Page 66 - JSOM Winter 2018

Differences in Stress Shoot Performance
Among Special Forces Operators Who Participate in a
Human Performance Program Versus Those Who Do Not

1
Deborah Canada *; J. Jay Dawes ; Keston G. Lindsay ; Craig Elder ;
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Paul Goldberg ; Nick Bartley ; Kelsey Werth ; Dave Bricker ; Ty Fischer 2
ABSTRACT
Background: The purpose of this investigation was to deter- TABLE 1 Special Operations Forces Operator–Required
mine if Army Special Operation Forces (ARSOF) Operators Capabilities 3-4
who participate in the Tactical Human Optimization, Rapid Superior physical and physiological performance
Rehabilitation and Reconditioning program perform signifi- Maintenance of peak physical performance
cantly better on a simulated stress shoot scenario than ARSOF Enhanced cognition and ability to adapt quickly to high-stress oper-
Operators who do not participate in the program. Methods: ational environments while increasing resilience to combat stressors
Deidentified archival data from 64 male ARSOF Operators Strength and endurance to complete extended Special Operations
(mean ± standard deviation: age, 31.1 ± 4.96 years; SOF ex- missions and quickly recover for follow-on missions
perience, 3.44 ± 4.10 years) who participated in the Special Enhanced ability to stay alive, adapt, and continue to operate within
Forces Advanced Urban Combat stress shoot were assessed to a wide range of extremely hostile operational environments
determine if differences in performance existed between pro- Mental and physical stamina to sustain any level and duration of
gram users (n = 25) and nonusers (n = 39). A series of boot- operational activity to accomplish the mission
strapped analyses of variance in conjunction with effect-size
calculations was conducted to determine if significant mean best, may only jeopardize the mission and, at worst, affect the
score differences existed between users and nonusers on raw safety or lives of the team in contact. For these reasons and
and total course completion times, high-value target acquisi- more, like elite athletes training for elite competitions, SOF
tion (positive identification time), and penalties accrued. Re- Operators must perform at an optimal level, with each able to
sults: Small to medium effect sizes were observed between users contribute to the assigned missions.
and nonusers in raw time, penalties, and total time. Although
there were no significant differences between users and nonus- In June 2008, the US Special Operations Command
ers, there was less variation in raw time and total time in users ( USSOCOM) approved a command-wide, $84 million human
compared with nonusers. Conclusion: Our findings becomes performance initiative, initially called the Warrior Rehabilita-
a question of practical versus statistical significance, because tion and Performance Centers. The US Army Special Opera-
less performance variability while under physical and psycho- tions Command (USASOC) portion of the initiative was $46
logical duress could be life saving for ARSOF Operators. million over the first 5 years. USASOC is the largest compo-
nent of USSOCOM, with approximately 27,000 personnel,
Keywords: Tactical Human Optimization, Rapid Rehabilita- which is more than all other SOF components combined,
tion and Reconditioning program; human performance; and required the most USSOCOM funding to build the vi-
stress shoot; duress tal human performance program. USASOC consists of Special
Forces (Green Berets), Rangers, Special Operations Aviators,
Civil Affairs Soldiers, Military Information Support Opera-
Introduction tors, Sustainment Soldiers, and Training Cadre from the John
F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. 4
Special Operations Forces (SOF) Operators have expert train-
ing that exceeds the training and capabilities of traditional USSOCOM released its initial capabilities document in Feb-
military Soldiers. As part of their essential job duties, Oper- ruary 2009 with the requirement for all SOF organizations
1–4
ators are required to carry out military operations in austere to develop human performance programs. The focus of the
environments (Table 1). SOF Operators must be experts in en- initial capabilities document was on optimizing the physical
3
gaging military targets at various distances, often within a few and mental conditioning of US SOF, to sustain elevated phys-
feet of both friendly and enemy personnel. They must demon- ical function and conditioning, and, if injured, to improve the
strate superior marksmanship, with the ability to identify, en- recovery process. The ARSOF community named their hu-
gage, and eliminate threats while under significant mental and man performance program the Tactical Human Optimization,
physical duress. Missions may require SOF Operators to move Rapid Rehabilitation and Reconditioning (THOR3) program
long distances to an objective and then sprint to cover while to capture the purpose of the program and give it a memorable
under enemy fire. The slightest misstep or miscalculation, at acronym that embodied the ethos of the SOF Operator. The

*Correspondence to Deborah Canada, dcanadatanner@comcast.net
1 Ms Canada, Mr Dawes, Mr Lindsay, and Mr Elder are at Department of Health Sciences, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO.
2 Mr Goldberg, Mr Bartley, Ms Werth, Mr Bricker, and Mr Fischer are at Tactical Human Optimization, Rapid Rehabilitation and Recondition-
ing, Fort Carson, CO.

64