the volatiletactics of the enemy, the battlefieldhas called for more than long patrolson foot. Airborne operations andarmored vehicles have been usedmore frequently to transport troopsdirectly onto an objective, instead of
KEY WORDS :
load carriage; concurrent training;power; strength
Copyright � National Strength and Conditioning Association Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 43
requiring long marches to an objec-tive. This shift in battlefield tacticscan be seen with the recent wars insupport of Operation Enduring Free-dom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.Due to differing terrain and in order tomaintain combat effectiveness through-out an operation, direct action raidswere often used (8,15,34). During directaction raids, soldiers are transportednear to, or directly onto an objectiveand must then quickly traverse theobjective. Once an objective, troopsmust perform anaerobic tasks, such assprinting, lifting, pulling, crawling, andclimbing, while still carrying significantloads. Current training methodologieswithin the military do not fully address
and optimally prepare the soldier forthe anaerobic demands required on anobjective (19,39).
THE ANAEROBIC BATTLEFIELD
The landscape of the battlefield haschanged from being primarily aerobicto a predominately anaerobic battle-field characterized by quick and explo-sive movements on the objective.Field Manual (FM) 7-22 identifiedthe physical requirements necessaryfor the successful performance of vari-ous combat-relevant warrior tasks anddrills. FM 7-22 acknowledges muscu-lar strength and anaerobic enduranceas fitness components essential to theperformance of these various tasks and
drills (13). In addition, the ability to runfast under load was categorized asa physical requirement necessary forthe successful performance of offensiveand defensive maneuvers (Tables 1 and2) (13). Several investigations have alsoshown the importance of upper- andlower-body strength and power duringthe performance of field infantrytasks, including ambushes, offensiveand defensive maneuvers, and casualtyrescues (3,18).
During combat operations, soldierscarry equipment that is essential tothe completion of the mission, includ-ing body armor, weapons, ammunition,food, and water. Depending on the
Table 1Warrior tasks and battle drills, physical requirements for performance
Physical requirements
Shoot
Use hand grenades Run under load, jump, bound, high/low crawl, climb, push, pull, squat, lunge, roll, stop,start, change direction, get up/down, and throw
Move
Perform individual movementtechniques
March/run under load, jump, bound, high/low crawl, climb, push, pull, squat, lunge, roll,stop, start, change direction, and get up/down
Navigate from one point toanother
March/run under load, jump, bound, high/low crawl, climb, push, pull, squat, lunge, roll,stop, start, change direction, and get up/down
Move under fire Run fast under load, jump, bound, crawl, push, pull, squat, roll, stop, start, changedirection, and get up/down
Survive
Perform combatives React to man-to-man contact: push, pull, run, roll, throw, land, manipulate body weight,squat, lunge, rotate, bend, block, strike, kick, stop, start, change direction, and getup/down
Adapt
Assess and respond to threats(escalation of force)
React to man-to-man contact: push, pull, run, roll, throw, land, manipulate body weight,squat, lunge, rotate, bend, block, strike, kick, stop, start, change direction, and getup/down. Run under load, jump, bound, high/low crawl, climb, push, pull squat, lunge,roll, stop, start, change direction, get up/down, and throw
Battle drills
React to contact Run fast under load, jump, bound, crawl, push, pull, squat, roll, stop, start, changedirection, and get up/down
Evacuate a casualty Squat, lunge, flex/extend/rotate trunk, walk/run, lift, and carry
The warrior tasks of shooting, moving, adapting, and conducting battle drills highlight running fast under a load as a physical requirementnecessary for performance.
Source: Field Manual 7-22, Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2012.
Performance of Heavy Load Carriage
VOLUME 37 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 201544
Table
2Warriortasksandbattle
drillsto
components
matrix
PRTco
mponents
Warriortasks
Battle
drills
Use
hand
grenades
Perform
individual
movementtech
niques
Navigate
from
onepointto
another
Move
underfire
Perform
combatives
Assess
andresp
ond
tothreats
(escalation
offorce)
React
toco
ntact
Evacu
ate
acasu
alty
Strength
Muscularstrength
XX
XX
XX
XX
Muscularendurance
XX
XX
XX
X
Endurance
Anaerobic
endurance
XX
XX
XX
XX
Aerobic
endurance
XX
XX
Mobility
Agility
XX
XX
XX
XX
Balan
ceX
XX
XX
XX
X
Coordination
XX
XX
XX
XX
Flexibility
XX
XX
XX
XX
Posture
XX
XX
XX
XX
Stab
ility
XX
XX
XX
XX
Speed
XX
XX
XX
XX
Power
XX
XX
XX
XX
Muscle
strength
andpowerareidentifiedas
fitness
components
necessaryfortheperform
ance
ofallWarriorTasksan
dBattleDrills,highlig
htingtheim
portan
ceofan
aerobicphysical
trainingforbasic
infantrytasks.
Source:Field
Man
ual
7-22,Head
quarters,Departm
entoftheArm
y,2012.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 45
military occupation and the mission,approach march loads can range from42 to 75 kg and fighting loads rangefrom 26 to 37 kg (4,6). Soldiers mustbe able to effectively perform combat-related tasks, including reacting to con-tact, pushing and pulling objects, andmaneuvering quickly around, over, andunder obstacles. These combativemovements are typically conductedunder a fighting load, although theremay be instances where explosivemovement is required with approachmarch loads. Because the anaerobic bat-tlefield requires rapid and explosivemovement under heavy loads, develop-ing upper- and lower body strength andpower is warranted.
Several investigations have examinedhigh-intensity combat-related tasksusing obstacle courses as a performancemeasure. These investigations haveidentified upper- and lower body mus-cular strength and power to be signifi-cantly correlated to obstacle courseperformance (2,17,31). Faster performershad greater upper body strength andpower than slower performers, andabsolute strength measures were predic-tive of criterion military task perfor-mance (2,17,35). Greater upper- andlower body strength and power haveshown to be beneficial for the optimalperformance of high-intensity combattasks. Therefore, it would be advanta-geous for the soldier to increase musclemass, with greater muscle cross-sectional area being related to its maxi-mal force potential (37). Studies haveshown that greater fat-free mass trans-lates to faster performance times underthe heaviest loads during a combat-related course (29,33,35). The morelean body mass a soldier possesses, thegreater the capacity to perform high-intensity combat activities while carry-ing significant loads.
MAJOR CONCERNS OFTRADITIONAL MILITARY TRAINING
Because the anaerobic battlefield re-quires a significant amount of muscu-lar strength and power, anaerobiccapacities must be cultivated to opti-mize combat effectiveness. Neverthe-less, physical training within the
majority of the U.S. Army populationstill emphasizes the development ofaerobic and muscular endurance overstrength and power development. Sol-diers may be prone to this mode oftraining because the Army Physical Fit-ness Test (APFT) is still used to evaluatethe physical fitness of soldiers (12). Ashift is currently underway in the U.S.Army with the development of theArmy Physical Readiness Training(APRT) program (13). The APRT in-cludes elements of strength and powertraining and focuses on optimal physicalreadiness for mission requirements,which goes beyond APFT preparation(13). Yet, at the squad and team levelwhere physical training takes place,strength and power training are rarelyimplemented because of a lack ofresources.
According to the size principle, (1,27)training with the traditional U.S. Armyphilosophy does not optimally recruitthe high force type 2 motor units. Aero-bic endurance training and calisthenicsleave the more powerful motor unitsuntrained, which are the motor unitsused during high-intensity combatactivities (18,27). Also, the physiologicaladaptations that ensue after a primarilyaerobic or muscular endurance-basedtraining program do not contribute tothe optimal development of strength,power, and hypertrophy. Instead, localmuscular endurance training stimulatestype 1 motor units to increase oxidativecapacity by reducing the cross-sectionalarea of themuscle (1,27,36). Furthermore,performing high repetitions solely withbody weight during exercise does notstimulate hypertrophy of even the type1 muscle fibers that are recruited. Theelectrical impulses dischargedwhile usingbody weight as a resistance do not reachthe threshold required to stimulatehypertrophy (27). Training using solelycalisthenics and cardiovascular trainingactually elicits the opposite physiologicaladaptations than those required to opti-mally perform high-intensity combattasks (1,14,27,36).
Another concern for the military pop-ulation is the pervading thought ofa “good workout” having to consist of
soldiers being sweaty, feeling nauseated,and exhausted. With this mindset, manyjunior leaders at the platoon, squad, andteam levels leading physical trainingincrease the metabolic intensity of everyphysical training day. This mindset isnot only fostered within the militarybut also by alternative fitness programsthat foment the “tough guy” mentality.Rather than training for combat, physi-cal training becomes a “survival of thefittest” competition, where toleration ofextreme stress supersedes the develop-ment of physical capacities. This erro-neous paradigm leads to physicaltraining serving a dual purpose, withthe primary goal of physical trainingbeing to develop the fortitude of sol-diers, and secondly to improve the phys-ical capacity of soldiers. Training in thisway can be physically tolerated toa degree, but training continually at highintensities (.8 weeks) without any peri-odization of stressors can lead to non-functional overreaching and overtrainingsyndrome (9,10,28). This may result insuboptimal performance on the battle-field and loss of duty time. Proper educa-tion and training using the principles ofprogression, overload, and specificitymust be used, if optimal strength, power,and hypertrophy are desired.
OPTIMIZING TRAINING TOIMPROVE PERFORMANCE OFHIGH-INTENSITY MILITARY TASKSUNDER LOAD CARRIAGE
Before implementing a training programto improve battlefield performance, it isimportant to conduct a needs analysis ofthe current battlefield and of the individ-ual soldier (27). This involves an evalua-tion of the characteristics and physicaldemands of combat activities and thestrengths and weaknesses of the soldier,thus providing an individualized programto meet the needs of the battlefield (1,9).The current battlefield can be consideredan “anaerobic battlefield” requiring mus-cle size, strength, and power, with onlyneeded cardiovascular support (8,34,38).Physiologically, high-intensity combatactivities, such asmoving under fire, evac-uating a casualty, and reacting to contactreveal the necessity of total body strengthand power; however, the development of
Performance of Heavy Load Carriage
VOLUME 37 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 201546
a soldier’s aerobic capacity cannot beignored. Because of the mercurial natureof the modern battlefield, tactical opera-tors require a wide spectrum of physicalcapacities (strength, power, and endur-ance). If training strongly emphasizesonly one end of the spectrum (aerobicor strength), the physical component atthe opposite end will suffer. This is highlycharacteristic of the majority of U.S.Army physical training today, with theemphasis on aerobic and muscularendurance, while strength and powerare neglected (12). Neither resistancetraining alone nor high-intensity endur-ance training alone have been shown tobe effective in improving load carriageperformance (24,28). Although strengthand power are essential to combat tasks,studies have also shown that havinga high aerobic capacity can be beneficialduring the performance of combat tasks(16,17).Therefore,whendesigninga train-ing program, an optimal balance betweena resistance training program and an aer-obic training program must be struck.A carefully designed program shoulddevelop strength, power, and aerobiccapacity concurrently, without inhibitinggains from either training regimen.
CONCURRENT STRENGTH ANDAEROBIC TRAINING PROGRAM
Soldiers must prepare for any physicaldemand presented on the battlefield,whether it may be a highly aerobictask or a highly anaerobic task. Hereinlies the challenge for the strength andconditioning professional workingwith the military population: designinga program that enhances hypertrophy,strength, power, and aerobic endur-ance concurrently. It is crucial to real-ize that aerobic endurance training andheavy resistance training have oppos-ing stimuli. Aerobic endurance trainingstimulates exercise-induced atrophy,but increases aerobic capacity, whereasheavy resistance training results in cel-lular signaling to increase hypertrophyand to produce more force (1,27).
Concurrent resistance and aerobictraining programs have been shown toimprove performance in all tacticaloccupational tasks, more than resistancetraining alone or aerobic training alone
(10,14,24,25). Concurrent training pro-grams have been shown to elicit signif-icant changes in total body maximal andexplosive strength, when comparedwith a normal basic training regimen(36). Studies examining the compatibil-ity of strength and aerobic endurancetraining have reported significant in-creases in type 2a muscle fiber area yetno changes in type 1 muscle fiber areaswith a concurrent training group. Aero-bic training alone causes a decrease intype 1 muscle fibers and this is accom-panied by a loss in power (26). Aerobicendurance was not affected whenstrength training was added to an aero-bic program, yet strength and powerwere reduced in magnitude comparedwith strength training alone (14,26,28).Therefore, it is critical to design a con-current resistance and aerobic trainingprogram that does not compromiseanaerobic capabilities and does notneglect the aerobic component of train-ing. A training regimen that developsboth of these components may contrib-ute to the optimal performance of high-intensity combat tasks under load.
Designing a concurrent training pro-gram requires the careful pairing ofeach individual aerobic workout withthe appropriate resistance training day.This helps to ensure that on each train-ing day, only one of the exercise proto-cols will produce high levels of bloodlactate (.10 mmol/L). Designing pro-grams under this view helps to preventnonfunctional overreaching and over-training (27). Low-volume sprint intervaltraining is a viable option for improvingmaximal oxygen consumption while lim-iting effects on anaerobic capabilities(14,27). A study using a program thattrains aerobically 3 times a week, in con-junction with a resistance training pro-gram, has shown promising results (13).Two days were designated for steady-state running (75–85% HRmax), andthe other day was designated for intervaltraining at various distances (200, 400 m,etc.) (13). Results from this training pro-gram yielded improvements of occupa-tional tasks and did not interfere withgains in strength, power, and endurancemeasures (14).
SPECIFICITY
In addition to a concurrent training pro-gram, improving military task perfor-mance under heavy loads requires therepeated performance of the tasks rou-tinely experienced in combat. This is inaccordance with the principles of speci-ficity and the specific adaptation toimposed demands (1). FM 7-22 statesin one of its principles of training to “Trainas you will fight,” making the trainingemphasis less fitness testing-oriented, butmore combat-oriented (11). Holding tothe principle of “Train as you will fight”helps to ensure optimal physical readinessto meet mission requirements (13). Sol-diers should progressively train offensiveand defensive maneuvers most frequentlyexperienced in combat. Time should beallocated to train for various scenariossuch as sprinting on an objective or ina building and simulating casualty carrieswhile carrying combat loads (16,18,32,40).
Properly training soldiers to carryheavy loads during the performanceof high-intensity tasks requires loads tobe progressively increased during thecombat activities. Loads can be progres-sively added until the desired weight car-ried is achieved, and the performance ofthe tasks is up to standard. For an exam-ple, at the onset of training, combat taskscan be performed wearing minimal tono weight, performing the tasks ata low intensity. As a training programadvances, the intensity of the tasksshould be increased by incorporatingmission essential equipment during theperformance of the task (body armor,load bearing vest, ruck sack, helmet,weapon, etc.). Performing high-intensitycombat activities under heavy loads mustbe included within the overall trainingprogram to optimize performance ofcombat-specific activities.
OPTIMIZING BATTLEFIELDREADINESS WITH PERIODIZATION
With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,many units within the U.S. militaryhave a deployment and readiness train-ing rotation (Figure). Rotations includea specified amount of time deployed(4–15 months), and time spent statesideto train and prepare for the next deploy-ment (6–12 months). As units are
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 47
preparing for the upcoming deploy-ment, the strength and conditioningprofessional should periodize a programto have soldiers peak at the beginning orduring the deployment (1,9). Just as pro-fessional athletes train rigorously lead-ing up to a season and are at their peakduring competition, soldiers also musttaper into combat. This requires properperiodization, which can be applied tothe deployment schedule of a unit (1,9).This can be likened to sport seasons,that is, when units are 6 to 9 monthsaway from deploying, this can be con-sidered an off-season.When the deploy-ment is 3 months away, this can belikened to a preseason. The deploymentof a unit into combat can be consideredin-season, with the return of the unitfrom deployment as a postseason (1,9).
Using a linear periodization model, the-off-season can be used to develop opti-mal hypertrophy and basic strength.Loads of 67–85% of 1 repetition maxi-mum and a repetition range of 6–12repetitions should be used for each exer-cise (1,9). In the off-season, aerobictraining can be incorporated at a lowerfrequency (2 times a week) and atlower intensities (75% heart rate maxi-mum, 20–30 minutes). Also in theoff-season, combat-specific activitiescan be performed, with lower intensitiesand minimal loads, at a low frequency(one time a week). As the off-seasonprogresses, combat activities willbecome more specific to the high-intensity combat tasks, with the equip-ment and load progressively increasing.In the preseason, strength and power
should be emphasized in the trainingprogram, using loads $85% and repeti-tion ranges from 3 to 6 repetitions (1,9).Aerobic training can increase in inten-sity and include sprint and interval train-ing. The frequency of combat activitiesshould also increase as the deploymentnears (3 times a week). The activitiescan be performed at near-maximalspeeds, with near-maximal combatloads and can be incorporated as partof the aerobic training component. Abalance between resistance training,high-intensity aerobic training, andhigh-intensity combat-specific trainingmust be implemented to prevent over-training. Volume should decreasein resistance training, and the volumeof combat-specific training shouldincrease as the preseason progresses.
The in-season period is the deploymentof the unit, which can last for anextended period of time (3–15 months)depending on the units deployed and theoverall mission. The goal of training dur-ing the in-season should be to preservestrength, power, and performance levelsusing moderate intensities and volumes.Depending on the overall length of timespent on a deployment, units can repeatspecific mesocycles (hypertrophy,strength, etc.) or use a flexible nonlinearprogram. Within a flexible nonlinear pro-gram, eachworkout can be adapted basedon the soldier’s readiness to perform theworkout, which may be altered by oper-ational demands. Based on the individualneeds, as long as the overall goal withinthe mesocycle (6–12 weeks) is addressed,
individual workouts can be performedelsewhere within the mesocycle.
Using a flexible nonlinear program maybe the best option during deployments,providing the needed adaptability foroptimal performance during trainingand on the battlefield. As a unit returnsfrom deployment, the postseason begins,which is characterized by active rest, con-sisting of non–combat-related activitiesperformed at low intensities and volumes(1). This prepares soldiers for the nextphase of the off-season by allowing signif-icant time to recover and rest, thus pre-venting overtraining syndrome and loss ofduty time (1,9) (see sample workout).
CONCLUSIONS
Under the direction of a CertifiedStrength and Conditioning Specialist(CSCS) or a Tactical Strength andConditioning Facilitator (TSAC-F),training programs can be designed tooptimally develop a soldier’s physicalcapacity. A program that is designedto optimize muscle hypertrophy,strength, and power, while also devel-oping aerobic endurance, may helpmeet the demands of the “anaerobicbattlefield.” Improving performance ofcombat tasks under heavy loads re-quires conducting these tasks withina training cycle. Performance of tasksshould become more frequent andcombat specific as the deploymentdraws near. Progression must be used,increasing the intensity and loads wornduring the tasks, until the optimal loadand performance is achieved (Table 3).
Training under this guideline enhancesthe physical training of the soldier toconfidently face the enemy and themany obstacles on the battlefield. Thishelps fulfill a stanza in the U.S. ArmyRanger Creed to “move further, faster,and fight harder than any other Soldier.”Although it may be a logistical and finan-cial burden to have CSCS- or TSAC-F–trained personnel and training facilitiesfor every unit, it is worthwhile to pursue.In professional sports, the time and finan-ces are invested into developing thecapacity of an athlete, just to play a gamefor mere entertainment. Yet, the majorityof soldiers remain inadequately trained
Figure. Combat operations in Afghanistan.
Performance of Heavy Load Carriage
VOLUME 37 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 201548
Table
3Sample
trainingprogram
Sunday
Monday
Tuesd
ay
Wednesd
ay
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Off-season
Resistan
cetraining
Rest
Hyp
ertrophy:
lower
body;allmajor
exercises:4sets
of
8–10repetitionsat
75%
1RM;p
erform
atleast5exercises;rest
periodlengths:
1–2min
betw
een
eachset
Strength:upperbody;
allmajorexercises:4
setsof4–6repetitions
at85%
1RM;perform
atleast4exercises;
rest
periodlength:
3–5min
betw
een
eachset;ab
dominal
exercises
Rest
Strength:lowerbody;all
majorexercises:4sets
of4–6repetitionsat
85%
1RM;perform
atleast4exercises;rest
periodlength:3–5
min
betweeneach
set;
abdominalexercises
Hyp
ertrophy:
upper
body;
allmajor
exercises:4sets
of
8–10repetitionsat
75%
1RM;perform
atleast5exercises;rest
periodlengths:
1–2min
betw
een
each
set
Rest
Aerobic
training
Rest
Rest
Interval
training
Rest
Rest
30-m
instead
y-state
runningat
80%
HRmax
Rest
Combat
relevant
training
Rest
Rest
Rest
Offensive
anddefensive
man
euvers
withminim
alload
s(uniform
,boots)
Rest
Rest
Rest
Predeploym
ent
Resistan
cetraining
Rest
Power
exercises;all
majorexercises:5sets
of3–5repetitionsat
85%
5RM;perform
atleast5exercises;rest
periodlengths:
3–5min
between
each
set
Rest
Strength:totalbody;
all
majorexercises:4sets
of4–6repetitionsat
85%
1RM;perform
atleast3exercisesfor
upperan
dlower
body;rest
period
length:3–5min
betw
eeneachset;
abdominal
exercises
Rest
Powerexercises;allm
ajor
exercises:5setsof1–2
repetitionsat
90%
3RM;perform
atleast
5exercises;restperiod
lengths:3–5min
betweeneach
set
Rest
Aerobic
training
Rest
Rest
Interval
training
Rest
30-m
instead
y-state
runningat
85%
HRmax
Rest
Rest
(continued)
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 49
Table
3(continued)
Combat
relevant
training
Rest
Offensive
anddefensive
man
euvers
withlow
load
s(uniform
,boots,bodyarmor,
helm
et,rifle)
Rest
Offensive
anddefensive
man
euvers
with
interm
ediate
load
s(uniform
,boots,body
armor,helm
et,rifle,
LBV,assaultpack)
Rest
Offensive
anddefensive
man
euvers
withfull
combat
load
s(uniform
,boots,b
ody
armor,helm
et,LB
V,
rucksack/assau
ltpack,
rifle,
etc.)
Rest
Deploym
ent
Resistan
cetraining
Rest
Power
exercises;all
majorexercises:3sets
of1–2repetitionsat
.90%
1RM;perform
atleast3exercises;
rest
periodlengths:
3–-5
min
between
each
set
Rest
Strength:totalbody;all
majorexercises:3sets
of4–6repetitionsat
80–85%
1RM;perform
atleast2exercisesfor
upper
andlower
body;
rest
periodlength:
3–5minbetweeneach
set;ab
dominal
exercises
Rest
Powerexercises;all
majorexercises:3sets
of1–2
repetitionsat
.90%
3RM;perform
atleast3exercises;
rest
periodlengths:
3–5
min
betw
een
each
set
Rest
Aerobic
training
Rest
Rest
30-m
instead
y-state
runningat
75%
HRmax
Rest
30-m
instead
y-state
runningat
85%
HRmax
Rest
Rest
Combat
relevant
training
Rest
Rest
Rest
Offensive
anddefensive
man
euvers
with
interm
ediate
load
s(uniform
,boots,body
armor,helm
et,rifle,
LBV,assaultpack)
Rest
Rest
Rest
Postdeploym
ent
Resistan
cetraining
Rest
Activerest:low
intensity,low
volume
totalbodytraining
Rest
Rest
Rest
Activerest:low
intensity,low
volume
totalbodytraining
Rest
Aerobic
training
Rest
Rest
20-m
instead
y-state
runningat
75%
HRmax
Rest
20-m
instead
y-state
runningat
65%
HRmax
Rest
Rest
Combat
relevant
training
Rest
Retrainfundam
entals
ofindividual
and
squad
movements
Rest
Rest
Rest
Retrainfundam
entalsof
individual
andsquad
movements
Rest
LBV5
load
-bearingvest;RM
5repetitionmaxim
um.
Performance of Heavy Load Carriage
VOLUME 37 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 201550
to defend their countries, with a lackof access to adequate facilities anda reliance on traditional philosophies.Military leadership must come torealize the relationship between opti-mal physical training and improvedcombat effectiveness. When this isaccomplished, the necessary overhaulin U.S. military physical training canoccur, resulting in optimal combatreadiness and mission success.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:The authors report no conflicts of interestand no source of funding.
Jesse Mala isa Doctoral Fellowin the Departmentof EducationalLeadership at theUniversity ofConnecticut. Hewas a juniorNoncommissionedOfficer with thethird RangerBattalion, 75th
Ranger Regiment.
Tunde K.
Szivak is a Doc-toral Fellow inthe Departmentof Human Scien-ces at The OhioState University.She is a graduateof the UnitedStates Military
Academy and former active duty Officer.
William J.
Kraemer isa Professor in theDepartment ofHuman Sciencesat The Ohio StateUniversity. He isa former activeduty U.S. ArmyOfficer (ResearchPhysiologist) in
the Medical Service Corps.
REFERENCES1. Baechle TR and Earle RW. Essentials of
Strength Training and Conditioning.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
2. Bishop PA, Fielitz LR, Crowder TA,
Anderson CL, Smith JH, and Derrick KR.
Physiological determinants of performance
on an indoor military obstacle course test.
Mil Med 164: 891–896, 1999.
3. Daniels WL, Vogel JA, and Jones BH.
Comparison of Aerobic Power and
Dynamic Lift Capacity With Performance
During a 5-Day Sustained Combat
Scenario. Natick, MA: US Army Research
Institute of Environmental Medicine, 1984.
4. Dean CE. The Modern Warrior’s Combat
Load. Dismounted Operations in
Afghanistan, April–May 2003. Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas: Army Center for
Lessons Learned, 2004.
5. Derrick LG, Henn HR, and Malone GH. The
Influence of Body Armor Coverage and
Weight on the Performance of the Marine
While Performing Certain Simulated
Combat-Type Tasks. Bureau of Medicine
and Surgery, Navy Department XIII, 1963.
6. Dubik JM, Fullerton TD, and Terrance D.
Soldier overloading in Grenada. Mil Rev
67: 38–47, 1987.
7. Dziados JE, Damokosh AI, Mello RP,
Vogel JA, and Farmer KL. Physiological
Determinants of Load Bearing Capacity.
Natick, MA: US Army Research Institute of
Environmental Medicine, 1987.
8. Feickert A. U.S. Special Operations Forces
(SOF): Background and Issues for
Congress. Congressional Research
Service, The Library of Congress, 2003.
9. Fleck SJ and Kraemer WJ. Designing
Resistance Training Programs.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
10. Harman EA, Frykman P, Palmer C, Lammi E,
Reynolds K, and Backus V. Effects of
a Specifically Designed Physical Conditioning
Program on the Load Carriage and Lifting
Performance of Female Soldiers. Natick, MA:
US Army Research Institute of Environmental
Medicine, 1997.
11. Headquarters Department of the Army.
Field Manual 21–18. Washington, DC:
Foot Marches, 1990.
12. Headquarters Department of the Army.
Field Manual 21–20. Washington, DC:
Physical Fitness Training, 1998.
13. Headquarters Department of the Army.
Field Manual 7–22. Washington, DC:
Army Physical Readiness Training, 2012.
14. Hendrickson NR, Sharp MA, Alemany JA,
Walker LA, Harman EA, Spiering BA,
Hatfield DL, Yamamoto LM, Maresh CM,
Kraemer WJ, and Nindl BC. Combined
resistance and endurance training
improves physical capacity and
performance on tactical occupational
tasks. Eur J Appl Physiol 109: 1197–
1208, 2010.
15. Howell J. Precision Targeting: Filling the
Gap: Naval War College, 2013.
16. Jette M and Kimick A. Evaluating the
occupational physical fitness of Canadian
forces infantry personnel. Mil Med 154:
318–321, 1989.
17. Jette M, Kimick A, and Sidney K. Evaluation
of an indoor standardized obstacle course
for Canadian infantry personnel. Can J
Sport Sci 15: 59–64, 1990.
18. Knapik J, Daniels W, Murphy M,
Fitzgerald P, Drews F, and Vogel J.
Physiological factors in infantry operations.
Eur J Appl Physiol 60: 233–238, 1990.
19. Knapik J, Darakjy S, Scott SJ, Hauret KG,
Canada S, Marin R, Rieger W, and
Jones BH. Evaluation of a standardized
physical training program for basic combat
training. J Strength Cond Res 19: 246–
253, 2005.
20. Knapik J, Harman EA, Steelman RA, and
Graham BS. A systematic review of the
effects of physical training on load carriage
performance. J Strength Cond Res 26:
585–597, 2012.
21. Knapik J and Reynolds K. Load Carriage in
Military Operations: A Review of Historical,
Physiological, Biomechanical, and Medical
Aspects. Borden Institute, 2012:303–337.
22. Knapik JJ, Reynolds KL, and Harman E.
Soldier load carriage: Historical,
physiological, biomechanical, and medical
aspects. Mil Med 169: 45, 2004.
23. Knapik J, Staab J, Bahrke M, O’Connor J,
Sharp M, Frykman P, Mello R, Reynolds K,
and Vogel J. Relationship of Soldier Load
Carriage to Physiological Factors, Military
Experience and Mood States. Natick, MA:
US Army Research Institute of
Environmental Medicine, 1990.
24. Kraemer WJ, Mazzetti SA, Nindl BC,
Gotshalk LA, Volek JS, Bush JA, Marx JO,
Dohi K, Gomez AL, Miles M, Fleck SJ,
Newton RU, and Hakkinen K. Effect of
resistance training on women’s strength/
power and occupational performances. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 33: 1011–1025, 2001.
25. Kraemer WJ, Vogel JA, Patton JF,
Dziados JE, and Reynolds KL. The Effects
of Various Physical Training Programs on
Short Duration, High Intensity Load
Bearing Performance and the Army
Physical Fitness Test. Natick, MA: US
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 51
Army Research Institute of Environmental
Medicine, 1987.
26. Kraemer WJ, Patton JF, Gordon SE,
Harman EA, Deschenes MR,
Reynolds K, Newton RU, Triplett NT, and
Dziados JE. Compatibility of high-
intensity strength and endurance
training on hormonal and skeletal muscle
adaptations. J Appl Physiol (1985) 78:
976–989, 1995.
27. Kraemer WJ and Szivak TK. Strength
training for the warfighter. J Strength Cond
Res 26(Suppl 2): S107–S118, 2012.
28. Kraemer WJ, Vecovi JD, Volek JS,
Nindl BC, Newton RU, Patton JF,
Dziados JE, French DN, and Hakkinen K.
Effects of concurrent resistance and
aerobic training on load-bearing
performance and the army physical fitness
test. Mil Med 169: 994, 2004.
29. Kusano MA, Vanderburgh PM, and
Bishop P. Impact of body size on
women’s military obstacle course
performance. Biomed Sci Instrum 34:
357–362, 1997.
30. Larsen B, Netto K, and Aisbett B. The
effect of body armor on performance,
thermal stress, and exertion: A critical
review. Mil Med 176: 1265–1273, 2011.
31. Martin PE and Nelson RC. The effect of
carried loads on the combative movement
performance of men and women. Mil Med
150: 357–362, 1985.
32. National Defence Headquarters. Canadian
Forces Manual of Other Ranks’ Trade
Structure: Trade Specifications 2, 1983.
33. Pandorf CE, Harman EA, Frykman PN,
Patton JF, Mello RP, and Nindl BC.
Correlates of load carriage and obstacle
course performance among women. Work
18: 179–189, 2002.
34. Ramirez A. From Bosnia to Baghdad: The
Evolution of U.S. Army Special Forces from
1995–2004: Naval Post Graduate School,
2004.
35. Rayson MP, Holliman D, and Belyavin A.
Development of physical selection
procedures for the British army. Phase 2:
Relationship between physical
performance tests and criterion tasks.
Ergonomics 43: 73–105, 2000.
36. Santtila M, Hakkinen K, Kraemer WJ, and
KyrolainenH. Effects of basic training on acute
physiological responses to a combat loaded
run test. Mil Med 175: 273–279, 2010.
37. Schantz P, Randall-Fox E, Hutchison W,
Tyden A, and Astrand PO. Muscle fibre
type distribution, muscle cross-sectional
area and maximal voluntary strength
in humans. Acta Physiol Scand 117:
219–226, 1983.
38. Shumate A. Employing U.S. Army Special
Forces toDefeat America’s Emerging Threats:
United States Army War College, 2013.
39. Simpson KRJ, Cohen BS, Hendrickson NR,
Spiering BA, Steelman R, Knapik JJ, and
Sharp MA. Quantification of physical activity
performed during U.S. army basic combat
training. US Army Med Dep J: 55–66, 2013.
40. Treloar AK and Billing DC. Effect of load
carriage on performance of an explosive,
anaerobic military task. Mil Med 176:
1027–1031, 2011.
Performance of Heavy Load Carriage
VOLUME 37 | NUMBER 4 | AUGUST 201552
top related