Page 49 - JSOM Summer 2018

have had an influence on fitness performance. Some of this In particular, a unit training activity performed by the THOR3
additional physical training (i.e., cross-training and sprinting) group and minimized by the TPT group was agility training.
incorporated high-intensity intermittent training (HIIT). Pre- In a systematic review investigating prevention strategies for
vious studies investigating HIIT-type programs have reported physical training–related injuries, strong evidence was shown
that performance improves with the addition of HIIT. 11–13 In that agility-like training consistently demonstrated reduction
a US Air Force study, running mileage was decreased by 50% in injury rates across multiple studies. Some of the reasons
21
and long distance runs were replaced with interval running for reduced injury rates associated with agility-like training
and agility training. Investigators found that by replacing tra- might include (1) neurophysiological learning enabling partic-
ditional training with the new functional training program, ipants to move their bodies in a smoother, more coordinated
improvements were made in body composition, aerobic capac- fashion; (2) MSK stress of training is more evenly spread
ity, ventilatory threshold, and upper body power. In a study across the body; (3) strength and stabilization movements per-
13
of triathletes, one group continued with their regular training formed during agility training may represent complex combat
(control group), while the other group decreased their running activities; and (4) the incorporation of these activities may re-
mileage by 70% and performed HIIT in place of running (ex- duce excessive exposure to running activities. 21
perimental group). After 5 weeks of training, the experimental
group improved their athletic performance on a sprint-distance Risk Factors for Resistance Training
triathlon, whereas no changes occurred in control group per- Studies have shown that resistance training improves physi-
formance. When specifically looking at CT programs, adding cal and occupational task performance. 22–24 It has also been
11
additional exercise components to a program has shown no shown that endurance training concurrent with resistance
change or an improvement in performance. 14–18 It would seem training improves load-bearing performance, 17,22,25,26 heavy
that implementing a wider variety of exercises, including HIIT lifting tasks, and increases short- and long-term endurance
17
type programs, not only improves performance but also can be capacity in sedentary and trained individuals. Although a
27
more combat-skills focused and meet mission-specific require- few studies have shown endurance training to have a negative
ments compared with TPT programs that primarily consist of impact on muscle strength, 28,29 more have shown no impact on
running, push-ups, and sit-ups. muscular strength. 24,30–32 In the present investigation, too much
unit resistance training compared with a moderate amount of
Another consideration influencing performance could be the resistance training was a risk factor for injury, whereas a mod-
amount of time spent performing physical training. The to- erate amount of unit resistance training was protective against
tal amount of time exercised per week among the three pro- injury when compared with no resistance training. Previous
grams was significantly different. The CT and THOR3 groups military investigations have indicated that strength training
performed an additional 6 hours and 4.5 hours, respectively, reduces injury risk and improves human performance. 13,20 In
when compared with the TPT group. Therefore, the additional an investigation of infantry Soldiers, those who participated in
time spent exercising and performing various types of training unit resistance training at least once a week were at a lower in-
may have affected physical performance. jury risk than Soldiers who did not perform any unit resistance
training. In an Air Force study, most traditional long-distance
20
There is, however, a limitation when comparing these three running was replaced with interval running, agility training,
groups. The majority of SOF Soldiers in the CT and THOR3 and functional strength training. This resulted in a 67% de-
groups were SOF graduates, whereas the majority of SOF Sol- crease in overall injury rates, with trainees scoring higher on
diers in the TPT group were support Soldiers and not SOF nearly all the measured fitness parameters. When looking
13
graduates. Therefore, the different roles and requirements of specifically at the amount of time spent resistance training and
these jobs may have had an influence on fitness performance its association with injury risk, we found no available evidence
and the amount of time spent exercising per week. in the literature. The results from this investigation suggest
that a moderate amount of resistance training should be per-
Injury Rates formed during unit physical training.
When controlling for personal characteristics, unit training,
and fitness, the TPT group had a marginally higher risk of be- Conclusion
ing injured when compared with the THOR3 group. However,
when comparing the CT and THOR3 groups, whose physical Most Soldiers in this study reported improvements in physical
training programs were fairly similar, there were no differ- fitness and operational readiness as a result of THOR3. Hav-
ences in injury rates. ing an onsite MSK rehabilitation clinic allowed most Soldiers
with injuries to be seen within 1 day and more than half of
The marginal differences in the self-reported injuries when com- the Soldiers reported complete recovery from their injuries.
paring the TPT and THOR3 programs may be attributed to This evaluation found that the THOR3 group had marginally
differences in the amount of time spent performing different lower self-reported injury rates when compared with the TPT
types of physical training activities and to the THOR3 human group. Independent risk factors identified from this evaluation
performance team. Physical training differences included more suggest that those participating in THOR3 perform a mod-
time spent per week performing sprinting, cross-training, agility erate amount of unit resistance training. The overall results
training, and resistance training for the THOR3 group when of this evaluation suggest that THOR3 offers human perfor-
compared with the TPT group. The TPT group also spent more mance optimization/injury prevention advantages over other
time running per week (marginal finding) compared with the ARSOF human performance programs. 33
THOR3 group. In previous military studies that investigated
the implementation of new exercise programs (i.e., incorporat- Disclaimer
ing additional CT components), injury rates remained similar or Citations of commercial organizations and trade names in this
decreased with the implementation of a CT-like program. 13,19,20 report do not constitute an official Department of the Army

Evaluation of SOF THOR3 Program | 47