BRIEF REVIEW
UNITED STATES ARMY PHYSICAL READINESS
TRAINING: RATIONALE AND EVALUATION OF THE
PHYSICAL TRAINING DOCTRINE
JOSEPH J. KNAPIK,1 WILLIAM RIEGER,2 FRANK PALKOSKA,2 STEVEN VAN CAMP,2 AND SALIMA DARAKJY1
1
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland; and
2
U.S. Army Physical Fitness School, Fort Benning, Georgia
ABSTRACT
Knapik, JJ, Rieger, W, Palkoska, F, Van Camp, S, and Darakjy, S.
United States Army physical readiness training: rationale
and evaluation of the physical training doctrine. J Strength
Cond Res 23(4): 1353–1362, 2009—This paper reviews the
rationale and evaluations of Physical Readiness Training (PRT),
the new U.S. Army physical training doctrine designed to
improve soldiers’ physical capability for military operations.
The purposes of PRT are to improve physical fitness, prevent
injuries, progressively train soldiers, and develop soldiers’ self-
confidence and discipline. The PRT follows the principles of
progressive overload, regularity, specificity, precision, variety,
and balance. Specificity was achieved by examining the
standard list of military (warrior) tasks and determining 1) the
physical requirements, 2) the fitness components involved,
and 3) the training activities that most likely could improve
the military tasks. Injury-prevention features include reduced
running mileage, exercise variety (cross-training), and gradual,
progressive training. In 3 military field studies, the overall
adjusted risk of injury was 1.5–1.8 times higher in groups of
soldiers performing traditional military physical training pro-
grams when compared with groups using a PRT program.
Scores on the Army Physical Fitness Test were similar or higher
in groups using PRT programs. In an 8-week laboratory study
comparing PRT with a weightlifting/running program, both
programs resulted in major improvements in militarily relevant
tasks (e.g., 3.2-km walk/run with 32-kg load, 400-m run with 18-
kg load, 5- to 30-second rushes to and from prone position, 80-
kg casualty drag, obstacle course). When compared with
traditional military physical training programs, PRT consistently
resulted in fewer injuries and in equal or greater improvements
in fitness and military task performance.
Address correspondence to Joseph Knapik, joseph.knapik@us.army.mil.
23(4)/1353–1362
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2009 National Strength and Conditioning Association
KEY WORDS exercise, fitness, calisthenics, dumbbell, pro-
gressive overload
INTRODUCTION
T
raditionally, physical fitness has been emphasized
as a critical element in the success of military
operations (9,41,44,46) because the occupational
tasks that soldiers perform frequently require
a high level of physical effort (14,22,24,27,54,55). Physical
fitness is increased by physical training of the proper mode,
frequency, duration, and intensity (1,38). However, physical
training also has its downside: as the amount of physical
activity increases, so do injury rates (23,35,36,42,49,57).
Injuries can result in physical limitations and disability, which
compromise military readiness. A critical goal of military
physical training is balancing the need to improve and
maintain a high fitness level while minimizing injury risk.
The U.S. Army Physical Fitness School (USAPFS) has
responsibility for developing physical training doctrine in
the U.S. Army. During the last 7 years, the USAPFS has
redesigned Army physical training; this new program is called
Physical Readiness Training (PRT). In 2001, USAPFS asked
the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion to evaluate the
influence of this new physical training program on injuries
and physical fitness. Since that time, PRT has been evaluated
in 3 Army environments (Basic Combat Training ½BCT
,
Ordnance Advanced Individual Training ½AIT
, and an
operational infantry unit) and in 1 laboratory study. The
purposes of this paper are to 1) provide the rationale for PRT
and 2) describe the results of the fitness and injury evaluations
of PRT as it was introduced into the military.
PURPOSES OF PHYSICAL READINESS TRAINING
The purposes of PRT are to improve physical fitness, prevent
injuries, progressively train soldiers, and develop soldiers’ self-
confidence and discipline (3).
Physical Fitness
Physical fitness has been defined in a number of ways
(6,7,16,21,43,47,58), but a simple definition that incorporates
many aspects of the others is that physical fitness is a set of
attributes that allow the performance of physical activity (43).
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2009 | 1353
U.S. Army Physical Training Rationale and Evaluation

The attributes or components of physical fitness have been
determined through factor analytic studies that provide
construct validity for the fitness concept (11,34). Fitness
components were determined by providing individuals with
a broad array of physical performance tests for which
quantitative measures could be obtained. Correlational and
factor analytic techniques were used to assemble the tests
into groups having commonality. After a long series of
studies, a number of components were identified, although
different authors categorized these components somewhat
differently because of the types of tests involved in the
different studies (8,11–13,20,45,61). For example, a factor
related to cardiovascular endurance could not emerge if there
was no long-term endurance activity, which was the case in
studies before 1972. Table 1 provides the components of
physical fitness and their definitions assembled from
a number of sources (7,8,11,16,20,47).
The USAPFS has simplified the components of fitness
to strength, endurance, and mobility, in consonance with
others (20). Endurance refers to cardiorespiratory endurance,
whereas the strength concept incorporates muscular strength,
muscular endurance (anaerobic endurance), and power.
Mobility is movement proficiency and is considered the
skilled application of strength and endurance to occupational
tasks. The mobility concept incorporates balance, flexibility,
coordination, speed, and agility. Physical fitness improve-
ments in the PRT program are achieved through drills
(described later) designed to improve the individual com-
ponents of fitness.
Injury Prevention
Another purpose of PRT is to prevent injuries. Injury-
prevention measures include reduced running mileage,
a greater variety of exercises, and enforced progressive
training. A number of studies of runners and individuals in
basic military training have shown that longer running
mileage is associated with a higher injury incidence
(23,35,36,42,49,52). Studies in 3 military services have shown
that reducing running mileage can reduce injury incidence
without compromising improvements in aerobic fitness
(23,52,57). An analysis of these military studies suggests that
the total running mileage in the 9-week Army BCT program
can be about 25 miles (33), especially in groups of trainees
who are in the lower half of the distribution of aerobic fitness
levels for recruits first entering military service. Improve-
ments in aerobic fitness are achieved with both interval
training and long-distance running. This low running mileage
also must be viewed in light of the fact that recruits perform
additional occupational running (not part of routine physical
training) through obstacle, confidence, and bayonet courses
and perform lower-intensity aerobic endeavors such as drill
and ceremony, foot marches out to training areas, and other
activities. Running distances for each week of basic training
and the rationale for these distances have been presented
previously (33). Less certain at this point are the running
distances that are desirable for soldiers in operational units
who have already achieved a baseline level of aerobic fitness.
Another potential injury reduction feature is the variety of
exercises in the program. There are no studies indicating that
exercise variety will reduce injuries, but sports medicine
professionals often endorse ‘‘cross-training’’ for this purpose
(56). The cross-training concept simply involves alternating
different types of exercises on different days. Exercises are
different in the sense that they involve different energy
systems (aerobic, anaerobic) or different muscle groups in
alternating training sessions. Reducing the repetitive use of
energy systems or muscle groups may allow more time for
recovery and reduce the probability of overuse injuries.

TABLE 1. Components of physical fitness.

Fitness Fitness
component subcomponent Definition

Endurance Cardiorespiratory
endurance Ability of a muscle group to sustain external forces for long periods of time
Strength Muscular strength Maximal force exerted by a muscle group in a single voluntary contraction
Muscular endurance Ability of a muscle group to exert external forces for a short period of time
Power Ability to exert force in a short period of time
Mobility Flexibility Range of motion achieved at a joint
Balance Maintenance of equilibrium while stationary or moving
Speed Ability to perform movements in a short period of time
Agility Ability to change the position of the entire body in space with speed and
accuracy
Coordination Ability to use the senses, such as seeing or hearing, together with the body parts
in performing motor tasks smoothly and accurately

Adapted from Corbin et al. (8), Hogan (20), and Pate (47).

the TM

1354 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research


Progressive Training
Progressive training is both an injury-prevention feature and
a training feature of PRT. Progressive training involves the
prescriptive, gradual introduction of exercise stress to allow
steady adaptations to higher levels of physical performance
(43). The PRT activities are prescriptive. The training
activities, drill repetitions, and running distances are carefully
laid out for the trainer in each training session. The PRT
activities are gradual because they are introduced slowly and
repetitions are increased gradually over multiple training
sessions. For example, running mileage in BCT is increased
steadily on a measured schedule (33), and the number
of speed running repetitions is increased similarly (29).
Although the principle of progressive training is endorsed by
trainers and exercise physiologists (4,43,60), few studies have
tested this principle for its injury reduction potential. One
study (51) did attempt to examine a gradual vs. sudden
increase in running mileage, but the group involved in the
gradual mileage increase also ran fewer miles, confounding
the effects of progressive training alone.
Self-Confidence and Discipline
Another purpose of PRT is to develop soldier self-confidence
and discipline. Fitness has been shown to be related to self-
confidence and self-discipline (19,37). Individuals who main-
tain fitness tend to be more self-confident, self-disciplined,
psychologically resilient, and competitive (19). Discipline
also is enhanced by having soldiers exercise in large groups to
very precise standards.
PHYSICAL READINESS TRAINING PRINCIPLES
The PRT follows the exercise principles of progressive
overload, regularity, and specificity as previously defined
(43,48,50,60). Additional principles developed by the
USAPFS include precision, variety, and balance (3,48).
Progressive Overload
Progressive overload is achieved by the prescriptive, gradual
training program designed around the U.S. Army military
training cycle. This military training cycle takes a civilian and
integrates that individual into the military through education
and experiences in BCT, AIT, and multiple deployments
and redeployments in operational Army units. Individuals
entering the U.S. Army begin their careers by completing
BCT, in which they acquire basic soldering skills including an
introduction to Army physical training. In BCT, PRT involves
fundamental and easily performed physical training tasks
(e.g., calisthenics, dumbbell drills, climbing drills, running).
Progressive overload is accomplished by increasing the num-
ber of repetitions of each exercise and by increasing the
complexity and difficulty of the exercises (e.g., log drills) as the
individual advances from BCT to AIT and into operational
military units. In AIT, soldiers learn their military occupa-
tional specialty. In operational units, soldiers use the skills
and knowledge they have acquired in training and may be
assigned to a very wide array of units including infantry,
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
armor, artillery, engineering, aircrew, electronics, communi-
cation, health care, administration, mechanical, and craft-
work, just to mention a few. In the current environment,
overseas deployments and returns from these deployments
(redeployments) are facts of military life and must be
considered in physical training programs.
Regularity
Regularity means training frequently and on a set schedule.
Regularity is achieved by a physical training doctrine that
requires enforced regular physical training at least 3 times per
week. Training leaders are encouraged to train the compo-
nents of physical fitness up to 5 times per week. Training
schedules are provided in military publications to achieve this
level of training (3,48).
Specificity
Specificity means training to improve the occupational tasks
soldiers perform. Specificity was achieved by attempting to
match military tasks (warrior tasks) to specific physical
training activities and specific physical fitness components.
Military (warrior) tasks are those military activities required of
all soldiers (39). Tables 2 and 3 provide examples of how
military tasks were matched to fitness components and
training activities. Table 2 shows the required military urban
operation skills of ‘‘movement’’ and ‘‘entry technique,’’ and
Table 3 shows the military task of shooting. Each task has
several subtasks. A panel of subject matter experts rated each
subtask on a 3-point scale as to the fitness components
involved and also determined whether or not a specific PRT
activity might improve task performance. Discrepancies were
resolved by consensus. Figure 1 is a more dynamic example
of how a specific military activity (exiting a vehicle) was
linked to a specific physical training activity (the high
jumper). Figure 2 provides another example.
Precision, Variety, Balance
Precision involves exact execution of the exercises so that the
most beneficial stress can be imparted to the muscles, bones,
and joints (5,10,30). Variety (also an injury-prevention
measure) is achieved by providing a wide range of training
exercises to avoid boredom and to allow for better recovery
(56). Balance has a double meaning, ensuring that 1) fitness
components are considered to the extent that they are
involved in military tasks and 2) antagonistic muscle groups
(e.g., hamstrings/quadriceps) are exercised (25,32,59).
PHYSICAL READINESS TRAINING DRILLS
The PRT involves minimal equipment and is designed to be as
deployable as the soldier so that the program can be used in any
environment in which the soldier operates. The major PRT
exercises and drills are shown in Tables 2 and 3 under the
columns headed ‘‘PRT activities.’’ The PRT activities were
organized into groups of ‘‘drills’’ that involved similar types of
movements. The exact exercises involved in each drill are
described in a publication (3) and are available online at
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2009 | 1355
 1356
TABLE 2. An example of matching military (warrior) tasks (urban operations skills) to fitness components and physical training activities.

Fitness component Physical Readiness Training activity

the
Joint urban Physical Guerrilla Climbing Speed Shuttle Log Obstacle
Military task operation skill requirement Strength Endurance Mobility Calisthenics drills Dumbbells drills running running drills Stretching course
Movement Cross open Sprint, crouch 3 1 2 X X X X X X
area
Move between Sprint, crouch 3 1 2 X X X X X X
positions
Move parallel Sprint, crouch, 3 1 3 X X X X X X
to building step/jump
Move past Enter/exit, prone 3 1 3 X X X X X
window position
Move around Climb wall, roll, 3 1 2 X X X X X
corners land
Cross a wall Sprint, crouch 3 1 2 X X X X X X X X X
Use a Sprint, enter/exit 3 1 3 X X X X X X
doorway prone, kneel
U.S. Army Physical Training Rationale and Evaluation

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

TM
Subtotal (SME 21 7 17
ratings)
Entry Upper building Carry/lift ladder, 3 1 3 X X X X X X X
technique levels climb ladder,
pull, lift/support
soldier
Use of Throw, pull, 3 1 3 X X X X X X X
grappling ascend rope
hook
Scaling walls Climb rope, hook 3 1 2 X X X X X X X
leg over
window sill
Rappelling Lower body 2 1 3 X X X
Entry at lower Exit prone, sprint, 3 1 2 X X X X X X X X
levels lift/pull another
soldier
Use of hand Overhand/ 2 1 3 X X X X X
grenades underhand
throw
Subtotal (SME 16 6 15
ratings)
Total (SME 37 13 32
ratings)

Numbers under fitness components indicate subject matter expert (SME) ratings for the contribution of a particular fitness component to a particular physical requirement; marks
under Physical Readiness Training activities indicate SME’s opinion that activity assists in improving the physical requirement of the skill. The SME ratings are based on a 3-point scale in
which higher numbers indicate higher scores.
 TABLE 3. An example of matching a military (warrior) task (shoot a weapon) to fitness components and physical training activities.

Fitness component Physical Readiness Training activity

Guerrilla Climbing Speed Shuttle Log Obstacle

Military task: shoot Physical requirement Strength Endurance Mobility Calisthenics drills Dumbbells drills running running drills Stretching course

Qualify with assigned Stand/sit/lie prone, 1 1 2 X X

weapon hold weapon
Correct malfunction Stand/sit/lie prone, 1 1 2 X X
with assigned fine motor
weapon manipulation
Engage targets Stand/sit/lie prone 1 1 2 X X
with M16, M240,
and M60
Engage targets Stand/lie 2 1 2 X X X
with M249 SAW prone/hyperextend
back
Engage targets Stand/lie 2 1 2 X X X
with M2 prone/hyperextend
0.50-caliber MG back
Engage targets with Stand/lie 2 1 2 X X X
MK-19 40-mm MG prone/hyperextend
back
Correct malfunction Stand/lie 2 1 2 X X X
of MG prone/hyperextend
the

back/fine motor
Engage target using Stand/sit/lie prone 1 1 2 X X
night vision sight
Engage target using Stand/sit/lie prone 1 1 2 X X
an aiming light
Employ mines and Fine 1 1 2 X X
hand grenades motor/crouch/throw
Total (SME ratings) 14 10 20

Numbers under fitness components indicate subject matter expert (SME) ratings for the contribution of a particular fitness component to a particular physical requirement; marks
under Physical Readiness Training activities indicate SME’s opinion that Physical Readiness Training activity assists in improving the physical requirement of the skill. The SME ratings
are based on a 3-point scale in which higher numbers indicate higher scores.
SAW = squad automatic weapon; MG = machine gun.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
TM

VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2009 |

1357
| www.nsca-jscr.org
U.S. Army Physical Training Rationale and Evaluation

Some PRT drills are designed

to improve a single fitness
component, whereas other
drills are designed to improve
a wider array of fitness compo-
nents. Examples of drills tar-
geted to a single fitness
component are stretching drills
designed primarily for flexibility
improvement and long-dis-
tance and speed running de-
signed primarily to improve
cardiorespiratory endurance.
Fitness components enhanced
by multiple drills include
strength, which is improved
by dumbbell drills, climbing
drills, certain calisthenic exer-
cise (e.g., forward lunges, back-
ward lunges), climbing drills,
and certain calisthenic exercises
(e.g., push-ups, mountain
climber); agility, which is en-
hanced by shuttle running and
certain obstacle course events;
and balance and coordination,
which are developed by precise
execution of calisthenic exer-
cises, by movement drills, and
by certain obstacle/confidence
course events.

EVALUATIONS OF PHYSICAL
READINESS TRAINING
There have now been a series of
3 field evaluations that have
compared PRT against tradi-
tional Army physical training.
There is also 1 laboratory in-
vestigation that compared PRT
against an aerobic and weight
training program.
The first evaluation of PRT
(31) was conducted during the
9 weeks of BCT. A PRT group
Figure 1. Example of linking a military operational task to a physical training event. The top picture shows soldiers
exiting a vehicle. The text and picture below show the high jumper exercise, which duplicates some of the motion
(n = 1284) performed calis-
involved in exiting vehicles. thenics, dumbbell drills, guer-
rilla drills, interval training, and
long-distance running. A con-
https://www.infantry.army.mil/usapfs/doctrine.htm. The pro- trol group (n = 1296) conducted a more traditional physical
gram can be subdivided further into on-ground tasks (e.g., training program consisting of stretching, calisthenics, sit-up
running, calisthenics, guerrilla drills), off-ground tasks (e.g., and push-up practice, and ability group running. Injuries were
climbing drills, conditioning obstacle courses, confidence evaluated by examining the medical records of all partic-
obstacle courses), and combatives (close, medium, long-range). ipants for overuse injuries defined operationally as those
Combative activities are described in another publication (2). presumed to involve repetitive microtrauma (e.g., stress
the TM

1358 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org

Figure 2. Example of linking a military operational task to a physical training event. The top picture shows a soldier after executing lunge and ending up in a squat
position. The text and picture below show the forward lung exercise, which duplicates some of the motion involved in the lung and squat.

fractures, stress reactions, bursitis, fasciitis, tendonitis). 2 minutes, and a 2-mile run for time. ‘‘Passing’’ criteria for the
Physical fitness was measured with the Army Physical APFT are age- and gender adjusted (48). Both groups had
Fitness Test (APFT), which involves the maximum number a total of 34 physical training sessions. At the end of the 9-
of push-ups in 2 minutes, the maximum number of sit-ups in week BCT cycle and after adjusting for covariates known to

VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2009 | 1359

U.S. Army Physical Training Rationale and Evaluation
influence injuries, men in the control group had an injury risk
1.5 times higher (95% confidence interval ½CI
= 1.0–2.1) than
men in the PRT group; women in the control group had an
injury risk 1.4 times higher (95% CI = 1.1–1.8) than women in
the PRT group. There were no differences between the PRT
and control group in the proportion of trainees passing the
initial APFTgiven at the start of training; however, on the final
APFT, the PRT group had a higher pass rate than the control
group (83 vs. 75%, p , 0.01).
Thus, on the first investigation injury risk was lower and
APFT scores were higher in the PRT group. However, the
Army leadership expressed some concern over the cost and
logistics associated with some of the drills and desired
a second investigation to verify the results of the first. The
PRT program was modified based on lessons learned in the
first investigation, input from the military leadership, and
feedback from the trainers. In another study (29), a PRTgroup
(n = 829) was compared with a control group (n = 1138) that
implemented a traditional BCT physical training program
that was similar to the program in the previous BCT study.
This time, injury data were obtained from a medical
surveillance system that collected injuries as ICD-9 codes
and specific codes were used to define injuries (28). After
adjusting for covariates known to influence injuries, men in
the control group had an injury risk 1.6 times greater (95%
CI = 1.2–2.0) than men in the PRT group; women in the
control group had an injury risk 1.5 times greater (95% CI =
1.2–1.8) than women in the PRT group. There were no group
differences in the proportion of trainees passing the initial
APFT, but, on the final APFT, pass rates were higher for the
PRT group (84 vs. 88%, p = 0.02). Thus, the results of this
investigation generally confirm the first BCT evaluation.
Another investigation was conducted in an Ordnance AIT
unit (26). A historical control group (n = 2259) was compared
with an intervention group (n = 1283). The intervention
group conducted the PRT program, and the historical control
group performed a traditional Army physical training pro-
gram consisting of stretching, calisthenics, push-up/sit-up
exercises, and running. Trainers in the intervention group
were also given a special injury-prevention training course,
were provided with weekly injury rates, and participated in
an injury advisory committee that met on a monthly basis to
discuss injury problems. At the completion of the 9-month
intervention period, and after adjusting for known injury risk
factors, men in the control group had an injury risk 1.5 times
greater (95% CI = 1.2–1.8) than men in the PRT group;
women in the control group had an injury risk 1.8 times
greater (95% CI = 1.1–2.8) than women in the PRTgroup. On
the final APFT, pass rates were not different between the
PRT and control groups (80 vs. 82%, respectively; p = 0.17).
Most recently, PRT was evaluated in an infantry unit
preparing for deployment to Afghanistan. In this evaluation,
a battalion of male soldiers (n = 477) using the PRT program
was compared with a battalion of male soldiers using
a traditional but highly varied physical training program
the TM
1360 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
(n = 467). At the end of the 9-week evaluation, systematic
medical records screening indicated that control group
soldiers were 1.2 (95% CI = 0.9–1.7) times more likely to
suffer an overuse injury and 1.4 (95% CI = 1.0–2.0) times
more likely to experience a lower-extremity overuse injury.
Fitness differences were not evaluated.
It should be noted that all of these evaluations were
conducted while PRT was being phased into Army physical
training. The PRTgroups were those that were trained on the
new techniques early during the phase-in process, whereas
control groups were those that were required to phase in PRT
later but were using traditional training at the time of the
evaluations. Thus, subjects were not randomized into groups.
Further, the Ordnance School evaluation involved a multiple
intervention program that included injury-prevention educa-
tion for the training cadre, a weekly injury report, and
a monthly injury-prevention meeting, besides the training
program. Despite these potential confounders, all 4 studies
were consistent in showing that injury rates were lower or
tended to be lower in the PRT program when compared with
traditional Army physical training programs. The 2 basic
training studies (29,31) indicated that APFT pass rates were
higher in the PRT group, but there were no group fitness
differences in the Ordnance AIT evaluation (26), and fitness
differences were not assessed in the infantry evaluation.
A laboratory study (15,17,18) compared a group using PRT
(n = 17) with a group performing weight training, running,
interval training, agility drills, and progressively loaded hikes
(n = 15). The programs were conducted for 8 weeks, 5 dwk21,
for 1.5 hd21. Pre- and posttest measures were designed to
simulate occupational military tasks and included 1) a 3.2-km
run with a 32-kg backpack load, 2) a 400-m run with an 18-kg
backpack load, 3) an obstacle course, 4) 5 3 30-m rushes to
and from the prone position, 5) an 80-kg casualty drag across
50 m, 6) a standing vertical jump, 7) a standing horizontal
jump, and 8) a 3.2-km unloaded run. Additional pre-post
measures included a treadmill V_ O2max and body composi-
tion assessment using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
(DEXA). Both groups improved significantly on all simulated
occupational military tasks, and improvements did not differ
between groups except on the obstacle course, on which the
PRT group’s performance improvement was significantly
greater (16 vs. 10%). The V_ O2max and DEXA body com-
position changes were not different between groups. Thus,
similar improvements were obtained with both programs
despite considerably less equipment involvement with the
PRT program.
FUTURE FOCUS
Developing efforts in PRT focus on further increasing the
fitness of soldiers once they reach their operational units and
how to cycle or periodize physical training in light of the
frequent deployments in which soldiers now participate.
Emerging research has demonstrated that losses in fitness are
much less than expected in some types of deployments. It was

shown that body composition and strength changed little
after deployments to Afghanistan or Iraq, but there was some
consistent, although minor, loss of aerobic fitness. The
smaller-than-expected fitness losses may be associated with
soldiers using PRT while on deployment or the fact that, on
deployments, soldiers often operate out of fixed facilities and
have access to exercise equipment (40,53).
CONCLUSION
The PRT follows specific physical training principles and is
designed to improve military occupational tasks through the
matching of military tasks with specific physical training
exercises designed to improve specific fitness components.
When compared with traditional Army physical training
programs, injury rates are lower and fitness improvements are
generally equal or higher in PRT programs. The PRT will
continue to be developed and refined based on deployment
research, feedback from trainers, commanders, and soldiers in
the field and as common soldiering tasks are updated or
changed to meet national security requirements.
DISCLAIMER
The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report
are those of the authors and should not be construed as official
Department of the Army positions, policies, or decisions,
unless so designated by other official documentation.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
REFERENCES
1. American College of Sports Medicine. The recommended quantity
and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiore-
spiratory and muscular fitness, and flexibility in healthy adults.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 975–991, 1998.
2. Army Combatives, Amy Field Manual 3–25.150. Washington, DC:
Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2002.
3. Army Standardized Physical Training Program Guide. Fort Benning:
U.S. Army Physical Fitness School, 2005.
4. Arnheim, DD and Prentice, WE. Principles of Athletic Training.
St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book Inc., 1993.
5. Baechle, TR, Earle, RW, and Allerheiligen, WB. Strength training
and spotting techniques. In: Essentials of Strength and Conditioning.
Baechle, TR, ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1994.
6. Bouchard, C, Shephard, RJ, Stephens, T, Sutton, JR, and McPherson,
BD. Exercise, fitness and health: the consensus statement. In:
Exercise Fitness and Health. A Consensus of Current Knowledge.
Bouchard, C, Shephard, RJ, Stephens, T and Sutton, JR, eds.
Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1990.
7. Caspersen, CJ, Powell, KE, and Christenson, GM. Physical activity,
exercise and physical fitness: definitions, and distinctions for health-
related research. Public Health Rep 100: 126–131, 1985.
8. Corbin, CB, Dowell, LJ, Lindsey, R, and Tolson, H. Concepts in
Physical Education. Dubuque, Iowa: W.C. Brown Company, 1983.
9. Dubik, JM and Fullerton, TD. Soldier overloading in Grenada. Mil
Rev 67: 38–47, 1987.
10. Fleck, SJ and Kraemer, WJ. Designing Resistance Training Programs.
Champaign: Human Kinetic Publishers, 1987.
11. Fleishman, EA. The Structure and Measurement of Physical Fitness.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca-jscr.org
12. Fleishman, EA. Relating individual differences to the dimensions of
human tasks. Ergonomics 21: 1007–1019, 1978.
13. Fleishman, EA and Quaintance, MK. Taxonomies of Human
Performance. New York: Academic Press Inc., 1984.
14. Friedl, KE, Moore, RJ, Hoyt, EW, Marchitelli, LJ, Martinez-Lopez,
LE, and Askew, WE. Endocrine markers of semistarvation in
healthy lean men in a multistressor environment. J Appl Physiol 88:
1820–1830,2000.
15. Frykman, P, Harman, EA, Gutekunst, DJ, and Nindl, BC. Effects of
US Army standardized physical training and a weight lifting
program on body composition. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: S272, 2006.
16. Gutin, B. A model of physical fitness and dynamic health. J Phys
Educ Recreation 51: 48–51, 1980.
17. Harman, E, Frykman, P, Gutekunst, D, and Nindl, B. US Army
standardized physical training vs. a weight-lifting based program:
effects on soldier physical performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: S272,
2006.
18. Harman, EA, Gutekunst, DJ, Frykman, PN, Nindl, BC, Alemany, JA,
Mello, RP, and Sharp, MA. Effects of two different eight-week
training programs on military physical performance. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 524–534, 2008.
19. Hogan, J. Personality correlates of physical fitness. J Pers Soc Psychol
56: 284–288, 1989.
20. Hogan, J. The structure of physical performance in occupational
tasks. J Appl Psychol 76: 495–507, 1991.
21. Hopkins, WG and Walker, NP. The meaning of ‘‘physical fitness.’’
Prev Med 17: 764–773, 1988.
22. Hoyt, RW, Opstad, PK, Haugen, AH, Delany, JP, Cymerman, A, and
Friedl, KE. Negative energy balance in male and female rangers:
effects of 7 d of sustained exercise and food deprivation. Am J Clin
Nutr 83: 1068–1075, 2006.
23. Jones, BH, Cowan, DN, and Knapik, JJ. Exercise, training and
injuries. Sports Med 18: 202–214, 1994.
24. Knapik, J, Reynolds, K, Staab, J, Vogel, JA, and Jones, B. Injuries
associated with strenuous road marching. Mil Med 157: 64–67, 1992.
25. Knapik, JJ, Bauman, CL, Jones, BH, Harris, JM, and Vaughan, L.
Preseason strength and flexibility imbalances associated with athletic
injuries in female collegiate athletes. Am J Sports Med 19: 76–81,
1991.
26. Knapik, JJ, Bullock, SH, Canada, S, Toney, E, Wells, JD, Hoedebecke,
E, and Jones, BH. Influence of an injury reduction program on injury
and fitness outcomes among soldiers. Inj Prev 10: 37–42, 2004.
27. Knapik, JJ, Daniels, W, Murphy, M, Fitzgerald, P, Drews, F, and
Vogel, J. Physiological factors in infantry operations. Eur J Appl
Physiol 60: 233–238, 1990.
28. Knapik, JJ, Darakjy, S, Scott, S, Hauret, KG, Canada, S, Marin, R,
Palkoska, F, VanCamp, S, Piskator, E, Rieger, W, and Jones, BH.
Evaluation of Two Army Fitness Programs: The TRADOC Standardized
Physical Training Program for Basic Combat Training and the Fitness
Assessment Program. Technical Report No. 12-HF-5772B-04. Aber-
deen Proving Ground, Md: U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion
and Preventive Medicine, 2004.
29. Knapik, JJ, 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.
30. Knapik, JJ, Hauret, K, Bednarek, JM, Arnold, S, Canham-Chervak,
M, Mansfield, A, Hoedebecke, E, Mancuso, J, Barker, TL, Duplessis,
D, Heckel, H, Peterson, J. The Victory Fitness Program. Influence of the
US Army’s Emerging Physical Fitness Doctrine on Fitness and Injuries in
Basic Combat Training. Technical Report No. 12-MA-5762-01.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md: U.S. Army Center for Health
Promotion and Preventive Medicine, 2001.
31. Knapik, JJ, Hauret, KG, Arnold, S, Canham-Chervak, M, Mansfield,
AJ, Hoedebecke, EL, and McMillian, D. Injury and fitness outcomes
VOLUME 23 | NUMBER 4 | JULY 2009 | 1361
U.S. Army Physical Training Rationale and Evaluation
during implementation of Physical Readiness Training. Int J Sports
Med 24: 372–381, 2003.
32. Knapik, JJ, Jones, BH, Bauman, CL, and Harris, JM. Strength,
flexibility and athletic injuries. Sports Med 14: 277–288, 1992.
33. Knapik, JJ, Scott, SJ, Sharp, MA, Hauret, KG, Darakjy, S, Rieger, WR,
Palkoska, FA, VanCamp, SE, and Jones, BH. The basis for prescribed
ability group run speeds and distances in US Army basic combat
training. Mil Med 171: 669–677, 2006.
34. Knapik, JJ, Sharp, MA, Darakjy, S, Jones, SB, Hauret, KG, and Jones,
BH. Temporal changes in the physical fitness of United States Army
recruits. Sports Med 36: 613–634, 2006.
35. Koplan, JP, Powell, KE, Sikes, RK, Shirley, RW, and Campbell, CC.
An epidemiologic study of the benefits and risks of running. JAMA
248: 3118–3121, 1982.
36. Koplan, JP, Rothenberg, RB, and Jones, EL. The natural history of
exercise: a 10-yr follow-up of a cohort of runners. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 27: 1180–1184, 1995.
37. Kowal, DM, Patton, JF, and Vogel, JA. Psychological states and
aerobic fitness of male and female recruits before and after basic
training. Aviat Space Environ Med 49: 603–606, 1978.
38. Kraemer, WJ, Adams, K, Cafarelli, E, Dudley, GA, Dooly, C,
Feigenbaum, MS, Fleck, SJ, Franklin, B, Fry, AC, Hoffman, JR,
Newton, RU, Potteiger, J, Stone, MH, Ratamess, NA, and Triplett-
McBride, T. Progression models in resistance training for healthy
adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 364–380, 2002.
39. Laughlin, HC. Warrior tasks, battle drills lay foundation for training.
TRADOC Perspect 2(2): 2–4, 2005.
40. Lester, ME, Knapik, JJ, Catrambone, D, Antczak, A, Sharp, MA,
Burrell, L, and Darakjy, S. Effect of a 13-month deployment to Iraq
on physical fitness and body composition. Med Sci Sports Exerc
(Under review).
41. Marshall, SLA. The Soldier’s Load and the Mobility of a Nation.
Quantico, Va: Marine Corps Association, 1950.
42. Marti, B, Vader, JP, Minder, CE, and Abelin, T. On the epidemiology
of running injuries. The 1984 Bern Grand-Prix study. Am J Sports
Med 16: 285–294, 1988.
43. McArdle, WD, Katch, FI, and Katch, VL. Exercise Physiology: Energy,
Nutrition and Human Performance. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1991.
44. McCaig, RH and Gooderson, CY. Ergonomic and physiological
aspects of military operations in a cold wet climate. Ergonomics 29:
849–857, 1986.
45. Myers, DC, Gebhardt, DL, Crump, CE, and Fleishman, EA. The
dimensions of human physical performance: factor analysis of
strength, stamina, flexibility, and body composition measures.
Hum Perform 6: 309–344, 1993.
the TM
1362 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
46. Nye, RH. The Challenge of Command. Wayne, NJ: Avery Publishing
Group, 1986.
47. Pate, RR. A new definition of youth fitness. Phys Sportsmed 11: 77–83,
1983.
48. Physical Fitness Training. U.S. Army Field Manual (FM) 21-20.
Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1992.
49. Powell, KE, Kohl, HW, Caspersen, CJ, and Blair, SN. An
epidemiological perspective on the causes of running injuries.
Phys Sportsmed 14: 100–114, 1986.
50. Powers, S and Howley, ET. Exercise Physiology. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 2001.
51. Rice, VJB, Connolly, V, Bergeron, A, Mays, MZ, Evans-Christopher,
GM, Allgood, BD, and Mickelson, S. Evaluation of a Progressive Unit-
Based Running Program During Advanced Individual Training.
Technical Report No. Aegis T02-1. Fort Sam Houston: U.S. Army
Medical Department Center and School, 2002.
52. Shaffer, RA. Musculoskeletal injury project. Presented at 43rd
Annual Meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine.
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1996.
53. Sharp, M, Knapik, JJ, Walker, LM, Burrell, L, Darakjy, S, Lester, M,
and Marin, RE. Changes in physical fitness and body composition
following 9 months deployment to Afghanistan. Med Sci Sports Exerc
40: 1687–1692, 2008.
54. Sharp, MA, Knapik, JJ, and Schopper, AW. Energy cost and
efficiency of a demanding combined manual materials-handling task.
Work 4: 162–170, 1994.
55. Sharp, MA, Patton, JF, and Vogel, JA. A Database of Physically
Demanding Tasks Performed by U.S. Army Soldiers. Technical Report
No. T98-12. Natick, Mass: U.S. Army Research Institute of
Environmental Medicine, 1998.
56. Stamford, B. Cross-training: giving yourself a whole-body workout.
Phys Sportsmed 24: 15–16, 1996.
57. Trank, TV, Ryman, DH, Minagawa, RY, Trone, DW, and Shaffer,
RA. Running mileage, movement mileage, and fitness in male US
Navy recruits. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: 1033–1038, 2001.
58. Vogel, JA. A Review of Fitness as It Pertains to the Military Service.
Technical Report No. T14/85. Natick, Mass: U.S. Army Research
Institute of Environmental Medicine, 1985.
59. Wathen, D. Muscle balance. In: Essentials of Strength and Conditioning.
T.R. Baechle, ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1994. pp. 424–430.
60. Wilmore, JH and Costill, DL. Physiology of Sports and Exercise.
Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1994.
61. Zuidema, MA and Baumgartner, TA. Second factor analysis study of
physical fitness tests. Res Q 42: 247–256, 1974.