Exercise Physiology Paul M. Vanderburgh, EdD, FACSM Professor and Chair, Health and Sport Science...
-
Upload
silas-oliver -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Exercise Physiology Paul M. Vanderburgh, EdD, FACSM Professor and Chair, Health and Sport Science...
Exercise PhysiologyExercise Physiology
Paul M. Vanderburgh, EdD, FACSMPaul M. Vanderburgh, EdD, FACSMProfessor and Chair, Health and Sport Science DepartmentProfessor and Chair, Health and Sport Science Department
University of Dayton, Dayton, OhioUniversity of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio
Optimizing Athletic PerformanceOptimizing Athletic Performance
FitnessFitnessBody Composition
Cardiorespiratory Endurance
Muscular Strength/Endurance
Environmental PhysiologyEnvironmental Physiology
Occupational PhysiologyOccupational Physiology
Exercise EpidemiologyExercise Epidemiology
CHDCHD
NIDDMNIDDM
StrokeStroke
CancerCancer
Exercise BiochemistryExercise Biochemistry
NutritionNutrition
SupplementsSupplements
Weight Loss/GainWeight Loss/Gain
Fitness FocusFitness Focus
C-R EnduranceC-R Endurance
Musculoskeletal Strength/EnduranceMusculoskeletal Strength/Endurance
Cardiorespiratory EnduranceCardiorespiratory EnduranceDefined by VODefined by VO2max2max: the maximum rate of oxygen : the maximum rate of oxygen
consumption consumption
= HR x SV x a-v O= HR x SV x a-v O22 difference at max difference at max
DeterminantsDeterminants– Training (myoglobin content, myochondrial # and density, SV, Training (myoglobin content, myochondrial # and density, SV,
capillary density)capillary density)– Fiber type distribution Fiber type distribution
Gold standard: open circuit spirometryGold standard: open circuit spirometry
Typically estimated by distance run testsTypically estimated by distance run tests
Expressed as ml OExpressed as ml O22 per kg per min per kg per min
Muscle Strength/EnduranceMuscle Strength/EnduranceDefined by maximum force generated by muscle group Defined by maximum force generated by muscle group once or multiple timesonce or multiple times
Determinants:Determinants:– Training (Muscle CSA, glycolytic capacity, neuromuscular Training (Muscle CSA, glycolytic capacity, neuromuscular
adaptations)adaptations)– Fiber type distributionFiber type distribution– Biomechanical advantageBiomechanical advantage
Gold Standard: Isokinetic dynamometryGold Standard: Isokinetic dynamometry
Typically estimated by 1RM or REPS of body weight Typically estimated by 1RM or REPS of body weight (e.g., push-ups)(e.g., push-ups)
Expressed as lbs or ftExpressed as lbs or ft..lbslbs
Body Mass Bias and Body Mass Bias and Occupational Relevance of Occupational Relevance of
Military Physical Fitness TestsMilitary Physical Fitness Tests
Paul M. Vanderburgh, EdD, FACSMPaul M. Vanderburgh, EdD, FACSMProfessor and Chair, Health and Sport Science DepartmentProfessor and Chair, Health and Sport Science Department
University of Dayton, Dayton, OhioUniversity of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio
Presented at the American College of Sports Medicine’s 2007 Annual Presented at the American College of Sports Medicine’s 2007 Annual Meeting, New OrleansMeeting, New Orleans
Published in Published in Medicine and Science in Sports and ExerciseMedicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(8): , 40(8): 1538-1545, 20081538-1545, 2008
How Military Fitness is Assessed How Military Fitness is Assessed (Army, Air Force, Navy)(Army, Air Force, Navy)
Sit-ups or Curl-ups
Push-ups Distance Run
Military Physical Fitness TestsMilitary Physical Fitness Tests Upper Body
Muscular Strength/Endurance
Trunk Muscular Strength/Endurance
Aerobic Capacity
Army 2 min Push-ups 2 min Sit-ups 2 Mile Run Air Force 1 min Push-ups 1 min Sit-ups 1.5 Mile Run Navy 2 min Push-ups 2 min Curl-ups 1.5 Mile Run
• Conducive to mass testing
• No special equipment needed
• Body weight is the primary resistance
Typical Physically Demanding Typical Physically Demanding Military TasksMilitary Tasks
Light Load CarriageLight Load Carriage
Heavy Load CarriageHeavy Load Carriage
Heavy HandlingHeavy Handling
Light Load CarriageLight Load Carriage
Heavy Load CarriageHeavy Load Carriage
Body Mass BiasBody Mass Bias
Body Mass Bias 101Body Mass Bias 101
Defined as the non-zero correlation Defined as the non-zero correlation between body mass and a physical between body mass and a physical performance measureperformance measure– Push-ups, sit-upsPush-ups, sit-ups– Distance runDistance run– 1RM strength1RM strength
Free of the confounding effects of effort, Free of the confounding effects of effort, body fat, or physical activity levelbody fat, or physical activity levelTheoretical basisTheoretical basis
Scale Modeling of Body Mass BiasScale Modeling of Body Mass Bias
A 25% increase in mass (exact replica):• 1RM bench press is 16.0% greater
• VO2max (L/min) is 16.0% greater
• Run Time is 7.7% slower
• Push-ups and Sit-ups Reps are 7.2% fewer
Example – 5K RunExample – 5K Run
600
1100
1600
100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0
Body Weight (lbs)
5K
Ru
n T
ime
(s
ec
)
Crecelius JSCR (in press)Crecelius JSCR (in press)
Comparison of RunnersComparison of Runners
600
1100
1600
100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0
Body Weight (lbs)
5K
Ru
n T
ime
(s
ec
)
B is 8.5% slower than A
AB
Comparison considering body mass Comparison considering body mass Distance from the best-fit curveDistance from the best-fit curve
600
1100
1600
100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0
Body Weight (lbs)
5K
Ru
n T
ime
(s
ec
)
B is 8.6% faster than A
AB
Body Mass Bias ExampleBody Mass Bias ExamplePowerlifting TOTALPowerlifting TOTAL
(data from IPF website: www.powerlifting-ipf.com, 5/07)
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
40 60 80 100 120 140
Body Mass (kg)
To
tal W
t L
ifte
d (
SQ
+B
P+
DL
, in
kg
)
TOTAL per MTOTAL per MRatio MethodRatio Method
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
40 60 80 100 120 140
Body Mass (kg)
To
tal L
ifte
d /
Bo
dy
Ma
ss
TOT per MTOT per M2/32/3
30
35
40
45
50
55
40 60 80 100 120 140
Body Mass (kg)
TO
T/M
^2/
3
Body Mass (M) and StrengthBody Mass (M) and StrengthTheoryTheory
Strength Strength αα muscle CSA muscle CSA
Muscle CSA Muscle CSA αα M M2/32/3
Therefore strength Therefore strength αα MM2/32/3
Fair comparison: Fair comparison: 1RM/M1RM/M2/32/3
(Astrand & Rodahl, Textbook of Work Physiology ’86)
M Bias and StrengthM Bias and StrengthEvidenceEvidence
MeasureMeasure SubjectsSubjects NN ExponentsExponents SourceSource
PowerliftingPowerlifting Elite WomenElite Women 36 world 36 world record holdersrecord holders
0.63 - 0.87 Vanderburgh Vanderburgh MSSEMSSE ‘00 ‘00
PowerliftingPowerlifting Elite MenElite Men 30 world 30 world record holdersrecord holders
0.49 – 0.68 Dooman Dooman JSCRJSCR ‘00 ‘00
Olympic Olympic LiftingLifting Elite M & WElite M & W 5757 0.47* Batterham, Batterham,
JAPJAP ‘97 ‘97
Bench PressBench Press M college-age M college-age PE studentsPE students 7777 0.69 Markovic Markovic
EJAPEJAP ‘04 ‘04
Leg StrengthLeg Strength Young M & WYoung M & W 401401 0.67 Jaric Jaric JSMPFJSMPF ‘02‘02
• Exponents are somewhat variable
• Not all confidence intervals contain 0.67 but none contain 1.0 or 0
• *Found simple allometric model problematic
Body Mass and VOBody Mass and VO2max2max TheoryTheory
VOVO2max2max (L) (L) αα M M
Time Time αα M M1/31/3
VOVO2max2max (L/min) (L/min) αα M/M M/M1/31/3
Therefore VOTherefore VO2max2max (L/min) (L/min) αα MM2/32/3
Fair index: Fair index: ml Oml O22/(kg/(kg2/3.2/3.min)min)
(Astrand & Rodahl Textbook of Work Physiology ’86)
Body Mass and VOBody Mass and VO2max2max EvidenceEvidence
SubjectsSubjects NN M ExponentM Exponent SourceSource
Young WYoung W 94940.61 (LBM exp =
1.04)Vanderburgh Vanderburgh
MSSEMSSE ‘96 ‘96
M, 17-66 yrM, 17-66 yr 1,3141,3140.65* (LBM exp =
0.97)Batterham, Batterham, JAPJAP
‘99‘99
Young fit M & WYoung fit M & W 308308 0.67 Nevill Nevill EJAPEJAP ‘92 ‘92
M & W, 20-79 yrM & W, 20-79 yr 440440 0.65** Heil Heil MSSEMSSE ‘97 ‘97
*Found the simple allometric model problematic
**Controlling for age, gender, %fat and SR-PA score
Body Mass and Distance Run Time (RT) Body Mass and Distance Run Time (RT)
TheoryTheory
5K run speed (RS) 5K run speed (RS) αα VO VO2max2max (ml/kg (ml/kg..min)min)
But VOBut VO2max2max (L/min) (L/min) αα M M2/32/3
So RS So RS αα M M2/32/3/M or RS /M or RS αα M/ M/-1/3-1/3
Given that RT Given that RT αα RS RS-1-1
RT RT αα MM1/31/3
Fair index: Fair index: RT/MRT/M1/31/3
(Nevill JAP ’92, Vanderburgh MPEES ‘07)
Body Mass and Distance Run Time (RT) Body Mass and Distance Run Time (RT) EvidenceEvidence
MeasureMeasure SubjectsSubjects NN ExponentsExponents SourceSource
2-mile RT2-mile RT M USMA M USMA cadetscadets 5959
0.40 (FFW exp. = 0.31)
Vanderburgh Vanderburgh JSCRJSCR ‘95‘95
2-mile RT2-mile RT M USMA M USMA cadetscadets 238238
0.26 (LBM exp = 0.24)
Crowder Crowder MSSEMSSE (abstract ’96)(abstract ’96)
5K Run5K Run Young fit M & Young fit M & WW
308308 0.33* Nevill Nevill EJAPEJAP ‘92 ‘92
5K Run5K Run 5K M Runners5K M Runners 5656 0.30** Crecelius MSSE ’07 Crecelius MSSE ’07 (abstract)(abstract)
• Exponents not diff. from 0.33 but diff. from 0
• *Indirectly calculated from: run speed = f(VO2max, body mass) equation
• **calculated using subjects with RPE > 16
Body Mass and Push-ups/Sit-ups REPSBody Mass and Push-ups/Sit-ups REPSTheoryTheory
Muscle force Muscle force αα M M2/32/3
REPS REPS αα M M2/32/3/M or M/M or M-1/3-1/3
Push-up, Sit-up REPS Push-up, Sit-up REPS αα M M-1/3-1/3
Fair index: REPSFair index: REPS..MM1/31/3
(Markovic EJAP ‘04)(Markovic EJAP ‘04)
Body Mass and Push-ups/Sit-ups REPSBody Mass and Push-ups/Sit-ups REPSEvidenceEvidence
MeasureMeasure SubjectsSubjects NN ExponentsExponents SourceSource
Push-upsPush-ups M USMA M USMA cadetscadets 238238
-0.38 (LBM exp = -0.28)
Crowder Crowder MSSEMSSE (abstract ’96)(abstract ’96)
Sit-upsSit-ups M USMA M USMA cadetscadets 238238
-0.26 (LBM exp = -0.24)*
Crowder Crowder MSSEMSSE (abstract ’96)(abstract ’96)
Push-upsPush-ups M college-age M college-age PE studentsPE students 7777 -0.42 Markovic Markovic EJAPEJAP ’04 ’04
Push-upsPush-ups M college-age M college-age PE studentsPE students 7777 -0.30 Markovic Markovic EJAPEJAP ’04 ’04
• Only exponent diff. from -0.33 and only slightly
• No studies on women
Body Mass Bias Conclusions for Body Mass Bias Conclusions for Military Physical Fitness TestsMilitary Physical Fitness Tests
Military physical fitness test events favor lighter Military physical fitness test events favor lighter individuals, independent of body fatnessindividuals, independent of body fatness
Distance RunDistance Run– RT RT αα M M1/31/3
– Fair index = Fair index = RT/TRT/T1/31/3
Push-up, Sit-upsPush-up, Sit-ups– REPS REPS αα M M-1/3-1/3
– Fair index = Fair index = REPSREPS..MM1/31/3
Occupational RelevanceOccupational Relevance
Heavy HandlingHeavy Handling
Free Carry and Stretcher Carry Free Carry and Stretcher Carry PerformancePerformance
Strongest correlates of Strongest correlates of free carryfree carry and and stretcher carrystretcher carry performance: performance: – High LBM to dead mass (FM + plus casualty High LBM to dead mass (FM + plus casualty
mass) ratiomass) ratio– Standing broad jump Standing broad jump – Upright pullUpright pull
(Bilzon (Bilzon Occup MedOccup Med ‘02) ‘02)
Load Carriage DeterminantsLoad Carriage Determinants
Time to exhaustion on 18kg Load Carriage Time to exhaustion on 18kg Load Carriage (LC) test was:(LC) test was:– Not correlated with relative VONot correlated with relative VO2max2max
– Positively correlated with LBMPositively correlated with LBM
Simplified aerobic physical fitness tests Simplified aerobic physical fitness tests (e.g., 2.4 km run) did not predict ability to (e.g., 2.4 km run) did not predict ability to perform LC tasksperform LC tasks
(Bilzon (Bilzon Occup MedOccup Med ‘01) ‘01)
Absolute VOAbsolute VO2max2max and LBM/DM were the most and LBM/DM were the most
potent predictors of %VOpotent predictors of %VO2max2max during heavy (40 during heavy (40
kg) LC taskskg) LC tasks
Absolute VOAbsolute VO2max2max, LBM/DM, gradient, and load , LBM/DM, gradient, and load
accounted for 89% of variance in %VOaccounted for 89% of variance in %VO2max2max
(Lyons (Lyons Occup MedOccup Med ’05) ’05)
Load Carriage DeterminantsLoad Carriage Determinants
PF Tests as Predictors of Military PF Tests as Predictors of Military PerformancePerformance
Body size, muscle strength, and aerobic Body size, muscle strength, and aerobic fitness (L/min) differentially predicted lifting fitness (L/min) differentially predicted lifting and load carriage task performanceand load carriage task performance– Not push-upsNot push-ups– Sit-ups generally weakSit-ups generally weak
– Relative VORelative VO2max2max only for light load carriage only for light load carriage
(Rayson Ergonomics ‘00)
PU, SU, 2MR Military Task PU, SU, 2MR Military Task Performance, 18 kg loadedPerformance, 18 kg loaded
30m sprint to and from prone position30m sprint to and from prone position– Vertical jump and 2MRVertical jump and 2MR
400M sprint400M sprint– 2MR and vertical jump2MR and vertical jump
Obstacle courseObstacle course– Long jump, SU, vertical jumpLong jump, SU, vertical jump
Casualty recoveryCasualty recovery– Body mass, vertical jump, and 2MRBody mass, vertical jump, and 2MR
(Harman (Harman Mil MedMil Med (2008) (2008)
Occupational Relevance and Occupational Relevance and Physical Fitness Tests ConclusionsPhysical Fitness Tests Conclusions
Military physical fitness test performance is Military physical fitness test performance is generally not a potent predictor of loaded task generally not a potent predictor of loaded task performanceperformance
LBM, LBM/DM, upright pull, 1RM lift, and LBM, LBM/DM, upright pull, 1RM lift, and absolute VOabsolute VO2max2max are more predictive of load are more predictive of load
carriage performancecarriage performance
Run Time, Effort and %FatRun Time, Effort and %Fat
Age & Wt 5K Handicap ModelAge & Wt 5K Handicap Model– Penalty for fat > credit for extra weightPenalty for fat > credit for extra weight
(Vanderburgh MPEES ’07)(Vanderburgh MPEES ’07)
– With RT/MWith RT/M1/31/3, small remaining bias is , small remaining bias is accounted for by RPE and % fat accounted for by RPE and % fat
[Crecelius JSCR (in press)][Crecelius JSCR (in press)]
The Evidence Suggests:The Evidence Suggests:
Military Physical Fitness TestsMilitary Physical Fitness Tests1.1. Are not potent indicators of performance of Are not potent indicators of performance of
typical, loaded military taskstypical, loaded military tasks
2.2. Impose a systematic bias against larger, not Impose a systematic bias against larger, not fatter, service membersfatter, service members
3.3. 1. and 2. are interrelated1. and 2. are interrelated
Solutions Solutions 1.1. Scaled ValuesScaled Values
2.2. Correction Factors Correction Factors
3.3. Balanced Fitness Tests (validation needed)Balanced Fitness Tests (validation needed)
Implications/SolutionsImplications/Solutions
Body Mass Bias Penalty - NavyBody Mass Bias Penalty - Navy
Male Female
60 kg 90 kg 45 kg 75 kg Event
Maximum Equivalent Maximum Equivalent
Push-ups 2 min 84 (100) 73 (85) 46 (100) 39 (80)
Curl-ups 2 min 101 (100) 88 (80) 101 (100) 85 (75)
1.5 mi run time 8:55 (100) 10:12 (85) 10:17 (100) 12:11 (85)
Total points (%diff.)
300 250 (16.7%) 300 240 (20%)
(Vanderburgh, Mil Med, 2006)
Body Mass Bias and Occupational Body Mass Bias and Occupational Relevance ConnectionRelevance Connection
The more potent predictors of loaded military The more potent predictors of loaded military task performance (LBM, LBM/DM, upright pull, task performance (LBM, LBM/DM, upright pull, 1RM lift, and absolute VO1RM lift, and absolute VO2max2max) tend to favor ) tend to favor
heavier individuals (LBM, LBM/DM, upright pull, heavier individuals (LBM, LBM/DM, upright pull, 1RM lift, and absolute VO1RM lift, and absolute VO2max2max))
Empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that Empirical and theoretical evidence suggests that common physical fitness test events favor lighter common physical fitness test events favor lighter individualsindividuals
Middle ground?Middle ground?
Occupational Relevance and Body Occupational Relevance and Body Mass BiasMass Bias
BW Resistance Only
Fixed W Resistance Only
Heavy equipment or supplies lifting/carriage
Light load carriage over distance
Heavy load carriage over distance
P’ups, S’ups, Distance Runs
Most physical military tasks
Fitness tests
Backpack Run TestBackpack Run Test(Vanderburgh Mil Med ’00)(Vanderburgh Mil Med ’00)
59 USMA male cadets59 USMA male cadets– Lean, fitLean, fit– Two-mile run timesTwo-mile run times
ModeledModeled effects of alterations in backpack effects of alterations in backpack weight (BW) via ACSM equations on two-mile weight (BW) via ACSM equations on two-mile run timesrun timesBackpack weights of 20-50 kg:Backpack weights of 20-50 kg:– No body mass biasNo body mass bias– Reflected load carriage weights expected of combat Reflected load carriage weights expected of combat
support and/or combat arms service memberssupport and/or combat arms service members
Eliminating bias may be congruent with Eliminating bias may be congruent with occupational relevanceoccupational relevance
Solution 1: Scaled ValuesSolution 1: Scaled Values
Requires calculatorRequires calculatorCreates strange currencyCreates strange currency
SubjectSubject Push-upsPush-ups Body MassBody Mass REPSREPS..MM1/31/3
AA 6767 80 kg80 kg 284.5284.5
BB 7070 68 kg68 kg 281.7281.7
Solution 2: Correction FactorsSolution 2: Correction Factors
Correction Factor (CF) : a dimensionless Correction Factor (CF) : a dimensionless number multiplied by raw scorenumber multiplied by raw score– Based on body massBased on body mass– Uses weight standard (e.g., 50 kg)Uses weight standard (e.g., 50 kg)
Example: woman, 172 lbs, 16:08 RTExample: woman, 172 lbs, 16:08 RT– CF = (125/172)CF = (125/172)1/3 1/3 = 0.90= 0.90– RTadj = 14:31RTadj = 14:31
(Vanderburgh (Vanderburgh Mil MedMil Med ’07) ’07)
Correction Factors Correction Factors Push-ups and Sit-upsPush-ups and Sit-ups
Women 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 0 1.00 1.01 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 1 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 2 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 3 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 4 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 5 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 6 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 7 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 8 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 9 1.01 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.18
(Vanderburgh Mil Med ‘07)
Correction Factors – EffectCorrection Factors – EffectWomen
82 82
69
85 8780
88 91 90
0
25
50
75
100
Push-ups = 35 Sit-ups = 65 2MRT = 19:28
AP
FT
Po
ints
Usi
ng
Ad
just
ed S
core
s
120 lb
150 lb
180 lb
(Vanderburgh Mil Med ‘07)
Solution 3: Balanced TestsSolution 3: Balanced Tests
Balance of body mass bias via events. Balance of body mass bias via events. Example:Example:– 1RM Bench press1RM Bench press– Distance run timeDistance run time
Logistics challengesLogistics challenges
Has not been empirically evaluatedHas not been empirically evaluated
2005 Pump and Run2005 Pump and Run5K run time minus (30 x Bench Press Reps) = adjusted score5K run time minus (30 x Bench Press Reps) = adjusted scoreBench Press weight a % of BW and age-adjustedBench Press weight a % of BW and age-adjustedDespite intent, imposes a substantial body mass biasDespite intent, imposes a substantial body mass biasProposal: correction factors or everyone lifts the same absolute Proposal: correction factors or everyone lifts the same absolute weightweight
(Vanderburgh JSCR 2008)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
35 60 85 110 135
Body Mass (kg)
Ad
just
ed R
un
Tim
e (s
ec)
Women
Men
Marine Corps Marine Corps Combat FitnessCombat Fitness
Proposed Combat Fitness Test Events and Data Collection Plan
– 880 yd Run880 yd RunConducted like 3 mile run Conducted like 3 mile run Testing will determine best sequencing and numbers of Testing will determine best sequencing and numbers of Marines in each “heat” if not mass startMarines in each “heat” if not mass start
– Ammo LiftAmmo LiftMarines matched up as in crunches Marines matched up as in crunches Will test two versions in data collection periodWill test two versions in data collection periodSee picturesSee pictures
– Maneuver Under FireManeuver Under FireWill test two versions in data collection periodWill test two versions in data collection periodMay be modulatedMay be modulatedSee diagramsSee diagrams
Proposed Events
880 Yd Run880 Yd Run
AMMO LIFTMarine lifts 30 lb ammo can as many times in determined time period (1 min-1 ½ min- 2 min versions will be tested)
Start Mid-Lift Finish
Weight on Heels
Weight on Heels
Lumbar curve maintained throughout lift
Feet Shoulder Width Apart
Ammo Canat or below chinlevel
Arms straightat finish
Heels may rise at finish
Ammo can doesnot have to be directly overhead at finish
DIAGRAM NOT TO SCALE: ALL LEGS OF EVENT OCCUR WITHIN ONE LANE ( APPROX 8 YDS WIDE)
Notes:
Grenade Throw:
-Target area 5 yd x 5yd marked w/ engineer tape
-Center of target area 22 ½ yds from 75 yd line
-”Hit” if throw lands in target area or on border.
-Hit=10 sec deduction from time/Miss=10 sec addition to time
Cone network:
-5 yds apart in width/length beginning at 50 yd line
-Marines negotiate all or portion of the same network on all legs of event.
CASEVAC
-Marines paired by approximate weight
Equipment needed:
-30 lb ammo cans, Field lining materials, Dummy grenades, kneepads, stopwatch and cones, sandbags or other markers.
Leg 1:
-Start in prone position
-”Ready, Go”
-25 yd Sprint-25 yd Modified High Crawl (hands and knees)-25 yd Diagonal Run
-Pick up casualty in Cradle Drop (underarm carry position)
Leg 2:
-Drag casualty 10 yds through last two cones of network w/ start line as reference. Once casualty in carry position, bottom of feet may not touch ground
-Transition casualty to Fireman’s Carry (casualty may assist rescuer)
-65 yd Fireman’s Carry to start--Place casualty on ground
-Pick up two (2) 30 lb ammo cans
Leg 3:
-50 yd Sprint w/ammo cans-25 yd Diagonal Run w/ammo cans
-Ground ammo cans
-Engage grenade target from standing position, take cover momentarily in prone position with hands covering head
Leg 4:
-Rise to standing position, pick up ammo cans
-25 yd diagonal run-50 yd Sprint to Finish= Cone, sandbag or other marker
“MANEUVER UNDER FIRE (300 yds)”
25 yds
50 yds
75 yds
100 yds
Leg 1
Leg 2 Leg 4
Leg 3
Finish
Grenade target area
Start
“Casualty” in seated position w/ back towards start line
Sprint
Mod. HighCrawl
Diag. Run
AmmoCarry
AmmoCarry
GrenadeThrow
Drag
Fireman’sCarry
Monitor (can grade two target areas at once. Field monitor supports.)
Field Monitor (follows Marine through course beginning at 25 yd line on Leg 1)
Start/Finish Monitors-Rotates with Field Monitor as necessary
ConclusionsConclusionsCurrent physical fitness tests of the Army, Navy, and Air Current physical fitness tests of the Army, Navy, and Air Force:Force:– Are not potent determinants of physical military task Are not potent determinants of physical military task
performanceperformance– Impose a physiological bias against heavier service membersImpose a physiological bias against heavier service members
Eliminating body mass bias may be more occupationally Eliminating body mass bias may be more occupationally relevant – must be tested empiricallyrelevant – must be tested empiricallySolutionsSolutions– Scaled valuesScaled values require no change to fitness test protocol but require no change to fitness test protocol but
create strange currencycreate strange currency– Correction factorsCorrection factors provide ease of calculation, preservation of provide ease of calculation, preservation of
original units, and require no equipmentoriginal units, and require no equipment– Balanced fitness testsBalanced fitness tests require equipment but no calculations – require equipment but no calculations –
need validationneed validation
Questions?Questions?