Exercise PhysiologyExercise Physiology

Paul M. Vanderburgh, EdD, FACSMPaul M. Vanderburgh, EdD, FACSMProfessor and Chair, Health and Sport Science DepartmentProfessor and Chair, Health and Sport Science Department

University of Dayton, Dayton, OhioUniversity of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio

Optimizing Athletic PerformanceOptimizing Athletic Performance

FitnessFitnessBody Composition

Cardiorespiratory Endurance

Muscular Strength/Endurance

Environmental PhysiologyEnvironmental Physiology

Occupational PhysiologyOccupational Physiology

Exercise EpidemiologyExercise Epidemiology

CHDCHD

NIDDMNIDDM

StrokeStroke

CancerCancer

Exercise BiochemistryExercise Biochemistry

NutritionNutrition

SupplementsSupplements

Weight Loss/GainWeight Loss/Gain

Fitness FocusFitness Focus

C-R EnduranceC-R Endurance

Musculoskeletal Strength/EnduranceMusculoskeletal Strength/Endurance

Cardiorespiratory EnduranceCardiorespiratory EnduranceDefined by VODefined by VO2max2max: the maximum rate of oxygen : the maximum rate of oxygen

consumption consumption

= HR x SV x a-v O= HR x SV x a-v O22 difference at max difference at max

DeterminantsDeterminants– Training (myoglobin content, myochondrial # and density, SV, Training (myoglobin content, myochondrial # and density, SV,

capillary density)capillary density)– Fiber type distribution Fiber type distribution

Gold standard: open circuit spirometryGold standard: open circuit spirometry

Typically estimated by distance run testsTypically estimated by distance run tests

Expressed as ml OExpressed as ml O22 per kg per min per kg per min

Muscle Strength/EnduranceMuscle Strength/EnduranceDefined by maximum force generated by muscle group Defined by maximum force generated by muscle group once or multiple timesonce or multiple times

Determinants:Determinants:– Training (Muscle CSA, glycolytic capacity, neuromuscular Training (Muscle CSA, glycolytic capacity, neuromuscular

adaptations)adaptations)– Fiber type distributionFiber type distribution– Biomechanical advantageBiomechanical advantage

Gold Standard: Isokinetic dynamometryGold Standard: Isokinetic dynamometry

Typically estimated by 1RM or REPS of body weight Typically estimated by 1RM or REPS of body weight (e.g., push-ups)(e.g., push-ups)

Expressed as lbs or ftExpressed as lbs or ft..lbslbs

Body Mass Bias and Body Mass Bias and Occupational Relevance of Occupational Relevance of

Military Physical Fitness TestsMilitary Physical Fitness Tests

Paul M. Vanderburgh, EdD, FACSMPaul M. Vanderburgh, EdD, FACSMProfessor and Chair, Health and Sport Science DepartmentProfessor and Chair, Health and Sport Science Department

University of Dayton, Dayton, OhioUniversity of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio

Presented at the American College of Sports Medicine’s 2007 Annual Presented at the American College of Sports Medicine’s 2007 Annual Meeting, New OrleansMeeting, New Orleans

Published in Published in Medicine and Science in Sports and ExerciseMedicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(8): , 40(8): 1538-1545, 20081538-1545, 2008

How Military Fitness is Assessed How Military Fitness is Assessed (Army, Air Force, Navy)(Army, Air Force, Navy)

Sit-ups or Curl-ups

Push-ups Distance Run

Military Physical Fitness TestsMilitary Physical Fitness Tests Upper Body

Muscular Strength/Endurance

Trunk Muscular Strength/Endurance

Aerobic Capacity

Army 2 min Push-ups 2 min Sit-ups 2 Mile Run Air Force 1 min Push-ups 1 min Sit-ups 1.5 Mile Run Navy 2 min Push-ups 2 min Curl-ups 1.5 Mile Run

• Conducive to mass testing

• No special equipment needed

• Body weight is the primary resistance

Typical Physically Demanding Typical Physically Demanding Military TasksMilitary Tasks

Light Load CarriageLight Load Carriage

Heavy Load CarriageHeavy Load Carriage

Heavy HandlingHeavy Handling

Light Load CarriageLight Load Carriage

Heavy Load CarriageHeavy Load Carriage

Body Mass BiasBody Mass Bias

Body Mass Bias 101Body Mass Bias 101

Defined as the non-zero correlation Defined as the non-zero correlation between body mass and a physical between body mass and a physical performance measureperformance measure– Push-ups, sit-upsPush-ups, sit-ups– Distance runDistance run– 1RM strength1RM strength

Free of the confounding effects of effort, Free of the confounding effects of effort, body fat, or physical activity levelbody fat, or physical activity levelTheoretical basisTheoretical basis

Scale Modeling of Body Mass BiasScale Modeling of Body Mass Bias

A 25% increase in mass (exact replica):• 1RM bench press is 16.0% greater

• VO2max (L/min) is 16.0% greater

• Run Time is 7.7% slower

• Push-ups and Sit-ups Reps are 7.2% fewer

Example – 5K RunExample – 5K Run

600

1100

1600

100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0

Body Weight (lbs)

5K

Ru

n T

ime

(s

ec

)

Crecelius JSCR (in press)Crecelius JSCR (in press)

Comparison of RunnersComparison of Runners

600

1100

1600

100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0

Body Weight (lbs)

5K

Ru

n T

ime

(s

ec

)

B is 8.5% slower than A

AB

Comparison considering body mass Comparison considering body mass Distance from the best-fit curveDistance from the best-fit curve

600

1100

1600

100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0

Body Weight (lbs)

5K

Ru

n T

ime

(s

ec

)

B is 8.6% faster than A

AB

Body Mass Bias ExampleBody Mass Bias ExamplePowerlifting TOTALPowerlifting TOTAL

(data from IPF website: www.powerlifting-ipf.com, 5/07)

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

40 60 80 100 120 140

Body Mass (kg)

To

tal W

t L

ifte

d (

SQ

+B

P+

DL

, in

kg

)

TOTAL per MTOTAL per MRatio MethodRatio Method

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

40 60 80 100 120 140

Body Mass (kg)

To

tal L

ifte

d /

Bo

dy

Ma

ss

TOT per MTOT per M2/32/3

30

35

40

45

50

55

40 60 80 100 120 140

Body Mass (kg)

TO

T/M

^2/

3

Body Mass (M) and StrengthBody Mass (M) and StrengthTheoryTheory

Strength Strength αα muscle CSA muscle CSA

Muscle CSA Muscle CSA αα M M2/32/3

Therefore strength Therefore strength αα MM2/32/3

Fair comparison: Fair comparison: 1RM/M1RM/M2/32/3

(Astrand & Rodahl, Textbook of Work Physiology ’86)

M Bias and StrengthM Bias and StrengthEvidenceEvidence

MeasureMeasure SubjectsSubjects NN ExponentsExponents SourceSource

PowerliftingPowerlifting Elite WomenElite Women 36 world 36 world record holdersrecord holders

0.63 - 0.87 Vanderburgh Vanderburgh MSSEMSSE ‘00 ‘00

PowerliftingPowerlifting Elite MenElite Men 30 world 30 world record holdersrecord holders

0.49 – 0.68 Dooman Dooman JSCRJSCR ‘00 ‘00

Olympic Olympic LiftingLifting Elite M & WElite M & W 5757 0.47* Batterham, Batterham,

JAPJAP ‘97 ‘97

Bench PressBench Press M college-age M college-age PE studentsPE students 7777 0.69 Markovic Markovic

EJAPEJAP ‘04 ‘04

Leg StrengthLeg Strength Young M & WYoung M & W 401401 0.67 Jaric Jaric JSMPFJSMPF ‘02‘02

• Exponents are somewhat variable

• Not all confidence intervals contain 0.67 but none contain 1.0 or 0

• *Found simple allometric model problematic

Body Mass and VOBody Mass and VO2max2max TheoryTheory

VOVO2max2max (L) (L) αα M M

Time Time αα M M1/31/3

VOVO2max2max (L/min) (L/min) αα M/M M/M1/31/3

Therefore VOTherefore VO2max2max (L/min) (L/min) αα MM2/32/3

Fair index: Fair index: ml Oml O22/(kg/(kg2/3.2/3.min)min)

(Astrand & Rodahl Textbook of Work Physiology ’86)

Body Mass and VOBody Mass and VO2max2max EvidenceEvidence

SubjectsSubjects NN M ExponentM Exponent SourceSource

Young WYoung W 94940.61 (LBM exp =

1.04)Vanderburgh Vanderburgh

MSSEMSSE ‘96 ‘96

M, 17-66 yrM, 17-66 yr 1,3141,3140.65* (LBM exp =

0.97)Batterham, Batterham, JAPJAP

‘99‘99

Young fit M & WYoung fit M & W 308308 0.67 Nevill Nevill EJAPEJAP ‘92 ‘92

M & W, 20-79 yrM & W, 20-79 yr 440440 0.65** Heil Heil MSSEMSSE ‘97 ‘97

*Found the simple allometric model problematic

**Controlling for age, gender, %fat and SR-PA score

Body Mass and Distance Run Time (RT) Body Mass and Distance Run Time (RT)

TheoryTheory

5K run speed (RS) 5K run speed (RS) αα VO VO2max2max (ml/kg (ml/kg..min)min)

But VOBut VO2max2max (L/min) (L/min) αα M M2/32/3

So RS So RS αα M M2/32/3/M or RS /M or RS αα M/ M/-1/3-1/3

Given that RT Given that RT αα RS RS-1-1

RT RT αα MM1/31/3

Fair index: Fair index: RT/MRT/M1/31/3

(Nevill JAP ’92, Vanderburgh MPEES ‘07)

Body Mass and Distance Run Time (RT) Body Mass and Distance Run Time (RT) EvidenceEvidence

MeasureMeasure SubjectsSubjects NN ExponentsExponents SourceSource

2-mile RT2-mile RT M USMA M USMA cadetscadets 5959

0.40 (FFW exp. = 0.31)

Vanderburgh Vanderburgh JSCRJSCR ‘95‘95

2-mile RT2-mile RT M USMA M USMA cadetscadets 238238

0.26 (LBM exp = 0.24)

Crowder Crowder MSSEMSSE (abstract ’96)(abstract ’96)

5K Run5K Run Young fit M & Young fit M & WW

308308 0.33* Nevill Nevill EJAPEJAP ‘92 ‘92

5K Run5K Run 5K M Runners5K M Runners 5656 0.30** Crecelius MSSE ’07 Crecelius MSSE ’07 (abstract)(abstract)

• Exponents not diff. from 0.33 but diff. from 0

• *Indirectly calculated from: run speed = f(VO2max, body mass) equation

• **calculated using subjects with RPE > 16

Body Mass and Push-ups/Sit-ups REPSBody Mass and Push-ups/Sit-ups REPSTheoryTheory

Muscle force Muscle force αα M M2/32/3

REPS REPS αα M M2/32/3/M or M/M or M-1/3-1/3

Push-up, Sit-up REPS Push-up, Sit-up REPS αα M M-1/3-1/3

Fair index: REPSFair index: REPS..MM1/31/3

(Markovic EJAP ‘04)(Markovic EJAP ‘04)

Body Mass and Push-ups/Sit-ups REPSBody Mass and Push-ups/Sit-ups REPSEvidenceEvidence

MeasureMeasure SubjectsSubjects NN ExponentsExponents SourceSource

Push-upsPush-ups M USMA M USMA cadetscadets 238238

-0.38 (LBM exp = -0.28)

Crowder Crowder MSSEMSSE (abstract ’96)(abstract ’96)

Sit-upsSit-ups M USMA M USMA cadetscadets 238238

-0.26 (LBM exp = -0.24)*

Crowder Crowder MSSEMSSE (abstract ’96)(abstract ’96)

Push-upsPush-ups M college-age M college-age PE studentsPE students 7777 -0.42 Markovic Markovic EJAPEJAP ’04 ’04

Push-upsPush-ups M college-age M college-age PE studentsPE students 7777 -0.30 Markovic Markovic EJAPEJAP ’04 ’04

• Only exponent diff. from -0.33 and only slightly

• No studies on women

Body Mass Bias Conclusions for Body Mass Bias Conclusions for Military Physical Fitness TestsMilitary Physical Fitness Tests

Military physical fitness test events favor lighter Military physical fitness test events favor lighter individuals, independent of body fatnessindividuals, independent of body fatness

Distance RunDistance Run– RT RT αα M M1/31/3

– Fair index = Fair index = RT/TRT/T1/31/3

Push-up, Sit-upsPush-up, Sit-ups– REPS REPS αα M M-1/3-1/3

– Fair index = Fair index = REPSREPS..MM1/31/3

Occupational RelevanceOccupational Relevance

Heavy HandlingHeavy Handling

Free Carry and Stretcher Carry Free Carry and Stretcher Carry PerformancePerformance

Strongest correlates of Strongest correlates of free carryfree carry and and stretcher carrystretcher carry performance: performance: – High LBM to dead mass (FM + plus casualty High LBM to dead mass (FM + plus casualty

mass) ratiomass) ratio– Standing broad jump Standing broad jump – Upright pullUpright pull

(Bilzon (Bilzon Occup MedOccup Med ‘02) ‘02)

Load Carriage DeterminantsLoad Carriage Determinants

Time to exhaustion on 18kg Load Carriage Time to exhaustion on 18kg Load Carriage (LC) test was:(LC) test was:– Not correlated with relative VONot correlated with relative VO2max2max

– Positively correlated with LBMPositively correlated with LBM

Simplified aerobic physical fitness tests Simplified aerobic physical fitness tests (e.g., 2.4 km run) did not predict ability to (e.g., 2.4 km run) did not predict ability to perform LC tasksperform LC tasks

(Bilzon (Bilzon Occup MedOccup Med ‘01) ‘01)

Absolute VOAbsolute VO2max2max and LBM/DM were the most and LBM/DM were the most

potent predictors of %VOpotent predictors of %VO2max2max during heavy (40 during heavy (40

kg) LC taskskg) LC tasks

Absolute VOAbsolute VO2max2max, LBM/DM, gradient, and load , LBM/DM, gradient, and load

accounted for 89% of variance in %VOaccounted for 89% of variance in %VO2max2max

(Lyons (Lyons Occup MedOccup Med ’05) ’05)

Load Carriage DeterminantsLoad Carriage Determinants

PF Tests as Predictors of Military PF Tests as Predictors of Military PerformancePerformance

Body size, muscle strength, and aerobic Body size, muscle strength, and aerobic fitness (L/min) differentially predicted lifting fitness (L/min) differentially predicted lifting and load carriage task performanceand load carriage task performance– Not push-upsNot push-ups– Sit-ups generally weakSit-ups generally weak

– Relative VORelative VO2max2max only for light load carriage only for light load carriage

(Rayson Ergonomics ‘00)

PU, SU, 2MR Military Task PU, SU, 2MR Military Task Performance, 18 kg loadedPerformance, 18 kg loaded

30m sprint to and from prone position30m sprint to and from prone position– Vertical jump and 2MRVertical jump and 2MR

400M sprint400M sprint– 2MR and vertical jump2MR and vertical jump

Obstacle courseObstacle course– Long jump, SU, vertical jumpLong jump, SU, vertical jump

Casualty recoveryCasualty recovery– Body mass, vertical jump, and 2MRBody mass, vertical jump, and 2MR

(Harman (Harman Mil MedMil Med (2008) (2008)

Occupational Relevance and Occupational Relevance and Physical Fitness Tests ConclusionsPhysical Fitness Tests Conclusions

Military physical fitness test performance is Military physical fitness test performance is generally not a potent predictor of loaded task generally not a potent predictor of loaded task performanceperformance

LBM, LBM/DM, upright pull, 1RM lift, and LBM, LBM/DM, upright pull, 1RM lift, and absolute VOabsolute VO2max2max are more predictive of load are more predictive of load

carriage performancecarriage performance

Run Time, Effort and %FatRun Time, Effort and %Fat

Age & Wt 5K Handicap ModelAge & Wt 5K Handicap Model– Penalty for fat > credit for extra weightPenalty for fat > credit for extra weight

(Vanderburgh MPEES ’07)(Vanderburgh MPEES ’07)

– With RT/MWith RT/M1/31/3, small remaining bias is , small remaining bias is accounted for by RPE and % fat accounted for by RPE and % fat

[Crecelius JSCR (in press)][Crecelius JSCR (in press)]

The Evidence Suggests:The Evidence Suggests:

Military Physical Fitness TestsMilitary Physical Fitness Tests1.1. Are not potent indicators of performance of Are not potent indicators of performance of

typical, loaded military taskstypical, loaded military tasks

2.2. Impose a systematic bias against larger, not Impose a systematic bias against larger, not fatter, service membersfatter, service members

3.3. 1. and 2. are interrelated1. and 2. are interrelated

Solutions Solutions 1.1. Scaled ValuesScaled Values

2.2. Correction Factors Correction Factors

3.3. Balanced Fitness Tests (validation needed)Balanced Fitness Tests (validation needed)

Implications/SolutionsImplications/Solutions

Body Mass Bias Penalty - NavyBody Mass Bias Penalty - Navy

Male Female

60 kg 90 kg 45 kg 75 kg Event

Maximum Equivalent Maximum Equivalent

Push-ups 2 min 84 (100) 73 (85) 46 (100) 39 (80)

Curl-ups 2 min 101 (100) 88 (80) 101 (100) 85 (75)

1.5 mi run time 8:55 (100) 10:12 (85) 10:17 (100) 12:11 (85)

Total points (%diff.)

300 250 (16.7%) 300 240 (20%)

(Vanderburgh, Mil Med, 2006)

Body Mass Bias and Occupational Body Mass Bias and Occupational Relevance ConnectionRelevance Connection

The more potent predictors of loaded military The more potent predictors of loaded military task performance (LBM, LBM/DM, upright pull, task performance (LBM, LBM/DM, upright pull, 1RM lift, and absolute VO1RM lift, and absolute VO2max2max) tend to favor ) tend to favor

heavier individuals (LBM, LBM/DM, upright pull, heavier individuals (LBM, LBM/DM, upright pull, 1RM lift, and absolute VO1RM lift, and absolute VO2max2max))

Empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that Empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that common physical fitness test events favor lighter common physical fitness test events favor lighter individualsindividuals

Middle ground?Middle ground?

Occupational Relevance and Body Occupational Relevance and Body Mass BiasMass Bias

BW Resistance Only

Fixed W Resistance Only

Heavy equipment or supplies lifting/carriage

Light load carriage over distance

Heavy load carriage over distance

P’ups, S’ups, Distance Runs

Most physical military tasks

Fitness tests

Backpack Run TestBackpack Run Test(Vanderburgh Mil Med ’00)(Vanderburgh Mil Med ’00)

59 USMA male cadets59 USMA male cadets– Lean, fitLean, fit– Two-mile run timesTwo-mile run times

ModeledModeled effects of alterations in backpack effects of alterations in backpack weight (BW) via ACSM equations on two-mile weight (BW) via ACSM equations on two-mile run timesrun timesBackpack weights of 20-50 kg:Backpack weights of 20-50 kg:– No body mass biasNo body mass bias– Reflected load carriage weights expected of combat Reflected load carriage weights expected of combat

support and/or combat arms service memberssupport and/or combat arms service members

Eliminating bias may be congruent with Eliminating bias may be congruent with occupational relevanceoccupational relevance

Solution 1: Scaled ValuesSolution 1: Scaled Values

Requires calculatorRequires calculatorCreates strange currencyCreates strange currency

SubjectSubject Push-upsPush-ups Body MassBody Mass REPSREPS..MM1/31/3

AA 6767 80 kg80 kg 284.5284.5

BB 7070 68 kg68 kg 281.7281.7

Solution 2: Correction FactorsSolution 2: Correction Factors

Correction Factor (CF) : a dimensionless Correction Factor (CF) : a dimensionless number multiplied by raw scorenumber multiplied by raw score– Based on body massBased on body mass– Uses weight standard (e.g., 50 kg)Uses weight standard (e.g., 50 kg)

Example: woman, 172 lbs, 16:08 RTExample: woman, 172 lbs, 16:08 RT– CF = (125/172)CF = (125/172)1/3 1/3 = 0.90= 0.90– RTadj = 14:31RTadj = 14:31

(Vanderburgh (Vanderburgh Mil MedMil Med ’07) ’07)

Correction Factors Correction Factors Push-ups and Sit-upsPush-ups and Sit-ups

Women 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 0 1.00 1.01 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 1 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 2 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 3 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 4 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 5 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 6 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 7 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 8 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 9 1.01 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.18

(Vanderburgh Mil Med ‘07)

Correction Factors – EffectCorrection Factors – EffectWomen

82 82

69

85 8780

88 91 90

0

25

50

75

100

Push-ups = 35 Sit-ups = 65 2MRT = 19:28

AP

FT

Po

ints

Usi

ng

Ad

just

ed S

core

s

120 lb

150 lb

180 lb

(Vanderburgh Mil Med ‘07)

Solution 3: Balanced TestsSolution 3: Balanced Tests

Balance of body mass bias via events. Balance of body mass bias via events. Example:Example:– 1RM Bench press1RM Bench press– Distance run timeDistance run time

Logistics challengesLogistics challenges

Has not been empirically evaluatedHas not been empirically evaluated

2005 Pump and Run2005 Pump and Run5K run time minus (30 x Bench Press Reps) = adjusted score5K run time minus (30 x Bench Press Reps) = adjusted scoreBench Press weight a % of BW and age-adjustedBench Press weight a % of BW and age-adjustedDespite intent, imposes a substantial body mass biasDespite intent, imposes a substantial body mass biasProposal: correction factors or everyone lifts the same absolute Proposal: correction factors or everyone lifts the same absolute weightweight

(Vanderburgh JSCR 2008)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

35 60 85 110 135

Body Mass (kg)

Ad

just

ed R

un

Tim

e (s

ec)

Women

Men

Marine Corps Marine Corps Combat FitnessCombat Fitness

Proposed Combat Fitness Test Events and Data Collection Plan

– 880 yd Run880 yd RunConducted like 3 mile run Conducted like 3 mile run Testing will determine best sequencing and numbers of Testing will determine best sequencing and numbers of Marines in each “heat” if not mass startMarines in each “heat” if not mass start

– Ammo LiftAmmo LiftMarines matched up as in crunches Marines matched up as in crunches Will test two versions in data collection periodWill test two versions in data collection periodSee picturesSee pictures

– Maneuver Under FireManeuver Under FireWill test two versions in data collection periodWill test two versions in data collection periodMay be modulatedMay be modulatedSee diagramsSee diagrams

Proposed Events

880 Yd Run880 Yd Run

AMMO LIFTMarine lifts 30 lb ammo can as many times in determined time period (1 min-1 ½ min- 2 min versions will be tested)

Start Mid-Lift Finish

Weight on Heels

Weight on Heels

Lumbar curve maintained throughout lift

Feet Shoulder Width Apart

Ammo Canat or below chinlevel

Arms straightat finish

Heels may rise at finish

Ammo can doesnot have to be directly overhead at finish

DIAGRAM NOT TO SCALE: ALL LEGS OF EVENT OCCUR WITHIN ONE LANE ( APPROX 8 YDS WIDE)

Notes:

Grenade Throw:

-Target area 5 yd x 5yd marked w/ engineer tape

-Center of target area 22 ½ yds from 75 yd line

-”Hit” if throw lands in target area or on border.

-Hit=10 sec deduction from time/Miss=10 sec addition to time

Cone network:

-5 yds apart in width/length beginning at 50 yd line

-Marines negotiate all or portion of the same network on all legs of event.

CASEVAC

-Marines paired by approximate weight

Equipment needed:

-30 lb ammo cans, Field lining materials, Dummy grenades, kneepads, stopwatch and cones, sandbags or other markers.

Leg 1:

-Start in prone position

-”Ready, Go”

-25 yd Sprint-25 yd Modified High Crawl (hands and knees)-25 yd Diagonal Run

-Pick up casualty in Cradle Drop (underarm carry position)

Leg 2:

-Drag casualty 10 yds through last two cones of network w/ start line as reference. Once casualty in carry position, bottom of feet may not touch ground

-Transition casualty to Fireman’s Carry (casualty may assist rescuer)

-65 yd Fireman’s Carry to start--Place casualty on ground

-Pick up two (2) 30 lb ammo cans

Leg 3:

-50 yd Sprint w/ammo cans-25 yd Diagonal Run w/ammo cans

-Ground ammo cans

-Engage grenade target from standing position, take cover momentarily in prone position with hands covering head

Leg 4:

-Rise to standing position, pick up ammo cans

-25 yd diagonal run-50 yd Sprint to Finish= Cone, sandbag or other marker

“MANEUVER UNDER FIRE (300 yds)”

25 yds

50 yds

75 yds

100 yds

Leg 1

Leg 2 Leg 4

Leg 3

Finish

Grenade target area

Start

“Casualty” in seated position w/ back towards start line

Sprint

Mod. HighCrawl

Diag. Run

AmmoCarry

AmmoCarry

GrenadeThrow

Drag

Fireman’sCarry

Monitor (can grade two target areas at once. Field monitor supports.)

Field Monitor (follows Marine through course beginning at 25 yd line on Leg 1)

Start/Finish Monitors-Rotates with Field Monitor as necessary

ConclusionsConclusionsCurrent physical fitness tests of the Army, Navy, and Air Current physical fitness tests of the Army, Navy, and Air Force:Force:– Are not potent determinants of physical military task Are not potent determinants of physical military task

performanceperformance– Impose a physiological bias against heavier service membersImpose a physiological bias against heavier service members

Eliminating body mass bias may be more occupationally Eliminating body mass bias may be more occupationally relevant – must be tested empiricallyrelevant – must be tested empiricallySolutionsSolutions– Scaled valuesScaled values require no change to fitness test protocol but require no change to fitness test protocol but

create strange currencycreate strange currency– Correction factorsCorrection factors provide ease of calculation, preservation of provide ease of calculation, preservation of

original units, and require no equipmentoriginal units, and require no equipment– Balanced fitness testsBalanced fitness tests require equipment but no calculations – require equipment but no calculations –

need validationneed validation

Questions?Questions?