Page 80 - Journal of Special Operations Medicine - Spring 2014

students are required to perform various types of physi- Specific countermeasures to prevent decrements in lower
cal tasks that require high levels of muscular strength, body power output and strength are lacking in the sci-
power, and endurance. Some trainees arrive to the 3-day entific literature. Specific training programs have not
Ranger Assessment Phase (RAP) not prepared for the been adequately researched and implemented for Special
initial Ranger Physical Fitness Test (RPFT). The RPFT Operators who are preparing for training or missions
consists of sit-ups, chin-ups, push-ups, and a 5-mile in which operational stressors may cause physical per-
run. The remainder of events during RAP week includes formance decrements. Additionally, subsequent evalua-
combat water survival, land navigation (day and night), tion of the effectiveness of a specific training program to
and a 12-mile loaded foot march. Hence, 60% of all mitigate performance decrements during periods of high
Ranger School failures occur in the first 3 days of the operational stress will be necessary to this effort. Gen-
course (RAP, with 25% of all RAP week failures occur- eral recommendations in the scientific literature include
ring during the RPFT). Of these failures, most occur optimizing nutrition and physical training programs to
33
during the push-up event, where Soldiers are required enhance performance before Operators are exposed to
to complete a minimum of 49 push-ups in 2 minutes. sustained physical stressors 7,16 and to focus on muscu-
33
Following 8 weeks of Ranger School, Soldiers’ maximal lar strength and power for urban operations while de-
lifting strength was measured by having them perform creasing aerobic endurance training. However, in the
34
a simulated power clean using a weight stack machine. development of a pre-selection physical fitness training
Researchers reported that there was a 20% decline in program for Canadian Special Operations Regiment
maximal lifting strength. However, following 9 weeks (CSOR) applicants, the results of a physical movement
16
of Croatian Armed Forces Special Operations Battalion task analysis identified lifting, lowering, and carrying
(SOB) training, only a 6.5% decrease in maximal lifting equipment as the most frequently utilized tasks in the
strength was observed. 34 Assessment Center (AC) phase of the CSOR selection
process. 1
In contrast, this same group of researchers (Sporiš et
al.) measured a 24.7% decline in strength when mea- Carlson and Jaenen concluded that it is essential to train
sured by a bench thrust of 70% of body weight. Re- the following skeletal muscles in Special Operator ap-
gardless, 8 weeks or more of military training under plicants: lower body muscles that are responsible for hip
operational stress resulted in significant declines in mus- extension and knee flexion (both concentrically and ec-
cular strength. Sporiš et al. reported an 18.9% decrease centrically), core muscles that are recruited to stabilize
in number of pull-ups after 9 weeks of Croatian Armed the spine, skeletal muscles responsible for movement of
Forces SOB training. Burke and Dyer also reported a the body in the transverse plane, and upper body mus-
34
significantly reduced number of pull-ups. For example, culature responsible for gripping and holding objects.
1
prior to training, 167 men were able to perform 10 pull- Carlson and Jaenen incorporated four muscular strength
ups; after 8 weeks of Ranger training, they could only and endurance training circuits into their proposed fit-
perform 8.6 pull-ups. This is in opposition to the in- ness training program that targeted the primary skeletal
35
creased number of push-ups observed after training and muscles identified as most used in the AC. Each of the
may be attributed to the lack of performing pull-ups four circuits incorporates the following: (1) a full body
versus push-ups during training. Prusaczyk et al. stated exercise, (2) three to four lower body exercises, and (3)
that 9 of 20 Navy SEAL missions involved a substantial three to four upper body exercises that emphasize the
amount of lifting, pulling, carrying, and climbing. Ac- ability to grip and hold on to items. All exercises target
36
1
cording to Hyde et al, the maximum number of pull-ups the muscles most used in the AC. Because weight-loaded
is a highly relevant occupational task associated with marching is a critical task of SOF Soldiers, circuit train-
39
special operations. The research of Sporiš et al. sug- ing may be more optimal than strictly resistance training
37
gests that the maximum number of pull-ups be used as a because circuits have been shown to produce a greater
field test to assess losses in upper body strength. If ac- transfer of training effect for weight-loaded marching. 40
34
cess to weights is available, Nindl et al. suggest a power
clean (this study used a weight stack machine), which
had a test-retest reliability of r = 0.91, to test for maxi- Effects of Equipment on Physical Performance
mal lifting strength. This test has been shown to corre- In 2011, a review article by Larsen et al. highlighted
16
late with a Soldier’s ability to successfully perform load the literature investigating the impact of body armor on
carriage and field artillery ammunition loading (Nindl physical performance. Additionally, the effect of body
et al., 2007; see Nindl et al, 1997). Pull-ups and power armor on thermal stress and physical exertion was dis-
38
cleans are examples of physical tests that could be used cussed. From the review by Larsen and colleagues,
42
by commanders to assess any decrements in muscular a few studies investigating the impact of body armor
strength prior to SUSOPS and any changes in muscular on physical performance and exertion were identified.
strength after SUSOPS. Riccardi et al. reported a decrement in performance on

72 Journal of Special Operations Medicine Volume 14, Edition 1/Spring 2014