A Systematic Review of the Effects of Physical Training on Load Carriage Performance : The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research February 2012 - Volume 26 - Issue 2 Methodologies! Caraderatons in Raven (Cerion Lose Cargo Task Physical Performance + (amas © [Gallon © [Exper PowerPoint fe + [Bowntoaa ° [EPUB + (Che © (Cex) © [Experi RIS © | Permisions © [mage Gallery Bret Review A Systematic Review of the Effects of Physical Training on Load Carriage Performance Kapik, Joseph J Harman, Everett; Steelman, Ryan A; Graham, Bria $ Author Information U.S. Army Institute of Public Health, Epidemiology and Disease Surveillance Portfolio, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; and "Natick, Massachusetts ‘Address correspondence to Dr. Joseph J. Knapik, jaseph.knapik@apg.amedd army.mil. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 26(2):p 585.597, February 2039, | DOI: 10.1519/.JSC.obo13e9182429853, + Free Mics Abstract peouraww cama eratn0t 20209 opana en oe, tec, ya pe weKnapik, JJ, Harman, RA, Steelman, RA, and Graham, BS. A systematic review ofthe effects of physical training on load carriage performance. J Strength Cond Res 26(2): 585-597, 2012—Soldiers are often required to carry heavy loads during military operations. This article reports on a systematic literature review examining the influence of physial training on load earriage performance. Several literature databases, reference lists, and other sources were explored to find studies that quantitatively examined the effects of physical training on the time taken for individuals to complete a set distance carrying an external load, with the majority ofthe load contained in a backpack. Effect sizes (Cohen's d statistic) were ‘used in meta-analyses to examine the changes in load carriage performance after various modes of physical training. Effect sizes quantified training-related changes in terms of SD units, Ten original research studies met the review criteria, Meta-analysis indicated that large training effects (20.85D units) were apparent when progressive resistance training was combined with aerobic training and when that training was conducted at least 3 times per week, over at least 4 weeks. When progressive load-carriage exercise was part ofthe training program, much larger training effects were evident (summary effect size [SES] = 1.7SD units). Field-based training that combined a wide variety of training modes and included progressive load-carriage exercise was also very effective in improving load carriage performance (SES = 1.8D units). Aerobie training alone or resistance traning alone had smaller and more variable effects, depending on the study. This review indicates that combinations of specific modes of physical training can substantially improve load carriage performance. Introduction Military operations often require soldiers to traverse ground while carrying very heavy loads (5"9). This is especially true in areas where motor vehicles cannot be used because ofthe roughness ofthe terrain or because the vehicle sounds might result in unwelcome detection by hostile forees. In some cases, mission suecess and battlefield survival can be dependent on the speed at which the soldier can cover the ground while carrying the equipment needed for the operation, Although soldiers have progressively become larger and stronger than their earlier counterparts, loads that soldiers carry have also progressively {nereased since the British Crimean War atthe start of the Industrial Revolution (9), The inerease in soldier loads is presumably because of new technologies that have increased the lethality ofthe individual soldier while atthe same time increasing the soldier's survivability. For ‘example, infantry soldiers ean now earry weapon systems that can disable and destroy aircraft and armored vehicles, whereas developments in body armor have provided enhanced individual proteetion from hostile fires (599%) 1m 1987, the Army Employment and Development Ageney recommended 5 ways of reducing or compensating forthe loads that soldiers carried. (One ofthese recommendations was the development of special physical training programs to enhance soldiers’ physical capability for load carriage (). Since this recommendation was made, several scientific efforts have been undertaken to examine the effects of physical training on load carriage performance. The purpose of this article i lo systematically review these investigations to determine effects of physical load carriage performance and to describe the modes of physical training that can most optimally enhance load carriage performance. Methods For this review, several literature databases were explored to find original, English-language studies that examined the effects of physical training (on load carriage performance. The databases included PubMed (MEDLINE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Tlealth Literature, Academie Search Premier, Biomedical Reference Collection (Comprehensive), Ovid, and the Defense Technical Information Center. Keywords for the search included load, load carriage, physical training, physica fitness, backpacking, hiking, walking, military, and military personnel. To find additional studies, the reference lists of the articles obtained were searched, and the files of a senior investigator were examined. Six investigators with experience in physical training and load carriage issues were also contacted to assure that al the studies were located. Personal contacts were ‘made with 3 authors to clarify methods and other parts of their investigations. Studies wore selected for eview if they were original investigations that examined the effects ofa physical training program on the time at which a set distance could be completed while carrying an external load. The majority of the external load had to be ina backpack. Studies involving ‘manual material handling were excluded (For a review of these see [#"). Physical training was defined as a routine and systematic set of physical ‘movements (Le., exercise) designed to improve one or more ofthe components of physical fitness (8). Thus, studies were selected if they involved fan exercise program designed, in whole or in part, to improve load carriage performance. The methodological quality of the selected articles was assessed using the cheelist of Downs and Black (8). The 5 major areas rated bythe checklist were (a) reporting quality, (0) externa validity, (c) bias, (@) confounding, and () statistical power. The checklist had 27 items, most of ‘which were rated on a 2-point scale as either “yes” (a point) orn (no point). One reporting item (relating to confounding) had a possible seore of 2 For the purposes ofthis review, the single statsticel power question was reduced from a possible score of 0-5 oa seare of 0 oF Thus, the ‘maximum possible score was 28, The 4 authors independently rated each of the selected articles. After the independeat evaluation, the reviewers met to examine the ather reviewer's sees and to reconcile major differences. The average score ofthe 4 reviewers served asthe methodologial {quality score. Scares were converted to a percent ofthe total score by dividing each raters scores by 28 and multiplying by 100%. Cohen's d statistic was used to calculate effect sizes for changes in load carriage performance (47). The d statisti indicated the amount of the difference in SD units between criterion variable scores assessed at different time points. Thus, ad » 1.00 indicated a change of 1SD from 1 time point to the next. For the purposes ofthis review, time points eould have been retraining, midtraining, or posttraining. Cohen (*) considered small, moderate, and large effect sizes tobe d values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively. To adjust the d statistic, as recommended by Cohen for studies involving the same subjects (i. repeated-measures designs), the correlation coefficient between the pretest and posttest measures was required. However, none of the articles inthis review provided this statistic. Dunlap etal. (7) have noted that this is the ease with most published repeated-measures studies and have suggested that when correlations are not provided, then the d statistic should be calculated from the available ‘means and SDs, This was the method employed in this review. In addition to effect sizes, erude changes (percentage) in load carriage performance were calculated as either: ({posttest mean time ~ pretest mean time]/pretest mean time) x 100% or ({midtest mean time ~ pretest mean time]/pretest mean time) x 100%. Meta-analysis was performed to combine study results and examine the overall effect of various training modes on load carriage performance. Studies were grouped for meta-analysis if they examined the effect of a single training mode (eg, aerobic exercise alone) or combined training modes (eg. aerobic training with resistance training). The meta-analysis teehnique employed here involved the use of effect sizes (d statistic) and sample sizes as described by Petitti (4). This procedure produced a summary effect size (SES) and summary 95% confidence intervals for the combined data. The SES estimated the overall change in load carriage performance forthe training mode or combined training modes forall the studies included in the analyses. Results ‘oeiourtonecomieseratenoat2naD gente soe 1c syle aneA total of 20 publications were identified that involved physical training to improve load carriage performance. Of these, 9 articles were excluded for various reasons. Four studies involved load carriage data from previously published studies (#2544), and in these eases, the studies withthe largest numberof subjects or the original study was selected for review ("4249), Four studies used measures other than the completion time over set distance asthe eriterion for improvement (27*”). One study asked soldiers to complete a course ina prescribed time rather than as fast as possible (%9). In one case, there was both a government technical report (*5) and a journal article (*4) on the same study. The technical report provided some additional and useful methodological information, so both articles were considered in the review to obtain as much information as possible. Thus, there were 11 publications from 10 original studies that were included inthis review. Methodological Considerations in Reviewed Studies Table 1 shows the methodologies and quality scores for the investigations that met the review criteria. The subjects partiipating inthe studies were diverse and involved active duty soldiers (16°74), military reeruts 4249), untrained women ("), and reerestionally active men (9) and ‘women (¥). In one study, the subject group was not clear (3), but they were likely college students. The length of training (training period) ranged from 4 (a midpoint test) to 24 weeks. Training frequencies ranged from 3 to 5 sessions per week, although in 3 studies involving military recruits the raining frequency was not well defined (#4243) Table ‘Methodologies of physical training studies to improve load carriage performance.” Table (Continued) ‘The methodological quality scores were generally hgh ranging from 60% (°8) to 80% (*"”) ofthe total available points. The average + SD ofall, ratings combined was 77 + 5% ofthe total available points, The lowest scoring study (°8) was generally well conducted but, within the Downs and Black (*) “reporting” category, the study failed to provide details on adverse events, confounders, and the subject population from which the sample was drawn, Criterion Load Carriage Task A number of studies used a criterion load carriage task requiring the subjects to complete a g.2-km distance as rapidly as possible; however, in these studies, the loads earried ranged widely, from 15 to 46 kg (494443254424), Other studies involved distances of 0.4 km (*),2.4 km @), 5 km (), and 20 km (7) with loads of 18, 20, 19, and 46 kg, respectively. Four studies reported on the reliability oftheir criterion oad carriage task. Kraemer etal. (25) noted a test-retest reliability of 0.92 for their 3.2 45-ka carriage task (n = 11). Knapik and Gerber ('7) reported an intraclass correlation of 0.89 for 13 women who completed 2 pretraining 5-km distances while carrying 19 kg. There was very little difference in average SD completion limes between the 2 trials (44.9 £ 3.9 and 44.4 4 2.6 ‘minutes, p = 0.36). Harman et al.) found a test-retest reliability of 0.82 for 3 women who completed two, 3.2-, 4-km carriage tasks administered 5 months apact. Finally, Kraemer et al. (®) reported a test-retest reliability coefficient of 20.95 fora 3.2-km, 34-k load carriage task, Physical Training Modes ‘The most commonly studied modes of physical training included aerobic exercise, resistance training, interval training, and load-earriage exercise; other modes of training were also included, as discussed below. Some investigations had a number of experimental groups perform various training mode combinations (19,14,23~25). Other studies had only a single mixed-mode training group that was measured before and after training 247-4240), One study used the seme mixed-mode training program for all the subjects but manipulated the frequency, intensity, and duration ofa load-carriage exercise *8), Most studies provided some form of progressive overload to gradually and systematically improve specific components of physical ftness () Ppeouratwe cama erutn01 20209 apa eno ete, ya Spe seFor aerobic training, many studies used long-duration running, with progressive overload achieved by increasing running distance (464734), Some studies included interval taining on fat surfaces or hills to challenge both arobie and anserobie energy systems (4391724, Ip the studies using interval training, progressive overload was achieved by inereasing the numberof intervals, reducing rest time between repeats, and ‘manipulating distances 272, Two studies had subjects run a standard 3.2-km distance throughout the raining program () but ineluded interval training within the program, One ofthese latter 2 studies had subjects perform progressive interval traning throughout the program (*), ‘whereas the other incorporated intervals beginning at week 1 ofthe 24-week program (1). One study had subjects perform not only running but also eyeing and stair stepping (9), Two studies did not provide details on the exact aerobic traning performed (242) ‘Types of resistance training were highly varied, both within and between studies. Several investigations used linear resistance training programs in which the number of ses and repetitions were the same throughout the traning period and progressive overload was achieved by increasing the amount of weight lifted (5724, Other studies used periodized resistance training programs in which the number of repetitions and loads ‘was manipulated fo emphasize muscular endurance (higher repetitions, lower resistance) a some points inthe raining program, and muscle strength lower repetitions, higher resistance) at other points (*"4°8), Two studies examined upper body (UB) only resistance traning (*), ‘whereas most included both UB and lower body (LH) taining (1944617282548, Kraemer et al (®) compared the effectiveness of resistance ‘vaining programs that emphasized power (faster weight lifting movements to programs emphasizing hypertrophy (slower movements with more repetitions). Many studies used exclusively (88427288) or primarily (8) free weights for resistance training; other studies used machine (eg, Universal and Nautilus) devices (43), sand-bag bits and caries 2°, partnered resisted exercises ), heavy box iting @#43), and dand-resistance exerises (9). Two studies included LB plyometies (9) to improve leg strength and power *). Some studies did not provide details on the resistance training performed (24%), Other forms of taining in these studies included calisthenics (*5484843), movement drills for agility and balance training (8), and sports activities (4°48), Importantly, several studies included specific load carriage tasks within their training programs (219484249), To studies held speed and distance constant and progressively increased the load (intensity) up to that carried on the criterion load carriage task ("!9), One study held the aerobic and resistance training constant and manipulated frequeney ofthe progressive load-carriage exercise (#9). Three studies conducted in British Army basic training noted that load carviage was part ofthe program but did not describe the features of that training (#4848), Changes in Load Carriage Performance Table2 shows the training groups in each investigation and the changes in the criterion load carriage performance task expressed as (a) the mean ‘change in performance time (minutes), (b) the erude percent changes in performance from the pretest to the midtest or posttest, and (c) the effect size (Cohen's d statistic). One investigation (9) reported negative effect sizes because posttest measures were slower than pretest measures, presumably because of elevated environmental temperatures and longer rest breaks on the posttest. Three studies employed 2 separate load carriage tasks within their studies (34243), Three studies not only examined changes in performance atthe conclusion ofthe study but also ata ‘midpoint in the study 244), Table Results of physical training studies to improve load carriage performance.” (continued) In the Hendrickson etal. study ('4, the control group, which merely continued their pretest recreational training, improved their posttest carriage performance by about 7%, compared with about 13~14% for the other 3 training groups. As Hendrickson etal. point out (*), this suggested a Strong familiarization effect and that improvements because of physical training inthis study might be lower than indicated. Ifthe posttest ‘measures are recalculated by subtracting the change in the eontral group (~2.6 minutes), then the posttraining effect sizes (values) become 0.45, (0.45, and 0.46 forthe resistance training only, aerobic training only, and combined resistance and aerobic training groups, respectively Meta-Analysis of Training Effect Sizes “Table. shows the meta-analysis demonstrating the effects of various training modes or combinations of training modes on load carriage performance, The SESs express the magnitude of the changes in load carriage performance from the results ofthe combined studies. In some cases in which midpoint training periods were available, these were selected to more evenly equate studies on the length of the training periods. In other eases, this was not possible because there was only 1 posttest measurement period. One study ('®) was not included in the meta-analyses because the posttest was confounded by different environmental temperatures and longer self-directed rest breaks on the posttest. peourtawe cama erana0t 20209 oponae en ate, ya pe aneTable 3: ‘Meta-analysis: Summary training effect sizes for different training modes and combinations of training modes in studies to improve load carriage performance.* For aerobic traning alone, 2 studies (#8) showed virtually no training effect on load carriage performance, whereas the Hendrickson etal. study C4) showed a large training effect. This resulted in large confidence intervals around the SES. For UB and LB resistance training alone, the SES ‘was larger than that for aerobic training alone, but there were only 2 studies, 1 with a small to moderate effect size and the other with a large effect size. Again, the confidence intervals were wide around the SES. ‘When resistance training was combined with aerobic training (resistance-aerobic training), the SES was large. The SES was almost identical for resistance training involving the UB and LB and for resistance training involving the UB alone. When load-carriage exercise was included as part of training programs with resistance-aerobic taining, the SES was more than twice as large compared with resistance-aerobie training without Toad carriage. Ficld-based training that included loed-carriage exercise also resulted in large improvements in load eartiage performance. It should be noted that ‘most of these field-based training studies involved trainees in British Army basic training. Basi training entails a very great variety of physical activities besides routine physical training. Finally, periodized resistance training appeared to have larger training effets than did linear resistance training programs. Discussion ‘The results ofthis review indicated that some combined modes of physical training can considerably improve load carriage performance. Substantial training effects were apparent when progressive resistance training was combined with aerobic training and that training was conducted at least 3 times per week over atleast 4 weeks. When progressive load-carriage exercise was part of the training program, much larger ‘raining effects were obtained, Field-based training that combined a wide variety of training modes and ineluded progressive load-carriage ‘exercise was also very effective in improving load carriage performance, Aerobie training alone or resistance training alone had sunaller and more variable effects, depending on the study, “The largest overall improvements in load carriage performance were found when once weekly progressive load-carriage exercise was part of the ‘raining program (2"°"42+42, This follows from the exercise priniple of specificity whereby gains in physical performance are the greatest when individuals systematically exercise with the task in which performance improvements are desired (82783), Progressive load-carriage exercise likely involved the skills, muscle groups, energy systems, and related components of fitness that were important for the performance ofthis task (©), Nonetheless, physica training without load carriage was also successful in improving load earriage performance, albeit to a lesser extent. Effective gains in load carriage performance were seen with just resistance-aerobic training (for the most part, running), suggesting thatthe combination of strength and eardiorespiratory endurance are important fitness components of an averall program to improve load carriage performance. An interesting observation was that UB resistance-arobic training was almost as efective in improving load carriage performance as combined UB and LB resistance-aerobe training. In lad caviage using backpacks, most of the weight ress on the shoulders (52). Welldesigned and properly wora hip belts can be elective in moving about 30% ofthe load tothe hips 2), but the UB musculature still assumes most ofthe pack Joad and assists in stabilizing the uppe torso during locomotion ('). It appears that resistance traning that improves the strength and muscular endurance of the UB musculature is more important for enhancing load carriage performance than LB strength-mascular endurance exercise. This suggests that the resistance training portion ofa program to improve load carriage performance should focus primarily on the UB (One ofthe more conflicting findings inthis review was in regard to aerobie training alone, Two early studies by Kraemer et al. 95) found virualy no improvements in load carriage performance with exclusive use of aerobic training. On the other hand, Hendrickson etal 4) found substantial performance gains with aerobic training alone. Because the criterion load carriage tasks involved eompleting a fixed distance as rapidly as possible, improving the cardiorespiratory enduranee component of physical fitness might have been expected to result in faster load carriage times. The fact that eardiorespiratory endurance was enhanced in all 3 studies was verified by improvements in maximal effort unloaded 3.2-km run times (#495) or peak VO, (4). The use of interval training cannot account forthe differences because one study using interval, training showed no gain in load carriage performance (*), whereas the other showed substantial gains (§), Resolution of these conflicting findings will have to await further investigation, Also, it s not clear if resistance training alone will improve load carriage performance, Meta-analysis suggested that the overall effect of resistance training alone was similar to that of resistance-aerobic trainings however, there were only 2 studies that had examined resistance training alone, and they had very different effect sizes, which resulted in a wide confidence interval (Lable 3). In the Kraemer et al. study (29), push-up and sit-up oeiourtonw come ehdtenoat2naD gene seo 1c syle eneperformance was significantly improved in the resistance training group suggesting an increase in muscular endurance of the UB and trunk; in the Hendrickson et al. study (4), 1-repetition maximum performance ofthe squat and bench press was improved suggesting an inerease in strength of the UB and LB, Further study is also warranted het Several studies have examined the changes in load earriage performance in response to British military basic training (2429) or the physical training program that is currently used for U.S. Army Basic Combat Training (BCT) ('8). For the purposes of this review, this type of training was called “field-based” because it was primarily designed for use in outdoor areas (Le, the field), involved a large number of participants, and used a ‘minimum of equipment. In these studies, load-carriage exercise was combined with a great number of other physical training modes (eg, aerobic training, sand-bag lifting, plyometries, agility traning, hill running, manual material handling, sports), and these combined training modes more effectively improved load carsiage performance than resistance-aerobic training without load carriage exercise. As diseussed above, the specificity of the load-carriage exercise likely played a large role in the performance improvements, Reports on the British field-based programs (2428) did not provide very specific descriptions ofthe training regimes and military basic training, involved a great deal of physical activity outside of regularly scheduled exercise sessions. The additional activity was a potential confounder in trying to interpret the effects of field-based training, although this additional activity can also be interpreted as further training mode variety. On the other hand, the Physical Readiness Training (PRT) program (2) investigated by Harman etal. '9) involved subjects who were not in BCT, and so this study examined a training program without the other activities normally undertaken in BCT. When the PRT group was compared with, a group using a resistance-aerobic training program, the 2 groups demonstrated similar improvements on both a 3.2-and a 0.4-km carriage task ‘These data suggest that in untrained or moderately trained men and women, the current Army physical training program can result in signifieant improvements in load carriage performance and thet these improvements are similar to those achieved with resistance-aerobie training, Meta-analysis suggested that periodized resistance training programs may offer greater improvements in load carriage performance than linear resistance training programs. The SESs were somewhat large forthe periodized programs than forthe linear training programs. The periodized ‘raining programs manipulated ses, repetitions, and exercises in either in "blocks” (mesoeyeles and microcycles) lasting several weeks (*), or in an undulating manner with weekly or even daily alterations in intensity and volume (*). On some days, higher weight and fewer repetitions were prescribed to emphasize strength, and on other days, lower weight and more repetitions were prescribed to emphasize muscular endurance, Also, different exercises for different muscle groups were prescribed on different days. Its likely thatthe emphasis on different components of fitness (strength and muscular enduranee), combined with the greater variety of trained musele groups may have provided an advantage in, improving load carriage performance. Linear resistance training programs involved an unchanging number of sets and repetition and exercised the same muscle groups throughout the program. This more restrictive routine, while still effective, appears to result in somewhat lower performance gains. This comparison is somewhat confounded by the subject groups examined. Linear resistance training programs examined soldiers or recreationally active men ("374 whereas periodized programs examined untrained women ("), Nonetheless, none of these groups had previously been involved in systematic resistance training. This review had some limitations. First, the studies reviewed here invalved a wide array of subject samples, training periods, training frequencies, criterion load earriage tasks, and modes of training. This introduced some difficulties in generalizing findings across studies. However, the use of effect sizes allowed comparisons that assisted with judgments about types of training regimes that provided greater improvements in load carriage performance, Most load carriage tasks involved similar distances but different loads and in all but one case ", load earriage performance was Improved with physical training, with the single exception apparently because of pre-post changes in weather conditions. Second, most of the studies involved relatively short distances, the majority <3.2 km (2!!%14:28.25424); only 2 ofthe 10 studies reviewed involved distances >3.2 km (527), Finally, only 3 ofthe 1 studies reviewed here had the specific purpose of improving load carriage performance (*"®#5), Other studies had broader goals like improving general tactical or operational military -manwal material handling capability (7429), Nonetheless, virtually al ofthese studies provided support for the concept that physica training ean improve load carriage performanee. performance (34234, or improving materi Practical Applications Military trainers can take advantage of this review. ‘The results indicated that specific modes of physical training ean substantially improve the speed at which loads can be carried over distances. Effective programs appear to be of 2 types. The UB resistance-aerobie training conducted at least g times per week that incorporates once weekly progressive road marches can substantially improve load earviage performance. Als, field- based training conducted at least 3 times per week that incorporates a wide variety of training modes and includes 1 weekly progressive load carriage can also successfully increase load carviage speed, at least in untrained or recreationally trained men and women, Further research is needed on aerobic training alone and resistance training alone to determine the effects of these training modes on load carriage performance. References 1 Army Development and Employment Agency (ADEA). ADEA. Report on the ADEA soldier's load initiative, Fort Lewis, WA: Army Development and Employment Agency. Technical Monogram, 1987. + Gited Here 2. Brown, PEH, Fallowfield, JL, Blacker, $D, Izard, RM, Wilkerson, DM, and Bilzon, JL. Physical and physiological adaptations to British Army Infantry Recruit Training. Med Sei Sports Exere 40: $159, 2008. + Cited Here 3. Caspersen, CJ, Powell, KE, and Christenson, GM. Physical aetivity, exercise and physical fitness: Definitions, and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep 100: 126-131, 1985 + ied Here | + PubMed 4.Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, New York, NY: Academic Press, 1977. + Cited Here 5. Dean, CE. The modern warrior's combat load. Distmounted operations in Afghanistan April-May 2003, In: Army Center for Lessons Learned. Technical Report, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 2004 ‘oeiourtonwcomeierdtenoat2N208 sxe seo 1c syle eeCited Here 6. Downs, SH and Black, N. The feasibility of creating a checklist forthe assessment of the methodological quality both of randomized and non- randomized studies of health care interventions. J Bpidemiol Comm Ilealth 52: 377-384, 1998, + Cited Here | + PubMed | CrossRef 7. Dunlap, WP, Cortina, JM, Vaslow, JB, and Burke, MJ. Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measure designs. Psychol Meth 1: 170-197, 1996, + Ged Here 8, Gergley, TJ, McArdle, WD, deJesus, P, Toner, MM, Jacobowitz, , and Spina, RJ. Specificity of arm training on aerobic power during swimming and running, Med Sei Sports Exere 16: 349-354, 1984, + Cited Here 9. Globalseeurity. Available at: hitp://wwnw globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/interceptor bum. Accessed July 23, 2031 + Cited Here 10, 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 Sei Sports Exere 38: S272, 2006. + Cited Here 1, Harman, EA, Frykman, P, Palmer, C, Lammi, E, Reynolds, K, and Backus, V. Effects of a specifically designed physical conditioning program. ‘onthe load carriage and lifting performance of female soldiers. Natick, MA: US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Technical Report No. T98-1, 1997. + Cited Here 12, Harman, EA, Frykman, PN, Gutekunst, DJ, and Nindl, BC. Physical performance effects of the new U.S. Army Standardized Physical Training and an experimental program that incorporates weightlifting, Presented at International Congress on Soldiers' Physical Performance, Jyvaskyla, Finland, 2005, ted Here 13, Harman, EA, Gutekunst, DJ, Frykman, PN, Nindl, BC, Alemany, JA, Mello, RP, and Sharp, MA. Effects of two different eight-week training, programs on malitary physical performanee. J Strength Cond Res 22: 524-534, 2008. + Cited Here | + View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef 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 eapacty and performance on tactical occupational tasks. Eur J Appl Physiol Oce Physiol 109: 1197-1208, 2010. + Cited Here 15. Holewijn, M. Physiological strain due to load carrying, Eur J Appl Physiol 61: 237-245, 1990. + Cited Here | + PubMed | CrossRef 16. Knapik, J, Bahrke, M, Staab, J, Reynolds, K, Vogel, J, and O'Connor, J. Frequency of loaded road march training and performance on loaded road mareh, Natick, MA: U.S, Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Technical Report No. T13-90, 1990. ited Here 17. Knapik, JJ and Gerber, J. Influence of physical fitness training on the manual material handling capability and road marching performance of {emale soldiers. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Human Research and Engineering Directorate, US. Army Research Laboratory. Technical Report No, ARL-TR-1064, 1996 + Cited Here 18. Knapik, JJ, Harman, E, and Reynolds, K. Load carriage using packs: A review of physiological, biomechanical and medical aspects. Appl Ergonom 27: 207-216, 1996. + Ged Here 19. Knapik, J and Reynolds, K, Loads carried in military operations: A review of historical, biomechanical and medical aspects. Washington, DC: Borden Institute. Available at: http://www hordeninstitute.army-mil/ather pub/LoadCarriggePDF pdf 2010. Accessed December 8, 201%, + Cited Hes 20. Knapik, JJ, Rieger, W, Palkoska, F, VanCamp, 8, and Darakly,S. United States Army Physical readiness training: Rationale and evaluation of the physical training doctrine J Strength Cond Res 23: 685-897, 2009. + Gited Here 21. Knapik, JJ and Sharp, MA. Task-specific and generalized physical training programs for improving manual material handling capability. Int Ind Ergonom 22: 149-160, 1998. oeiourtonecomieserdtenoat2naD gene soe ec pyseal 36a, aCited Here 22. Knapik, JJ, Sharp, MA, Darakiy,S, Jones, SB, Hauret, KG, and Jones, BH. Temporal changes inthe physical fitness of United States Army reerulls. Sports Med 36: 613-634, 2006. + Cited Here | + View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef 2, Kraemer, WJ, Mazzeti, SA, Nindl, BC, Gotshalk, LA, Volek, JS, Bush, JA, Marx, JO, Dohi, K, Gomez, AL, Miles, M, Fleck, 8J, Newton, RU, and Hakkinen, K. Effect of resistance training on women's strength power and occupational performances Med Sei Sports Exere 3: 1011-1035, 2001, + Ged Here 24, Kraemer, WJ, Vescovi, JD, Volek, JS, Nindl, BC, Newton, RU, Patton, JF, Dziados, JE, French, DN, and Hakkinen, K. Effects of concurrent resistance and anaerobic training on load-bearing performance and the Army Physical Fitness Test, Mil Med 169: 994-999, 2004, + ted Here | + PubMed | CrossRef 25. Kraemer, WJ, Vogel, JA, Patton, JF, Driados, 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: U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine. Technical Report No. T30-87, 1987. ted Here 26. Lafiandra, M and Harman, E. The distribution of forces between the upper and lower back during load carriage. Med Sei Sports Exere 96: 1460-467, 2004 + Cited Here 27, Lieber, DC, Lieber, RL, and Adams, WC. Bifects of run-training and swim-training at similar absolute intensities on treadmill VO,max. Med Sei Sports Exere 21: 655-661, 1989, + ited Here | + View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef 28, Magel, JR, Foglia, GF, Meardle, WD, Gutin, B, Pechard, GS, and Katch, Fl. Specificity of swim training on maximal oxygen uptake. J Appl Physiol 38: 151-155, 1975. + Cited Here | + PubMed | CrossRef 29, Markovie, G and Mikulie, P. Neuro-muscular and performance adaptations to lower extremity plyometri training. Sports Med 40: 859-896, ted Here 30. McArdle, WD, Katch, FI, and Katch, VL. Exereise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition and Human Performance. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger, 4g. + Cited Here 31. Militaryfactory. Available at: http: /wonw militaryfactory.com/smallarms/index.asp, Accessed July 21, 200 + Cited te ‘Morrissey, MC, Harman, E, and Johnson, MJ. Resistance training modes: Specificity and effectiveness, Med Sei Sports Exere 27: 648-660, 1995 + Cited Here | + PubMed 33. Patterson, MJ, Roberts, WS, and Lau, WM. Gender and physical training effects on soldier physical competencies and physiological strain. Fishermans Bend, Vietoria, Australia: Australian Defense Science and Technology Organization, Technical Report No. DSTO-TR-875, 2005, + Gited Here 34, Petitti, DB. Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis and Cost- Effectiveness Analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000. + Ce Here 5. Reilly, T, Morris, T, and Whyte, G. The specificity of training prescription and physiological assessment: A review. J Sports Sei 27: 575-589, 2000. ted Here | + PubMed | CrossRef 36. Reynolds, KL, Harman, EA, Worsham, RE, Sykes, MB, Frykman, PN, and Backus, VL. Injuries in women associated with a periodized strength ‘waining and running program, J Strength Cond Res 15: 236143, 2001, + Gited Here | + View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef 37. Rudzki, SI Weight-load marching as a method of conditioning Australian Army recruits. Mil Med 154: 201-205, 1989. ‘oeiourtonecomieseratenoat2naD gente soe 1c syle eneceyat nant [Shame vente ec f Pye Taringa. The ural Stra & Conon Research ited Here | + PubMed | Crosse 38. Schantz P, Tenriksson, J, and Jansson, E. Adaptation of human skeletal muscle to endurance training of long duration, Clin Physiol 3: 41— 4151, 1983, + Ged Here 39. Shoenfeld,Y, Keren, G, Shimoni, ‘T, Bim, C, and Soha 2062-2063, 1980, E, Walking, A method for rapid improvement of physical fitness. JAMA 249: + Ged Here 40. Visser, T, VanDijk, MJ, Collee, MJ, and VanDerLoo, H. Is intensity or duration the key factor in march training? Presented at International Congress on Soldiers’ Physical Performance, Jyvaskyla, Finland, 2005. + Cited Here 41, Williams, AG and Rayson, MP. Can simple anthropometric and physical performance tests track t ability. Mil Med x71: 742-748, 2006. + ited Here | + PubMed | CrossRef 42. Williams, AG, Rayson, MP, and Jones, DA. Effects of basic training on material handling ability and physical fitness of British Army recruits. Ergonomies 42: 1114-1124, 1999. + Ged Here 43. Williams, AG, Rayson, MP, and Jones, DA. Resistance training and the enhancement of the gains in material-handling ability and physieal fitness of British Army reeruits during basi training. Ergonomies 45: 267-279, 2002. + Cited Here | + PubMed | CrossRef 444, Williams, AG, Rayson, MP, and Jones, DA, Training diagnosis fora load earriage task, J Strength Cond Res 18: 3034, 2004. + Cited Here | + View Full Test | PubMed | CrossRef ‘View fl erences lt Keywor ‘meta-analysis; aerobic training; resistance training; intervals; periodization; plyometties Copyright © 2012 by the National Strength & Conditioning Association. “Yow fl aes ext Related Articles =s —_ —_{ i= . ining sath , si seti Hffects of Physical Training and Associations Retween Physical Performance Characteristics and Golf ec rye ape on[Shame vente ect Ppa Taringa. The eure Stra & Conon Research ‘seaeary ‘rote cans) ‘oem ‘The Effects of Sprint ‘Traint Physical Perfé 2 ASy ic Revi . he aaron ini Js and Speci ‘ Journal “Te ‘nen ‘rea ‘cele ‘ace ‘ov earea Seem ert ‘eos Research, February 2023, and Conditioning Research, March 2021 “See aa | = ASys psu conncaceutn20 2020008 puma en fe sacs pyle ‘The Effects of High-Repetition Strength Training on Performance in Competitive Endurance Athletes: ystematic Review and Meta-Analysis4 nat [Shame vente ect Pye Taringa. The eure Stora & Conon Research ‘Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, June 2023 ‘entation Ei ees ] me =a a ‘Training and Swimming Perf . P ic Revi Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, April 2022, Load-Carriage Conditioning Elicits Task-Specific Physical and Psychophysical Improvements in Males Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, September 2019 Backto Top Never Miss an Issue Get new joumal Tables of Contents sent right to your email inbox Type your ena Browse Journal Content ‘Mast Popular EorAuthors Past Issues, Current Issue [Register on the website Subseribe Get eTOC Alerts i piu concen 2020008 ptm em oeFor Journal Authors ‘Submit an article + How to publish with us Customer Service Live Chat + Activate your journal subseription + ‘Activate Journal Subscription + Browse the help center + Help + Contact ws at © Support Submit a Service Request © TEL: (USA) TEL: dnt? 800-638-3030 (within USA) 301-229-2300 (international) + | anage cookie Proteroncos Privacy Policy Legal Disclaimer Terms of Use ‘Open Access Paic ‘Aska Question Sitemap RSSFeeds LWWJoumnals + Your California Privacy Choices + Copyright © 2024 ‘National Strength and Conditioning Association ‘oeiourtonecomieseratenoat2naD gente soe 1c syle wo